The Shocking Truth about the Slush Pile

AnneMarble · May 24, 2007

There's a new article/blog thingie in the Guardian about one person's experience as a slush pile reader.

"Stapling a photo of yourself to the manuscript will not guarantee you a book deal, however handsome you may be. Nor will a glowing endorsement from your mother."

Yes, people really do this.
:Shrug:

There is also a big stack of comments, and those are interesting as well.

C.bronco · May 24, 2007

It makes me wonder if all the pages of my partials and fulls have been read through the last page.

ATP · May 24, 2007

I find the very lengthy string of comments related to the article as interesting as the article itself. It seems that commentators include British agents, writers and some from within publishing houses. One perhaps worth saving on your hard disk...

Cassiopeia · May 24, 2007

So offering a copy of my award winning cinnamon rolls won't get my story read?

Bummer.

wyntermoon · May 24, 2007

Send them my way, I'll be sure to read it.

AnneMarble · May 24, 2007

Cassiopeia said:
So offering a copy of my award winning cinnamon rolls won't get my story read?

Bummer.

It was worth a try.

Jamesaritchie · May 24, 2007

Comments

Like ATP, I find the comments more interesting than the article. I've read through a lot of slush, and this article was being kind.

But the comments. ARRRGGGHHHH! It's true, most who want to be writers have no clue whatsoever about the publishing business, about what it takes to write a salable novel, or why things work as they do.

Cassiopeia · May 24, 2007

dang...what will it take?

Storyteller5 · May 24, 2007

Boy, in the comments, is UnpublishedWriter ever bitter and unrealistic!

scarletpeaches · May 24, 2007

Class in a glass:

The problem as I perceive it is this: too many people think they've got a book inside of them and are only too willing to stick two fingers down the back of their throat and vomit the thing up.

The article and comments actually make me feel better about my own writing. If the majority of submissions are crap, it means I stand a pretty good chance of being noticed, even from the slush pile [with an agency of course, I never submit directly to publishers], if my manuscript is well-written and well-presented.

I think it was JAR who once said something like, "You might never find an agent but if your book's presented in the correct way, you stand a hell of a better chance than someone who doesn't know what they're doing."

Jamesaritchie · May 24, 2007

scarletpeaches said:
Class in a glass:

The article and comments actually make me feel better about my own writing. If the majority of submissions are crap, it means I stand a pretty good chance of being noticed, even from the slush pile [with an agency of course, I never submit directly to publishers], if my manuscript is well-written and well-presented.

I think it was JAR who once said something like, "You might never find an agent but if your book's presented in the correct way, you stand a hell of a better chance than someone who doesn't know what they're doing."

As someone, maybe Uncle Jim, said, if you can just write five pages or error free prose with correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation, you automatically place yourself in the top ten percent of the average slush pile.

The top ten percent isn't good enough, of course, but the average slush pile really is this bad.

It's almost impossible to tell anyone what it takes, because what it takes is a manuscript that 1. The agent/editor can't stop reading. 2. The agent/editor thinks the reading public will buy. I've been on both sides of the desk, and I still can't say why either is what it is. It just is.

But well-presented is at least half the battle.

davids · May 24, 2007

Now down to some serious thought on the subject-WELLYS you need WELLS even near a slush pile-that is what one needs-so consider the consequences of your actions and do not forget your damned WELLYS

Birol · May 24, 2007

C.bronco said:
It makes me wonder if all the pages of my partials and fulls have been read through the last page.

They probably haven't been, especially if you were rejected. Your manuscript was most likely read up to the point where the agent or editor decided that the manuscript was definitely not for them. Then, they stopped reading and rejected it.

I'm not to say your manuscript isn't good; I'm just saying the agent and editor are not going to take any more of their time than they feel is necessary with each manuscript. Once they know they're going to reject it, they stop reading.

Dollywagon · May 24, 2007

What I found a little disturbing was that the author of the article said she rejected the manuscript of a subsequently published novel, twice.

I'm not quite sure what I read into this. Was the actual ms rubbish and she thought it shouldn't have been published either by them or another company. Or was she admitting to the fact that she didn't pick up on a ms that she should have just because it was in the slush? Or wasn't she very good at spotting publishable work ... eek!

Birol · May 24, 2007

There could have been any number of things that happened with that manuscript.

The author could've used the shotgun approach when submitting. It's possible that the manuscript was just not suitable to the publisher the blog author was working for.

It's also likely that the author of the manuscript reworked it after each rejection. Visit the Rejection/Dejection forum on AW. Look how many times authors admit to doing just that.

Dollywagon · May 24, 2007

Well Birol, she did say she'd read it twice, so I'm presuming it had been altered in some way on the second sub, and even if it had been a shotgun sub what does it matter if the book is publishable and will make the company money.

She didn't say she rejected it as unsuitable for their list, just that she rejected it as in 'don't give up all hope.'

I'm not 100% sure but it leans toward the fact that she missed it.

And, if you've got giggly school leavers opening up the slush, then that is bound to happen.

AnneMarble · May 24, 2007

Jamesaritchie said:
But the comments. ARRRGGGHHHH! It's true, most who want to be writers have no clue whatsoever about the publishing business, about what it takes to write a salable novel, or why things work as they do.

Oh, you read the comments by UnpublishedWriter, too.

Birol said:
It's also likely that the author of the manuscript reworked it after each rejection. Visit the Rejection/Dejection forum on AW. Look how many times authors admit to doing just that.

Lots of people asked why so many editors rejected Harry Potter. One answer may be "Because what they saw wasn't the manuscript that was eventually accepted." An editor who rejected Harry Potter said that she (maybe he?) remembered the original manuscript, and it wasn't like the manuscript that was eventually published.

There are other issues that can keep something from being accepted of course. Maybe the publisher only has so many slots for a particular imprint, maybe that publisher doesn't do fantasy or mystery or whatever, maybe the book isn't that good, maybe the editor was having a bad day, maybe the query letter or synopsis sucked, etc. Etc.

Azure Skye · May 24, 2007

Cassiopeia said:
So offering a copy of my award winning cinnamon rolls won't get my story read?

Bummer.

Send me some cinnamon rolls and I'll read your story.

veinglory · May 24, 2007

For cinnamon rolls I'd read it and like it. promise.

Birol · May 24, 2007

Dollywagon said:
Well Birol, she did say she'd read it twice, so I'm presuming it had been altered in some way on the second sub, and even if it had been a shotgun sub what does it matter if the book is publishable and will make the company money.

She didn't say she rejected it as unsuitable for their list, just that she rejected it as in 'don't give up all hope.'

I'm not 100% sure but it leans toward the fact that she missed it.

And, if you've got giggly school leavers opening up the slush, then that is bound to happen.

I disagree. I don't see that it leans toward the fact that she missed it. Most likely, the manuscript was probably reworked again (and again and again) before it was finally accepted by the major publisher. Not just between the two times the blog author rejected, but afterwards, too.

Could the blog author have been having a bad day? Certainly. Being human it happens. But there is a tendency among writers to assume that editors, agents, and slush readers don't know the business of writing, that only writers know what is worth publishing and what isn't. This is an extension of the us vs. them attitude that many writers seem to have. The truth is -- writers, editors, agents, etc. -- we're all in this publishing business together, and we're all striving to please the same people: the readers.

Also, being giggly while opening slush is far better than the alternative, which is to grow bitter and cynical.

Dollywagon · May 24, 2007

I think what came across for me, other than that the author intended, was how unprofessionally the slush was handled.

Sorry, Birol, but for the first time in years I've got my bosses head on, and I'm hopping!

Business is business when all's said and done.

Firstly, I think we all agree that a sub is the equivalent to a job application. You don't give job applications to the office junior to open. The office junior couldn't spot the spot on her nose when she first starts work.

Secondly, if you aren't pulling anything out of the slush in six months, then close to subs. Why pay somebody to open it (which we have all heard is a long, time consuming and arduous job) therefore also costly, especially if you are getting NOTHING from it.

If you are occasionally pulling something out of the slush and it is worth your while but you are getting snowed under, temporarily close it while it's worked through and then re-open.

With regard to the author of the article, why mention it at all if it didn't fit the list etc? If I had somebody working on the slush for six months who didn't pull out anything and then found out something had been subsequently published, I'd fire them. No problem.

Don't get me wrong, I agree entirely that the slush has it's downside for both sides of the fence, but it is a potential source of profit, because if it wasn't then all publishers would close to it. As such it deserves the same professional treatment that publishers demand of the writers - because the loss could be to the company.

Cassiopeia · May 24, 2007

Birol said:
I disagree. I don't see that it leans toward the fact that she missed it. Most likely, the manuscript was probably reworked again (and again and again) before it was finally accepted by the major publisher. Not just between the two times the blog author rejected, but afterwards, too.

Could the blog author have been having a bad day? Certainly. Being human it happens. But there is a tendency among writers to assume that editors, agents, and slush readers don't know the business of writing, that only writers know what is worth publishing and what isn't. This is an extension of the us vs. them attitude that many writers seem to have. The truth is -- writers, editors, agents, etc. -- we're all in this publishing business together, and we're all striving to please the same people: the readers.

Also, being giggly while opening slush is far better than the alternative, which is to grow bitter and cynical.

Thank you Lori for explaining how it works to us. I am encouraged by the idea that it is all of us working together. I know for certain I would rather someone be in a good mood when approaching my work rather than bitter and cynical.

Dollywagon · May 24, 2007

I just want to make it clear that I'm not speaking as a writer here, just looking at it from a business perspective.

I certainly agree that I want people looking through the slush who aren't cynical and bitter (which did seem to come across from the author of the article by the time she had finished) but neither do I want 'giggly schoolgirls.'

I think we've all seen postings by agents and editors from whom it is clear that they love books. But for the majority, it isn't these people opening the slush. At least from what I can gather?

janetbellinger · May 24, 2007

I think authors such as myself need to remember the key term "unsolicited." An unsolicited submission is the same as an unsolicited call from a telephone or door to door salesperson. The receivers of unsolicited communications are doing us a favour by reading them. They are under no obligation to do so. That's why we owe it to them to at least run the manuscript past spell check.

Jamesaritchie said:
Like ATP, I find the comments more interesting than the article. I've read through a lot of slush, and this article was being kind.

But the comments. ARRRGGGHHHH! It's true, most who want to be writers have no clue whatsoever about the publishing business, about what it takes to write a salable novel, or why things work as they do.

Dollywagon · May 24, 2007

I have no doubt Janet that most stuff that goes through the slush is unpublishable, but that is the authors responsibility. What they submit is up to them.

But from the publishers side, it is, like it or not, a potential source of profit. If publishers are taking the attitude that they are doing you a favour simply by opening the envelope, then why bother? Seriously, why waste the money?

They open them, because they hope to find the next big seller in there. They aren't going to do that unless the person that opens them has the capacity to spot the next big seller. It's absolutely pointless and futile to have any other attitude towards it.

I also have a problem with the interpretation of 'unsolicited.'
It's quite easy to stop unsolicited stuff, just close to subs and shred them if they come in.
It may be unsolicited in the form that it hasn't come via an agent, but at the end of the day publishers say they are 'open' to unsolicited work. Therefore they are inviting it.

Don't get me wrong, I've toured the boards like everybody else and some of the stuff I've read is just awful, absolutely awful. But there is more than the occasional gem in there as well ...

The Shocking Truth about the Slush Pile

AnneMarble

Nefarious Ghost Fan

C.bronco

I have plans...

ATP

What happened to my LIFE?!

Cassiopeia

Otherwise Occupied

wyntermoon

AnneMarble

Nefarious Ghost Fan

Jamesaritchie

Cassiopeia

Otherwise Occupied

Storyteller5

Say something...

scarletpeaches

Jamesaritchie

davids

Birol

Around and About

Dollywagon

Birol

Around and About

Dollywagon

AnneMarble

Nefarious Ghost Fan

Azure Skye

Huh?

veinglory

volitare nequeo

Birol

Around and About

Dollywagon

Cassiopeia

Otherwise Occupied

Dollywagon

janetbellinger

Dollywagon