Still rolling with our query lessons. Check out this one for ANAGLYPH TOM:
The experimental filmmaker Ken Jacobs revisits the 1905 Edison film that was the source of his 1969 structural analysis “Tom, Tom, the Piper’s Son,” this time in 3-D video.
Beyond the words “experimental filmmaker” I have absolutely no idea what this means. Never heard of Ken Jacobs. Not interested in late-60s structural analysis. 3-D leaves me cold.
But this synopsis means something to somebody, and that’s the only thing that matters.
- You could try to make this pitch more universal.
- You could try to convince a broader audience that this story is relevant to them.
- You could try to (through lengthy, parenthetical, infinitive-splitting digressions) educate the populace about anaglyphs, Thomas Edison’s film career, etc.
But is that really the best use of your time?
The wise writer not only knows their audience, but also know the limits of that audience. Sometimes that audience is going to be irrevocably small. Better to connect with those people fully than to reach beyond them and miss on all counts.
An anaglyph:
Image taken from www.stereoscopy.com
If your audience is small–and how do you judge/compare its size anyway?–what hope do you have of getting published?
I think the person who is making experimental films about a forgotten technology by using academic theory knows he or she isn’t coming to your local multiplex soon.
Same with books. A pricing guide to N scale trains may not even by stocked by Barnes & Noble, but there’s a small press out there that specializes in getting books into the hands of hobbyists.
“Getting published” is a very broad term. Regional history, certain kinds of literary fiction, biographies of obscure personages, etc. all have their place. The trick here is not to think your book about 19th century Finnish soapmakers is going to get you on Oprah.
Act accordingly.