choosing editor to query

[Sophie]

With virtually no independent book publishers left, it's hard to know how or which editors to choose to query when the different "houses" are under the same name. For example, HarperCollins has Avon, William Morrow, etc. What do you do if you find an editor in one of these who seems open to your query and another editor in another of their "book houses" who seems just as promsing? Do you have to choose one, or should you send queries to both?

[Lauri B]

With virtually no independent book publishers left, it's hard to know how or which editors to choose to query when the different "houses" are under the same name. For example, HarperCollins has Avon, William Morrow, etc. What do you do if you find an editor in one of these who seems open to your query and another editor in another of their "book houses" who seems just as promsing? Do you have to choose one, or should you send queries to both?

Actually, there are LOTS of independent publishers left; it's just that most of us are pretty small. To answer your question: what do their guidelines say? If they take simultaneous submissions, send them both in. If they don't accept sim. subs, then choose which one is the most promising and go from there.

[Jamesaritchie]

With virtually no independent book publishers left, it's hard to know how or which editors to choose to query when the different "houses" are under the same name. For example, HarperCollins has Avon, William Morrow, etc. What do you do if you find an editor in one of these who seems open to your query and another editor in another of their "book houses" who seems just as promsing? Do you have to choose one, or should you send queries to both?

There are mor eindependent books publisher now than ever before in history. There are far too many independent book publishers.

But most large publishers won;t look at manuscripts directly from writers, and even many who do look really don't buy. You need an agent, not an editor's name.

[Lauri B]

There are mor eindependent books publisher now than ever before in history. There are far too many independent book publishers.


Hi James,
Why do you say that? Why do you think there are too many independent book publishers?

[Sophie]

Thanks for the information, but I was, of course, referring to the big commercail houses. I've spent years seeking an agent and/or editor, and I have had some editors who answerd more quickly than agents, who often don't answer at all. It's a stupid game, actually. At first, I was depressed about rejections. Then I finally came to the conclusion that I write because I want--often need--to write, and no agent/editor's form rejection that makes it appear as if I'm some kind of loser will shake me up anymore. I pity the kids who write their hearts out and keep plugging away, but that's better than giving up.
I'm sending out new queries on a fresh book and sticking more to what agents/editors supposedly want to hear about. I still write what I want to, though. My question is about protocol, not about some great expectation that it makes much of a difference. And that's where I've won out--I think. Do you?

[Jamesaritchie]

Hi James,
Why do you say that? Why do you think there are too many independent book publishers?

Because too many books, particularly novels, are being published across the board. So many that the average paperback gets only three weeks in a bookstore before it's yanked for the next new book. Darned near every publisher out there is publishing more novels that the market can handle, and it's really starting to hurt. Any writer who isn't on the bestseller list is having a devil of a time earning enough money to matter simply because there are so many novels published each month.

Everyone is afraid to be the one to cut back and leave the field to other publishers, and it's getting worse instead of better, The chain bookstores are starting to take an active role in forcing publishers to cut back by refusing to stock all the books arriving each month, but it isn't enough.

There just isn't enough time or room for all the novels being published, and the writers getting hurt most are those with independent publishers, or those who are midlist anywhere.

[Jamesaritchie]

Thanks for the information, but I was, of course, referring to the big commercail houses. I've spent years seeking an agent and/or editor, and I have had some editors who answerd more quickly than agents, who often don't answer at all. It's a stupid game, actually. At first, I was depressed about rejections. Then I finally came to the conclusion that I write because I want--often need--to write, and no agent/editor's form rejection that makes it appear as if I'm some kind of loser will shake me up anymore. I pity the kids who write their hearts out and keep plugging away, but that's better than giving up.
I'm sending out new queries on a fresh book and sticking more to what agents/editors supposedly want to hear about. I still write what I want to, though. My question is about protocol, not about some great expectation that it makes much of a difference. And that's where I've won out--I think. Do you?

The thing is this. If you have trouble finding an editor's name, it probably means querying that publisher isn't going to do much good. Most of the big publishers simply do not buy from unagented writers. The answers you get are usually quick and always no because they don't want to buy from anyone but an agent.

I don't think form rejection slips make anyone look like a loser. It's not trying that makes a person a loser. Not everyone wins at everything. Most wannabe writers will never sell a novel. That's just how it is. Maybe one writer in a hundred who actually finishes novels will ever sell one, anywhere, in any way. Maybe one in a thousand will sell one to a big publisher.

This doesn't mean the other 999 are losers. It just means that weren't in the miniscule percent who managed to write something agents, editors, and the reading public wanted. Sometimes the journey is worth more than the destination.

But I will say this. I believe it's easier to succeed by writing what you want, assuming it's well written and has good story and characters, than it is to succeed by trying to give agents and editors what they want. All most of them want is a good story, filled with good characters, and reasonably good writing. You pretty much have to have this much. But above this, they're always looking for new voices, new ways of doing something.

But you do have to be in that top, tiny percent. That's the hard part. Getting there is sometimes easy, sometimes difficult, sometimes impossible. The only thing any of us knows for certain is that we'll never get there if we quit.

[Torgo]

If you have trouble finding an editor's name, it probably means querying that publisher isn't going to do much good.

Actually, there is a good reason that it might be difficult - editors often don't want to get into a conversation with authors of unsolicited manuscripts. That's one reason for the impersonal rejections and the unrecognisable scribble where there might otherwise be a signature. There are people out there who you wouldn't want knowing your name - two or three of our 'regulars' come to mind.

Our company policy is that everything gets read, but that all unsolicited manuscripts should be addressed to the same 'Submissions' address; anything that comes in with an editor's name on it goes straight back down to the box with the other unsoliciteds in. If people have managed to get editors' names, it doesn't confer any advantage (when things come in with the head of the Accounts Dept.'s name on it by mistake, that's not a disadvantage, either - this happens at least two or three times a week.)

The best protocol is, as ever, the individual submissions guidelines of whoever you are submitting to; if they're not on the web, call Reception and ask where to send your work.

[Jamesaritchie]

Actually, there is a good reason that it might be difficult - editors often don't want to get into a conversation with authors of unsolicited manuscripts. That's one reason for the impersonal rejections and the unrecognisable scribble where there might otherwise be a signature. There are people out there who you wouldn't want knowing your name - two or three of our 'regulars' come to mind.

Our company policy is that everything gets read, but that all unsolicited manuscripts should be addressed to the same 'Submissions' address; anything that comes in with an editor's name on it goes straight back down to the box with the other unsoliciteds in. If people have managed to get editors' names, it doesn't confer any advantage (when things come in with the head of the Accounts Dept.'s name on it by mistake, that's not a disadvantage, either - this happens at least two or three times a week.)

The best protocol is, as ever, the individual submissions guidelines of whoever you are submitting to; if they're not on the web, call Reception and ask where to send your work.

Yes, I agree. But with large publishers, if you can't find an editor's name, you probably aren't going to make a sale. Large publishers buy from unagented writers so rarely it's unbelievable. Many simply will not buy at all, period. Some that actively solicit queries from unagented writers haven't actually said yes to one in twenty-five years.

At most large publishers, editors no longer have the power to buy a novel, even if they want to do so. Even if an editor loves something, all she can do is take it to the acquisition board, and they don't like unagented writers at all. So most editors don't.

With the large publishers, you either do not need an editor's name, in which case the publisher tells you plainly how to address the query or manuscript, or having a name simply isn't going to do you any good.

Trying to sell a novel to a large publisher without an agent is a good way to draw fast rejections, but a terrible way to sell a novel.

[Torgo]

Yes, increasingly the big houses are refusing unagented manuscripts; this is partly because the slushpile is not regarded as a cost-effective resource. It is, as you know, very rare to find anything of the requisite quality in this way. Our company, which is of a medium size and still independent, has always believed that it's worth reading slush, but that isn't generally the case.

Unagented and unpublished authors as you suggest would be better off with a slightly smaller company, where I believe their work is usually read and evaluated on its merits. They do still have to get through the acquisition meetings, though, which are a necessary hurdle. It's not good practise to put the whole responsibility of acquiring a book on to the editorial staff, IMHO, much as I would like it personally!

[Jamesaritchie]

Yes, increasingly the big houses are refusing unagented manuscripts; this is partly because the slushpile is not regarded as a cost-effective resource. It is, as you know, very rare to find anything of the requisite quality in this way. Our company, which is of a medium size and still independent, has always believed that it's worth reading slush, but that isn't generally the case.

Unagented and unpublished authors as you suggest would be better off with a slightly smaller company, where I believe their work is usually read and evaluated on its merits. They do still have to get through the acquisition meetings, though, which are a necessary hurdle. It's not good practise to put the whole responsibility of acquiring a book on to the editorial staff, IMHO, much as I would like it personally!

I like it when the editorial staff gets to pick the books. That's the way it used to be done pretty much everywhere, and I think it resulted in higher quality books. Editors who, uh, chose poorly, didn;t remain editors long, and ones that chose wisely became very well known in their own right. But now marketing has to be in on the decision, really makes the decision at many houses. Bean counters may know what sells, but they don't seem to know what sells and is also good.

It is extremely rare to find anything worthwhile in a slush pile, and it's much cheaper to let agents deal with unknown writers. It means the publisher doesn't have to hire extra people just to read slush.

Though sometimes I think there may be a bit more quality in slush than is found. Read slush for a few hours and your brain gets numb. When you read bad manuscript after bad manuscript after bad manuscript, it doesn't take long for everything you pick up to read the same, even though most are easy to reject after only a page or five.

Mid-size publishers do sometimes buy from unagented writers, but even there I've found it helps greatly if the writer has some sort of track record. Sell a few mystery stories to national magazines, and a mid-size publisher of mystery novels will give you a much closer look than they would a writer without any track record.

The mid-sized publishers of today usually have the same feel as the pre-conglomerate publishers, and I like that about them very much.

[Sophie]

:) I'm happy to have started this "thread." The information is cogent and on the mark. I sometimes wonder how any decent books get published. To back up a number of the posts here, a recent article in The NY Times noted that only 2% of over a million books published (I'm guessing worldwide!) sell over 5000 copies!!! That means, to me, at least, that looking for a "career" in writing, especially novels, is so off the charts of possibility that one should never even start. I had wonderful daydreams a number of years ago and kept on writing despite the rejections (I finally learned not to take them personally) because I discovered that writing itself was enormously satisfying. There was often a ray of hope in personal responses from editors and agents that kept me writing with the hope of getting published. I still have the letter written some time ago by Robert Giroux of Farrar, Straus, Giroux saying that my book, which he had rejected after it had been at FSG nearly 5 months, was "interesting, original, and well-written." Of course, there was the "however..." I wrote back that same evening, broken-hearted after the euphoria of actually being read by the "big man" himself asking why, after his glowing "review," FSG wouldn't publish my novel. He wrote back by return mail that it cost so much to publish a blank book, let alone one with printing in it, that the publisher had to be absolutely certain it would sell. He apologized for his firm's taking part in this behavior endemic to commercial publishing. Then there was the recent experience with MIRA Books which asked for and held on to my manuscript for A YEAR before rejecting it for the same reason they wanted a look at it!!!
So, even though I keep on reading about publishing to discover the "magic key," all the while knowing there is no magic key, I write because the time I spend writing, regardless of what I'm writing--newspaper column, letters to the editor, letters to agents/editors, etc.--is the most pleasant in days that don't always bring pleasure. Any comments?

[JackieG]

Sophie, I'm so awed by your resilience. Sincerely.

I've had a couple of years of similiar frustrating experiences with getting my novel published (thinking it was close, only to find it wasn't). To make a long story short, I've studied the art of query letters to a fault, and am discovering that agents and editors who quote things like "tell me why you've chosen to query me" or "write the best query letter you're capable of" or "follow our recommended guidelines implicitly" still won't bother to actually read it, or give it more than a moment's glance, despite how well-thought out and written the letter is.

Statistics as those stated in this thread are daunting. Frankly, I keep plunging on because it seems the only course to take, but I do wonder how to capture an agent or editor's attention, when even doing everything right doesn't work?

[Torgo]

It's very simple. You write a book that is better than other books on their list. This instantly captures an editor's attention. Agents are slightly trickier because you have to write a query letter, but if the book's not good enough there's nothing a query letter is going to do for it.

The 'behaviour endemic to commercial publishing', i.e. trying to publish only those books the publisher can reasonably expect to make a profit on, is the only way it ever was or will be. Yet still, every year, hundreds of people come out of nowhere with exciting new books.

[Sophie]

Torgo, you are kidding, right? That all it takes to get an agent/editor is to write the best book ever and that alone will get it some attention? JackieG has it absolutely right. Robert Giroux is (was?) the guru of editors in the commercial publishing world. He is (was?) the icon of editors; today's Maxwell Perkins. And what my little story showed was that even a man of that stature had a book that he himself thought was "interesting, original, and well-written," and turned it down. He is the editorial director, which means that he is the last stop on a long train that begins as a query letter to an editor and goes through layers of other editors and finally winds up on his desk. So, if all the editors and others like something, but he doesn't, it's sayonara. Maybe it was the marketing dept. that got him to say no. Maybe he was just being nice to me, although given the publishing culture, I doubt it. The incident did take place a number of years ago, and times have changed. But the incident at MIRA Books was quite recent and almost a mirror image. The acquiring editor liked it enough to send to their professional readers, and the last reader recommended that it be picked up by MIRA as a "bittersweet romance." (It was obviously a different book from the one sent to FSG.) The editor who had asked for the manuscript now returned it (after a year!!!!) with the excuse that it was written from a man's perspective, and they publish for women. But she and they knew that when they got the manuscript in the first place!!!!! I think this shows that no matter what we without publishing credentials write, no matter how well-written, be it query, synopsis, or actual book, have one chance in many thousands to get some attention. It's like the Broadway fairytale about the understudy going on when the lead breaks a leg or something and then becomes a star. It's that kind of crap that keeps so many talented young people in showbusiness. I guess it's the same garbage that keeps so many of us writing.

Sorry to be so windy, but it isn't safe to put me at a keyboard and expect only a couple of sentences. Thanks, JackieG.

[Sophie]

JACKIEG, a rejection letter I just received shows how these people give us the runaround. This agent wrote an essay in a book on agents extolling how he and his staff look at everything and judge everything and how wonderful he is. He looks for the story, the characters, etc., and went to great lengths to display his writing ability. Here is his rejection, on a plain piece of paper that was obviously photocopied or printed out from a computer, letterhead just black and white, and this paragraph at the top, no date, no greeting, even no "Dear Author."

"Thank you for your interest in submitting your manuscript at...... Unfortunately, we do not feel that our agency can place your work in the current market. We wish you the best in finding representation elsewhere. Please send a SASE and appropriate postage if you would like us to return your book. Thank you for understanding." This was followed by a woman's name printed out by the same printer.

This was rather funny, because all I sent was a query letter: no manuscript, no book, etc. But they did use the return envelope, stamped and addressed, of course, that I included with my LETTER. So, how much do they read and pay attention to what we send them, despite their protestations that they read everything they get in the slush pile? Yet the impression that we are expected to be left with is that WE are the patsies and don't fit into the "current market," whatever that is.

This is so commonplace, although most such letters will have "Dear Author" as a greeting and a photocopy of a signature.

I also took great pains to compose a query according to guidelines while trying to write as briefly as possible a coherent rendition of my main theme, etc. For our self-respect, we have to behave as if this is all a game. We're playing the lottery and have just as much chance at winning--publication. And the others are right. What these people send us in a total lack of common courtesy says more about them than about us, the writers. I still believe it's a rigged game, a roll of the dice.

[Jamesaritchie]

I know it's hard for many to accept, but the truth is simple. All you have to do is write a good story, filled with good characters, with just a bit of originality and some competent writing, and agents and editors will fall all over themselves to publish your book.


What kind of rejection slip you receive has absolutely no bearing on anything. When an agent/editor really doesn't like something, or just believes it stands no chance of selling to the reading public, that agent/editor is likely to reach for whatever sort of form rejection slip is handy. It doesn't mean that agent/editor didn't read and evaluate the novel carefully, and it doesn't mean you're getting the runaround. It means only that the editor in question did not like what you wrote, and/or did not believe the reading public would like it.

The relity is that at least 90% of all novels an agent or an editor sees stands no chance at all of being published. About 70% are so bad that reading only a couple of pages is all the evaluation that novel will receive or deserve. The writing is simply abysmal. Only a mamsochist would actually read all the way through such a novel, or even read very far into it. Another 20% falls into the category of just not very good. Certainly not good enough to buy or represent, not even good enough to read all the way through, or even halfway through, but at least the sentences are readable. Another 5-7% aren't written too badly, but they're carbon copies of stories the agent or editor has seen a thousand times.

Pretty much 100% of novels that stand any sort of chance come from the top 3-4% of submissions.

Queries are no different. With most, you can tell there's no hope, so you reach for whatever it is you use as a form rejection slip. That form rejection slip may say "manuscript" on it. It may not appear to have anything to do with your query. This does not mean your query wasn't read and evaluated with care. It simply means that agent or that editor is saying no. Or maybe "Hell, no!"

Time is short and queries are endless, and no matter how much an agent or editor cares about writing and writers, he couldn't do it any other way, even if wanted to. Courtesy has nothing to do with it. Time is everything.

Writing is absolutely nothing at all like a lottery. By and large, most agents and editors are very, very good at spotting talent, at separating bad from good. It's not rigged, and there is no role of the dice.

Now, of course good novels occasionaly get rejected. It's extremely rare, but it does happen. But if a novel really is any good, it WILL be picked up by another publisher somewhere down the line. The world is not awash with good novels that can't find a home. In twenty-five years on every end of this business, I can say with complete conviction that the only time I've ever seen a good novel fail to find a home is when the writer gave up on it after only a handful of submissions.

As an editor, sometimes you do find a novel you really like, that's very well-written, but in the end, you still have to say no for any one of a dozen reasons. But it's just weird to conclude from this that writing is a lottery, or that odds have anything to do with it, or that you have only one chance in a thousand. Really weird. It only means that one particular novel was not quite right for one particular publisher. That's all it means. But if the novel really is any good, it will be right for another publisher. If no publisher wants it, there's a serious flaw in that novel somewhere, even if it is well-written and good for the most part.

There is no such thing as a writer who was born with pubishing credentials, and no such thing as a writer who received his first credentials because of some sort of lottery.

It is NOT that writers without credentials have about one chance in a thousand of selling something no matter how well they write. It's just the opposite. Agents and editors have just about one chance in a thousand of receiving anything, manuscript, synopsis, or query, that's well-written. When they do, everything possible is done to grab that novel.

There never has been and never will be an agent or an editor who utters the words "This novel is good, and readers will love it. Now where are those rejection slips?"

I'm not one who believes a lot of bad novels get published, but some few do. Do you know why? It's nearly always because there aren't enough good novels to fill the available slots. As an editor, you first take the good, and then you take the best of the bad to fill out the slots.

Talent and determination always win out, and while I know little of acting, I know a lot about publishing, and agents and editors love nothing better than finding talented writers, with or without credentials. Without them, no one makes any money.

If you can write well, and tell a good story filled with good characters, the odds of getting published are 100%, with or without credentials, with or without luck. You have no idea how long and hard agents and editors look for writers who can do this. Unfortunately, only a tiny percentage of wannabe writers can do this. A miniscule percentage. Just about 91% of all wannabe writers will never, ever become published, unless they self-publish. And only about 1% will ever sell enough to really matter. This isn't because writing has anything to do with a lottery, it's because 91% of all wannabe writers lack either the talent or the dedication to write quality fiction Those who have these things DO get published, even if they never get rich.

When nothing works, when you keep writing and keep submitting to numerous agents and editors, there's only one reason why no one wants your work, and that's because you're doing something very, very wrong. You are not writing well, telling a good story, and filling it with good characters.

As for that NYT articles stating that only 2% of all books sell more than 5,000 copies, talk about an article that knows nothing about anything. It should have pointed out that who publishes a book matters, that the kind of book matters, that many books, a great many, are never intended for big sales, and that you can't average all books from all publishers because doing so is, to be polite, stupid.

You can't base careers, or get meaningful sales numbers, or averages, when you include a book explaining the sex lives of ants along with a novel by Stephen King.

Agents and editors go nuts looking for talent, but talent comes along about as often blizzards in July. Or so it seems when you're reading queries, synopsis, and slush.

Mistakes happen, and once every tenth blue moon, if that often, a good novel slips through the cracks. But if the writer keeps at it, that novel will land on the desk of an editor one floor down.

[aruna]

I also took great pains to compose a query according to guidelines while trying to write as briefly as possible a coherent rendition of my main theme, etc. For our self-respect, we have to behave as if this is all a game. We're playing the lottery and have just as much chance at winning--publication. And the others are right. What these people send us in a total lack of common courtesy says more about them than about us, the writers. I still believe it's a rigged game, a roll of the dice.

Sophie, while I believe it's indeed better to pretend it's all a game, and not take rejections too personally, I can only say that I agree 100% with james's post above. It's NOT a lottery. Agents and editors are very eager to read good manuscripts. They are hungry for them! They'll kill for them! If you are experiencing a lot of rejections, then it might be time to stop submitting for a while, stand back and look at your work more critically.
And if you haven't yet done so, do read Slushkiller (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004641.html)

[Torgo]

Sophie, I myself have rejected interesting, original and well-written books, because they a) would not sell in our market or b) would be better off published by a specialist publisher. There's no arbitrariness or spite involved, it's a business decision. And the artistic merit of a book is not the only quality that is looked at in coming to that decision.

Incidentally, James, that's the reason that I think the whole responsibility for acquisitions shouldn't be on the editor. All the books that come to the acqs meeting are picked by the editors, but the editors aren't necessarily hired for their intimate knowledge of the marketplace. The acqs meeting allows for everyone to have a say. Of course, the really top editors do build up the track record to overrule an anxious sales director, but it's worth having a support structure in place for everyone else - the strict editorial darwinism you describe might choke off some promising careers after a few unlucky flops.

PS: We're always on the lookout for first time authors. Why? They're cheap.

[MarkPettus]

This weekend, I interviewed several editors and agents for my day job(at a local book festival). These are great people, book lovers all, and I've got to say -- they share our frustrations.

I don't think there was an editor or agent there that wouldn't love to handle three times as many books as their schedule allows. Each of them has a story about the "Genius Book" that they rejected, and most of them knew it was a genius book when they rejected it, but for various reasons, they felt they had no choice.

Editors are frustrated by things like reality TV and the book market's shift to non-fiction, Amazon's used book sales and "search inside" feature, guaranteed book sales and returns, and that everyone who can type thinks they can also write.

Agents are frustrated that publishers haven't found better ways to market books, that they are using an outdated marketing paradigm, that they are insisting authors have a platform for selling their own books, and that the queries they receive are as much form-letters as the rejections they send back.

This is what they recommended:

Write a great book, write a good letter or proposal, and put as much care and hard work into marketing it as you did into writing it. Don't get discouraged and don't quit.

[aruna]

This weekend, I interviewed several editors and agents for my day job(at a local book festival). These are great people, book lovers all, and I've got to say -- they share our frustrations.

.

Very true. Here's a good article by a very frustrated British agent on the subject:

http://www.thebookseller.com/?did=12680&srq=simon%20trewin&sbr=1&dr=2005,08,01-1999,10,01&atl=

[JackieG]

I'm actually relieved to hear the editor side of things from those of you who've replied, and I truly appreciate the candor with which you speak.

I don't know enough about the issue to make any generalized statements about how good books get passed over, or why it feels so arbitrary, so I won't do that, but I do want to support Sophie in her feelings, because, let's face it, this is a hard row to hoe.

I've also heard stories from the mouths of agents and editors themselves that as a complex human being, any number of factors may issue into why they send rejection letters that day. Examples have been things like: haven't had my coffee yet, tired of staring at the stack of slush, something in query letter just "puts me off".

My personal frustration at the process is the querying. The quote is a little overused, in my opinion. "Write a good book with compelling characters, write an intriguing query letter." This I've done. In fact, I'd feel a little better about being rejected if I thought an agent/editor had actually read my book (or at least some of it), and based their rejection on my actual work. I'm having a difficult time even getting that far in the process, because, despite my best efforts at intriguing someone, it appears no one has the time or the interest in giving my novel an actual read.

I guess I'm having a hard time reconciling the fact that agents/editors are "hungry" for good manscripts when I have one sitting right here, and a majority of the rejection letters I've gotten say something to effect of "I have too many manuscripts as it is, so I'm not interested in yours."

[Sophie]

I want to laugh and cry at the same time as I read this "thread." MARK PETTUS, I feel your pain. I looked at your blog, and I really would want to buy your book, except that there is no book. Does anyone else remember Catch 22? Actually, I'm tired of hearing about all the wonderful things agents in particular write about themselves and how anxious they are to get THE book in whatever genre. Catch 22: what if you don't write genre? Finis! Literary works don't sell.

I'm not kidding myself that I write deathless prose, or that I've written the "genius book." I wish I did because then I'd be satisfied that I wrote something really, really good, and who cares whether the rest of the world is interested? That's the rub. Writers need readers just as much as performers need an audience, even if it is made up of some totally bored patrons of a local bar not even listening to the emotionally needy rock band put together in a garage, or the would-be comedian sweating his way through a terrible routine. Writers, if they'll admit it, are no less needy than other performers. An upcoming movie star in an interview said that she has turned to acting because it relieves her loneliness. Writers are often observers rather than participants. You've heard or read about the lonely writer before his/her keyboard.

Well, we do sit before the keyboard by ourselves and build a world and people it with characters that we love and hate, etc. We weave stories that we hate to give up. The characters keep on living with us. One famous writer from 19th Century France, when he lay dying, called for Dr. So-and-So, who was actually a character in his book. I can believe that.

So there is bound to be a love-hate relationship between writers and agents/editors/publishers/marketers/etc. In Hollywood, Broadway, or TV, the "talent" (creative people) are nothing. It's the ones who control the money in one way or another who call the shots. It's no different in publishing.

Writers have to realize that publishing is a BUSINESS, just like show business and all the other businesses. And once we get that through our heads, we'll be okay. It's perfectly okay for talented people, regardless of their degree of talent, to fail as business people. The John Grishams and the like have huge entourages of legal and every other kind of help. We just have ourselves and a publishing-business world that is as cutthroat and competitive as any enterprise we can think of. Pity the poor editors, assistants,etc. because they need their jobs to pay the rent. They don't make the final decisions. They have to push hard against all the other editors who want their acquisitions to get onto the next list.

In the end, why we get rejected is one of those hopeless questions we'll never be able to answer. Why does evil exist? Same thing. From that viewpoint, all those who insist on going on, no matter what, have the right. answer. We write, we hope, we try, we fail. Maybe, someday we'll win against the odds.

[aruna]

I want to laugh and cry at the same time as I read this "thread." MARK PETTUS, I feel your pain. I looked at your blog, and I really would want to buy your book, except that there is no book. Does anyone else remember Catch 22? Actually, I'm tired of hearing about all the wonderful things agents in particular write about themselves and how anxious they are to get THE book in whatever genre. Catch 22: what if you don't write genre? Finis! Literary works don't sell.

Literary works are as much in demand as commercial. Why? Because agents/editors are very keen to have books that win prizes. They'd all love to have the next Booker Prize winner or Pulitzer Prize author.

Why? Because good literary works DO sell. They sell for years to come. Literary agents and editors WANT literary works.

A few weeks ago an agent I had sent a partial to called me. She had read my cover letter and hadn't had time to read the partial ms yet, because she was going on holiday. She told me she assumed that other agents had the partial and please wait for her.
This is an agent who represents Margaret Atwood. This year, one of her authors was shortlisted for the Booker Prize. They are top literary authors.
Well, she returned from her holiday and after a few weeks mailed me: she had read the partial, liked it, and wnated the full. I sent it to her. I even got an email acknowledgement that it had arrived, that she was very busy but would read it as soon as possible.
Can you imagine how high me hopes were? This was an agent at one of London's top agencies. She has clout, she gets five figure advances.

Then, last Monday, the devestating news: a rejection. She sent me a very nice email saying it wasn't right for her, and told me the flaws she had seen. And you know what? she was right.
She added:

"I am sorry to disappoint you. I myself am disappointed. I really wanted this to work."

In other words, she really, really wanted this ms and I had missed my chance.


In the end, why we get rejected is one of those hopeless questions we'll never be able to answer. Why does evil exist? Same thing. From that viewpoint, all those who insist on going on, no matter what, have the right. answer. We write, we hope, we try, we fail. Maybe, someday we'll win against the odds.

I can certainly answer this question. My mansucript was not good enough. My writing is not yet in the same league as Margaret Atwood and other prizewinning authors. That is not evil; it is a simple acknowledgement of where I am in my career. There are no odds. I know what I aim for, and it is very high, I want to be an excellent writer of captivating stories. That's a very tall order, and I may never get there. But that is not going to stop me from trying, nor will I blame the agents who reject my work.

That agent gave me some very valid criticism. I am reworking my novel and I already have another agent AND an editor lined up to read the full ms. It's not a lottery. I simply have to be good enough. I may fail again. There;s no guarantee, But it keeps me working away.
As a writer, you need to be good on two levels: good enough to get their attention in the first palce, and then good enough to make them fall in love with your work.
And it doesn't matter whether you are writing genre or literary. They have to fall in love.

[JackieG]

My honest congratulations, Aruna, in having gotten as far as you did (though it resulted in disappoinment). Best of luck to you as you rework and try again. :)

[aruna]

My honest congratulations, Aruna, in having gotten as far as you did (though it resulted in disappoinment). Best of luck to you as you rework and try again. :)

Thank you, Jackie! I've now recovered and half way through a much needed revision. It's funny how you only see some flaws when others point them out to you; and then they seem so glaring you're embarassed you ever thought your work was publishable! There's still a feeling of regret; she would have been great to have repping me and so nice as well, but the one I'm subbing to next is also good. And by a weird coincdence (I didn't know this when I queried her) she used to work at my last agency and started up on her own a few years ago.

[Sophie]

I must add my congratulations as well to Aruna. You obviously have something that is going to land a contract somewhere and will sell. You are not only lucky but must be a very good writer.
When I mentioned "evil," I was only using it as an analogy of a question that has no answer. The writing business, writers, etc. are not evil in any sense of the word.
What I have been trying to get across, though, is that to believe that all we have to do to land a book contract is to sit down, write well, write a good query letter, and the publishing fairy will come to call is more often than not a fairytale in itself; nevertheless, it keeps us writing. I can't blame agents or editors for turning down my earliest works when I re-read them now. I wonder how they even got past the front door. And I would hope that an agent or editor who requested a full manuscript, read it, and then turned it down, but with constructive criticism, is an agent/editor to be cherished. Are there others like her out there? We all ceretainly hope so.
But the world is normally just not as neat as all that. People aren't as neat as that. I'm envious when I read good works and snide when I don't----in my opinion!! And that's what it all boils down to--someone's opinion. It could be the writer who assumes that what he/she has written is first rate and will find encouragement among friends, or it might be an agent/editor who just doesn't like that kind of material, regardless of how well or how poorly it's written. That's why I wrote we'll never know what's behind many of our rejections, even if the people who rejected us know why--maybe.

I've cherished the opportunity to post on this "thread." I've managed to release a lot of anger and gotten some interesting feedback from people who are just like me in their efforts to get published. This isn't a farewell, believe me, but it's great to keep coming back here. Like Tiny Tim, I can only say, "God bless us everyone."

[popmuze]

It definitely helps to have a great day job. Then the time spent writing can be less pressure filled and at the same time, more precious.
As far as the great slush pile/agent debate, a while ago, being between agents, I took advantage of a perk at my company whereby 50 pages of my novel was read by an editor at a major publishing house.
She was kind enough to offer lots of praise before passing on it, but did say she would be willing to read a rewrite once I found a new agent.
Haven't found any agents recently who were as encouraging....

[aruna]

I must add my congratulations as well to Aruna. You obviously have something that is going to land a contract somewhere and will sell. You are not only lucky but must be a very good writer.
."

Thanks. Looking at myself objectively, I think that my strongest "talent" is in the actual storytelling. I do think I have good and original stories; but I always feel that my writing skills are simply not up to the task of bringing them across the way I'd like them to be. Re-reading my work I am always disappointed. "That's not how I really see it!"

As far as the lottery thing is ocncerned: where I think "lottery" and "luck" come into it is in the submission process. I feel that somewhere out there is an agent/editor perfect for me. Some writers hit the jackpot with their very first submission; sometimes it takes longer. For me, the agents are all just names, and which one I send my ms to next is pure chance - or destiny.

I've read books where I heard the first agent who read it loved it so much they called the writer up after three chapters. ANd I read the book and though "huh?" So it's really very subjective.
I do wish you luck with your submissions.

[aruna]

[QUOTE=popmuze]It definitely helps to have a great day job. Then the time spent writing can be less pressure filled and at the same time, more precious.
QUOTE]

Oh my! Don't talk! Today I am going for an interview for a day job that is so perfect for me, it sounds as if it is made to measure, created just for me. I am really on tenterhooks! getting this job would change my life completely, make everything so much easier. I've tried to live on my writer's income for the last five years and I am so fed up with it. Wish me luck! I'll tell you more later.

[Torin]

Sending good vibes your way, Aruna. Good luck on the job!!

Chris

[Sophie]

Aruna, I'm also on tenterhooks about whether you got the job of your dreams. I hope all the wishes we've all sent your way had an effect.
As to having a good day job that helps the writing process, I agree that you may be distracted by fuming at the boss or worrying about what's happening to your chances for advancement or a raise, and stuff like that. I've been there. But writing itself can be therapy to offset the bad and even horrible days that needn't necessarily be on the job. They can be bad family problems, or other environmental concerns that have nothing to do with a job.
I knew a young man who had a terrible relationship with his wife but couldn't divorce because he couldn't afford it and wouldn't leave his 3 sons. But he researched and wrote 3 books that were all published, and he's now a recognized expert in his field. His researching and writing kept him sane, he said.
An actor claimed that you shouldn't use your job as a professional actor as personal therapy. But many other performers say just the opposite.
Yes, we can be distracted by problems outside our creative world. But that creative world can provide those moments when everything else ceases to matter.
That's why, despite many or even constant disappointments, we have to keep slogging our way past the worst by writing our best.

[aruna]

Aruna, I'm also on tenterhooks about whether you got the job of your dreams. I hope all the wishes we've all sent your way had an effect.
.

The interview went well; I could tell they liked me and what I had to say, and I know I am better qualified than most. I am 54, and I am betting that some of the other candidates are in their 20's ( I saw one, and my taxi driver told me of another). I think my age is more of an advantage in this case.
So it all comes down to the other candidates. All of my friends say this job was created just for me; I'll find out next week!



It brings two of my main passions together: writing, and multi-cultural living! Plus, I am from the Caribbean, of African descent, with a long-standing and deep connection to India; all three geographies combined.

[arkady]

My personal frustration at the process is the querying. The quote is a little overused, in my opinion. "Write a good book with compelling characters, write an intriguing query letter." This I've done. In fact, I'd feel a little better about being rejected if I thought an agent/editor had actually read my book (or at least some of it), and based their rejection on my actual work. I'm having a difficult time even getting that far in the process, because, despite my best efforts at intriguing someone, it appears no one has the time or the interest in giving my novel an actual read.

For what little it's worth, you've summed up my own feelings exactly.

[Torgo]

If you can send it in to a publishing house, it'll usually get read.

[Julie Worth]

This is what they recommended:

Write a great book, write a good letter or proposal, and put as much care and hard work into marketing it as you did into writing it. Don't get discouraged and don't quit.

Or better yet, write ten great books. Eventually, the numbers will work in your favor.

[Lauri B]

For what little it's worth, you've summed up my own feelings exactly.

Hi there,
I am sure that every so often some really great books get overlooked for one reason or another, but in my experience, most manuscripts submitted to agencies and publishing houses get read, and the vast majority of them have absolutely fatal flaws. I've had writers send me their manuscripts to take a look to see what's going on, and every single time I can immediately see why it has not been picked up. There is no giant conspiracy against writers--a publisher will pick up your book if it's good enough to publish, and most aren't.

[arkady]

Hi there,
I am sure that every so often some really great books get overlooked for one reason or another, but in my experience, most manuscripts submitted to agencies and publishing houses get read, and the vast majority of them have absolutely fatal flaws. I've had writers send me their manuscripts to take a look to see what's going on, and every single time I can immediately see why it has not been picked up. There is no giant conspiracy against writers--a publisher will pick up your book if it's good enough to publish, and most aren't.

That may be so. But JackieG's complaint was that her manuscript was being rejected without even having been read, a frustration with which I sympathize.

Nomad, you're talking about manuscripts that have been read and rejected, based upon their content. I'd have no gripe whatever with an agent or publishing house that actually read my manuscript and rejected it -- and, if I read her posting correctly, neither would JackieG. Her point is that her manuscript isn't even being read. Being annoyed with this situation is not the equivalent of putting on a tinfoil hat and believing in a "giant conspiracy against writers."

[popmuze]

Just a question in passing. As a much published non-fiction author between agents, I recently had the chance to show an editor at Random House 50 pages of my (completed) first novel. Some of the adjectives in her rejection note I would have killed for had they been in a NY Times review. She also said she'd be happy to read a rewrite once I found an agent. In looking for a new agent, and with the book totally rewritten, do you think this is a worthwhile thing to bring up in my query letter?

[Lauri B]

That may be so. But JackieG's complaint was that her manuscript was being rejected without even having been read, a frustration with which I sympathize.

Nomad, you're talking about manuscripts that have been read and rejected, based upon their content. I'd have no gripe whatever with an agent or publishing house that actually read my manuscript and rejected it -- and, if I read her posting correctly, neither would JackieG. Her point is that her manuscript isn't even being read. Being annoyed with this situation is not the equivalent of putting on a tinfoil hat and believing in a "giant conspiracy against writers."

Hi Arkady,
I re-read Jackie's post and it sounds from what I read that she's getting some publishers reading the manuscript--or at least taking a glance at it. Usually that's all you need to see if it's going to work or not. I know it sounds flip, but you can tell within the first several pages of a book if it's publishable or not. The reason a publisher turns down a manuscript isn't because on page 250 the hero discovers the identity of the spy too soon; it's because on pages 1 through 20 the writer's style, tone, and ability to write are revealed and there's too much fixing that needs to be done to make it work.

I appreciate your frustration with agents and publishers who won't look at your manuscript, although if you are following guidelines and writing amazing queries, I can only tell you that publishers are desperate for really good books that are marketable, so don't give up.

[Lauri B]

Just a question in passing. As a much published non-fiction author between agents, I recently had the chance to show an editor at Random House 50 pages of my (completed) first novel. Some of the adjectives in her rejection note I would have killed for had they been in a NY Times review. She also said she'd be happy to read a rewrite once I found an agent. In looking for a new agent, and with the book totally rewritten, do you think this is a worthwhile thing to bring up in my query letter?

I would definitely mention that an editor at Random House wanted to take a look at your rewrite in any query letter to an agent--it makes their job that much easier if you have an editor already interested in your work. It also helps that you are a published author with a strong track record. Good luck!