Quality of slush pile items

Torgo said:

Bad grammar (by in-house standards): 80%
Bad grammar (by everyday standards): 30%
Little or no stories: 20%
Unoriginal stories: 60%
Original but bad stories: 10%
Good, original stories, but badly written: 9%
Inappropriate submissions: 5%
Insane people: 5%
Depressing submissions: 75%
Amusing submissions: 10%
Submissions we might like to take further: 1%
Of that 1%, submissions that are published: 3%

Click to expand...

This is helpful and amusing. I feel a certain affinity for the 5% insane group—considering how I quit a highly paid job to do this.

Anyway, a question as to formatting. One day I decided, for no particularly good reason, to submit paperbacks rather than manuscripts. So far I’ve had one rejection—from an editor at Penguin. He didn’t mention any problem with the format, so I thought I was on to something, rationalizing that some editors would actually prefer a nice little paperback for evaluation, since it’s so portable (and easy to dispose of). But now it occurs to me: I am in that 5% insane group, aren’t I?

Sorry, I didn't introduce myself. I edit children's books for a living, and have done for some years now, but would rather not go into any more detail.

Format is only a problem if you've made the book difficult to read. You should follow the submission guidelines if they are given, but otherwise it's mostly common sense. I suggest single-sided, double-spaced though, it does make things easier. If you submit an actual book, that should be fine. You sound 1000% saner than the average unsolicited to me.

What is "depressing submission" I wonder...

Torgo said:

Submissions we might like to take further: 1%
Of that 1%, submissions that are published: 3%

Click to expand...

It can’t be that bad, can it? I’m guessing, but let’s say this publisher gets 50 manuscripts a day, every day, five days a week, for fifty weeks. Which is 12,500 over the course of a year. One percent of that is 125, and three percent of that one percent is less than 4 books. But, if this is one of the bigger publishers, I’ll bet they’re putting out hundreds of children’s books. Hundreds and hundreds.

Julie Worth said:

It can’t be that bad, can it? I’m guessing, but let’s say this publisher gets 50 manuscripts a day, every day, five days a week, for fifty weeks. Which is 12,500 over the course of a year. One percent of that is 125, and three percent of that one percent is less than 4 books. But, if this is one of the bigger publishers, I’ll bet they’re putting out hundreds of children’s books. Hundreds and hundreds.

Click to expand...

But not "hundreds and hundreds" from the slush pile, and in any event you're probably underestimating the number of children's book manuscripts that come over the transom every day.

The publisher I worked at in the late 1990s was a specialty nonfiction publisher, but I bet the numbers aren't that far off. The annual list was approximately 125 titles at that time. On average, about 25 had not been specifically commissioned by the publisher, and over half of those were academic works that weren't really "over the transom."

When I worked at M&B we only got 10 - 30 manuscripts a day, most days. However, we only published between (as far as I remember) 0 - 12 new authors a year (usually towards the lower amount), as most of our books came from already contracted authors. And this is a publisher that's well known for looking at unagented stuff and searching for new authors.


(Harlequin as a whole, of course, may take on more than 12 new authors a year, but I'm just talking about the UK editorial operation).

Julie Worth said:

It can’t be that bad, can it? I’m guessing, but let’s say this publisher gets 50 manuscripts a day, every day, five days a week, for fifty weeks. Which is 12,500 over the course of a year. One percent of that is 125, and three percent of that one percent is less than 4 books. But, if this is one of the bigger publishers, I’ll bet they’re putting out hundreds of children’s books. Hundreds and hundreds.

Click to expand...

They get more than 50 ms. a day. And don't forget, these are "new authors." You're not counting the known authors and the ones who are already under contracts...

My numbers don't quite stack up, actually - I estimate we publish one thing out of the slushpile every two to three years. Hundreds and hundreds of books, yes, but as Maestrowork says, the vast majority are by established authors.

On the other hand, everything gets read - and if something is worth publishing, it's worth publishing.

Torgo said:

I estimate we publish one thing out of the slushpile every two to three years.

Click to expand...

My God. <opens veins> There is no hope.

Julie Worth said:

My God. <opens veins> There is no hope.

Click to expand...

ACK! Don't feel like that, I'm sure there is hope. <waits for it> Uh, guys? A little hope here?

From what I've read, "slush pile" and "query letter pile " are two different animals. Right? Right?

Slush pile

MadScientistMatt said:

I've sometimes heard various comments about what sort of manuscripts are submitted to publishers and how a lot of them are somewhere between unreadable and unprintable. I thought I would ask here for firsthand descriptions of how common some of the mistakes are. About what fraction of the slush pile tends to be written with poor grammar? Contain little if any story? Be about something your employer is not in the business of publishing? Any other very common problems with manuscripts?

Click to expand...

That is a great question! Many manuscripts we receive barely even make it to the review process because the author does not follow the submission guidelines. This might count for as many as 40%. Not following the guidelines includes incorrect formatting, incorrect length, etc.

Next is the story itself. In most cases, a story that has an exciting plot has decent grammar. We will look at the story line first and if the characters are strong and the plot is exciting, then we look at the grammar. A story that does not move the submissions team in the first few paragraphs will not make the cut. This accounts for about 20% of the stories.

Next is the grammar. At first we thought we could help writers become better by helping them write better. We quickly ran out of time and we no longer approve stories where we would need to be the teacher. These denials are about 20%.

The bulk of the stories are denied because either the author did not follow directions or the story just isn't good enough.

Do you want to get accepted? Move me! Make me laugh, make me cry. Frighten me or keep me on my toes. Make me run into the bedroom to find my lover. If the story doesn't do any of these things, it doesn't have a chance.

We also tell you why the story is not accepted. Authors will not get a "not for our audience" letter unless it is really not for our audience.

Rebecca
Chippewa Publishing
http://www.chippewapublishing.com

ACK! Don't feel like that, I'm sure there is hope. <waits for it> Uh, guys? A little hope here?

Click to expand...

<Opens a vein>

Click to expand...

Not on my watch, you don't!

There IS hope for new authors. There's a lot of invaluable advice buried within these tales of woe. However, too many are focusing on the bad news.

It's akin to looking at a big red traffic sign for the very first time. All we see are those huge letters, "S-T-O-P" and we forget the sign is only there to provide direction. From the moment we first lay eyes on that evil red bastid, it's no longer a traffic sign. It's a "STOP" sign.

Same principle applies to the messages on this thread. Most of the posters in this thread who point out low success rates for first time authors also point out WHY the failure rate is so high. They're not telling anyone to stop or give up. They're providing direction. The route isn't easy, folks. That's true of nearly all worthwhile pursuits.

Take what is useful, lose the rest. Just don't S-T-O-P.

Liam Jackson is absolutely right. Remember, you're competing against a lot of really bad manuscripts. A good manuscript is a lovely thing to find in the slushpile.

Of course there is hope. Of all of the authors on our list, I think only 3 had been previously published (in the book trade and not self published). I never hold against someone the fact that they might not have had a book published before submitting to me, although I DO want authors who have been published somewhere (magazine, newspaper, trade journal, whatever), and/or are experts in their field, and most importantly, have a GREAT manuscript. Two of our most successful books came from the slush pile. So don't give up hope, and don't submit rotten stuff. Two maxims to live by.

Medievalist said:

You've got to read Slushkiller, from Teresa Nielsen Hayden, an editor at Tor. Read all the comments too.

Click to expand...

My first post on this forum attempted to figure out why I haven't recieved my SASE response note from TOR. After seeing a picture of a TOR slush pile , I understand why.

My submission is below that envelope on the right below that other envelope on the left behind that other package....

I know this is a tough industry to break into, and the numbers just prove that.

But you know, I find those numbers very comforting.

I have a good grasp of the English language. I'm intelligent enough to follow the guidelines, I can tell a pretty good story, and I've learned -alot- from the rest of the members here.

So, even with those odds, I am feeling enough confidence to know I can at least get my foot in the door, so to speak.

drgnlvr said:

I know this is a tough industry to break into, and the numbers just prove that.

But you know, I find those numbers very comforting.

I have a good grasp of the English language. I'm intelligent enough to follow the guidelines, I can tell a pretty good story, and I've learned -alot- from the rest of the members here.

So, even with those odds, I am feeling enough confidence to know I can at least get my foot in the door, so to speak.

Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment for different reasons. I've done the math based on reams of anecdotal evidence and come to the conclusion that the numbers don't really matter. How you feel about the numbers is a completely arbitrary decision. The factors involved are so subjective, and include so many divergent sets of eyeballs - from armor clad editors to tender little interns - that solid good attitudes like yours are all that matter. I want a 'tude like that too! That's a wordy way to say "if you don't mind, It don't matter".

The following is how I'm measuring progress. If you've submitted your manuscript, you're far ahead of the game. Most people don't even do that. Submitting is the only way to know for sure and it takes a carefully prepared ego to do so productively. Sure, it's personal, but only to me. To everyone else, it's words on the paper ( to paraphrase Teresa Neilsen Hayden). I'll know it's working when the manuscripts go out and the letters come back.

Ok, I enjoyed your post. Hope to see more.

Everything Teresa Nielsen Hayden says is excellent advice. Nobody needs to worry about the quality of the slush-pile - if you have written a good book, you're even further ahead of the game.

Julie Worth said:

My God. <opens veins> There is no hope.

Click to expand...

I was going to come in here and post my own slushpile stories, presuming it would be a real eye-opener to writers. However, having read the previous stories, I guess my story is more here for reassurance.

I used to publish a poetry magazine (and a magazine for Webmasters, but let's not talk about that). The poetry magazine used to get about 250 submissions (800-900 poems) per issue. In an issue, I'd publish maybe 20 poems from 10-12 poets. That may seem bad, but it's about 4%, which appears to be lots better than what I've read in this thread so far.

I got almost everything I published from the slushpile, and the slushpile was mostly generated from my listing in Poet's Market. I think the breakdown for me was about like this:

10% heinous errors -- sending me something supposedly unpublished but which I had seen in print elsewhere, sending me novels, etc.

50% bad bad bad bad. These poets couldn't spell, couldn't write, were attracted to cliche like magnets to metal, and/or were writing poetry for therapy, not for publication (read: their poems mattered to themselves, but would garner a collective "meh" from the rest of the world).

30% had potential, but poor execution. They had a kernel of truth, a seed of originality that made me pay attention. But then it was all squandered by a lackluster closing, or a long, boring ramble in the middle, or some other foolish thing. Maybe a quarter of these I would have published if they could have edited the thing down to only the best parts. But poets are persnickety, and even hinting that they should revise something "true to their heart" was blasphemous. So I usually just rejected this batch.

6% were competent, but really not for me. Back when I was publishing the magazine, I was a young Christian man with the standard plethora of repressions: no sex, no drugs, no paganism, no "shaking your fist at the sky." At one point, I got an exceptional story about a couple having wild sex in their own vomit. It was hilarious, over-the-top, and disgusting. I still remember it to this day. At the time, it was shocking and scandalous, and I wanted no part of it. I'm still not sure I'd run it, but I do know that it was extremely well-written, and beyond funny. Stuff like this got the "I'm sure this will get published someday, but not by me" response.

4% were good enough to publish, sometimes with trivial edits.

I have 2 side-notes. First, there really are blacklists. Some of the people in that first 10% (the heinous ones) would land on mine. Someone who repeatedly sent stuff completely at odds with my guidelines would eventually get flagged as a waste of time. I kept a database and did bother to check it. So at my most busy point, I had a list of a couple dozen poets who I wouldn't even look at -- their works went right back, unread. I did trade blacklists with 1 editor, once. It didn't expand my own blacklist much, as she and I had blacklisted essentially the same people.

The second thing of note is that sometimes people would remove themselves from the last 4% (the ones I wanted to publish). Usually over edits. I would reply to the submission with a comment such as, "I'll happily publish 'great poem number 4' if you will add a comma after line 5." And they would write back full of vitriol, "how dare you even speak such a thing!?!" So, uh, OK, not going to publish that, then.

Does this make editors seem lame and terrible? I don't mean it to. I really just wanted to publish good poetry, and everything I did was in pursuit of that. I was very willing to work with writers who seemed competent and courteous. In fact, I treasured them, as they were more rare than I expected.

-Tony

I really like 'insane submissions,'

I think that's the one to aim for.

This is a really informative thread. Could it be made a sticky?

I read slush for my old agent a couple years back, filling in until she could get someone hired and trained. In the 9 months I spent as her 'slush monkey', I found exactly one manuscript out of a good 1000 queries and partials that I felt comfortable passing along to her. It was extremely depressing.

The bulk of the submissions fell into two groups: those who could write but couldn't tell a story, and those who could tell a story but couldn't write (at least not in such a way as to be easily fixed without a total page-one rewrite). Then, there were the wholly inappropriate queries: some were full of typos and basic grammar errors, others tried to play coy with what the book was about; a few were bald-faced efforts to get me to visit their websites, as they were too busy to bother with this query letter business. One rambled on for 6 pages. Another thought it would be beneficial to include nude photos of herself (along with a plea to write her book for her and we'd split the profits). The absolute worst came from a lawyer (no offense to lawyers out there) who thought finding an agent was like hiring a paralegal -- he wanted the agent's phone number so he could call and explain to her how she should market his brilliant, Grisham-esque thriller . . . and to discuss her salary requirements.

I discovered Sturgeon's Law applied to slush piles more than anything: 99% of everything is sh*t. But, if you can write AND tell a good story, can follow basic directions, and know how to do simple research, then you're not competing against the 99% . . . your competition is the 1%, and your odds just increased

Scott

Slush

The one thing I've found that does not apply to slush is the 1% rule. You read everywhere than about 1% of novels are publishable. From my experience, this is nowhere close to the truth.

This may or may not be a good rule overall, it's impossible to say, but at the publishers I've read slush for, the number of publishable novels that come through slush is 1 in 2,200.

It does, of course, depend on genre. The larger the genre, the more novels it must buy, good, bad, or indifferent. But overall, it's 1 in 2,200 through the slush.

I don't think anyone who hasn't read slush can begin to know how bad most of it really is. Bad grammar is prevalent, but bad grammar is usually just symptomatic of bad everything. Bad story, bad characterization, bad pace, bad flow, unconcealed polemics, thinly disguised memoirs, sentences, paragraphs, and sometimes whole chapters that make no sense at all, etc. Most of the novels in the average slush pile would still be horrible, even if the grammar and punctuation met every rule known to Strunk & White, Fowler, or any other grammarian you can name. Perfect grammar does nothing to help bad novels.

It's sad. Most, probably all, of these writers believe they written a good, publishable novel. Their friends have usually told them they have. Their critique groups have usually told them all is well. Their beta readers have said they really like the novel. Often, hired editors have given the green light, and the cover letters say so. So they believe. They wait with great anticipation, with fear, with high hopes, with fantasies of success playing out in their heads.

And you can't even read the thing. And when you can't read it, you have to send a rejection slip that dashes hopes and dreams and fantasies. Then you have to go read a bunch more slush that's just like what you rejected.

I heard a story about a guy who sent his high fantasy tolkein rip-off in an actual hand-carved trunk with costume jewels and gold coins inside and on paper with rainbows on it and sparklies.

The editor had to pass that one around.

Not because it was a good query, but because it was legendarily bad. It was so bad, and the presentation so elaborate, that it entered a new dimension of slush.

Is it true? Is it only a myth? This I do not know. Alas, I fear that it is probably true.