Feedback from publishers when they reject you

I would love it if publishers would tell me why they rejected my manuscript.

Publisher Responses

Hi Lauri,

I would much, much rather receive an honest critique from a publisher than a straight no. A critique I can use to make the piece, and my writing in general, better; a straight no I can only put in the file and wonder what went wrong.
For me, it would be the wondering that would be so frustrating.

Thanks for asking,
Chacounne

The more feedback the better. A straight "no" doesn't give me anything to go on. Is that "No, you should stick to serving burgers, not writing," or "No, but if you tweak this and that, we'd like a second look?" I can work with both of those. A straight "no" doesn't give me anything to go on.

That said, I sure as heck understand that only manuscripts which actually have some redeeming quality will warrant that amount of personal effort by an editor.

I wonder if I should slip a postage paid card in with each submission:

Do you want this? Please check one
< > Rewrite it and send it back!
< > Not this one, but send us your next
< > No, but someone else might
< > No
< > From now on we will return your mail unread

Oy!

Remember, it's not you the writer that's been rejected, it's just that piece of writing.

Even though it may feel personal, don't think of it that way.

Right. Still it's good to know why the ms. is rejected -- a brief but not generic (not for us) explanation would be good: the pace is too slow, the beginning too violent, the subject matter doesn't fit our current line, etc. But, yeah, don't take it personally. It's hard to do, since we do take our work personally, but it's really about the work -- and a lot of times it's about finding the best match. The same project could be accepted by another publisher -- there might not be anything wrong with it.

Lauri, it would be so brave of you to give feedback on rejections. I think most writers would love it. I used to offer reasons on most rejections for publications I edited, but stopped when I got too many arguments back-- like, I'd write, "This article is inaccurate in places X, Y, and Z and could use some fact-checking," and the writer would write back, "That's a stupid reason to reject my work! Everything has some errors!" or the like. You do open yourself up to some weenies, but for the most part, I think writers will appreciate the heck out of you.

I know that I wound up writing for several mags just because the editor took the time to tell me where I went wrong and what I could do to improve my chances of working with them. Bill Bush at Physical magazine was the best that way... sadly, he's no longer there, but I'll never forget him! Elaine Greene at House Beautiful is another one who goes above and beyond in giving helpful feedback.

See, you prove that editors do care. Rejection is such an ugly word. I didn't work for a big house, but a small press and our editor just agonized over rejection letters. She wanted to find perfect way to convey, without evoking false hope or crushing the writer, exactly why it wasn't right for us and why it could be right for another publisher. Or, what needs to be fixed before submitting elsewhere. She even went as far as finding, then listing, other houses that might be interested! But you know, some people were still angry. I guess that's just the way they'll always be.

don't want to duplicate anything above so would just like to add that it would be extremely helpful to get a feedback on the 'market' situation - was my book aimed at the right kind of market, is there such a market etc. I feel that would help me most.

it would also confirm that I, the writer, am a partner in this business of writing and publishing. after all, without me, there would be no books!

Feedback made me think more about what would sell

therefore when I began another novel I was able to use my talents as a writer and lean towards various markets, etc., and not just be stuck in a Mississippi fish bowl. And I love my Mississippi and fish very much!

I believe a good writer is a good writer no matter what he writes. When I was given feedback it made me "think" and I did not "think" when I wrote my first novel rather I let the creative juices flow. Four of the chapters have been published as short stories from that novel, which by the way, is still not finished yet. When editors wrote or called me and said this piece sounds like a novel (short story) have you thought of developing it? That is how I began to compose a novel.

THEN the second novel came before the first was completed. How THAT happened I have no idea but it did. Both are very different from the other, though.
I have always had agents, editors, etc., interested in me and "my voices" but only recently have I found someone who just might be a perfect fit for me.
So, I wrote all this to say that when I was given feedback I grew and became a better writer because of it.
Like "The New Yorker," has always written me either on paper or electronically nowadays good things about my short stories I submitted and in my mind I used TNY as a gage of if the work was publishable. Then the next place I submitted the story to took it.
Does that mean anything?
I don't know but it works for me!

I had to get to the place in my writing life that I was willing to listen to what agents and editors said to me as well. And now I am happy and a better writer because I listen with every fiber in my being.

Nomad said:

Hi all,
So here's a question from someone who is usually doing the rejecting (although believe me, I have a shelf full of rejections, many of them crookedly xeroxed and looking like a monkey might have sent them to me):
what is the best kind of rejection? Would you rather have feedback or just a "no" so you can move on to the next submission? Would you rather have an honest critique of your work(diplomatically phrased) and why it isn't working, or would you rather not get the "rework this, rework that" so you can keep submitting elsewhere quickly?

I get manuscripts in every day that are well written but really not going to be marketable for most publishers--the niche they are writing for is too small, or the market they are trying to reach is too broad for the subject, or the subject itself is just too obscure for a traditional publisher to want to try to market, etc. etc. So give me some feedback on this. I think it would be useful to hear what people have to say on this.

Click to expand...

Nomad,

If it was me, I'd ask the publisher to tell me why the manuscript was rejected (In a diplomatic way, of course, like you mentioned) so that I would know exactly what is wrong with my work, and what is good. I want my work as close to perfect as possible, and I can only find out whether it is or not through the honest critiquing of the people who read it.

There was a time I would have shunned this kind of critquing, and that was a dark time in my writing aspirations.

There's an upside and a downside to having the editor "coach" you. For the most part, the assumption is this:

1) The editor\agent is always right.
2) The editor\agent always knows the best direction to take your story to publish it.
3) All editors have the same taste, so if editor 1-10 can't see your vision, editors 11-20 won't. So you might as well take editor one's advice.

This may be the rule, but there are exceptions. Lots of published books were rejected by "Many" editors who couldn't see the writer's vision. But sometimes, your book just hasn't found the right person yet.

Perhaps in most cases, works submitted need an overhaul, or in fact will never be bought. But when you are talking about an artistic venture, sometimes your work is actually on the right track, and you might actually diminish something that would not only eventually get published, but which might also benefit from simple polishing instead of a wholesale change.

I've seen this happen in music, which I am more familiar with. There's a great band, which should be nationally prominent. If you saw them live, you'd think they were one of the greats. Yet, you get producers who monkey with what "They" like, and think you should sound like. The end product was that they invested all of this time talent and money into a record that didn't sound like them. In fact, it stunk. They ended up missing their big chance, because like publishing, its better to have never published, than to have published and failed, because the next record company isn't going to take a chance on you.

However, I do realize that in general, most authors need major edits, and that editors mostly do know what's best. But what I think will happen if you get comments on your work by a pro, you would automatically assume their formulae is the one that will lead to success, and most new writers would be willing to do major surgery, and my caution is that sometimes, no answer might be a better answer.

I always like it when I get rejection letters that go into detail, but I don't think it's all that realistic to expect them. What irritates me is when they don't even have form rejection letters. They just write 'No' or 'No thanks' on the first page of my submission and stuff it into my SASE.

I'm not a big fan of form rejections that use my SASE as a direct mail advertising opportunity either. It's true I usually only submit to markets I regularly read, but it's fairly insulting to get a letter that basically says "We're rejecting your work, but please buy a copy of the anthology filled with stories that are better than yours." I'd probably be interested in purchasing it if they accepted me or not, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Hi Nomad--very good question.

Any editor that takes the time out to write personal comments, offer encouragement, or point you to another market has found something in your work that shows promise. Sometimes the longer the letter, the "nearer the miss."
I'll take 10-12 (written) rejections, read them over carefully and look for a trend. If I see that 7 out of 10 are telling me the same thing, it's time for me to fix or overhaul that problem. They're professionals--I trust (implicitly) what they are telling me--they do this for a living and I respect their position, no question about it. After accumulating 350 rejection slips and letters (years ago) I have a good sense of who might have passed on my manuscript without taking the time to read, and they are very few. I actually honed my skills to write publishable short stories because editors actually tutored me, and some editor/publishers felt sorry for me (no kidding) after I'd try to beat their doors down with 20 or 30 submissions.
I've never had to shelve a project, book or story because it was ultimately hopeless. I just didn't have time to spend on the 12 novels I wrote, which I have considered practice, and never sent them in anyway. (Most of them written in long-hand).
I've been lucky, until recently. I'm half way through a non-fiction book that describes a facinating discovery. It's catching four and five stars from agents and publishers alike, but I'm discovering a disconcerting trend--no platform.
The only degree in paleontology I have is 98.6, the facination and desire. If just one of them would tell me that I need a scientist/paleontologist as an edtior, co-author, or forward contributor I could understand it. I'm just about ready to shelve this or dump it altogether. And you know what? The science is right, just missing the credentials to back it up.
The point is, good editors and agents can flag this type of problem, and If I'd have known, or opened my eyes, this would have never happened. So editors and agents can be time-savers aswell as helpful. They don't mean to be cruel, better to nip it in the bud and be honest, cause' this folks, is a business.

Tri

Thanks for the logic in your reply. You did exactly the right thing in soliciting an expert for that parenting book, and it is because you care about your reading public, and with a large national market, your attention to the welfare of your readership brings great responsibility. I also have experts waiting in the wings in case I need them and have so stated in my proposal. I'm not afraid to share credit if that's what it takes. A worst case scenario would be that I take secondary credit as the "ghost" and settle for that. After that publication hump, I might then have at least credit as a "science writer" and there is such a thing. Next books on the subject would be much easier to place, for sure.
I'm in the infant stages of submitting this project--I need to let it runs it course a bit more. Our resident agent here, Andy Zack, was actually the first one to say, "Wow, great story and subject, but oops--got just a little prob with the credentials, here."

Tri

Nomad said:

Hi all,
So here's a question from someone who is usually doing the rejecting (although believe me, I have a shelf full of rejections, many of them crookedly xeroxed and looking like a monkey might have sent them to me):
what is the best kind of rejection? Would you rather have feedback or just a "no" so you can move on to the next submission? Would you rather have an honest critique of your work(diplomatically phrased) and why it isn't working, or would you rather not get the "rework this, rework that" so you can keep submitting elsewhere quickly?

I get manuscripts in every day that are well written but really not going to be marketable for most publishers--the niche they are writing for is too small, or the market they are trying to reach is too broad for the subject, or the subject itself is just too obscure for a traditional publisher to want to try to market, etc. etc. So give me some feedback on this. I think it would be useful to hear what people have to say on this.

Click to expand...

Nomad,
I think it's wonderful that you want feedback. I know editors are very busy, but rather than a resounding "no" I would love to receive input from editors. A few sentences of honest critique and why the piece didn't fit the editor's needs would be a plus when deciding whether to rewrite or trash an article.

to you for taking time to ask.

Joanne

I've been in the position of rejecting manuscripts myself, and always liked to give criticism when possible, though a lot of my colleagues would have been happy to send everything back with a form rejection (I agree there's no point wasting time on terrible writers, but it's nice to give the ones with promise something). I suppose because I wanted to write myself I empathised more with the people submitting their work.

The problem with personal replies, of course, is that it takes up a lot of time. However, many reasons for rejection do crop up again and again (work competent but no spark, too many coincidences, cliched writing, what I call 'misunderstanding/have a good conversation' plots, needs to learn how to write, etc). I used to have several form-ish letters, that would cover why that specific thing didn't work/meant their manuscript wasn't saleable, and there was a space for me to add more personal/specific comments if I wanted to.

If an editor feels like commenting on a specific deficiency, she should be willing to read the submission again if the author makes the changes.

An editor at one of Scholastic's imprints pointed out what turned them off in the first three chapters of a middle reader novel, so I made the change and asked if she'd take another look.

She said, no, they weren't interested then, and they're not interested now.

Show me the rejection!

Hi, Lauri:

Give me a detailed, honest rejection any day over a vaguely worded form letter. It's impossible for me to improve the salability of my manuscript if I don't know why it's being rejected. If I want meaningless, encouraging words, I can turn to my family. ((grin)) Getting true feedback from an editor, even if it's vastly negative, is incredibly helpful. First, it helps me take a cold, hard look at my story. Second, it thickens my skin. ;-)

Jackie

I had an agent pass on a novel, saying that major publishers wouldn’t be interested in the subject matter. Maybe one of those places that sell books by mail, she suggested. After a couple of emails back and forth, she got mad and said of course publishers would be interested in the subject, the real reason was that my submission didn’t work as fiction. Well, I said, thanks! And really, I could work on the language, the characterization and so forth, but I couldn’t do much about the subject.



When an agent or editor says anything about my submission—anything definite and fixable—it’s like getting glittering diamonds and rubies in the mail.

I reject a lot of manuscripts. The problem for me is this: 99% of the things I read just aren't ever going to work, at all. A lot of them are really, really terrible. Because I work for a children's book publisher, the number of really terrible manuscripts is dramatically inflated; you could write a lot of bestselling picture books on the back of a cigarette packet, and it seems like everybody in the world has had a go. There's really nothing to say about these besides 'no thanks'. If you were honest about what you think, you could really offend people.

The rare ones that aren't terrible, I tend to write a letter to or at the least a paragraph or so on the reject slip. But writing letters can take a long time, so I don't want to be getting into reasons why the book wouldn't ever work, or try to fob people off with fakey reasons; nobody gets anything out of those correspondences (if the other posts are anything to go by, fobbing people off just leads to more work for the editor.)

I agree entirely that if you get feedback from an editor, you are entitled to have your work considered again, either a revision or a new submission. It's not their job to increase the quality or saleability of your work - unless they're hoping that they might want to buy it eventually. So, if you hear back, it's usually a 'near miss' as suggested above, and an encouraging sign.

Pearls of Wisdom, too, please

Julie Worth said:

When an agent or editor says anything about my submission—anything definite and fixable—it’s like getting glittering diamonds and rubies in the mail.

Click to expand...

Send me comments, please, I beg of you!!!

I'd just like to reiterate that ANYTHING specific you can say is greatly appreciated.

I think many of us appreciate comments on what constitutes marketable fiction, i.e.: I enjoyed your novel, but feel its targeted market of psychotic midget nudists in Antartica is too small. . . please consider targeting P.M.N.'s in Oklahoma next time.

Seriously, many writers are more flexible than editors suspect.

And, no, I don't think you "owe" us another reading after the changes are made. I think we should accept your comments for the free advice it truly is. If I were you, I would discard any arguments or rebuttals to your critique sent by writers. We can be a testy lot who tend to (try to) solve problems in print.

There seems to be a diverse group addressing this topic -- short-story writers, nonfiction writers, novelists, editors (although perhaps no agents?), so I might as well add my own perspective.

I have so far submitted the query for my fantasy novel to 53 separate agencies. The result has been 53 separate form rejection letters and one (1) request for partial.

"You must have a lousy query letter!" is the obvious knee-jerk response. Well, maybe. But my query has been given a seal of approval by a published writer, and other test readers have found no obvious flaws with it. Grammar and spelling are all correct, formatting is correct. I've been streadily refining and improving the query letter over time. I don't know if it's relevant, but I'll add that these are snail-mail queries, not email. I follow all agency guidelines to the letter. I don't submit to agencies that have no interest in my genre. I always include a SSAE (which, except for the five agencies that haven't replied at all, I always get back).

And still, after 53 tries, nothing but form rejection slips that tell me nothing more useful than "dear author." Note again that I'm simply talking about the query letter here, not the manuscript itself, which hasn't even been read yet.

I haven't the faintest idea why I'm getting rejections. It can't be the writing, since only one of the agencies has even read a partial of the manuscript. Is the query letter still lacking in some way? Do agents believe that there's no market for the book? Do they think this book won't sell coming from a new author? Do they not like the concept of the book itself?

I don't know. I have no idea. Not one of the 53 agencies has scrawled "lousy query letter" or "I don't like the premise" or anything at all on any of the 53 form rejections. I'm boxing in the dark. I don't know what to improve because I don't know what's wrong. And it's driving me crazy.

Yes, I'm sure that editors and agents get nasty mail from crackpots who burst into flame at the slightest whiff of criticism. I'm not one of them. Yes, I know there are writers who unreasonably expect a detailed critique with each rejection. I'm not one of them. Yes, I know that some writers think that a rejection is a personal slur, rather than a business decision. I'm not one of them.

What I am is a conscientious, hard-working, careful, so-far-unpublished new writer who does his damndest to do things in the industry-standard professional manner. I put the maximum effort into complying with everyone's guidelines. And all I get is form rejections from my queries, and I don't know why.

I don't know how many others out there are in my shoes. Maybe I'm a lone canary in an empty field of squawking crows, and therefore statistically insignificant to the agenting/publishing industry. But I can tell you this: If I don't know what's wrong, I can't fix it.

I know well that there are plenty of unstable prima donnas out there who make you agents and editors think that it's not worth your while to scribble "no market for this" or "this query letter will never get you anywhere" at the bottom of a form rejection. Believe it or not, I understand how they make you feel, and how they'd make you want to wash your hands of any kind of specific feedback with a rejection. But please bear in mind -- as, I'm encouraged to see, a few of you actually do -- that expecting us legitimate, thoughtful adults to work completely in the dark, without the faintest idea of what's going wrong, brings just as much aggravation to us. Perhaps more, since being faced with a blank and silent wall makes it impossible to make any professional progress at all.

And again, for those skimmers who haven't read carefully through this impassioned rant, I'm talking about query letters here, not manuscripts.

Is this a whine? Maybe. Dancing in an empty room for 53 cycles of xeroxed form rejections is enough to drive anyone to whine -- or something even stronger. Thanks for sticking with me this long.