Jan 25 2008
My tongue, it bleeds
I propose the term “prepublished” should be used to refer solely to books that have been accepted by a publisher and are, in fact, progressing toward actually being published, filling the gap between “unpublished” and “published.”
I was bribed into attending a writerly function, at which I was cornered by a writerly individual who, aside from lacking even rudimentary social graces and attention to oral hygiene, was so hellbent on impressing me with his “prepublished” status, I politely inquired about his experience with the publishing process.
“Oh, ha ha, I’m still papering the walls with rejection letters.”
I so very badly wanted to say, “Wow, I bet you’re a pre-ejaculator, too.” (Hence the tooth-shaped holes in my tongue.)
“Prepublished” is a prime example of a word being thrown about for the purpose of inflating one’s status in the eyes of those who don’t know any better. I admit, in a side-by-side comparison, “pre” does sound a lot more impressive than “un,” but it has a different connotation that’s being abused by using them interchangeably.
Had he said, “I’m shopping around my first manuscript,” we would have had something to talk about: the triumph of finishing one, the thrill and the agony of sending it out into the world, the hidden meaning of rejection letters (everybody on the web is dissecting query letters nowadays—we talk about the rejection letters, it’s just not cool to put it on our blogs because that’s advertising our failures).
I’m in that place, and it’s called “unpublished.” No amount of prefix twiddling is going to put you any closer to the brass ring, buddy.
9/30
11/4
11/4
11/25
January 25th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Yes! I’ve had that conversation with several folks. My reaction is the same as yours. The term is unpublished. I know it sucks. I was there just a short time ago and thought it sucked then. But, really, prepublished just is not correct unless you have a publishing contract in hand.
January 26th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Prepublished has been around for at least twenty years. I think it started with RWA, or at least within the romance genre — I don’t remember hearing it among any other sort of writer. And I agree that it’s vastly silly. But then, RWA will take anyone whose check clears, so I guess it’s in their interest to make everyone feel good. [wry smile]
And we’ve been dissecting query letters for at least as long. [grin] I remember discussions about which xeroxed form letter from Realms of Fantasy was the better one — the blue or the yellow. And then they changed one of them to green, IIRC, and the buzz started up again, LOL!
I think that when you’re still trying to figure out what works and you’re still chewing your fingernails between mail deliveries, it’s just natural to search what little feedback you get looking for encouragement or at least some actual data. I’d bet cookies that every writer does this, whether they’re willing to admit it or not. :)
Angie
January 26th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I mentioned the rejection letter critique issue because there were people at this event who were so smug because they’d gotten “personalized” rejections telling them what “talented” writers they were—a lot more tongue biting involved on my part. People who submit manuscripts written in crayon get the same letter. If I were the “great” and “talented” and “amazing” writer the form rejections tell me I am, I’d be counting the Benjamins from my multiple bestsellers by now.
A gentle form letter is still a form letter. It’s not “personalized” unless it talks about your story. I refrained from pointing out these facts because it’s kind of like telling a kid Santa Claus doesn’t exist, but at the same time, I felt a little bit like I was at a daycare center. (More like a creepy kid beauty pageant, actually, since everybody was in their sparkly clothes and flashing their big fake smiles… *shudder*)