My professor tells me my essays are too general, that they don't get into my opinion. I don't understand what she's saying because I feel and see that I do. Please help me to see what I need to do, to change.
Here is an example of one of my essays: (I realize there are other fixes needed, but the too broad thing is my biggest concern now. I see the others)
Technology Puts "Say" Back Into the Hands of Writers and Readers Instead of Big Publishers
Technology reinvented publishing and begins to place writers and readers in charge of who finds success. Although good writing rules, word-smiths lose their way without understanding that golden path, without understanding the present situation. A couple years ago publication by one of the big giants meant significant rank with publication by smaller private publishers' mediocre rank. Self-publishing brought stigma of not being good enough to find publication any other way. Technology is changing that. Readers more than ever dictate a writer's fate. Significant success can be had from any three: published by big publisher, by small publisher, or self-publishing, but also more than ever self-publishing loses the stigma and it once had traditional publishers gain it. In order to maneuver any of these roads means knowing what rules still apply and which don't, otherwise success remains only a dream. Each path has similarities such as good writing and editing, but publication by giants and smaller independent publishers also mean knowing passwords. Besides good writing and editing, writers need to know how to draw attention to themselves within a sea of flailing arms. And finally, writers today must display smart, energetic marketing skills, a requirement for all paths. Writers must educate themselves, know the rules, and be willing to market.
Specifically, technology places "say," control into the hands of the consumer/reader of which books sell and do well. Writers too gain control. They publish more than ever before and get a chance to place their work before readers. Traditionally, publishers controlled which writers went before readers, which books. Their reasoning purely for profit, what writer and book yielded the greatest profit? With this mindset and many manuscripts to judge, publishers missed, and still do, books readers might enjoy, books which could raise sales.
Technology places "say" into hands that matter, the reader's. The middle-man cares only about self, thus stealing possibilities from readers and writers. When supply and demand, consumer and producer, reader and writer meet, the process is simple, not complicated and messy.
Traditionally
Traditionally, big publishers want money and have been gate-keepers. Writers have had to wade through long laborious processes with terrible odds to be considered. "Many top-tier agents reject 5,000 authors for every author they sign on. Publishers want to acquire and publish only titles they think have the greatest commercial profit" (Coker 2). According to Publisher's Weekly (2004), there were 85,000 book publishers and 11,000 purchased new ISBNs. A few years ago, there were large publishers in New York, 3 medium-sized and 86,000 small/self-publishers (PMA Newsletter, September 2003). The 6 U.S. conglomerates were: Random House Inc., Penguin Putnam, Inc., Harper Collins; Holtzbrinck Publishing Holdings; Time Warner; Simon & Shuster, Inc.; and 4 are foreign owned. There were 10 active ISBN identifiers: 73,000 (PMA Newsletter). These totaled 86,641 ISBN blocks issued in the U.S. Some publishers have more than one ISBN block, so there are probably more than 80,000 publishers and more than 10,000 non-profit publishers (McHugh 1998). Numbers started to change in early 2000s. Publisher's Weekly reported in 2003 that 10,000 new publishing companies were established, which was an increase of 15%. In 2003, 10,877 new publishers registered for international Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs), an increase of 226 (2.1%) over 2002 (R.R. Bowker 2004). And by 2006, Top 12 publishers were: Reed Elsevier, Pearson, Thompson, Bertelsmann, Walters Kluer, McGraw-Hill Education, Reader's Digest, Scholastic, DeAgastini Editore, Holtzbrinck, Gr. Planeta (Publisher's Weekly).
The trouble with big traditional publishers is how great writers are lost. First-readers miss them upon wading through thousands of manuscripts and big publishers often don't want to chance an unknown. Another problem is readers/consumers, don't choose authors. They don't have the chance to read what is available and then either recommend a friend to buy or pass on a title. If consumers did, best writer's work would climb in sales and in popularity naturally. Maybe consumers would love a particular work if they had the chance. Because over-worked publishers miss it, or believe work risky, they decide not to bring work before readers, the buyers of work. The "philosophy and attitude among large publishers that most authors are a problem and are unworthy of publishing is deep-seated" (Coker 3).
The process writers go through in submitting work often goes something like this with variation:
1. Write manuscript.
2. Manuscript is well-edited.
3. Write proposal that includes query letter, synopsis, and sometimes the first few pages of the manuscript to either an agent or a publisher. "The challenge is to get the right proposal to the right editor at the right publisher at the right time" (Larson1).
4. If they find the proposal to their liking, they'll ask to see the manuscript in its entirety. When agents and editors read the manuscript, they "don't read to enjoythem; they read solely with the goal of getting through the (slush) pile, solely with an eye to dismiss a manuscript-and believe me, they'll look for any reason they can, down to the last letter" (Lukeman 13).
5. If, after reading the complete manuscript, they believe it will make them money, they'll publish it. Sometimes this can take up to a year or more.
6. The difference between what happens next depends upon whether a big publisher or small publisher published the work. The big publisher markets the work but the work sits on store shelves for a small limited time. A small publisher keeps work on shelves longer, but the author is expected to market well and continuously.
More marketing equals more popularity and thus more sales. The odds of a writer making money if they beat the extreme odds of getting published in the first place by a big publisher, is fair, depending on consumers at this point. The odds of a writer making money, if they beat the mediocre odds of getting published by a small publisher, is minimal and depends upon how much marketing the author does and finally, whether consumers like it.
Technology
The technological advances in the past twenty-five years revolutionized the world, especially the ground-breaking Internet. These advances brought fast exchanges of large and small amounts of information. Writers could now place work before numerous agents and editors without cost, and at a faster rate. Agents and editors saved on postage too, but their slush-piles grew in enormity causing writer's guidelines to require submission through agents only. Publishers who didn't needed to either hire first-readers, or to raise their standards. Both agents and first-readers grew pickier. "The agent receives 30 unsolicited emails a day from unknown writers" says Agent Adriana Alberghetti. She "hits delete without opening" manuscripts (Rosman 2). "Book publishers say it is now too expensive to pay employees to read slush that rarely is worthy of publication" (2).
Here is an example of one of my essays: (I realize there are other fixes needed, but the too broad thing is my biggest concern now. I see the others)
Technology Puts "Say" Back Into the Hands of Writers and Readers Instead of Big Publishers
Technology reinvented publishing and begins to place writers and readers in charge of who finds success. Although good writing rules, word-smiths lose their way without understanding that golden path, without understanding the present situation. A couple years ago publication by one of the big giants meant significant rank with publication by smaller private publishers' mediocre rank. Self-publishing brought stigma of not being good enough to find publication any other way. Technology is changing that. Readers more than ever dictate a writer's fate. Significant success can be had from any three: published by big publisher, by small publisher, or self-publishing, but also more than ever self-publishing loses the stigma and it once had traditional publishers gain it. In order to maneuver any of these roads means knowing what rules still apply and which don't, otherwise success remains only a dream. Each path has similarities such as good writing and editing, but publication by giants and smaller independent publishers also mean knowing passwords. Besides good writing and editing, writers need to know how to draw attention to themselves within a sea of flailing arms. And finally, writers today must display smart, energetic marketing skills, a requirement for all paths. Writers must educate themselves, know the rules, and be willing to market.
Specifically, technology places "say," control into the hands of the consumer/reader of which books sell and do well. Writers too gain control. They publish more than ever before and get a chance to place their work before readers. Traditionally, publishers controlled which writers went before readers, which books. Their reasoning purely for profit, what writer and book yielded the greatest profit? With this mindset and many manuscripts to judge, publishers missed, and still do, books readers might enjoy, books which could raise sales.
Technology places "say" into hands that matter, the reader's. The middle-man cares only about self, thus stealing possibilities from readers and writers. When supply and demand, consumer and producer, reader and writer meet, the process is simple, not complicated and messy.
Traditionally
Traditionally, big publishers want money and have been gate-keepers. Writers have had to wade through long laborious processes with terrible odds to be considered. "Many top-tier agents reject 5,000 authors for every author they sign on. Publishers want to acquire and publish only titles they think have the greatest commercial profit" (Coker 2). According to Publisher's Weekly (2004), there were 85,000 book publishers and 11,000 purchased new ISBNs. A few years ago, there were large publishers in New York, 3 medium-sized and 86,000 small/self-publishers (PMA Newsletter, September 2003). The 6 U.S. conglomerates were: Random House Inc., Penguin Putnam, Inc., Harper Collins; Holtzbrinck Publishing Holdings; Time Warner; Simon & Shuster, Inc.; and 4 are foreign owned. There were 10 active ISBN identifiers: 73,000 (PMA Newsletter). These totaled 86,641 ISBN blocks issued in the U.S. Some publishers have more than one ISBN block, so there are probably more than 80,000 publishers and more than 10,000 non-profit publishers (McHugh 1998). Numbers started to change in early 2000s. Publisher's Weekly reported in 2003 that 10,000 new publishing companies were established, which was an increase of 15%. In 2003, 10,877 new publishers registered for international Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs), an increase of 226 (2.1%) over 2002 (R.R. Bowker 2004). And by 2006, Top 12 publishers were: Reed Elsevier, Pearson, Thompson, Bertelsmann, Walters Kluer, McGraw-Hill Education, Reader's Digest, Scholastic, DeAgastini Editore, Holtzbrinck, Gr. Planeta (Publisher's Weekly).
The trouble with big traditional publishers is how great writers are lost. First-readers miss them upon wading through thousands of manuscripts and big publishers often don't want to chance an unknown. Another problem is readers/consumers, don't choose authors. They don't have the chance to read what is available and then either recommend a friend to buy or pass on a title. If consumers did, best writer's work would climb in sales and in popularity naturally. Maybe consumers would love a particular work if they had the chance. Because over-worked publishers miss it, or believe work risky, they decide not to bring work before readers, the buyers of work. The "philosophy and attitude among large publishers that most authors are a problem and are unworthy of publishing is deep-seated" (Coker 3).
The process writers go through in submitting work often goes something like this with variation:
1. Write manuscript.
2. Manuscript is well-edited.
3. Write proposal that includes query letter, synopsis, and sometimes the first few pages of the manuscript to either an agent or a publisher. "The challenge is to get the right proposal to the right editor at the right publisher at the right time" (Larson1).
4. If they find the proposal to their liking, they'll ask to see the manuscript in its entirety. When agents and editors read the manuscript, they "don't read to enjoythem; they read solely with the goal of getting through the (slush) pile, solely with an eye to dismiss a manuscript-and believe me, they'll look for any reason they can, down to the last letter" (Lukeman 13).
5. If, after reading the complete manuscript, they believe it will make them money, they'll publish it. Sometimes this can take up to a year or more.
6. The difference between what happens next depends upon whether a big publisher or small publisher published the work. The big publisher markets the work but the work sits on store shelves for a small limited time. A small publisher keeps work on shelves longer, but the author is expected to market well and continuously.
More marketing equals more popularity and thus more sales. The odds of a writer making money if they beat the extreme odds of getting published in the first place by a big publisher, is fair, depending on consumers at this point. The odds of a writer making money, if they beat the mediocre odds of getting published by a small publisher, is minimal and depends upon how much marketing the author does and finally, whether consumers like it.
Technology
The technological advances in the past twenty-five years revolutionized the world, especially the ground-breaking Internet. These advances brought fast exchanges of large and small amounts of information. Writers could now place work before numerous agents and editors without cost, and at a faster rate. Agents and editors saved on postage too, but their slush-piles grew in enormity causing writer's guidelines to require submission through agents only. Publishers who didn't needed to either hire first-readers, or to raise their standards. Both agents and first-readers grew pickier. "The agent receives 30 unsolicited emails a day from unknown writers" says Agent Adriana Alberghetti. She "hits delete without opening" manuscripts (Rosman 2). "Book publishers say it is now too expensive to pay employees to read slush that rarely is worthy of publication" (2).