Having thought about the site and its problems. Undoubtedly it is the 'friendly' nature of the site that is the route cause of the problem. For thousands of years writing has been a solitary trade, and nothing has changed. Excepting now, we use a computer to replace the quill and paper.
Yes, it is good to recommend a book you've enjoyed but when 'we' enters the equation, the popularity contest takes over and merit of the work becomes a secondary issue.
On examination, let's get this one to the Ed's desk is a noble intention but more often than not the preferred candidate's work takes the place of something superior. The end result is the same; the work of the 'friend' is rejected by the Ed's desk and the other writer eventually leaves the site. Every month, there are mediocre books pushed past better books – it cannot be denied.
To add insult to injury there are those who have achieved their gold stars through dubious methods. All those friends and dummy user accounts idle. An army of sockpuppets fat from the ride on a gold star manuscript for which they were created lay waiting, to be passed to the next 'friend.' We notice the writer of 'the Jin Deception' offer his support to Chris Cross, and her book rapidly heads towards the top of the pile. Kfran, supports the stalled 'Spirit Prisoners' and overnight it heads the weekly chart.
Apart from to send other writers to other routes. What can be achieved? Harper Collins have no friends; present them with a mediocre manuscript, they'll just say no. (Again)
Where did literature go wrong, who, or what is responsible for its demise? I actually think I can answer that one for you. But only read on if you subscribe to the belief held by the majority of publishers, agents, and editors. - You have the ability to write, or you don't.
Historically, literature was for the upper classes, the educated. Epic complex sagas were written which only they understood. Those working in mines and cotton mills had no need to be involved They had other pastimes such as revolting, eating cake, and being sent off to war for no particular reason.
Then came the silver screen. Those uneducated, illiterate heathens could watch the stories. But they were simple-minded folk, for them, the stories [screenplays] had to be clear, structured and predictable.
All this time the UK education system taught English Literature and English Language. With globalisation and migration, the whole meaning of the courses involving the word "English" became confusing – it required re-branding.
The money men seized their opportunity. By cobbling together simple US screenwriting techniques with the redundant English Language course, business had a marketable product. Called "Creative writing," this new course was taken up by the millions who could not write. Somehow they believed this magical course would turn them into writers of great classics. The untalented millions graduated, and began to flood agents and publishers with manuscripts. Meanwhile, western education systems were providing improved education for all. The problem was, all the writers were trained to write simple stories in a clear and succinct manner with perfect grammar for the non-existent 'dumb reader.' The dumb reader no longer really existed, he was extinct, but the system had created a lot of dumb writers to cater for him. Such were the numbers of dumb writers, they dominated the industry. They declared anything that wasn't written according to the dumb standards as - shit.
The dumb reader, now c/w University degree reads old classics when looking for something to read. Modern literature? Well that's just a big kiddy comic,, with no pictures. - What fun is that? No. When he wants mindless entertainment, he watches TV. TV has pictures that move.
What I'm seeing (and calculating as my way forward), are changes in concepts in good story-telling. Thank God, anything to relieve us that dumbed down shit. Remember, times have changed, there are no big publishers, or film studios, or TV networks. Just huge media companies. Naturally, they would like to sell the story in identical formats on every platform.
Enter a generation of novelists who have grown up in front of a television, and the results are natural bias to exposition through dialogue and action, POV alignment to cameras, and careful attention to their method of 'telling' narrative. Their 'vision' of what they're writing has the detachment of always being seen through a lens.
They will have written story to be viewed, as opposed to a work where narrative is used to get expose character's thoughts. Hence, there is no difference between the book, and the film, and damned on-line interactive video game.
Death to the screenwriters and novelists?
Did I blog this before? Oh well. Fibonacci's Child sits at #10 in Harper Collins' slush-pile (Authonomy). I wonder how it got ranked so highly? I have no idea. From the publisher's point of view there are perhaps 6000 manuscripts which they peruse at their leisure. Leisure, is not strictly the right word. When it's raining of a lunchtime and they cannot go out to play, an editor may click randomly through the slush whilst munching cheese and onion crisps, as an apple and a bottle of mineral water look on.
In Authonomy game, the game where you attain a top 5 ranking and Harper Collins politely tell you, your book is shite and they will not publish it. In that game, there are only 500 books, even so #10 is pretty good me thinks.
Why do Harper Collins always say the books are shite? I hear you ask. Well, I answer. There are two recognised methods, of reaching the top 5.
Method 1: Read, vote for, and comment on, every active book on the site. This method is preferred by ex-school teachers who have developed a certain skill from marking 20 students essays per hour.
Method 2: Be nice on the forum. Hopefully, when it's your 'turn', somebody will announce that you're a 'jolly good chap' and henceforth are deserving to be voted in this month.
The methods can be summarised as 1) Hard-working, and 2) Popular. The main problem with both of these systems is none of them take into account whether or not the book is any good. The lack of quality is a detail that Harper Collins are concerned about. Silly buggers!
Anyway, the gems I've found are kept here.