Rejections

Micgee said:

Dear Publisher,

I'm kind of new to the torture of waiting for 'the reply' and the heartbreak of seeing: Thanks, but no thanks! and I believe that I will suffer many more for the art I love.

From the amount of research I'd done on publishers, the majority of you WANT a fresh voice. I've even read comments on how every manuscript received, is assessed by a competent person and notes made on why the manuscript is not a right fit for you. And in all the R responses I've received thus far, I'm supplied with a whole paragraph on how it's a great story, BUT...

You mention the mountain of submissions you receive on a daily basis, and apologise that you're not able to give a more detailed response. I find it kind of heartbreaking that you're asking for a unique voice, when the best you can offer in return is just another generic publisher's rejection.

You really don't have to sugar-coat it and give me a whole hogwash paragraph. If I know what I'm doing by choosing you to send my manuscript to, I already KNOW that you receive thousands of submissions and can't accept them all.

I guess I'm just hoping for more guidance and empathy for all writers out there, because it's damned hard for us too.

So, IF you are making notes, how long could it possibly take to type: Sorry, a crap idea - or - Sorry, 1st grade grammar.

I guarantee you that just those 4 words would mean a lot more to me and it's certainly faster to type, than to even cut-and-paste that horrid 'no thanks' paragraph!

Kind regards,
A Paragraph Collector

Click to expand...

Dear Collector,

I feel I should point out that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the transaction. A query is a business letter. You have a book to sell and I may or may not want to buy it. Replace "book" with "car" and see how that works.

Regards,

Pub.


ETA: I'm actually not a publisher, and I do understand your frustration. Best to get over it quickly though, because nothing's going to change.

OP, your comment seems based on the idea that publishers (and agents) make notes on all the submissions they receive but then don't pass those notes on to the authors concerned when they reject them. This isn't the case. They filter through the submissions they receive and reject everything which isn't appropriate without making any notes at all: so if they publish novels for adults, for example, they'll automatically reject everything which falls into any other genres without even reading it.

The works they do consider further won't necessarily have notes made about them either. They are read, and that's that. If notes are made then they're not usually going to be useful to writers. For example: "Senior Agent, I think you might like this as it's in a genre you enjoy and I remember you saying Editor X was looking for something like this. Take a look!"

On top of that, there are good reasons why agents and editors no longer send comments with most rejections.

The most obvious one is time. Agents and editors are busy people, and their time is short. Reading submissions is often done in their own time, after work and at weekends. And we often get 100 or more submissions each week. It takes, perhaps, between one and five minutes to read each query, more time to read a few pages. Multiply that time by the number of submissions received, and you'll see that it's a huge time-sink. Add to that a further five or ten minutes to write a few comments, and that's not just the weekend gone, it's all your evenings too. If we had fewer submissions to deal with each week, we might be able to give comments to more writers. Most submissions we receive are not ready for publication, are badly written, or are sent to entirely the wrong places, which is intensely frustrating: if writers spent more time polishing their work before sending it off, or researching editors and agents, and how to submit, everyone would find the whole process easier.

There is another reason for not sending comments with rejections: it often triggers responses from the writers concerned and while many writers are kind and thoughtful at this point, we don't have the time to engage in conversations, much as we'd like to. What's more worrying is that we often get rude, insulting and abusive replies to those comments, and sometimes threats and assaults. Yes, I know this sounds like I'm overstating it but something happens every other week or so which causes concern: either we get a threatening letter, or someone turns up at the offices and demands to speak to the rejecting agent and explain to them why they were wrong to reject their work, or (more worryingly) someone turns up at the offices and follows us when we leave. This is a real thing, it's horrible, and it's dangerous. And there's very little we can do to stop it--except for not sending out those comments at all.

(For example: a couple of weeks ago a rejected author turned up at an agency I know, and demanded to see the person who had rejected his work. It had been rejected by an intern, because it just wasn't good enough. The receptionist told him that wouldn't be possible: he threatened her. She called security, who removed him from the building. He waited outside the building for a few hours, then started kicking the cars on the street outside, broke a few windows. The police were called, and he was removed from the street. A few days later when people started leaving to go home for the evening, there he was again, demanding to know who the agents were, and who had rejected his work. He grabbed a woman by her arms, and interrogated her: she told him she worked at a different business in the building but he didn't believe her, and ended up shouting and threatening her before her colleagues prevented him from doing further harm. He was arrested and charged with assault, and told not to go near the building again. But he was back there at the end of last week, and we know he will return.)

Yes, it's sad for the genuinely good, kind and thoughtful writers. But it's safer for us not to respond.

PS: The late and much missed Carole Blake shared a response from a rejected writer on this blog post (scroll down to the end). It was one of the milder ones she received: she had several of these each week.

Micgee said:

Thank you for the feedback.
My point of view is more geared towards the instances where your manuscript has actually been reviewed for further consideration. (Unless the feedback of 'your story was good' also forms part of the generic response and wasn't actually reviewed at all. (?)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "reviewed" here.

Very few submissions have notes written about them, but all submissions are read when they're sent to reputable agents or publishers (so long as they are actively taking queries at that time). They're not all read all the way through: as soon as the person reading them knows they can't take the submission any further, they usually stop reading, send a rejection, and move to the next.

The comments you've reported here do sound like form rejections to me, rather than personalised ones, but I can't tell without having read them word-for-word.

Perhaps I'm ignorant, but wouldn't you receive LESS submissions

Click to expand...

*FEWER* submissions

if you actually gave some kind of feedback? If the syntax or storyline is horrid, I can work on that - but if my style of storytelling is not for you, I can't change that and I won't bother with ever submitting to you again (but that's just me). Hence, you've saved quite a bit of time for yourself over the next, say 30-40 years in not receiving my work.

Click to expand...

Writers improve and change. An agent might hate one book by a particular writer, but might really like the next, so providing feedback as you've suggested isn't going to help. And writers sending repeat submissions aren't really a problem. The main bulk of submissions are books which aren't suitable for the publisher, or books which aren't anywhere near ready for publication. The best way for submissions numbers to be reduced is for writers to revise their own work and research more effectively. Agents and publishers do all they can to make this happen: they provide submissions guidelines, they give up their free time to speak at conferences, to be interviewed and so on. But they can't make writers pay attention and help themselves.

As per your example, the rejected author pitched up and that was without feedback - so it seems that it could happen irrespective?

Click to expand...

It can and it does. But the more you engage with people who think it's ok to do this, the worse they become. Engaging in correspondence makes the problem bigger, not smaller. And why should we spend our time explaining why books aren't for us, when if the authors concerned had just read our submission guidelines they'd know that? We owe our time and efforts to the writers we've contracted, in order to make their books as good as we possibly can: if we spend our time commenting on books we're not going to work on, then the writers we are working with are going to suffer. How is that good?

That said, I do better understand your point of view. I am sorry that your work could turn into something so dangerous (people following and threatening). We should be passionate about our work, yes - but never to such a psychotic extent!

Click to expand...

Oh, you have no idea how bad it can get. But thank you.

Old Hack said:

Oh, you have no idea how bad it can get.

Click to expand...

I've heard of authors who spat on reviewers, mailed dog feces to them and physically assaulted them. So although I really dislike the "no reply means no" policy when it's applied to requested manuscripts (which has happened to me more often than I care to remember), some writers really do behave badly enough to make people wary of offering feedback.

Micgee said:

Dear Publisher,

I'm kind of new to the torture of waiting for 'the reply' and the heartbreak of seeing: Thanks, but no thanks! and I believe that I will suffer many more for the art I love.

We all sympathize and suffer along with you. Waiting is THE WORST.

From the amount of research I'd done on publishers, the majority of you WANT a fresh voice. True, but they also have certain things they look for in their stories that go along with the brand of their house, or maybe their line if they're a big enough house to have several. A fresh voice can mean someone telling a familiar story in a new and unique way. "Fresh" doesn't mean what many people seem to think it does, which is "OH WOW, THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE NEVER, EVER, EVER SEEN BEFORE!!!" I've even read comments on how every manuscript received, is assessed by a competent person Yes - they're usually interns or slush readers and notes made on why the manuscript is not a right fit for you Not likely. If a reader thinks an agent might like a manuscript, they *might* put a note in saying that they've just found that anachronistic manic space-pixie retelling of Camelot said agent wanted. If they don't think an agent wants it, then it's just a rejection. Personalized rejections can and do happen, but they're rare.. And in all the R responses I've received thus far, I'm supplied with a whole paragraph on how it's a great story, BUT...

Unless they've included details like character names and traits or specific plot points, this is likely a form rejection. Don't read too much into it. They're trying to be polite and maintain their ability to give even the minimal amount of response.

You mention the mountain of submissions you receive on a daily basis, and apologise that you're not able to give a more detailed response. I find it kind of heartbreaking that you're asking for a unique voice, when the best you can offer in return is just another generic publisher's rejection.

Publishers, as entities, aren't people. They're corporations. They ask for what's good for their business and return that courtesy with a business letter.

You really don't have to sugar-coat it and give me a whole hogwash paragraph. If I know what I'm doing by choosing you to send my manuscript to, I already KNOW that you receive thousands of submissions and can't accept them all.

Which would imply that you think they have time to read through thousands of MS at approx 300 pages apiece, then give detailed feeback, even a paragraph's worth, for each one. You're asking them to basically write a novel's worth of feedback on a regular basis when you add all of those paragraphs up.

I guess I'm just hoping for more guidance and empathy for all writers out there, because it's damned hard for us too.

That's not an agent, or publisher's job. Publishers buy books from people they have to assume have already gotten their work into saleable form. If it doesn't fit their list, then it's a no, and they assume you'll keep going to someone else. Even if they told you why they don't have space for your book, it wouldn't help you with another publisher. Their reasons could be anything from having already purchased three were-cat ballerina epics to the acquiring editor's knee-jerk to anything sci-fi, or someone not liking that the main character is named Troy while being set in Athens, Gerogia.

So, IF you are making notes, how long could it possibly take to type: Sorry, a crap idea - or - Sorry, 1st grade grammar.

Once, not long. Thousands of times? Days.

And if the problem is 1st grade grammar, you shouldn't be submitting.

I guarantee you that just those 4 words would mean a lot more to me and it's certainly faster to type, than to even cut-and-paste that horrid 'no thanks' paragraph!

No it's not, as they're likely not typing anything. Rejections are reallocated to a file that's set to dispense a form-letter response upon receiving a new entry into that file.

Kind regards,
A Paragraph Collector

Click to expand...

I get that you're venting - and it is frustrating - but it's also the business. Hang in there; it just takes time. That always seems like an exorbitant fee while we're paying.

Micgee said:

So then the publishers' comments I've read and what truly happens, is not the same.

Click to expand...

Could you clarify this, please?

Micgee said:

Thanks for understanding the frustration and empathy. 

Click to expand...

I think one of the hardest things for some writers (especially newer writers) is understanding that once they start subbing, a book really needs to be seen as just a thing they're selling. Not a baby, not a life's struggle, not the blood of their heart - just a thing that they're hoping to sell.

Unless you're writing advertising copy, this is not the belief you want to have during the writing: but when it comes time to hook an agent or publisher, it's much the simplest outlook. When you have hooked agent or publisher, of course, you can get back into more of a writer mode for the edits - but there are different hats to wear at different times.

So many different hats!

mccardey said:

but there are different hats to wear at different times.

So many different hats!

Click to expand...

Mine is tall and pointed and I have to sit in a corner when I wear it. Which is a permanent condition, as it is glued to my skull.

caw

That's a good look for you, blac.

Rejections from agents/publishers can come from legitimate reasons, but...

it might also be that the agent/publisher simply happened to eat clams that did not go down well, or had a bad dream last night, or just overheard someone saying something disrespectful about their shoes...

In any case, the results are pretty much the same.

Most agents are too professional to allow things like that to make them reject a book which they would otherwise have liked, but I suppose there are bound to be a few. (You wouldn't want to work with those ones anyway.)

Publishing is a business.

Agents and editors are looking for books they can sell and make money on. They don't reject things that have potential in their eyes just because it's been a bad week or their tummy is upset.

Yes, their opinions on what will or won't sell are largely subjective, because there's a lot of variety in public tastes and no one can really predict what the next big thing is going to be, but these are experienced, professional people whose business it is to sell books.

Cut-and-paste rejections are easier than writing an individual, professional response to every submission, and frankly, they're a form of self-preservation. Some people get weird when they're rejected. Better to send the same thing to almost everyone than to chance that one psycho taking your personal touch the wrong way.

Micgee, I don't want you to feel ganged up on when you're basically just venting, but I really do think a lot of your complaints and hurt feelings are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the writer/publishing industry relationship, as well some mistaken notions about how agents and publishers work. That's going to get in your way if you continue to pursue publication. I recommend listening to what people are saying here-- particularly those who actually work in the industry, like Old Hack-- and learning more so you can put your emotional reactions to this process (which we all have!) into a more appropriate context.

For example, I don't know where you got the idea that agents/publishers take detailed notes on submissions. Maybe someone out there does that, but my understanding is that most just read until something makes them say "nope". Sometimes that "nope" occurs in the first few sentences. Think of yourself in the bookstore, picking up books that look interesting and reading the first few pages to decide if you want to buy them. How long does it take you to decide nope? And what reason do you have for that nope? For me, it's usually as vague as "I just don't like it" which, when you put it through the politeness translator, comes out as "didn't connect with the voice". And thus a generic rejection phrase is born.

I wonder if maybe you're confusing what an agent / publisher's intern does with the process of a script treatment. In that case, it IS common for the person reading to make notes, but it's not a thing that happens in publishing.

Also, Micgee - once you're signed, of course, if you send the next book to your agent you might well get notes back about it. Copious notes. But that's because she's working for you and invested in your career. If she spent too much time essentially reading and critting for writers she hasn't connected with, she would have very little time for you.

Swings and roundabouts

I'm a reader for a small press and a journal. I know that a lot of places say that they get a lot of submissions but I don't think writers (myself included) understand what that means until you get emails from your editor assigning 36 stories every few days or you open Submittable to find 500 polished novels in the queue. As a reader, it's my job to read through those and I usually can't spend longer than 20 minutes on a submission. For a novel, I usually read the first ten pages, last ten pages, and a selection from the middle. If I think it's interesting, I pass it on. But everything is subjective, and I, the intern, can't read every single one. I cannot give feedback on 500 manuscripts because that would require me to fully read 500 manuscripts. I know it takes a TON of time to write a book, because I do that, too. But it's impossible to get through all of those submissions AND send a critique because there's just so much material.

And as for agents, it really all comes down to the query letter. Sometimes it only takes 1-6 seconds for an agent to determine if they want to request more.

toribov:

I am curious: how does one become a reader for a publishing house?

Does one need to be published first, or can a hopeful candidate just show up at their doorstep and let their eagerness and sunshine-y personality convince the publishing house to hire them?

I do not have a sunshine-y personality, but I can put up a good front when completely necessary.

toribov said:

I'm a reader for a small press and a journal. I know that a lot of places say that they get a lot of submissions but I don't think writers (myself included) understand what that means until you get emails from your editor assigning 36 stories every few days or you open Submittable to find 500 polished novels in the queue.

Click to expand...

Years ago, when I was a junior editor and submissions still arrived in the post, I shared a small office which was at the end of a longish corridor. The corridor was lined with shelves, which contained lots of our books and space for the submissions to be stacked each week. When I first arrived there were three or four postal sacks full of mail there and it took a few months to reach a point where the submissions were under control. But there was always a lot of stuff there.

One day, the sacks fell off the shelves and as the door of our office opened outwards we were trapped inside. Held hostage by the submissions pile. I think we climbed out of the window (it was a ground floor office, luckily!) and walked round to the front of the building then asked for help with it all. But yep, the volume of submissions can be astonishing.

As a reader, it's my job to read through those and I usually can't spend longer than 20 minutes on a submission.

Click to expand...

That's a lot more time than most slush-readers get per submission.

RLGreenleaf said:

toribov:

I am curious: how does one become a reader for a publishing house?

Does one need to be published first, or can a hopeful candidate just show up at their doorstep and let their eagerness and sunshine-y personality convince the publishing house to hire them?

I do not have a sunshine-y personality, but I can put up a good front when completely necessary.

Click to expand...

Chiming in here, but being a writer does not qualify you to do the work. Being an editor might. Interning at a publisher might. There is fierce competition for the work as it is how most editors get their start. It's usually very low-paid work, if it's paid at all. And no, you can't just turn up. Never do that.

Old Hack:

I confess...I was the one who knocked down those sacks of mail and trapped you in your office.

I did that because you lost my submission letter.