Friday blog rescue: Pro-Track listserv alert on NYT story

(Periodically I’ll repost interesting things here from other blogs around the School of Journalism & Mass Communication.   This first one is an alert that Professor Sue Robinson sent out to the Pro-Track MA listserv.)

There are a number of reasons you should have read the cover story in the Times magazine last Sunday:

1) You should read it to see how someone can go from obscurity to having market share; how to build audiences and then how to keep them.

2) You should read it to see how you write stories that work.

3) You should read it because it’s good journalism. Look at how much time the author spent with the subject. Look at how he reconciled data that was inconsistent. Look at the specifics he got.

4) You should read it if you are interested in books.

1 thought on “Friday blog rescue: Pro-Track listserv alert on NYT story

  1. It seems that Patterson’s staying power is based upon sheer volume and continual exposure (it may be reasonable to assume that these truths are more fundamental to his ongoing success due to the less than laudatory feedback that his loyal readers have given about his recent work). Though, his consistent popularity, even throughout this “cookie-cutter” period as his contemporary work has been so described, may be hindering the industry in which he currently thrives.

    It is disheartening to read that one of the premier publishing companies in the country is forced to turn away fresh blood (ink?) because its attention is so preoccupied with Patterson’s needs. I’m sure we all have our favorite authors, a certain few to take comfort in when we need to read something that we’re sure will be enjoyed (ESPECIALLY after trying to survive through 350 pages of acid-laced psycho scripture about the absurdity that is how Pink Floyd came to be; but that’s neither here nor there), however, those who read regularly most likely possess a curiosity for the unknown; at least I know that I do, and without the ability to discover new authors with new ideas and stories, the industry could evolve in to something that is stale.

    Prohibiting new authors from having their work published because the company does not have the time is a travesty; what a discouragement it is to writers who have not yet been published. Writing a book that is “publish-worthy” is a daunting task in it of itself, but coalesced with an increased probability of rejection because of monetary constraints, the task becomes a potential impossibility.

    I hope that Patterson’s case is one that is isolated. I don’t want the pool of books that I can choose from to be diluted and I certainly feel for the authors that never stood a chance because the big companies never game them one.

Comments are closed.