Bookner
Posted on:: September 5th, 2005
From the Bookner home page:
The publishing industry is a mess. Neither publishers nor literary agents are interested in discovering new writers, because unpublished writers are an unknown risk. Hence we have a surreal situation where it is easier for a pro wrestler to publish a book than a writer.
Bookner lets your manuscript get peer-reviewed and rated so that — perhaps — a literary agent or publishing house will notice. It’s free to writers and, for now, free to agents and publishers.
Interesting idea with ways it could wrong and some ways it could go right. (Go write?) [Tags: publishing books literature]
Categories: Uncategorized dw
Not an altogether bad idea, though the publishing industry is probably too far gone for something like this to work. (In fiction, POD/ebooks are now the norm for those without preexisting publishing deals or an agent).
This is probably a good mechanism for gauging consumer interest and enthusiasm. The randomness of assignment can be an advantage perhaps. One criticism: blogging and public posting is a way to generate interest; there’s no need to keep manuscripts secret these days.
There’s more of a need for editorial and proofreading feedback. But this site by design doesn’t want to give feedback directly to the author. I understand the rationale here; it wants to be market research more than an editorial feedback service.
But marketing research for publishing is notoriously hit and miss. And I would argue that book publishers have a better idea about what will sell than individual writers would. Having a random writer read another writer’s work just won’t provide a lot of useful information (and it will subject contributors to the need to read and critique 5 whole manuscripts). It would be much easier to type a one page query letter and include a sample chapter.
I’d like to see an idea like this succeed. It’s very clever. And many book length projects would benefit by having third party testimonials written on their behalf. If the application process allows the writer to specify a genre or certain field of interest, it’s possible for the site to target “good readers” of this particular manuscript.
I have to agree with Robert that Bookner is a clever idea, but not a particularly effective-sounding one. The peer-review portion of the site is the worst part, as many (if not most) aspiring writers simply aren’t any good, which renders their opinion about the quality or salability of a manuscript suspect at best.
For all the self-congratulation on Bookner’s site, it seems like just another wrinkle in the vanity publishing game. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the biz has to realize that publishers and agents have their own slush piles with which to deal, so wading through yet another slush pile as provided by this site is probably about as pleasant of a prospect as a root canal.
Writers want to be read, so I can understand the sentiment behind Bookner. At the same time, if anyone manages to get a sale out of this thing, I’ll be genuinely shocked.
Bookner is already displaying shady business practices. Though his (rather defensively-toned)site says that “At Bookner, we believe in discussion and debate”, he has continually deleted legitimate questions form his blog (i.e. how do you plan to entice agents to your site). He is also VERY rude to people who don’t believe his site will be feasible (for examples, please read the comments relating to Bookner on either Miss Snarks web site misssnark.blogspot.com or my own)
Please go to the blog antibookner.blogspot.com to read about why you shouldn’t join Bookner (not least because he is openly offensive to just about everyone in the publishing industry, from writers to senior editors)