More info on the Patrick White "Sting" (from today's Crikey) ...

17. Today's Patrick Whites won't be discovered in slush piles

In speaking with The Australian about the Patrick White hoax, Shona Martyn,
Advertisement Publishing Director at HarperCollins, noted that the publisher has moved away from the tradition of the slush pile (unsolicited manuscripts sent directly to a publisher) as a way to discover unpublished authors. She writes:

HarperCollins has found that we were picking up only about one or two publishable books a year from the slush pile of hundreds and hundreds. Employing staff to read substandard, unpublishable, badly presented and often just plain badly written manuscripts is not the best way to find new talent, in my experience. Similarly, people employed to read through the slush pile tend to become very demoralised!

Rather, HarperCollins has chosen to look for new talent in more proactive ways – most notably through our Varuna Manuscript Development Awards where each year we send four of five senior editors to work one-on-one over a ten-day period with a group of unpublished authors.

In addition, we find talent from a variety of other sources including personal recommendations (eg from tutors at writing courses, other authors and even via booksellers who will recommend the work of their customers). Our publishers also spend time talking and lecturing would-be writers at workshops and festivals and many of these personal contacts eventually yield manuscripts. They also approach potential writers directly and keep an eye on publication of new work in literary journals. Of course a large number of our books come via agents but a large percentage do not. A good publisher is open to opportunity and should chase the talent!

All in all, I think The Australian piece was very flawed – especially given the choice of a Patrick White chapter given that, despite his undeniable talent, his style of writing is difficult and not instantly appealing to today's literary readers who are buying different styles of writing (rightly or wrongly). Literature and reading, like anything else, are subject to fashions. Having said that, I believe that if a writer of Patrick White's talent was starting today then his or her work would surface via some of the ways mentioned above.

The article was also predicated on the false assumption that if a manuscript showed great talent then any intelligent publisher would purchase it. This shows a complete misunderstanding of how publishers work. Publishers buy books that fit their list – we do have specialities – and look for books that they can sell in economic quantities. Publishers buy books that the public will buy; we work in businesses.

However, we do buy a number of books – especially literary books – each year which are not strictly economic but do show great promise and talent. We deviate from our standard “profit and loss” objectives because of publisher passion in these books. Our plan is that we will attract enough readers to start a buzz for them and we hope they will win awards or develop a long-term career. But of course we pick books that we think the literary readers will want to read.

All in all, The Australian's sting showed much as I would expect: some publishers (like us) don't look at unsolicited manuscripts and send back a letter to that effect. This information is clearly on our website along with information on writers' courses and the like and staff also spend a lot of time helping would-be authors who phone us. So I hardly feel “exposed” – rather pleased that our system works in a random test!

It also showed that publishers and agents who did read the material tended to write back polite and helpful letters explaining the book was not for them or that they could not sell it.