Favorite rejection quotes

Old Editor said:

I truly believe that editors/publishers have a "tickler file" with various rejection reasons that they pull from the file at random.

Click to expand...

Editors and agents often have various form rejections which they use on rotation to try to avoid writers getting the same letter twice in a row, as some people complain about these things and it can cause trouble. They often attempt to be vague in them to avoid writers responding and/or getting angry about their rejections.

Personalised rejection letters are a different thing, of course.

"A professional writer is an amateur who didn't quit." --Richard Bach

Once I got a rejection letter which chastised me for lewd and barbaric tastes. (Actually my novel sought to condemn what I call modern barbarism but the author of the rejection letter couldn't see that)

I'd have to say this one from Mandy Hubbard of Emerald City Lit

"If you'd like to learn more about publishing as you work toward publication, I highly suggest the following websites:

www.PublishingCrawl.com (a group blog featuring agents, editors, sales reps, and authors)
www.QueryTracker.net (A database of agents)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/ forums/ (A discussion board, with a fantastic YA section as well as a "background check" section for agents, and a place to post your query for critique.You must have a thick skin, but it's an excellent resource!)"

Since it both led me to this forum AND told me that my problem was probably in my query letter.

Had an agent reject my query recently because he had "reached middle age" and doesn't connect with younger characters anymore and is not interested in YA. Well maybe specify as much on your website, Twitter, QueryTracker and AgentQuery profiles that you don't rep YA anymore. Because all of them say you do. Just a thought, buddy.

Also have had a slew of rejections lately (for whatever reason) where the agent says they are not right for it, but they're going to pass it on to a colleague or two. When I politely ask if there is anything else I need to do in regard to that (i.e. query the other agent directly), the initial agent ghosts me on all communication. It's pretty much the equivalent of "Your concept and sample pages are really strong, and I am going to pass them on to a different agent because I think your work has promise ... but no, you may not talk to me ever again." Talk about insta-rage.

I wish all rejections were:

Dear Author,

Thank you for your query, but I am not interested in representing your novel.

Good luck with future endeavors.

Sincerely,
Agent

Sorry about the weird "passing off" experiences, Jack.

I'll play this game. I've used your rejection template, but included a little of what I felt was a good rejection:

Dear Author,

Thank you for your query, but I do not feel I would be the best representative for your novel.

Good luck with future endeavors.

Sincerely,
Agent

Although I hated "Dear Author" rejections, I think most query trench writers could live with them over CNRs any day. I still get "Dear Author" from short story markets. It's ouch, but better than being ghosted.

Qwest said:

Sorry about the weird "passing off" experiences, Jack.

I'll play this game. I've used your rejection template, but included a little of what I felt was a good rejection:

Dear Author,

Thank you for your query, but I do not feel I would be the best representative for your novel.

Good luck with future endeavors.

Sincerely,
Agent

Although I hated "Dear Author" rejections, I think most query trench writers could live with them over CNRs any day. I still get "Dear Author" from short story markets. It's ouch, but better than being ghosted.

Click to expand...

I just want an answer. Even if the entire reply message is just "No."

The publishing industry is morphing quickly, and agents aren't doing themselves any favors with their poor communication skills and rude behavior (not all, just some). If they're not careful, a publishing model is going to take over that eliminates agents altogether. I am getting the sense that authors are sick of them. Editors, too.

Sorry. Rant over.

Calla Lily said:

I don't have a link to this story from a year or so ago (apologies; I'm on my pione). An agent sent a polite pass to an author. The author didn't like that. He tracked her down and confronted her while she was waiting to pick up her child from preschool.



After I read that, I had sympathy for agents who've adopted the 'no response after x months means no' policy. I didn't like it either when I was querying, but damn.

Click to expand...

I can never agree with the "no response means no" policy. I don't care how busy or afraid of frustrated responses the agent is. I don't want to have to wait two months to explore other avenues because the agent didn't have the courtesy to hit "reply," paste a form rejection and then hit send. What if I want to submit to indie/small presses, etc? I might be waiting around for weeks simply because a few agents were too lazy, or felt too self-important, to reply.

Second rant over.

Calla Lily said:

You're only subbing to one agent at a time? Why?

Click to expand...

Nope. I sub to multiple agents at a time.

In my querying experience, and I have the spreadsheet data to back this up ... only about 40% of agents respond to queries. That means 60% are non-responders.

I give 6 weeks (regardless of what their website says) and then I CNR. I am not waiting around forever.

JackTorrance said:

I just want an answer. Even if the entire reply message is just "No."

The publishing industry is morphing quickly, and agents aren't doing themselves any favors with their poor communication skills and rude behavior (not all, just some). If they're not careful, a publishing model is going to take over that eliminates agents altogether. I am getting the sense that authors are sick of them. Editors, too.

Sorry. Rant over.

Click to expand...

Or you could look at it another way: so long as there are so many writers submitting work, agents will be needed. So long as there are so many writers submitting sub-standard work, or submitting work badly, agents will be needed.

Authors who have good agents know that they're very valuable assets. Editors? We love good agents. They bring us wonderful books, and they do all they can to help their author-clients work effectively and professionally.

JackTorrance said:

I can never agree with the "no response means no" policy. I don't care how busy or afraid of frustrated responses the agent is. I don't want to have to wait two months to explore other avenues because the agent didn't have the courtesy to hit "reply," paste a form rejection and then hit send. What if I want to submit to indie/small presses, etc? I might be waiting around for weeks simply because a few agents were too lazy, or felt too self-important, to reply.

Second rant over.

Click to expand...

You don't have to wait if you don't want to. You don't even have to submit if you don't want to. But do not think that agents are too lazy or self-important to respond to queries: quite the opposite is true. The agents I know work far more hours than most other publishing professionals; they read queries in the evenings, or at weekends, they spend lots of their time attending conferences where writers can learn more about the business: they give a lot of time to writers, even when there is no chance of them earning anything from the work they do.

Old Hack said:

You don't have to wait if you don't want to. You don't even have to submit if you don't want to. But do not think that agents are too lazy or self-important to respond to queries: quite the opposite is true. The agents I know work far more hours than most other publishing professionals; they read queries in the evenings, or at weekends, they spend lots of their time attending conferences where writers can learn more about the business: they give a lot of time to writers, even when there is no chance of them earning anything from the work they do.

Click to expand...

I view those agents as the exception to the rule, which is why I specified, "not all, just some." There is a whole new generation of agents who don't have any of the qualities that you just listed. And they prove it with their Twitter and social media postings. The book has to be exactly tailored to their sensibilities, or they are not interested. If the second book by a client is also not exactly tailored exactly to their subjective sensibilities (regardless of its commercial potential), they will drop the author (gone are the days of fostering an author through their entire career).

It's a pretty disgusting state of affairs these days. Just my opinion.

JackTorrance said:

I view those agents as the exception to the rule, which is why I specified, "not all, just some." There is a whole new generation of agents who don't have any of the qualities that you just listed. And they prove it with their Twitter and social media postings. The book has to be exactly tailored to their sensibilities, or they are not interested.

Click to expand...

Those "sensibilities" that agents have with regard to the books and authors they are willing to take on aren't just based on whims and fancies, Jack. They're formed because agents know what sells, and how to sell it. They want to take on authors they can be pretty sure of selling, that's all. Submission requirements are not designed to give writers a hard time: they're designed to make it easier for authors and agents to match themselves up properly.

If the second book by a client is also not exactly tailored exactly to their subjective sensibilities (regardless of its commercial potential), they will drop the author (gone are the days of fostering an author through their entire career).

It's a pretty disgusting state of affairs these days. Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion: but your opinion is still wrong.

An agent isn't going to turn down a book they love, which has strong commercial potential, just because it's not somehow tailored to some nebulous "sensibilities".

You seem so determined to say negative things about agents that you're forgetting how logic works.

Old Hack said:

Those "sensibilities" that agents have with regard to the books and authors they are willing to take on aren't just based on whims and fancies, Jack. They're formed because agents know what sells, and how to sell it. They want to take on authors they can be pretty sure of selling, that's all. Submission requirements are not designed to give writers a hard time: they're designed to make it easier for authors and agents to match themselves up properly.




You're entitled to your opinion: but your opinion is still wrong.

An agent isn't going to turn down a book they love, which has strong commercial potential, just because it's not somehow tailored to some nebulous "sensibilities".

You seem so determined to say negative things about agents that you're forgetting how logic works.

Click to expand...

I get you're the big dog around here, with nearly 22K posts, and for some reason you think that entitles you to proclaim that others' opinions are wrong. But I still disagree with you.

There are a lot of agents whose sensibilities ARE based on whims and fancies. I just recently saw a Twitter posting in which an agent called for a uber-specific type of book based on the FANCY of her 9-year-old daughter. Saw another who wants only a certain type of book because she just fell in love with a certain pop band and now wants all queried novels to have the same "feel" as said pop bands new album.

You said, "An agent isn't going to turn down a book they love, which has strong commercial potential, just because it's not somehow tailored to some nebulous 'sensibilities." Sorry, but they do this ALL THE TIME AND FREELY ADMIT TO IT. The Internet is littered with stories from agents who admit that the book was good, had commercial potential, and they turned it down simply because THEY didn't like it. Read some agent interviews and some YouTube agent round tables and listen to all the stories of the amazing books that they turned down because of their subjective taste, and then the book went on to become a best seller anyway. Most of them call it, "the one that got away."

Sorry, man, but you can't really be this naive.

But really, I don't care about all that. I just want a damn response to a query. I don't think it's too much to ask. If you pitch an agent in person, they have the common courtesy to take 20 seconds to say no and perhaps give you a very terse reason why. I don't even want a reason; I just want a "no thanks" so I can stop wondering if the agent is still considering the query or not.

JackTorrance said:

I get you're the big dog around here, with nearly 22K posts, and for some reason you think that entitled you to proclaim that others' opinions are wrong. But I still disagree with you. There are a lot of agents whose sensibilities ARE based on whims and fancies.

Click to expand...

But those whims and fancies are developed through a thorough understanding of, and knowledge of, the market.

I just recently saw a Twitter posting in which an agent called for a uber-specific type of book based on the FANCY of her 9-year-old daughter. Saw another who wants only a certain type of book because she just fell in love with a certain pop band and now wants all queried novels to have the same "feel" as said pop bands new album.

You said, "An agent isn't going to turn down a book they love, which has strong commercial potential, just because it's not somehow tailored to some nebulous 'sensibilities." Sorry, but they do this ALL THE TIME AND FREELY ADMIT TO IT. The Internet is littered with stories from agents who admit that the book was good, had commercial potential, and they turned it down simply because THEY didn't like it. Read some agent interviews and some YouTube agent round tables and listen to all the stories of the amazing books that they turned down because of their subjective taste, and then the book went on to become a best seller anyway. Most of them call it, "the one that got away."

Sorry, man, but you can't really be this naive.

Click to expand...

Jack, you're contradicting yourself, and not actually reading my posts. Look again at what I wrote:

"An agent isn't going to turn down a book they love, which has strong commercial potential, just because it's not somehow tailored to some nebulous 'sensibilities."

And then look at what you wrote:

"Sorry, but they do this ALL THE TIME AND FREELY ADMIT TO IT. The Internet is littered with stories from agents who admit that the book was good, had commercial potential, and they turned it down simply because THEY didn't like it."

See those two bits I've put into bold? Read them again.

You're contradicting yourself here.

I understand that it's frustrating, looking for an agent. And it's all too easy to become bitter after repeated rejections, or a lack of response. It's hard. I know. But that doesn't mean that the industry is somehow defective, or that agents are manipulative, shallow individuals determined to cause havoc in the lives of authors.

But really, I don't care about all that. I just want a damn response to a query. I don't think it's too much to ask. If you pitch an agent in person, they have the common courtesy to take 20 seconds to say no and perhaps give you a very terse reason why. I don't even want a reason; I just want a "no thanks" so I can stop wondering if the agent is still considering the query or not.

Click to expand...

You're not going to always get that response, though. And it's not because agents are arrogant fools who laugh in the face of new writers; it's because agents have learned, over years, that a lot of writers are going to respond badly to a rejection, and that it's safer (and I don't mean emotionally: I mean physically safer) to just not respond at all.

I've spoken with lots of agents about this; I've seen the fallout that some of them have experienced as a result of sending out perfectly polite rejections. Some of the responses they've received have not just been rude or worrying, they've been properly frightening.

I've just had a quick Google for a couple of the accounts I've read and haven't come up with anything: but if I do find something I'll come back with a link, to give you an idea of the sort of thing that happens.

I know it's not fair that so many of us now have to put up with a lack of response, just because a few writers lose it when they get a rejection. But if you'd read some of the letters I've read, or had the conversations I've had, you'd be a lot more understanding, I'm sure.

Hack, I am not contradicting myself. You just don't want to admit that you are wrong, and that a lot of the newer class of agents put their subjective tastes above the quality and marketability of the book. They also will put trends above the quality and marketability of the book EVEN WHEN THEY ADMIT THE WRITING IS STRONG AND THE BOOK WILL PROBABLY SELL ... such as turning down a book because it is not diverse enough, or doesn't speak enough to a certain sexual preference (LGBTQ).

Hell, the entire industry operates on the whims and fancies of agents and editors. Look at things like #MSWL and the like. There is no rhyme or reason to any of it. It is all based on the super-specific tastes of these people.

And authors freaking out on an agent over a rejection are the exception, not the rule. And nowadays, you can use a submission system where the rejection cannot be replied to. Or you can just not respond to the individual freaking out and block their email address. You don't punish everyone for the inexcusable behavior of a few.

But sorry, not sorry. All queries deserve a response. That is my opinion, which is subjective and non-debatable, and you will never convince me otherwise.

JackTorrance said:

Hack, I am not contradicting myself. You just don't want to admit that you are wrong, and that a lot of the newer class of agents put their subjective tastes above the quality and marketability of the book. They also will put trends above the quality and marketability of the book EVEN WHEN THEY ADMIT THE WRITING IS STRONG AND THE BOOK WILL PROBABLY SELL ... such as turning down a book because it is not diverse enough, or doesn't speak enough to a certain sexual preference (LGBTQ).

Hell, the entire industry operates on the whims and fancies of agents and editors. Look at things like #MSWL and the like. There is no rhyme or reason to any of it. It is all based on the super-specific tastes of these people.

Click to expand...

Jack, you're not reading my comments properly. Or you're not understanding them. I'm not sure which.

And you really don't need to go on a bold-and-capslock-shouty-rant at me to get me to understand what agents and editors want, because I am an editor, I know lots of editors, and I know lots of agents. I know how the business works. I know how publishing professionals work.

And authors freaking out on an agent over a rejection are the exception, not the rule. And nowadays, you can use a submission system where the rejection cannot be replied to. Or you can just not respond to the individual freaking out and block their email address. You don't punish everyone for the inexcusable behavior of a few.

But sorry, not sorry. All queries deserve a response. That is my opinion, which is subjective and non-debatable, and you will never convince me otherwise.

Click to expand...

I know the freaking-out writers are the exception. But I also know that you only need one of those exceptions, one time, to be in serious trouble. And that's why we don't give responses to all the submissions we receive. Dealing with rejections by blocking email addresses doesn't address the problems I'm talking about: people turning up on agency doorsteps, people turning up at agent's homes, and threatening them with violence? How does blocking an email address resolve that problem?

And I don't think that resorting to the "no response means no" pattern is punishing anyone. It's a clear policy. If you've not heard from an agent after two months, assume it's a no. Easy. All queries deserve a response? No, they really don't. If a writer submits a children's book when the agency doesn't represent children's writers, for example; a writer who can't be bothered to revise their work before sending it off; who sends a rude or aggressive letter; all of these are common errors. The many, many writers who make submissions like this have clearly not taken much time or effort over their submissions; but you think that agents owe them a response. I'm sorry, Jack. I just don't see it.

For an editor, you really seem to be clueless as to how the acquisitions industry in the past 10 or so years operates. Pretty funny. Maybe 22K posts on this forum have something to do with that.

Old Hack said:

All queries deserve a response? No, they really don't.

Click to expand...

I said that it was my OPINION that they do. I don't care if you disagree or not. That is how opinions work. Surely you've been alive on this Earth long enough to know that's how opinions work. Right?

If an agent is open to unsolicited queries, and they rep the genre I am submitting, then it is my OPINION that I deserve some kind of response, even on a pass. But please, weigh in with your 22K posts of wisdom about why I am not allowed to have that opinion. I am waiting.

JackTorrance said:

There are a lot of agents whose sensibilities ARE based on whims and fancies. I just recently saw a Twitter posting in which an agent called for a uber-specific type of book based on the FANCY of her 9-year-old daughter. Saw another who wants only a certain type of book because she just fell in love with a certain pop band and now wants all queried novels to have the same "feel" as said pop bands new album.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the #MSWL tag? Because that's not an exclusive list of everything an agent is looking for - the rest can generally be found on their agent page (on the literary agency website, for example). An agent might say they'd love to see a very specific thing, just on the off-chance someone's written it, but they're still repping i.e. adult fantasy as a general genre.

JackTorrance said:

Hack, I am not contradicting myself. You just don't want to admit that you are wrong, and that a lot of the newer class of agents put their subjective tastes above the quality and marketability of the book.

Click to expand...

I've had responses recently from agents saying they found my story enjoyable, but that they didn't love it enough to rep it - which is perfectly fine. Once an agent offers representation, they have to spent who knows how many hours working on refining and selling that story to editors. They really, really have to feel passionately about it in order to put it forward to the best of their ability, or they're going to run out of steam. Imagine having an item you think it kind of okay but you think may be likely to sell. How would you feel after hundreds of hours working on that item and with the person who made it, trying to sell it to others who will have to invest a lot of time and money into it? It makes sense to pick the item you feel most strongly about, compared to the item you feel kind of okay with.

I do agree it's frustrating to get no response when you've put a lot of time into a submission, but that's to do with the huge amount of queries agents are receiving every day, which have increased massively over the years (especially now a lot are digital). It's not to do with the agents' tastes, it's just not having enough time or energy.

JackTorrance said:

For an editor, you really seem to be clueless as to how the acquisitions industry in the past 10 or so years operates. Pretty funny. Maybe 22K posts on this forum have something to do with that.

Click to expand...

You seem to be entitled, clueless and rude.

Get off my server.