How close is close enough

[popmuze]

What with all the discussions going on recently about having to write the perfect novel in order to get published, one that's better than anything any editor or agent has ever laid eyes on, I have a question for the published novelists out there.
Did you write the perfect novel? Or did an agent or editor or an agent and then an editor work with you to some extent to make it better than it was when you finished it?
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, that most novels are (extensively?) worked on before publication, by any number of people. What I'd like to know is how close to perfection is close enough to be published?
In other words, what is the difference between getting a great rejection letter where your novel is turned down for some specific problem and being accepted by an editor or agent, who then helps you fix those very problems.

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm not sure there's really a good answer for this. I think it differs case by case, agent by agent, editor by editor, type of novel by type of novel. But you sure don;t have to be perfect.

I believe it's a matter of two things. 1. Does the agent or editor see the potential of the novel should the problems be fixed. 2. Does the rest of the novel give the agent or editor confidence that you can fix these problems once they're pointed out.

Some novels get taken on that are really pretty bad in every way, IF agent or publisher sees the potential is both the novel and the writer.

Neither agents nor editors are after perfection, and it's simply wrong-headed to think you need to write a perfect novel to get their attention. What they want is a good story, good characters, and decent writing. And something they haven't seen ten million times before.

It's blandness that turns aways agents and editors. It's bad story, unbelievable characters, terrible writing, and same ol', same ol'.

But from my experience, outside of story and characters they seen a thousand times, and outside of writing that's simply atrocious, the main thing that makes an agent or editor say no is seeing nothing in the novel that makes her think the writer can make it better, even with help. Agents and editors are writers, and all they can do is point out what they believe are serious problems.

But something about the way the novel is written has to show the agent or editor that this is a writer who can and will fix any problems pointed out. Unfortunately, this quite often isn't the case. You ask for problems to get fixed, and the results are worse, not better.

But perfection, or anything like it, is definitely not a requirement.

[Vomaxx]

having to write the perfect novel in order to get published, one that's better than anything any editor or agent has ever laid eyes on,
What I'd like to know is how close to perfection is close enough to be published?

This sort of talk does no one any good, except perhaps in discouraging some folks from writing at all and thus making slush piles slightly smaller.

How close to "perfection"? Very far indeed, in a great many cases. (And what is a "perfect" novel, anyway?)