Gatekeeper responsibility remains the domain of mainstream publishers, and for good reason according to many observers.
Here’s an article from longtime Random House editor Daniel Menaker that was almost a carbon copy of the theme from last month’s Newsletter regarding the need for mainstream publishers to serve as gatekeepers. I’m in no way saying either or us is correct, and I certainly didn’t know beforehand that Mr. Menaker’s piece was in the works, but I’ve yet to find a better way to offer a legitimate method for evaluating material.
I don’t like it that some horrid books are self-proclaimed by their Big 5 publishers as “great” literature, but what about self-published works that are highly touted but equally suspect? For me, it gets down to this: Would I want a layman performing heart surgery? My remark might seem out of context, but if you will take the time to read Mr. Menaker’s article, I believe what I wrote will make sense. Regardless, I’m all ears for a better solution, and I encourage subscribers to weigh in on this subject, of which there is likely nothing more controversial in the entire publishing sphere. Please give me your opinion.