I don't like being rejected by assistants
- Thread starter zeprosnepsid
- Start date
- Status
Send it to a different assistant
I've heard of this working fr authors submitting to publishers, just because one editor rejected it didn't mean they all would...
I've heard of this working fr authors submitting to publishers, just because one editor rejected it didn't mean they all would...
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,324
- Reaction score
- 750
- Age
- 69
Even worse is the rejection from the associate assitant of an assistant associate editor whose boss's name isn't even in Writer's Market.
I was rejected by NY Trainee7.
But I'm pretty sure they log queries. They'll know if I send it to them again.
But I'm pretty sure they log queries. They'll know if I send it to them again.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 3,421
- Reaction score
- 370
- Age
- 53
- Location
- New Yawk
- Website
- www.jackiekessler.com
Me, I just don't like rejections.
As for resubmitting, if you change the query and the project name, even if they log query submissions, you'll still have a chance.
Good luck!
As for resubmitting, if you change the query and the project name, even if they log query submissions, you'll still have a chance.
Good luck!
Hey, I used to be an assistant who gave out rejections, and if people would rather the editor read their material a) they most likely would have been rejected anyway but b) they would've had to wait a lot longer.
I usually took a week with partial manuscripts, and maybe a month (up to three) with full MSs. My boss sat on some MSs for more than a year.
Though, now I'm not working anywhere like that, yes, I see your point. It'd be nice to be rejected at the top of the ladder instead of at the bottom of it Everyone has different opinions, and no matter how well assistants and editors/agents get on, they're not all going to have the same taste in fiction.
I usually took a week with partial manuscripts, and maybe a month (up to three) with full MSs. My boss sat on some MSs for more than a year.
Though, now I'm not working anywhere like that, yes, I see your point. It'd be nice to be rejected at the top of the ladder instead of at the bottom of it
Everyone has different opinions, and no matter how well assistants and editors/agents get on, they're not all going to have the same taste in fiction.
well the two positive responses I've had (seemingly didn't go through assistants) and came back immediately from the agents themselves.
All my rejections have taken a long time and have come from assistants.
therefore i have made certain conclusions about assistants....
All my rejections have taken a long time and have come from assistants.
therefore i have made certain conclusions about assistants....
Assistants
First, there's often no way of knowing who did or didn't reject you. Many times, an assistant will sign off on the rejection, but many agents also sign off on something an assistant rejected. There's also no way of know whether or not a positive response from an agent went through an asistant first. In either case, speed only means the slush pile wasn't very large, and a positive response only means someone liked what they read.
And, of ocurse, if your query or manuscript makes it past an assistant, odds are you'll receive a positive result straight from teh agent because agents trust the judgement of their assistants. If they didn't, they wouldn't have hired them.
The only real conclusion you can draw about assistants is that the reason an agent has one, or more, is because so many queries and partials and manuscripts are being sent to that agent that she has to have an assistant.
If a rejection comes straight from an agent, and it's fast, it's because: (1.)That agent doesn't have much to do, and isn't being flooded by so many writers that she has to have an assistant. (2.) That's an agent you don't want. (3.) You got very, very lucky and the agent just happened to pull your query from the slush pile on a slow day.
But the simple truth is, if assistants aren't good at their jobs, if they don't reject the bad and pass the good along to the agent, they cost the agent money, and they won't be assistants very long. Agents choose assistants because the assistant knows what the agent is and isn't looking for, does and doesn't like.
zeprosnepsid said:
First, there's often no way of knowing who did or didn't reject you. Many times, an assistant will sign off on the rejection, but many agents also sign off on something an assistant rejected. There's also no way of know whether or not a positive response from an agent went through an asistant first. In either case, speed only means the slush pile wasn't very large, and a positive response only means someone liked what they read.
And, of ocurse, if your query or manuscript makes it past an assistant, odds are you'll receive a positive result straight from teh agent because agents trust the judgement of their assistants. If they didn't, they wouldn't have hired them.
The only real conclusion you can draw about assistants is that the reason an agent has one, or more, is because so many queries and partials and manuscripts are being sent to that agent that she has to have an assistant.
If a rejection comes straight from an agent, and it's fast, it's because: (1.)That agent doesn't have much to do, and isn't being flooded by so many writers that she has to have an assistant. (2.) That's an agent you don't want. (3.) You got very, very lucky and the agent just happened to pull your query from the slush pile on a slow day.
But the simple truth is, if assistants aren't good at their jobs, if they don't reject the bad and pass the good along to the agent, they cost the agent money, and they won't be assistants very long. Agents choose assistants because the assistant knows what the agent is and isn't looking for, does and doesn't like.
- Status