Pyr Books

Lou Anders from Pyr books recently commented on my Part of the Problem post, and clarifies what he meant by his Tweets. I didn’t want his response to get lost in the comment section so I’m reprinting them here as a post.

“With respect, you have taken my words out of context, and left out a good many tweets between and after these two. I was trying to express frustration with a certain type of query letter, as best I could in 140 characters. There is a certain, regularly occurring type of query that begins with sentences like “if you are like me, you find all science fiction books poorly written, with cardboard characters, which is why you will love my client’s work, as he/she can actually write real people” or “if you are like me, you find all fantasy works childish, which is why you will really enjoy this manuscript, which is better than everything out there.” Elaine Cunningham expressed what I was trying to say better than I did, when she said this was code for something like “This manuscript is better than my impressions of the stereotypes of fantasy, which I don’t actually read myself.”

“The tweet wasn’t meant for readers, but addressed at agents, and what I was trying to say was that we already have an incredibly rich and diverse SF&F field, that encompasses everyone from Samuel Delaney to Charlaine Harris, from Gene Wolf to Robert Jordan, from Jonathan Carroll to Patricia Briggs. It’s an incredibly diverse field, with a great many different works, of all levels of literary sophistication, shoved in the same bookstore category. To say “this is unlike everything that has come before” is to betray an ignorance of what has come before. I find it insulting to the scope and breadth of the existing field, insulting to readers (who presumable like reading the books they choose previous to this), and insulting to publishers (who, obviously, have published quite a lot before this submission).

“One of my authors, Martin Sketchley, said that there is nothing wrong with saying “this is a new and interesting spin on genre” but that too often the tone of these kinds of approaches is more like “this is a new and interesting spin on genre, and thank god, because everything before it has been such crap.”

“Query letters of this sort are invariably an indication that the agent isn’t well-versed in the field, and I was trying to alert agents that they might want to rethink this approach. It wasn’t a comment on the material at all, but on the fact that SF&F is an ongoing dialogue, one that builds upon the shoulders of everyone who has come before and is ever growing and evolving.

“When someone on twitter thought that it *was* a comment on the material, I quickly made the second statement above about the quality of our own line, which I stand behind. And, again with respect, I suspect that you haven’t checked out our line. I really defy anyone to read Michael Blumlein’s THE HEALER, or Keith Brooke’s GENETOPIA, or Robert Silverberg’s SON OF MAN, or Ian McDonald’s BRASYL, or Theodore Judson’s THE MARTIAN GENERAL’S DAUGHTER, or Kay Kenyon’s BRIGHT OF THE SKY, or Chris Roberson’s END OF THE CENTURY, or any number of other works, and come away thinking we are publishing the same old, same old.

“The thing is is that we are genre publishers, publishing genre books, for genre fans. You want to publish great genre books, not bad ones, and sometimes I think this field is embarrassed of itself, thinks “genre” is a dirty word. And it isn’t.

“But I do acknowledge that I did a poor job of cramming the above sentiment into the brevity of a tweet.”

I completely empathize with Mr. Anders on trying to get a point across in 140 characters or less. I also better understand his point–the frustration around agents who might characterize their clients books as ‘better than the normal drivel this genre sees’. I appreciate Mr. Anders taking the time to clarify his sentiment.

In a follow up comment, Mr. Anders also went on to say “I have a real problem with the “gatekeeper” theory of publishing – the argument that goes “all these good books would just come flooding in if only the agents and editors and publishers would just get out of the way.” Such arguments forget that everyone who works in publishing does so because they are lifelong book lovers. There are a thousand and one better ways to make money. We are in the business of books because we love good books and want to share them, same as anyone.”

I’ve posted my thoughts around gatekeepers before, and stand by them. However it sounds like Mr. Anders does not subscribe to the ‘we must stand as gatekeepers or literature will suffer‘ argument, instead possibly a ‘there is great writing out there, let’s shine the light on it’, argument, which I certainly commend. I’m not convinced all, or even most, publishers share this conviction.

So, long story short, it sounds like Lou Anders is passionate about good books in the Science Fiction/Fantasy genre, and if you happen to like that genre (as I do), I recommend checking out his site, and checking out his books.