Richard and Judy's not so great bestseller competition
W. H. Smith, the English bookseller, has teamed up with Richard and Judy, the TV presenters, to launch the Richard and Judy search for a bestseller competition.
There's a publishing deal worth £50,000 on offer, so my ears pricked up when I saw the competition flyer. However, a detailed scan of the competition entry rules reveals a very different story.
One of the criteria for entry is that the writer "must not previously have had a novel published in the public domain". Being an ex-lawyer by profession, I immediately looked for a definition of 'published'. Did it mean only 'published by somebody else'? I don't think so. I think the effect of this rule is to block anyone who has self-published a novel from the competition.
A second, even more ridiculous rule, is that the entrant "must not have previously submitted your novel to a publishing company".
Anyone who is serious about getting published these days has most likely gone one of those two routes already. Self-publishing is becoming the best way of getting known these days. Kerry Wilkinson self published his crime/thrillers and created a buzz about them that got him a five book contract with a big publisher. I'm told that publishers regularly check what's selling well in the self-published world and consider making approaches to those authors.
And as for never having submitted your novel to a publisher, what kind of rule is that? Any author serious about becoming published will have tried a submission to a publisher at some time. Most of us work our way through all the suitable ones before deciding to self-publish.
The competition also doesn't accept children's or young adult books, another major omission.
So what are we left with? Someone who hasn't seriously tried to sell their work to the professional publishing world. I'd think that most people who fall into that category are either still amateur writers, or not serious about getting their work out to the world. I don't think either of those make great criteria for defining a writer's glittering career.
There's a publishing deal worth £50,000 on offer, so my ears pricked up when I saw the competition flyer. However, a detailed scan of the competition entry rules reveals a very different story.
One of the criteria for entry is that the writer "must not previously have had a novel published in the public domain". Being an ex-lawyer by profession, I immediately looked for a definition of 'published'. Did it mean only 'published by somebody else'? I don't think so. I think the effect of this rule is to block anyone who has self-published a novel from the competition.
A second, even more ridiculous rule, is that the entrant "must not have previously submitted your novel to a publishing company".
Anyone who is serious about getting published these days has most likely gone one of those two routes already. Self-publishing is becoming the best way of getting known these days. Kerry Wilkinson self published his crime/thrillers and created a buzz about them that got him a five book contract with a big publisher. I'm told that publishers regularly check what's selling well in the self-published world and consider making approaches to those authors.
And as for never having submitted your novel to a publisher, what kind of rule is that? Any author serious about becoming published will have tried a submission to a publisher at some time. Most of us work our way through all the suitable ones before deciding to self-publish.
The competition also doesn't accept children's or young adult books, another major omission.
So what are we left with? Someone who hasn't seriously tried to sell their work to the professional publishing world. I'd think that most people who fall into that category are either still amateur writers, or not serious about getting their work out to the world. I don't think either of those make great criteria for defining a writer's glittering career.
Comments
Post a Comment