No it's not what you think good Lord I got you people trained too well, so get your mind out of the gutter or the drain pipe, or the channel, or the sewer, or the trench, or the trough....
Anyways, about a week ago, I wrote a post about getting my ego battered and bruised again by doing querying. The post garnered some rather witty and enlightening comments, of which one of then was left by Riot Kitty. The comment she left was this:
"Synopsis, cover letter-what the fuck can they really tell you without reading the book?? It's tricky. I'm at my wits' end writing them too."
Which I thought was a pretty good comment to leave. However, the response that I left, got me to thinking about the whole process of querying agents/publishers:
"I agree, the only way that you really can get a better idea about a writer, is to read the actual book. However, in order to get them to that, you have to make your query synopsis outstanding enough or intriguing enough for them to take a chance. I know it kind of sucks, but what are you gonna do? I do know when I was querying some three years ago, there were a few out there who required a couple of chapters instead of synopsis. To use a really bad street level analogy, this is what I equate it to:
You the writer: potential money maker for the pimp.
In order for you to become a money maker for the pimp, you got to give him enough of a sample to rock his proverbial world, so that he'll want to take a chance on you to become his money maker."
Now, I spent the next day (1/16) while I was out walking to do my morning errands thinking about my response to R.K., and I came to the disturbing realization that I just equated being published with being a hooker.
Has it really come down to this? Is my analogy spot on for the publishing industry (or for any phase of the arts & entertainment industry for that matter), or am I still showing some lingering hostility and resentment from the last time I went through this?
Granted, I'm still considered a newbie to a certain degree, but I got the feeling that I just accurately described the entire process of traditional publishing.
So my good readers, the question for today is this: is my comment an accurate description of the process of being published, and for that matter, an accurate description of any other particular part (say music for example) of the entertainment industry?