I've spent two days crouched over my laptop editing 'Folk Tales of the North'  a project far from finished and needing a more interesting title. In between the pedestrian editing and reorganising, I've trawled for publishers who might be interested in putting out a slim volume of stories. This has lead me to a few conclusions. 

A: There are so many thousands (millions?) of writers out there that I have the same instinct as I had once when arriving in Oxford on a bus from the suburbs: 'Too many people on that pavement. No room for me. I'll just stay on this bus and be taken back again.' A friend who was born and bred in New Zealand remarked that Ngaio Marsh, a national treasure in NZ, probably wouldn't even have been published in Britain. As she succinctly put it, 'Over here she would have been killed in the rush.'

Nowadays we wannabe authors are all killed in the rush. Unless we are really, really, determined self-publicists, or have created something the reading public are hungry for, or (and for more on this one see below) the publishing houses THINK the reading public are hungry for). 

B: Most small publishing houses are struggling in these straightened times and therefore aren't going to be interested in what I have to offer which is of purely local interest. Or is it? 90% of the hits on one or two popular stories are from the USA. So there's a strategy, if I have the courage.

C: It's quite energising getting indignant about stuff. Here is a list of facets of publishing that have absolutely nothing to do with me but that get right up my nose.

Here are just a few: 

*  Publishers of children's books who believe children have the attention spans of gnats on amphetamine. (At least that one has been disproved by JKR. If they enjoy a book children will want it to go on and on, just like the rest of us.)

*  Reviewers on Amazon who DO have the attention spans of gnats on amphetamine. (Some reviewers are very good so, once I've discounted the ones I think might be family, friends, editors, or gnats, I do read them.)

* Publishers of children's books who call children 'kids'. It isn't cool. It doesn't convince anyone they are cool publishers, least of all the 'kids.'

*  Publishers of children's books who think 'kids' want 'real life' stuff they can 'relate to'. It should have a girl heroine, preferably black or maybe a Muslim with a non-Muslim as best friend so that being a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Christian etc. can be explained. The heroine must get raped/pregnant/be in a war zone, have an abortion, be abused. If it's a boy the same sort of thing applies, with bullying as a very popular choice of misery. 

Note to publishers: Children like fantasy and escapism just like the rest of us, especially all those growing up in a dreary inner city location. Why not give them more pleasure instead of rubbing their noses in the drabness of their daily live? The nasty bits can be encapsulated within an adventure without it being the focal point of the adventure. Harry P is 'different' and gets stick for it. Ron Weasley' s family is poor and he has to wear secondhand clothes to the Ball. Hermione is super brainy so isn't popular. None of these disadvantages have anything to do with the story. They give the characters extra humanity, and every day, ordinary, challenges that they have to live with but they don't  get in the way of the action.

* Anyone commenting on articles, letters, or reviews online who mistakes sarcasm for sparkling intelligence and wit.

* Web sites that I wish to contribute to or buy from or ask a question of, which have 'Intelligent Fields' that get me to fill in forms, leading me by the nose until I've nearly crossed the magic portal, then abruptly whisk me back to the beginning to fill in Idiot Fields I have already scrupulously filled.

* Authors who die before I've had enough of them. (Reginald Hill for instance. Great loss.)

* Writer's who feed religion into their novels. To be honest I'm complaining about one specific writer here: Susan Hill. I feel she sees herself as missionary, slipping the religion in sideways along with the gift boxes.  Exception: Phil Rickman for whom the supernatural and belief systems relating to other dimensions are necessarily intertwined. 

*  People who criticise books and poems for not being 'tight' enough. This needs explaining for a start. Does it mean the author should have been more inebriated when s/he wrote the piece? Does it mean the piece was too long? Should some of the adjectives and adverbs be deleted? I understand the need to refine poems, and I dislike too may adjectives and adverbs, so can agree with the latter. A common fault of the novice like myself. On the other hand I do like novels to flow rather than fire rounds of bullets at me. I like sentences of more than six words, and words of more than two syllables, when appropriate. I also like very long novels.

It's just an over-used form of critique that means nothing any longer IMO. As is being, or not being, 'accessible'. 

* Publishers who republish books under a new title. Dastardly. I was caught out with a re-named Agatha Christie once. I've never forgiven myself.

*  Children's publishers who think children need fancy 'interactive' gizmos to get them to read - or, what is more likely, will get the parents to buy on the off-chance that the garish illustrations, pop-outs, pull-ups, wheels and so forth will get their children to suddenly want to read Dickens.

*  Children's publishers who think that naughty words like 'poo' and 'fart' will sell books.

I could go on but that's enough bile for one day. Publishers are having a tough time of it and are doing their best to keep books as a feature of our society so I really dislike grumpy old grannies who moan about them……