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?
choosing editor to query
- Thread starter Sophie
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 2,038
- Reaction score
- 400
Sophie said:
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.
Sophie said:
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.
choosing an editor
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?
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?
Nomad said:
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.
Sophie said:
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.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 7,632
- Reaction score
- 1,204
- Location
- London, UK
- Website
- torgoblog.blogspot.com
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.
Names
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 said:
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.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 7,632
- Reaction score
- 1,204
- Location
- London, UK
- Website
- torgoblog.blogspot.com
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!
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!
Torgo said:
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.
finding an agent/editor
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?
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?
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?
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?
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 7,632
- Reaction score
- 1,204
- Location
- London, UK
- Website
- torgoblog.blogspot.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
finding an editor/agent
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.
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.
Book
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.
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.
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 12,862
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Location
- A Small Town in Germany
- Website
- www.sharonmaas.co.uk
Sophie said:
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
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 7,632
- Reaction score
- 1,204
- Location
- London, UK
- Website
- torgoblog.blogspot.com
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 12,862
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Location
- A Small Town in Germany
- Website
- www.sharonmaas.co.uk
MarkPettus said:
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=
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."
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."
getting agents/editors
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.
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.
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 12,862
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Location
- A Small Town in Germany
- Website
- www.sharonmaas.co.uk
Sophie said:
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.