For those who've never heard about Authonomy.com, the brain child of Harper Collins UK, here's a basic summary:
Aspiring novelists can post part or all of the books to a community of writers who will vote for the top five books to be sent to editors at HC every month. Those books are then reviewed, and if Harper Collins so chooses, they can acquire those books for publication.
Why do I call this an experiment? Because HC is trying something new and unproven to, as they have said, flush out new talent. The bigger question, though, is has this experiment worked?
I can only offer the perspective of one writer who actively participated on the site for six months; from the day the beta version was opened to the general populace last September until just a few months ago. Just this weekend I deleted my account, so my comments and opinions will have no bearing on my standing within that online community.
It started out as a grand idea. "Beat the slush!" the site proclaimed. Get your chance to have an editor at a large publisher to read—and even better yet—acquire your book without having to deal with agents or the traditional route of querying. In all manners, it sounded like a great idea.
And for many purposes, it is a good idea, but not really in the way HC intended it. At the end of my sojourn there, I can positively say it helped me tremendously by connecting me with other writers who taught me more about the craft of writing than I had learned in the four previous years it took me to write my book. I learned to hone my craft through the critiques people offered on my writing, and through critiquing others' work.
Has anyone been picked up for publication by HC because of Authonomy? Yes. One person whose book I completely support. (HC claims two others came from the HC slush, but those two authors had agents who made the deals. Their participation on Authonomy was nearly nonexistent.)
Did any of those books come from the Editor's Desk? No. Only one book has even had a request for the full manuscript, and that was summarily rejected just like the rest.
So have HC's purposes in the site been met? That depends on what their intents really are. They said in the beginning it was to find new talent. If that is true, they have one success story from among the thousands of books that have been posted there, many of which I have read and, though many are still rough, have a lot of potential in them.
If HC's purposes are actually for publicity and monetizing of the slush, as has been argued by several Authonomites (with supporting evidence of ads now gracing the site and a self-publishing POD plan in the works), then I suppose they are achieving their goals. The only problem with that is that they are manipulating the authors who have, in trust, placed their work before the masses—and the editors at Harper Collins—without there having been a true intention of following through with their stated purpose.
What drove me from the site, though, was the sniping, arguing, and backstabbing that ran rampant in the effort to attain the hallowed Editor's Desk. I got tired of being called names and vilified by others for my sincerity.
Whenever you introduce competition, you bring out the best in some and the worst in others. Just this weekend, I heard from friends I've met on Authonomy and continue to associate with, that a certain writer posted his book two days previously and has risen to high rank of 17 because he asked his devout YouTube and video game followers to vote for his book. After 750 such backers, it is obvious that he will make the Editor's Desk. (For another perspective on this, visit Fake Plastic Souks.)
What is the value of all that support if it doesn't come with the blessing of the Authonomy community? Not much, if you are truly looking to improve your work by critiquing and receiving critiques on your work. But if his only intent is to put it before the editors at HC, he can be rejected as swiftly as the others before him.
Many claim that such antics break the system of Authonomy. But I wonder if HC doesn't revel in the publicity this garners for them. A captive audience of nearly 1,000 gamers at one time is what publishers' dreams are made of.
So it all rests with HC's true motives behind this venture. Yes, they have been lauded by the publishing and social networking communities for their enterprising venture. But the big question is whether the site has succeeded as a tool for finding writing talent. That would, sadly, be no. It is a great social gathering place, a writers' forum, and even a fun waste of time, but it is not, nor I doubt it will ever be, a successful way to acquire new books from talented writers.
Why? Because it is too focused on the competitive, on the social climbing and mutual back scratching that one finds whenever a game is being played without rules. People will make up their own rules, and then will be declaimed by others as cheating.
So to all the other publishers who might be considering such a venture, don't do it. One Authonomy is more than enough to show that it won't work to find new talent. And if you do want to set up your own marketing of self-publishing scheme, come clean and tell people the true intent from the beginning. It will save a lot of wasted time and effort for the writers involved.
The traditional route of finding an agent may be tough, and some talent may slip through the cracks, but it's better than the Dancing with the Survivor that is Authonomy.
Hear hear.
ReplyDelete