- Joined
- Oct 1, 2010
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 13
There are many ways to get a manuscript ignored without a moment's consideration. Rather than list them in a negative, "do not do this" list, I will instead list some positive "to dos" that might be of help. Of course, nothing here should be taken as a guarantee that a manuscript will be published.
Make it the best manuscript possible
This one is obvious, but unpacking the terms used could shed some light on a few things.
So many submitted stories and novels are un-finished. Major plot elements are left unexplained because they were clear in the writer's mind, so clear that the writer did not feel there was a need to write them. Or, the writer was aware of these holes and glossed over them with a deus ex machina or a two-sentence summary of an episode, sub-plot, or other occurrence that could have been interesting to read; the writer was either lazy or just too much in a rush to get the damn thing done.
Then there are all the manifestations of sloppiness in prose. I am of the opinion that if there are spelling mistakes, punctuation errors, grammar mistakes, or just plain mangled text, then it is a manifestation of bigger problems with the substance of the text itself. If the writer did not proof it, then it means that many problems are present, in all probability.
I also think that it is okay to hammer out some prose as quickly as possible, and then go through a very painstaking process of fixing and perfecting the prose afterwards. Just one example is the adage that good writing shows rather than tells. In such a case, some trite passages that show nothing to the reader and are rather boring as a result need to be re-written. They were quick to write just to get the story down and proper, but the first revision is the time to make it into something that is ready to be read.
One of the myths out there is that anybody can write. What we learn in grade school and practice all through high school is not writing per se, but literacy, the basic skill needed for linguistic competence. This is different from professional, publishable writing.
This means that if you deign to write something for publication, it has to be on a very high level of quality. People on forums like these talk about "craft" as if it is some sort of elusive thing, but acquisitions editors can tell right away if someone's writing is on a publishable level within seconds of looking at a manuscript.
Then there are the mistakes that many beginning writers make with their first manuscripts. The story begins with endless mood-setting description or an exegesis of a character's state of mind. The reader wonders, "what is happening?" since nothing is, there is no story.
Sure, there is such a thing as "talent," or in-born ability, but what does that really mean? Is it natural creativity? Is it imagination? Is it a knack for telling stories?
If talent accounts for that which cannot be taught or learned, then it is all of these things. The ability to write well enough for publication, however, is something that can only be learned through constant practice, constant critical review, and also through reading the works of others. Talent or genius, un-honed through instruction or practice, would be a trite cliché if it was not so common. The upshot is that no matter how much in-born ability or inspiration a writer might have, it will be wasted if it is implemented without craft.
Another myth that seems to float around is that editors exist to fix all of the above-mentioned problems and that a good story that comes from a good idea by a talented writer should be fixed into form by a good editor. This is not true. With so many stories and novels being submitted even to small-press publishers, there is no need to fix broken or semi-broken work just because it has potential. if even a tiny percentage of submissions are well-crafted already, then it is so much easier and so much less time-consuming to accept those first and to forget about everything else.
Make sure the manuscript is solicited
There are too many legal and other complications involved in accepting unsolicited or un-agented manuscripts. They all more or less revolve around the implicit ambiguity involved when there is no contract or acknowledgment with regards to the work's status vis-a-vis the publisher. Solicited works are taken by publishers under an understanding that certain terms and conditions are involved. Agented manuscripts are submitted through established channels with implicit terms and conditions.
Find out what each publisher's or agent's submission policy is and if they don't have one posted on their web site, make a direct query to find out what it is. Never send a manuscript without the publisher or agent saying in explicit terms that they want to receive it.
Like I said at the end of the previous section, it is all too easy to destroy unsolicited manuscripts, with so many coming in that were submitted properly. Don't force the publisher or the agent to take the path of least resistance!
Make sure the publisher handles this sort of material
Many small press publishers and and large publisher imprints exist to cover a variety of subjects and genres. If there are readers for something, then chances arem there is somebody out there who wants to publish it. It is the writer's job to find the publishers and the agents who handle what they have written. The converse of this is that if a romance publisher gets a YA-splatter-zombie-erotic thriller, for example, it will probably be rejected.
Write a good pitch
So much is written about queries and pitches in writing forums and elsewhere that it would be pointless to go over them here in any detail. Suffice it to say, a writer needs to be a salesman/saleswoman, even when pitching something to an agent whose job it is to do the same thing with publishers. There is no "magic bullet" to writing perfect pitches, just like there is no surefire way to write a job query and a CV to guarantee getting an interview; but there are some best practices and there are many, many "do not" practices. Every writer needs to learn them.
Stay away from material that is too personal
Many people's life stories or other personal experiences are not all that unique because the trials and tribulations of most peoples' lives are similar. Getting an education or learning a trade, falling in love, learning the facts of life, and so on, are things that everybody does. It might be a personally edifying experience to put these things down on paper in the form of a journal, but not everybody wants to read about them, or at least not to the degree of dedication that is required to read a book. Publishers and agents know this, and know well enough not to spend valuable production money or billable hours on something that has such limited appeal. Make no mistake about it: Its appeal is limited, because "personal" means "of or pertaining to one person." Publishers and agents are interested in material that could be interesting to many people.
Stay away from material that is overdone
If something is "all the rage" right now, then chances are that by the time you finish writing a novel that is in the same vein, it will be old hat. Public tastes are fickle and people get tired of seeing too much of the same thing. A few innovators or masters in a few genres will always have markets for their works but everything else has the potential to be seen as an imitation.
Good writers have roots. They have read a lot and they continue to read a lot, so as to have a background that firmly establishes, and evolves, their areas of interest. This is what influences what they write, not some undefined perception of what might be popular at any given moment.
Stay away from material that has no market
This is the flip side of the previous point. Anything that appeals to too narrow a readership base is not going to be picked up by most publishers or agents. If it needs to be marketed to death in order to be identified with any readership at all, then it places more strain on the resources that are becoming more and more scarce for publishing professionals.
Of course, there are writers who simply write what they write, and that's it; to hell with whats popular and what isn't! This is all good and well, but that does not imply a right to be published, obviously. These are the manuscripts that need to be self-published and need to be marketed through viral or social networks; people who specifically look for material that is of very narrow appeal will know how to find it and well-written works that suit such people, deserve to be read.
Make it the best manuscript possible
This one is obvious, but unpacking the terms used could shed some light on a few things.
So many submitted stories and novels are un-finished. Major plot elements are left unexplained because they were clear in the writer's mind, so clear that the writer did not feel there was a need to write them. Or, the writer was aware of these holes and glossed over them with a deus ex machina or a two-sentence summary of an episode, sub-plot, or other occurrence that could have been interesting to read; the writer was either lazy or just too much in a rush to get the damn thing done.
Then there are all the manifestations of sloppiness in prose. I am of the opinion that if there are spelling mistakes, punctuation errors, grammar mistakes, or just plain mangled text, then it is a manifestation of bigger problems with the substance of the text itself. If the writer did not proof it, then it means that many problems are present, in all probability.
I also think that it is okay to hammer out some prose as quickly as possible, and then go through a very painstaking process of fixing and perfecting the prose afterwards. Just one example is the adage that good writing shows rather than tells. In such a case, some trite passages that show nothing to the reader and are rather boring as a result need to be re-written. They were quick to write just to get the story down and proper, but the first revision is the time to make it into something that is ready to be read.
One of the myths out there is that anybody can write. What we learn in grade school and practice all through high school is not writing per se, but literacy, the basic skill needed for linguistic competence. This is different from professional, publishable writing.
This means that if you deign to write something for publication, it has to be on a very high level of quality. People on forums like these talk about "craft" as if it is some sort of elusive thing, but acquisitions editors can tell right away if someone's writing is on a publishable level within seconds of looking at a manuscript.
Then there are the mistakes that many beginning writers make with their first manuscripts. The story begins with endless mood-setting description or an exegesis of a character's state of mind. The reader wonders, "what is happening?" since nothing is, there is no story.
Sure, there is such a thing as "talent," or in-born ability, but what does that really mean? Is it natural creativity? Is it imagination? Is it a knack for telling stories?
If talent accounts for that which cannot be taught or learned, then it is all of these things. The ability to write well enough for publication, however, is something that can only be learned through constant practice, constant critical review, and also through reading the works of others. Talent or genius, un-honed through instruction or practice, would be a trite cliché if it was not so common. The upshot is that no matter how much in-born ability or inspiration a writer might have, it will be wasted if it is implemented without craft.
Another myth that seems to float around is that editors exist to fix all of the above-mentioned problems and that a good story that comes from a good idea by a talented writer should be fixed into form by a good editor. This is not true. With so many stories and novels being submitted even to small-press publishers, there is no need to fix broken or semi-broken work just because it has potential. if even a tiny percentage of submissions are well-crafted already, then it is so much easier and so much less time-consuming to accept those first and to forget about everything else.
Make sure the manuscript is solicited
There are too many legal and other complications involved in accepting unsolicited or un-agented manuscripts. They all more or less revolve around the implicit ambiguity involved when there is no contract or acknowledgment with regards to the work's status vis-a-vis the publisher. Solicited works are taken by publishers under an understanding that certain terms and conditions are involved. Agented manuscripts are submitted through established channels with implicit terms and conditions.
Find out what each publisher's or agent's submission policy is and if they don't have one posted on their web site, make a direct query to find out what it is. Never send a manuscript without the publisher or agent saying in explicit terms that they want to receive it.
Like I said at the end of the previous section, it is all too easy to destroy unsolicited manuscripts, with so many coming in that were submitted properly. Don't force the publisher or the agent to take the path of least resistance!
Make sure the publisher handles this sort of material
Many small press publishers and and large publisher imprints exist to cover a variety of subjects and genres. If there are readers for something, then chances arem there is somebody out there who wants to publish it. It is the writer's job to find the publishers and the agents who handle what they have written. The converse of this is that if a romance publisher gets a YA-splatter-zombie-erotic thriller, for example, it will probably be rejected.
Write a good pitch
So much is written about queries and pitches in writing forums and elsewhere that it would be pointless to go over them here in any detail. Suffice it to say, a writer needs to be a salesman/saleswoman, even when pitching something to an agent whose job it is to do the same thing with publishers. There is no "magic bullet" to writing perfect pitches, just like there is no surefire way to write a job query and a CV to guarantee getting an interview; but there are some best practices and there are many, many "do not" practices. Every writer needs to learn them.
Stay away from material that is too personal
Many people's life stories or other personal experiences are not all that unique because the trials and tribulations of most peoples' lives are similar. Getting an education or learning a trade, falling in love, learning the facts of life, and so on, are things that everybody does. It might be a personally edifying experience to put these things down on paper in the form of a journal, but not everybody wants to read about them, or at least not to the degree of dedication that is required to read a book. Publishers and agents know this, and know well enough not to spend valuable production money or billable hours on something that has such limited appeal. Make no mistake about it: Its appeal is limited, because "personal" means "of or pertaining to one person." Publishers and agents are interested in material that could be interesting to many people.
Stay away from material that is overdone
If something is "all the rage" right now, then chances are that by the time you finish writing a novel that is in the same vein, it will be old hat. Public tastes are fickle and people get tired of seeing too much of the same thing. A few innovators or masters in a few genres will always have markets for their works but everything else has the potential to be seen as an imitation.
Good writers have roots. They have read a lot and they continue to read a lot, so as to have a background that firmly establishes, and evolves, their areas of interest. This is what influences what they write, not some undefined perception of what might be popular at any given moment.
Stay away from material that has no market
This is the flip side of the previous point. Anything that appeals to too narrow a readership base is not going to be picked up by most publishers or agents. If it needs to be marketed to death in order to be identified with any readership at all, then it places more strain on the resources that are becoming more and more scarce for publishing professionals.
Of course, there are writers who simply write what they write, and that's it; to hell with whats popular and what isn't! This is all good and well, but that does not imply a right to be published, obviously. These are the manuscripts that need to be self-published and need to be marketed through viral or social networks; people who specifically look for material that is of very narrow appeal will know how to find it and well-written works that suit such people, deserve to be read.
