Do editors give reasons?

I think you need to read Slushkiller.

Hi, tweetybird,

It would be grand, it would be stupendous, it would be gratifying to know why a work was rejected. The thing is editors and agents don't have the time for entering into neverending dialogs with authors on why a work doesn't make the cut. New writers tell themselves that, if they only knew what was wrong, they could fix it. That's what they tell themselves, but the truth is often quite different. What they really want is the chance to defend or explain the work hoping that the response will then change. Again, editors and agents just don't have the time for this. All that really matters is whether the answer is 'yes' or 'no', anyway.

BTW, I'm concerned about your phrase 'reputed agent'. Do you know whether this person is an agent or not?

I think what tweetybird is asking is not 'do editors and agents give rejection feedback to authors' but 'do editors give rejection feedback to reputable agents that they know well'. The answer to the latter is 'yes'.

As Torgo said, yes, in general, editors do give much more feedback that agents do when they reject requested works. Much of it is helpful, but keep in mind that it's not always the real reason for the rejection, so don't turn yourself inside out with every rejection. Wait until you see a pattern before you react.

Sometimes you might get a little feedback through, in the case of an agent who knows the editor well, they might get feedback that they filter for you - so if the editor made some cheeky comments that you might make to a friend, the agent might then edit those comments before passing them on to you.

if you get a reason, celebrate. Form rejections are quick and easy nos for editors and agents. If an editor takes the time to say why it's a no, then they liked you enough to take some time with the MS.

And no, agented works don't mean the editor will pass on reasons.

My agent passes on every publisher rejection I get, and while I have never been offered suggestions on how to "improve" the rejections are usually detailed as to why. This becomes very frustrating when you have a particular book that gets rejected differently from different editors - one thing that one editor loved, another hated and vice versa. But it can be useful if the comments all lead in the one direction.

Usually I get the very strong impression that the editor has read the whole book, but of course there is no way on knowing.

tweetybird said:

an editor would definitely give a reason to an agent he/she knows well.
A better reason than "It does not fit in my list."

Such an explanation makes me feel that the editor did not read the (complete) manuscript.

Click to expand...

Well, it depends. Sometimes 'it does not fit in my list' is just a brush-off to avoid having to say something more specific but harsher-sounding. It might be that the editor hated the manuscript but doesn't want to come out and say that to an agent she has a good relationship with. Sometimes 'it doesn't fit' is just the unvarnished truth - probably means the agent sent it to the wrong editor or house, which does happen. You can't really puzzle out more meaning from it than that.

I'd also point out that there's nothing wrong with an editor not reading the complete manuscript. If a book can't keep an editor's attention it's not the editor's fault. I regularly toss manuscripts aside after a chapter or two because I have no desire to read any more of them.

Yes, editors give reasons to reputable agents they know. This does not mean the reasons they give have any bearing on the truth. It's a matter of professional courtesy, a way of being polite. And if that agent submits to five editors, she may well get five very different reasons for the rejection.

It only when the rejection asks for a rewrite and resubmission that you can be sure the advice is on target, and actually written by the editor.