The True Number of Viable Manuscripts?

[Poppa1956]

Originally Posted by Steven Lake

Someone brought up an interesting point in another thread that, at least according to them, about 98% of all manuscripts submitted to publishers are complete crap and have no right being there. Having done tech editing for 5+ years I can completely relate. I've definitely seen my fair share of "OMGWTF!?" type submissions that are so bad it's a felony to burn them because you'd be releasing toxic pollution on an epic scale. :P (lol, just kidding guys, don't everyone suddenly grab pitch forks and start attacking the castle. hehe)

Long ago, I became convinced that most tech manuals were written and edited by persons that either

1. did not speak English at all fluently,
2. Did not understand that hardware/software about which they wrote
3. both of the above
4. were seeking revenge for something westerners had done to their ancestors
5. were such a bunch of greedy proctologists, that they took up writing just that sort of manual to generate more patients.

But seriously, in all abject honesty, of all the manuscripts submitted to most publishing houses, how many do you truly believe are viable manuscripts? IE, manuscripts that are of sufficient quality to be worthy of publishing. And I'm not saying that anyone should run around saying "all manuscripts, except mine" or anything like that. I'm simply looking for an objective, realistic estimate. Would the 98% figure be accurate (ie, 98% of manuscripts are either insufficient or complete junk vs 2% that are quality, or at least good enough to publish), or is that too high, too low, or just right?

I'm interested in hearing your opinions. And please, keep it civil, as I'm more than certain that some comments in a thread like this could easily step on some toes, so play nice.

Sports analogy warning!This may be akin to the number of people trying to get into the NFL/NBA/NHL or whatever national/international sports league as opposed to those that actually get in, and those that achieve some celebrity and wealth because of their talents and skills in the sport of their choice.

[afa]

Perhaps an even better analogy is American Idol.

In many ways, Simon Cowell & Co. have a job not dissimilar to that of a literary agent or publisher. They have to wade through hundreds of misguided or -- in some cases -- outright delusional aspiring 'astists' to find a handful who have even an outside chance of success.

In the same way that Idol always has thousands of people who audition, oblivious to the fact that they simply are not good enough, I'm sure agents and publishers, too, are inundated with an endless stream of mediocrity.

With that in mind, a 98% rejection rate doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.

[neilmarr]

Perhaps the only difference between the American Idol judging team and an acquisitions editor, AFA, is that American Idol (and its equivalent in a host of other countries) is seen by millions on TV and by a crammed studo audience so that the potential end consumer can see for him/herself exactly how and why a decision is made.

More often than not, the watching public is in full agreement with a thumbs-up and a thumbs-down, which shows the judges know their job (though, sometimes, not all judges agree).

Because an acquisitions editor (like the vital casting director in film and theatre) works behind the scenes, his contribution to the literary gene pool goes unnoticed or is often undervalued, misunderstood and even considered suspect.

Cheers. Neil

[DrZoidberg]

My first novel I wrote I thought was really good. But it was shit. It was utter and total unpublishable shit. I thought it was good. People I asked, said it was good. Now I've stopped asking those people. The better I get at writing the more painfully aware I become of my mediocrity (I compare myself to all the greats).

Now I've published two novels and know I've much yet to learn. But here's what I've learned. Apart from just the effort in writing it's actually quite easy to write a publishable book, no matter how stupid one is. The rules aren't even tacit. There's tonnes of "how to write books" that spell it out. Publishing houses write clear rules in bullet point. It requires effort to avoid to read these rules when submitting.

Here's my theory. I think the problem is that writing is a creative venture and most people write for fun, and like their books to take them where their imagination takes them. They want the reader to have the same interests as them, and don't like explaining things that get away of their "brilliant" ideas. They just type away. Once there's all the rules to follow, most writers think the fun is sucked out of it and it screws up their creative process.

So either they stick their heads in the sand and hope they're Van Gogh, and are a misunderstood genius, and its simply a question for their genius to be discovered. This never works. I think the majority of the 98% unpublishable novels comes from this group. This group will never succeed.

Or they make an effort to pay attention to the rules and manage to find the time to write anyway and do manage to produce a novel. They still often end up in the 98% unpublishable pile because they're still learning. A major part of any creative endeavour is craft. It takes a few failed novels to find one's voice and to figure out what works, and what doesn't. I don't think this requires intelligence, just persistence and ability to take criticism and learn from it.

The bottom line is that I think that it is quite easy to end up in the 2% publishable pile if you go about it systematically and work at it. You don't need to be overly clever or especially talented. All published writers I know, (and its a few now) all were successful for the same reason. They treated it like a job. A fun job, but nonetheless a job. If you do that you're already in the elite, unpublished or not.

That said, even if you're in the 2%, your chances of being published are pretty slim. But at that level you get to have a dialogue with publishers and editors and you get all the information you need. That was at least my experience.

[afa]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

Because an acquisitions editor (like the vital casting director in film and theatre) works behind the scenes, his contribution to the literary gene pool goes unnoticed or is often undervalued, misunderstood and even considered suspect.

Exactly.

I'm sure in pre-Idol days, a lot of aspiring musicians, and even the general public, thought that there was something fishy going on. You could only make it in the music business if you had contacts, or if you were manufactured, etc. But now, we get to see with our own eyes that a lot of the aspirers are not 'making it' for a good reason. Not all, of course, but a large portion, certainly.

Maybe they can just about carry a tune, but am I going to switch on the radio or buy an album to listen to someone who can 'just about' carry a tune? No. Similarly, I will not buy a book from an author who can 'just about' write. Publishers know this, and so they try to find authors whose work they think will sell.

In the other related thread, Neil and others talked about the agent John Jarrold. Now, I happen to be a member of a forum where Jarrold is a frequent contributor (well, he was. He hasn't written in a while.) JJ himself admitted that his acceptance rate was very low (pretty much in line with the figures stated here). Interestingly, JJ also said that he has, more than once, rejected a manuscript that he loved. Why? Because even though it struck a chord with him, it was his professional opinion that the book(s) were not, for one reason or another, commercially viable. As a respected and well-reputed agent, he feels it is his responsibility to only pass those manuscripts to publishers that he thinks can sell.

Along with the factors others have stated, this last is a very important reason a lot of manuscripts -- even well-written manuscripts -- are rejected. It is important for authors to pay attention not just to the guidelines of individual publishers, but the trends in the market as a whole. If you're writing Humourous Fantasy, for instance, you can be assured of receiving nothing but a scrapbook worth of rejection letters. You might love the book you wrote, and it actually could be brilliantly written, but it will get rejected because it has no place in the market. (Yes, I know of Terry Pratchett, but he doesn't count; his books sell by the power of his name. The genre itself has long been considered commercially dead.)

Ultimately, then, the goal is easy to state, but incredibly difficult to accomplish - write a book that people want (and will pay) to read.

[GeoffC]

Thanks for starting this thread - it's very interesting to read numerous points of view and what happens behind the scenes (illuminating).
I admit I, personally, had a doubt about the very high failure rate until the analogy of the American idol was mentioned, now I understand totally from the little I've seen of the UK equivalent.

Has the electronic media explosion made the task for the agents and publishers harder ? and can it be quantified in anyway ?

[afa]

I would guess that the answer is "yes".

I'm sure poorly written, unsolicited manuscripts have always been around, but I would guess the submissions would have increased exponentially. So while the agents and publishers previously had to dig through a hill of feces to find a gem, now they have bring out the heavy machinery and dig up a mountain.

It was, after all, more effort for aspiring writers to get a typed copy their manuscript to an agent 45 years ago than today. Doesn't take much effort to fire an email that says, "Ive written a book. Its a briliant mix of fantasy, scifi, adventure, romance (for the gurlz teehee) and ball bustin action. u shuold take it 2 a publishing, well both be milionares. haha lol rotfl lmao"

[GeoffC]

True ...

I don't envy them ....

So instead of rejecting 98% of 100, it's now 98% of 10,000 !

[NickSpalding]

I'm amazed the general consensus is that 98% of material sent in is unpublishable. I'd have put the figure more at 99% - 99.5%, but then I'm no expert at that end of things.

I can only speak from personal experience, but in the past when I've submitted work I've generally sent out 15 or so submissions to start with over a couple of months. If they all come back with a form rejection, I've stopped and either taken another look at the text, or slung it in the cupboard and drunk a bottle of Jack Daniels.

If I get rejection that's personalised from an agent with feedback, I'll take the advice on board, make necessary changes and re-submit, along with another 15 or so to other agents over another couple of months. Rinse and repeat.

There was one memorable occasion where an agent from PFD (large UK literary agency) actively encouraged me to send him more work - though ultimately it didn't go anywhere - which I put down to my lack of experience as I was only in my mid-twenties at the time, and not that I had about as much talent as a bucket of pig's liver and he was clinically insane.

I'll liked the dairy metaphor Vintage - by that extension, does it make anything published by Stephenie Meyer stinking cheese?

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by NickSpalding

I'll liked the dairy metaphor Vintage -

Such imagery is why he's an Author !

[Steven Lake]

Originally Posted by Poppa1956

Long ago, I became convinced that most tech manuals were written and edited by persons that either...

lol. Funny you should mention that. I actually did tech editing for 5+ years, so I know what you mean, and even though we did information articles, tutorials, reviews, etc that tech sites do, the end result is the same. I remember getting submissions from a couple of people who thought they'd go on to be the next Dana Blankenhorn or Shawn Powers of tech writing, and yet had the writing skills of a three year old. (if you don't know who Dana or Shawn are, you're missing out on some very smart, wonderful people)

Originally Posted by afa

Perhaps an even better analogy is American Idol.

Or my favorite, "America's Got Talent". (with the limited number of people with talent, it should actually be "America's got NO talent". lol)

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

My first novel I wrote I thought was really good. But it was shit. It was utter and total unpublishable shit. I thought it was good. People I asked, said it was good. Now I've stopped asking those people. The better I get at writing the more painfully aware I become of my mediocrity (I compare myself to all the greats).

Yeah, that sounds like me. I look back on stuff I wrote even just four years ago and cringe. I've actually written books, set them aside, and then came back six months later with a fresh mind and was like "OMGWTF!? Who wrote this !@#$%^!!! Oh...wait...that was me. T_T" I think in the end, one of the best attitudes to have in the writing world is, no matter how great you think it is, it can always be better. When a great author releases a manuscript for publishing, it's never great, or awesome or epic. In their eyes it's always "borderline satisfactory", despite what others may say about how good it is.

Also, in reference to your asking friends for an opinion, I learned that they make a good initial sounding board for ideas and content, but they never make good critics of the final product. For that you need complete strangers. Preferably the ones who will read your book and then send you home with a truck full of recommendations. My favorite critic was a guy I ran into in the tech world. He actually did a lot to help me get better, despite his regular replies of "OMGWTF!? BURN IT!" lol. The other one was an english teacher I had in college who actually sat down with me and explained to me in detail while it looked like a red pen factory had exploded on my paper. Those criticisms are sometimes the hardest to take, but also many times the most beneficial.

Once there's all the rules to follow, most writers think the fun is sucked out of it and it screws up their creative process.

That's interesting you should say that. I've actually found those rules to be somewhat fun and challenging. Left to my own devices my writing is fun and entertaining, but in a median sort of way. But given rules to follow and write within makes the work incredibly thrilling. One of my favorite rules that was given to me by a critic one time is that "For every strength, you must have an offsetting weakness. So the greater the strength, the greater the weakness." And let me tell you, that has been one of the most fun and exciting rules to work within that I've encountered so far. Especially when you create a beautifully awesome monster, and then are forced to take your wonderful pride and joy and find a way to kill them. ^_^

Case in point. In my novel "The Oort Perimeter", I created this awesome, massive, impregnable shield barrier that surrounds Earth. In theory it would completely and totally ensure that Earth was safe from all forms of harm. But you can't have a good book if the defense is too perfect. So I went and wrote a weakness into it. I then went and did the same thing in book 4 (you'll see what it is once the book is out), but in a different way applying a slightly different weakness to achieve the same end result. So in the end, rules can actually be a lot of fun to work with, depending on your viewpoint.

So either they stick their heads in the sand and hope they're Van Gogh, and are a misunderstood genius, and its simply a question for their genius to be discovered. This never works. I think the majority of the 98% unpublishable novels comes from this group. This group will never succeed.

Agreed. That's why I like the idea of self publishing for new authors. It gets their work out there, and they either are discovered as the next Van Gogh (to use your example), or they get their 15 minutes of fame and move on. And for the few who don't move on, they get shown exactly how horrible their writing actually is and in the vast majority of cases they do us all a favor and quit. And I'm not one to bash new writers, but some really need to hear a stern reprimand in order to realize that they don't just sling words onto a page and expect to be the next Michael Crichton.

...ability to take criticism and learn from it.

Sadly, that's lacking in today's world of "it's someone else's fault". Even I fell victim to that for a while, but eventually learned that, if someone says you're wrong, 95% of the time they're right. ^_^;;

All published writers I know, (and its a few now) all were successful for the same reason. They treated it like a job. A fun job, but nonetheless a job. If you do that you're already in the elite, unpublished or not.

Eh, a job it may be, but as one wise man said, "If you love what you do, you'll never find yourself going to work."

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Such imagery is why he's an Author !

Hear! Hear! Fully agree!

[Valmore Daniels]

If we removed "marketability" from the equation, then fundamentally, I agree with the original poster's premise. However, "readability" now becomes a very subjective measure by which to judge a potential novel (one of the reasons why Smashwords, for example, offers very generous free samples).

A vast majority of independently released books could benefit from a professional edit, mine included; but does the lack of professional editing preclude that book from being a good read? Not necessarily. There are quite a few unpolished gems in that pile (much more than 2%, I would say without reservation).

I, personally, am willing to forgive a few typos, split infiinitives and run-on sentences for getting as much "satisfaction" out of reading an independent novel for $2.99 as I would a highly polished corporate-produced novel for $12.99.

Of course, that's just one person's opinion.

[GeoffC]

It depends what you mean by professional editing.

One book I recently read was poorly edited in the sense that formatting of chapters and paragraphs on the page were untidy and, despite the good storyline, it became annoying.

And this was a purchased book from FW !

An author is a storyteller. Not all will be good at laying out a book on the page, virtual or otherwise, and not all will be able to market and sell the book. A good agent/publisher will do all that, and more (one hopes). Some authors may not be sufficiently self-critical enough, either.

[NickSpalding]

Originally Posted by Valmore Daniels

I, personally, am willing to forgive a few typos, split infiinitives and run-on sentences for getting as much "satisfaction" out of reading an independent novel for $2.99 as I would a highly polished corporate-produced novel for $12.99.

.

The problem is, there's not one agency or publisher out there these days who would. Immediate rejections all round.

That's why even if you're self-publishing it's vital to get as much editing and proof reading done as possible. If nothing else, it's good practice for submissions if you care to make them in the future.

[neilmarr]

***Has the electronic media explosion made the task for the agents and publishers harder?***

Emphatically YES, Geoff.

Since the first word processor made it easier than hand-writing or typing to actually produce a manuscript in the first place, and internet made it easier (if sometimes sloppier) to research -- sheeittt there are even programmes out there that will generate a plot and characters for you -- every man woman and their household pet can knock out 65K words and then send it to hundreds of agents and publishers at the tap of a few keys.

Seems the whole world believes the tired old cliche that everyone has a book in them Trouble is that they have lost track of the fact that it must be a bloody good book to be of any interest to anyone but their old mom and favourite (now retired) English teacher.

You would be amazed at the number of badly written and boooorrrrriiiinnnngggg autobiographies I knock back every week. Everyone's at it. And they don't even check the submissions guidelines that clearly state: No Non-Fiction, including biographies and autobiographies. It drives me potty.

Hoots. Neil