Publisher Rejections of Eventual Best Sellers

[Another]

While probably old news to old hands of Water Cooler, it is still worth noting the periodic piece on publisher rejections of manuscripts eventually becoming best sellers. The latest is "No Thanks, Mr. Nabokov," by David Oshinksy, NY Times Book Review, September 9, 2007. Here, I believe, is the correct link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/bo...shinsky-t.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html)

The article is based in large part on research into Knopf Inc. archives of rejection files running from the 1940s through 1970s. The rejected include Luis Borges, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Sylvia Plath, Jack Kerouac, Jean-Paul Sartre, Mordecai Richler, Vladimir Nabokov, James Baldwin and others. The well known case of Anne Frank is also featured, rejected no less than 15 times before publication by Doubleday in 1952. A mere 30 million copies are now in print.

Perhaps more of note than the publisher blunders is documentation of the rejections themselves. They are not only way off the mark (I suppose one could say by definition) but highly dismissive. For instance "The Good Earth" is rejected because Americans "were not interested in anything on China;" Anne Frank because it is "a dreary record of typical family bickering, petty annoyances and adolescent emotions;" Animal Farm because "it is impossible to sell animal stories in the USA." Correct, an animal story! For extra spice, an agent rejection is included. Tony Hillerman is told "get rid of all that Indian stuff." Offhanded and scathing slams rather than measured reviews or a simple "no" appear to be the norm.

Of course, it is well to remember the rejection database covers a period ending in the 70's. Oshinsky makes a good final point: probably the days of such scripted rejection letters - off the mark or not - are over. Today, the more common rejection seems to be the bland form letter.

After reading the article, it's fun to ponder which rejection style one prefers: polite but uninformative or full on fire. I'd prefer the fire, no matter how wrong headed it seemed. At least then I'd know the reasoning behind a rejection. Of course there is a third alternative: a polite, thoughtful rejection. Apparently Alfred Knopf wasn't too good at those. Here's one of his: "This time there's no point in trying to be kind ... Your manuscript is utterly hopeless ... I never thought the subject worth a damn … Lay off, Mac Duff." Don’t you love it?

[blacbird]

The major thing this article proves is that you can refresh and recycle a tired old article endlessly. I don't know how many times I've seen this story, in various permutations, over the years.

caw

[Soccer Mom]

I read that article and actually enjoyed it. Everyone gets rejected at some point. It was fun to hear about old rejection letters from literary luminaries.

[stormie]

I can only hope I'll be mentioned someday in such an article. Then they can recycle it as many times as they please.

[scarletpeaches]

I find this sort of article encouraging.

[Manat]

Well I've never read it before. Thanks for sharing.

[RumpleTumbler]

“The Diary of a Young Girl,” by Anne Frank, would be rejected by 15 others before Doubleday published it in 1952. More than 30 million copies are currently in print, making it one of the best-selling books in history.

I'm really drawn to all the Anne Frank stuff. I don't know why. I've never owned a copy of the book though. I guess I should get one. I guess I like sad stuff.

[Rolling Thunder]

What I find interesting, and disturbing, about rejections (when dealing with agents) is how so many have assistants to cull the herd. I'm talking about young, fresh-out-of-college, assistants who don't have the experience to notice work that might be fresh and new. Especially if they are relying on their education, which is usually built on a platform of 'classic' literature that couldn't get out of the slush-pile in this age.

[donroc]

There can be a much longer list. I recall reading years ago Leon Uris' BATTLE CRY was rejected 38 times -- if wrong, please correct. Once my historical comes out next year, I may total all the AGENT rejections I received, which mostly include, "no one is interested in historicals set in your period and place." "Well written but in this competitive market ...", and more than a few who confessed they did not know what to do with it.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[bethany]

It's kind of weird about Anne Frank. That book was in my literature book for years, but I taught around it. We read excerpts, survival stories, articles, short stories, talked about how Anne Frank put a face on the victims because we simply can't imagine the lives that were lost in the holocaust, but we do know about her hopes and dreams. I never made my class read the entire book, even in play form, because really there isn't much action, and yeah, there is sort of the family bickering/teenage emotions part. You can't blame her, can you imagine being cooped up with your family at that age for that long? But even though I think the book is very meaninful and I'm so glad it was published, I can also sort of see that editor's point.

[Jamesaritchie]

These articles are always nonsense, and have exactly zero meaning. They don't even always mean that a bestselling novel was rejected. About as often as not, and maybe more often than not, the novel that gets rejected has been rewritten considerably by the time someone buys it. This happened with J. K. Rowling, for instance.

They don't even mean such a rejection was the wrong move, or that the publisher blundered, when it did happen.

This article doesn't even mean that Oshinsky has the first clue about how rejections are handled now. In fact, it proves he doesn't.

The only thing this article means is that someone who knows nothing can write an article, and the NYT will, as usual, publish it, if it says what they want it to.

And the one highly obvious fact such articles always overlook is that all the novels they talk about did get published, and did sell huge numbers of copies.

[Bo Sullivan]

I remember reading Anne Frank many years ago; I couldn't stop crying at her fate and that of her family.

[Plot Device]

I tried and failed just now to find an online copy of a very famous rejection from the anals of film history. So I'll just give it to you here from my recollection of it from film class four years ago.

It's the 2-page coverage sheet from around the year 1991 for a script called The Usual Suspects which was written by an unknown writer and shopped around Hollywood incessantly before finally getting optioned and produced into the landmark 1995 film we all know of today. The resulting film then went on to win the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, and set Kevin Spacey firmly on the A-list. The film also left such a mark on American society that the phrase Kaiser Soshe (or Keyser Soze) is now part of American street slang.


The coverage reader said the script was "slick" and "ingenious," with "an admittedly startling and clever ending," but utterly unrepentent. And he added: "Do we really need yet another film about man's inhumanity to man?" And concluded his covage sheet by saying: "I must insist that we pass on this script, I feel this studio should try and put as much distance as possible between itself and this material."

[Birol]

The article is particularly misleading about Nabokov's Lolita. At the time he wrote that manuscript, he was already a well-known author. Also, Nabokov knew he would have a difficult time publishing the manuscript, as indicated by the query letter he sent out to editors. I don't have it in front of me to quote exactly, but it said something along the lines of 'would you be interested in publishing this delightful little bombshell I have written?'