Please, Jax, do NOT get me started on Poe. We had to study The Pit and the Pendulum in class recently, and it was the slowest and thickest piece of prose I have ever encountered.
Yeah, just because the man couldn't write prose (and he really couldn't -- do read the
Fall of the House of Usher as well) doesn't mean he didn't know what he was talking about. His rules of writing short stories apply to pretty much every story written after his. It's just hilariously ironic that they don't entirely apply to his work when compared with material from today's writers.
iChucho! said:
Oh, it's no good for you to bother with non-vanity publishing.
...What?
You'll want to know that people don't take vanity publishing seriously and that not too many people actually pay attention to what's being sold through it.
Also, the idea that non-vanity publishers like Random House will only take what's profitable isn't necessarily true. Just because you slap together a rip-off of
Twilight that will definitely tickle the fancy of a mass of people because it's fashionable doesn't mean you're going to get a contract if it's a pile of crap. It's very rare that crappy books (like
Twilight... or, if I may say so myself without offending certain people on this thread,
Eragon) get published because those stories are typically the ones that get ripped apart. Sure, if you're a big-name writer (like Stephen King), you pretty much get published automatically, regardless of how skilled you actually are. However, it's possible that no-name writers with good books get something.
It really all depends on how good your
agent is. Yes, your agent. The reason why not too many people get published is also because not too many people realize that most publishing houses nowadays don't accept work from anyone who isn't represented. Fact of life, really, but no one seriously sends a manuscript to a publisher without one nowadays. They used to, but now, those manuscripts actually get rejected. If you find a good agent, the agent will choose the best publishers for your book and pitch your story to them for you.
Ergo, to clarify, there are cases where good books get ignored for mediocre books simply because they'd sell. However, it's very rare that crappy books actually get through because editors usually rip those things apart and send them back with a post-it saying you suck. Likewise, there
is such a thing as a good book that actually gets through to be published, and it's not entirely a rare occurrence. (The first
Harry Potter book, for example. Subsequent ones -- particularly the last three -- were pretty much because J.K. Rowling's a big-name author.) It all depends on the people supporting you, and yeah, sometimes, that depends on luck.
But it's a hell of a lot better than settling for a vanity press, where you'll most likely be laughed at, given the fact that vanities are more or less a joke in the writing business.
So, please. Tell me you weren't actually advising someone who wants to become a writer that it's best to go with a vanity press.
To add, if you meant you thought it wasn't worth it to gamble with new plot devices because no non-vanity publisher would buy them without a mass of people who would already love it... seriously? And who do you think starts those trends? Magical, godly people who are always awesome writers? I'd like for you to go back and reread
Twilight because let me tell you, Stephenie Meyer wasn't appealing to the kids who watched
Buffy the Vampire Slayer or who read Anne Rice. Yes, it's a risk, but if you're a decent writer, you might as well go ahead and give it a shot. After all, Rowling wasn't an author when she started, and the fantasy genre was just one for kids and geeks. It sort of exploded after that.
tl;dr, WTF @ first paragraph, sorry to say. And, well, actually has nothing to do with the post you're quoting. A number of people would jump at the phrase "new and shiny," so he's advertising to the audience. Granted, it's no way to advertise to a publisher (because the editors will be the judge of that), but he's looking for readers.
Also, it should be noted that the TV Tropes article you're offering up amusingly only applies within a series or genre. As in, if you state your story is a genre, it probably will follow a certain formula, whether or not you're conscious or unconscious about it. (OTs usually do.) Likewise, in certain cases where the writers tend to be less-than-creative, episodes of certain shows will follow the same formula over and over again. However, if you're outside of a genre or if you're a decent writer (and I don't see any of the novels I mentioned above in this article), then it doesn't necessarily have to apply for you to be successful.
The second article, meanwhile, seems to be heavily sarcastic anyway. While it says that a lot of notable books rely on same plot, different names, it's not actually saying that all of them do it or that it's particularly recommended that
you should do it, either. Unless you'd like to be the talentless hack he explicitly mentions in the last paragraph.
If this isn't at all what you meant, I apologize, and do feel free to clarify.
