Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lake
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.... 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?
|
More factors go into determining the viability of a manuscript than simple mechanical proficiency, although that alone is a biggie, and the most likely to sink an aspiring writer. Does the overall story make sense? Is it internally consistent? Is it really interesting, or just flash-in-the-pan imitation? Is it too predictable, or too derivative, or too "I've seen this same story so many times that every editor I know wants to puke when I begin to describe the setup"?
If you are talking in terms of overall submissions, through all channels, my honest guess is that about ten percent fit into the interesting, original, "I'd like to hear more" category... and that of those, about ten percent (meaning 1% of the original slushpile) exhibit enough linguistic merit for an editor to want to read, all the way through to the end.
Assuming a helpful slush reader doesn't periodically clear out the pile by using a large metal receptacle and a match or two, the same old universal law of milking still applies: cream rises to the top. You want to float in the cream? Come up with original, interesting ideas, master your language, and learn to hook your readers. Editors like cream, because cream is easy money.
Unfortunately for editors, the milk-to-cream ratio is not very good, because when more people are
able to write, more people wind up thinking they have something
worth writing. Examine the canon of classic English literature, and you will notice that many such authors came out of periods of widespread illiteracy. Does that make their work any less valid? No, but it certainly made it easier for their editors to recognize quality.
To continue with the milking analogy then, the next stage is butter. Depending on who you are, and what you write, a little extra churning might help your submissions to solidify enough to attract attention. Editors like butter, too, because even though it requires a little more work on their part to whip it into shape, it is highly marketable.
Now, when you separate the cream, and churn out the butter, you are left with something editors strongly
dislike: skimmed milk. Do people still buy and drink skimmed milk? Sure, but those people probably aren't licking their lips as it goes down.
Aim for cream. If you wind up in butter, you are doing well.
Try not to drown in a vat of skimmed milk.
- M.