With this attitude, is it any wonder new authors don't trust the system? - Page 2

neilmarr · 07-30-2010, 05:05 PM

Sadly, Jim. Joe Public now has his own slushpile to wade through. There are thousands of self-published books appearing annually -- more by the year. They are not, by any means, all readable. I can well understand some authors' frustration with what are now known as the industry's fuddy-duddy and fussy 'gatekeepers', but I think many readers will soon come to appreciate the frustration an acquisitions editor suffers several times a day. Neil

MaggieScratch · 07-30-2010, 05:23 PM

Rejection from one agent is nothing to complain about. I would suggest reading Slushkiller, with particular attention to item no. 3, "The Context of Rejection," before getting upset about the time taken to read the submission. Your friend was of the opinion that his book was right for the agency; it was possible that the agent, or the assistant doing first triage of submissions, didn't share that opinion. Most agents who are actually selling books are in contact with editors who tell them what they are looking for. The book sent in might have been a certain genre, but not what the editors are looking for, and not something that intrigued the agent sufficiently to follow up and send it out anyway.

Also, most agents only take on a few new projects per year. Yes, they encourage everyone to send in their work, because they don't want to miss anything good. The way for the author to beat those odds is to SUBMIT WIDELY.

I would suggest that your friend, rather than bemoan the state of publishing, submit to a dozen or so more agents. If he receives similar quick responses from those agents, he needs to work on his query letter. If he is getting requests for partials or fulls and getting a lot of rejections, then he needs to work on his manuscript.

It goes without saying that he is following each agency's submission requirements to the letter. If not, yes, instant rejection usually follows.

Rejection (and its close cousin, the bad review) is the hardest thing for an author to get accustomed to, but it is part of the job. That doesn't make it any pleasanter to experience, of course, but it is the truth.

neilmarr · 07-30-2010, 07:00 PM

***The way for the author to beat those odds is to SUBMIT WIDELY***

Perhaps, Maggie. But I would suggest SUBMIT WELL.

Too many developing authors haven't a clue about how to compose a query letter or to construct a good synopsis. Many don't even thoroughly check the agents and publishers they submit to and suss out what they'll consider and what they definitely don't need. It's a waste of everyone's time and talent.

What puzzles and frustrates me about this is that we're in the Age of Internet when good, sound advice is freely available if you take the trouble to seek it out.

Folks spend years in the attic, burning midnight oil and pouring their hearts into a book ... and then throw it away by dashing off sloppy covering material and spamming publishers and agents with zero interest in the type of work the author has produced.

Few authors-in-waiting realise that they can actually sell a story on synopsis. If the story idea is gripping and characters are appealing in a tightly written summary, there's always an editorial way to fix the manuscript itself.

Neil

Redfox · 07-31-2010, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilmarr

Few authors-in-waiting realise that they can actually sell a story on synopsis. If the story idea is gripping and characters are appealing in a tightly written summary, there's always an editorial way to fix the manuscript itself.

Neil

OTOH some agents (like John Jarrold) don't want to see a synopsis at all. Writing a good synopsis that conveys the same atmosphere and excitement as the prose itself is a completely separate skill, and many writers really struggle with it, despite being able to write great novels. In any case, you should -- as mentioned so many times -- follow the submission guidelines to the letter and send each agent exactly what he or she wants to see.

What I've heard over and over from editors and agents (on- and offline) is that what they mostly look for is "voice" - a unique combination of style and content that draws the reader in. Plot holes and pacing problems are fairly easy for the editor to spot and help you fix, but if your ideas are weak or your style boring, you need to work on your craft a lot more and come back later

neilmarr · 07-31-2010, 08:51 AM

***OTOH some agents (like John Jarrold) don't want to see a synopsis at all***

Right you are, Redfox. John's approach is effective if somewhat unusual even for an agent. He consistently offers excellent work. An admirable operator. He, though, is looking for a client's long-term publishing potential more than merely weighing up single titles (he does that well, too).

Most, though (I'm an editor, not an agent), tend to adopt my approach to submissions. I don't have time to help develop authors who we have not worked with in the past. From a well, written and tight synopsis, I get a pretty good idea of the potential of a story and its characters. From a couple of sample chapters, I can weigh up whether the author is YET skilled enough to follow through.

A couple of examples from this morning's work for instance ...

One submission from a US author provided a synopsis which, although clumsy, outlined a pretty neat and original crime story. So I dived into the partial ms. I very soon discovered that the chap couldn't yet write for toffee. Ridiculously heavy on exposition, POV switches from third- to first-person, tense changes, stiff dialogue, terrible grammar and spelling.

Rejection note with the best advice I could spare the time to offer for revision. My small editorial team doesn't have time to write an author's book for him

The second example is from another US author. Her synopsis -- again a little awkward -- suggested a good story with strong characters. So I got to work reading the first two chapters, doing, as I often do, a simple line edit on the fly. It's second nature and doesn't distract me and also serves as a handy guide to an author if I must decline.

Now this lass had it in her. She horrendously overuses tag lines, repeats words and ideas, etc, etc, etc. But that is repairable at my end. And her handling of dialogue is knockout. Very, very impressive. There's no need for massive author revision, as far as I've seen so far; it's simply a matter of sound editing to polish the diamond. So I've asked to see the entire manuscript for a full assessment.

Some houses will immediately knock back an author if it looks like there's a lot of nit-pickin' editorial fiddling involved. We don't mind that work -- tedious as it can be, it goes with the territory -- but we will not attempt make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Total re-writes and tutoring are not part of our job description.

John Jarrold is in the business of spotting author potential rather than cold single-title value, nurturing and coaxing the talent he spots over a period of years ... and he does a bloody fine job ot it.

His reward is when an author he's selected -- not necessarily an isolated title that caught his eye -- produces work, with his expert support, infinite patience and long experience (as a quality author in his own right as well as an agent), that he can then dangle like sparkling gems before an acquisitions editor who has trust in John's ability only to recommend fine, polished work from authors who know what they're doing. John saves an acquisition a heck of a lot of wasted time, as well as serving his scribes well.

Very best. Neil

Over · 07-31-2010, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

The way for the author to beat those odds is to SUBMIT WIDELY.

Many publishers require that submitted works shouldn't be in consideration by other publishers. I understand why, but they can't possibly expect an author should idle YEARS while his book is considered one publisher at a time, specially when the response can take months.

jimhanas · 07-31-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Over

Many publishers require that submitted works shouldn't be in consideration by other publishers.

Fortunately, I think that's changing. It has already changed at most literary magazines, where allowing "simultaneous submissions" has become the norm. I believe that publishers now receive so many submissions -- and response times have gotten so long -- that they've realized prohibiting such submissions is unfair. Plus, most writers were ignoring the rule anyway.

neilmarr · 07-31-2010, 12:04 PM

There's a difference, though, Jim, between carefully selecting several publishers and/or agents, having done basic research on what they want and what they don't, paying some attention to their guidlines and then making a simulataneous submission ... and blitzing every house you can find an address for with what amounts to spam.

The old landmail, hard copy submissions process on an individual exclusive offer basis could, indeed take years. It was soul destroying ... and darned exensive.

With easy, instant and simulataneous submissions now possible, most smaller houses accept with good grace that non-agented authors will mass sub. That's fair enough if they've sussed things out and are not wasting time by mis-targetting and subbing in unworkable form.

My own wee place, for instance, will gladly look at a synopsis and the first two chapters on this basis. I'm not sure how many others work like this, but when we request an entire manuscript on the basis of an initial sub (you're talking a lot of precious pro time at this stage), we get a tad more serious. Just a tad.

The pros and cons of a small indie are fully explained to the author, all questions invited, and we advise that only when s/he's satisfied that we may be the right house should the ms be sent. We ask for nothing in writing until we make a decision, of course, but we do ask for an informal virtual handshake that s/he'll stick with us if we can offer a contract after reaching a decision.

In the past ten years, we've never heard from a single author who thinks this is an unfair system. And in coming up 200 or so contracts now, I can recall only a couple of instances where an author has broken the gentleman's agreement and taken his book elsewhere ... both, by the way, after we'd spent many, many hours, not only on a full assessment read but after we'd freely provided a full professional copy edit, structural suggestions and a lengthy editorial report.

On both sides of the fence (actually we play in the same garden), the huge majority of folks tend to play fair and are a delight to work with.

Cheers. Neil

jimhanas · 07-31-2010, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilmarr

The old landmail, hard copy submissions process on an individual exclusive offer basis could, indeed take years. It was soul destroying ... and darned exensive.

Indeed, and I'm glad it's changing. But I completely agree that both parties should act in good faith -- with the author doing research, letting the publisher know the situation, and alerting them immediately if an agreement is reached elsewhere.

I remember a magazine story from years ago that reported that no two journalists agreed on what "off the record" really meant -- and everyone was too cool to make their ground rules explicit with their sources. Same thing here. As models change, writers and publishers need to go out of their way to spell out for one another what is expected as far as time frames, exclusivity, etc.

kcmay · 07-31-2010, 04:36 PM

In 2005 I attended Viable Paradise workshop. Two of the instructors are long-time editors with Tor, one of the largest and best publishers of SF and fantasy books. They said again and again that the slush pile is filled with mediocrity and that if you write a good book, it will get read. Great writers truly stand out.

BexBits · 07-31-2010, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcmay

In 2005 I attended Viable Paradise workshop. Two of the instructors are long-time editors with Tor, one of the largest and best publishers of SF and fantasy books. They said again and again that the slush pile is filled with mediocrity and that if you write a good book, it will get read. Great writers truly stand out.

I think that is a dubious proposition given the situation as described by the piece Neil linked to earlier in this thread in this post:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...96&postcount=7

It is, perhaps, plausible to argue that those books which emerge from the slush pile are 'good'* but given the sheer magnitude of the items in the pile I don't see how it is possible to think that every 'good' book emerges.

*'Good' in quotes because given some of what gets published I'm not sure that's the correct term.

J. Strnad · 07-31-2010, 08:57 PM

"They said again and again that the slush pile is filled with mediocrity and that if you write a good book, it will get read."

I'd pretty much expect them to say that, and to possibly even believe it. But when you hear authors' stories about how many agents/publishers they had to submit to before getting any interest, you have to think that isn't the case. What if the author had stopped at the 19th agent or the 39th publisher before being accepted? How many rejections do you collect before deciding that your work is no good?

kcmay · 08-01-2010, 12:09 AM

Good doesn't necessarily mean marketable. Getting a manuscript read won't guarantee publication. An editor might love a book but not think he/she can sell it. But first we have to write a good book that gets our manuscript read by an editor. If we can't get anyone to read it, we might have more craft-honing to do.

neilmarr · 08-01-2010, 04:33 AM

When a slush pile exists, some blame must be taken by authors and agents. Remember that a slush pile is composed of unsolicited and univited work.

Imagine the stink if every amateur gardener in France decided he'd like to sell through a major spermarket chain to become a famous brand name producer and, without asking first, dumped his produce in the car park for inspection. Even worse if the chain happens to retail home DIY materials and has no interest in tomatoes and lettuce.

The trick is to avoid having your work added to the pile in the first place, either by making personal contact with an editorial member who actually says, 'Yep, I'd like to see more' or by working through a trusted agent who's known for his own rigorous filtering system and offers only target-specific, well prepared work.

The synopsis and two-chapter sumbissions system works in that ALL full manuscripts are read because those mss are specifically requested by an editor on the strength of the synop and partial.

Mine is a pretty small indie with only three professional, full-time editors. But proportinately, we receive as many subs as the editorial teams at any of the Bix Six. And, using this system and each putting aside an entire day each week to read submissions, in ten years we have NEVER had a slush pile.

To say that a slushpile is full of mediocrity is daft, by the way. How does anyone know that for sure as long as a single submission remains unread?

Cheers. Neil

PS: I must apologise for some missing letters in words of one or two of my recent posts 'exenses', for instance, instead of 'expenses' and above I had 'autors' rather than 'authors'. I'm working just now on a table out on my terrace and with a wee netbook whose keyboard has been hammered to death over its single year of existence. I'm afraid I'm heavy-handed on keyboards because I was brought up on old sit-up-and-beg typewriters and using carbon paper to produce up to five copies of each page. Just can't get out of the habit. On a PC, it doesn't really matter because I can replace the keyboard every six months or so for a few bucks. On a laptop or netbook, I'm a disaster -- Lord High Keboard Executioner, me. N

Logseman · 08-01-2010, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Lord High Keboard Executioner, me. N

O how the mighty fall!

07-31-2010, 08:51 AM	#20
neilmarr neilmarr Posts: 7,215 Karma: 6000059 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Monaco-Menton, France Device: sony	*OTOH some agents (like John Jarrold) don't want to see a synopsis at all* Right you are, Redfox. John's approach is effective if somewhat unusual even for an agent. He consistently offers excellent work. An admirable operator. He, though, is looking for a client's long-term publishing potential more than merely weighing up single titles (he does that well, too). Most, though (I'm an editor, not an agent), tend to adopt my approach to submissions. I don't have time to help develop authors who we have not worked with in the past. From a well, written and tight synopsis, I get a pretty good idea of the potential of a story and its characters. From a couple of sample chapters, I can weigh up whether the author is YET skilled enough to follow through. A couple of examples from this morning's work for instance ... One submission from a US author provided a synopsis which, although clumsy, outlined a pretty neat and original crime story. So I dived into the partial ms. I very soon discovered that the chap couldn't yet write for toffee. Ridiculously heavy on exposition, POV switches from third- to first-person, tense changes, stiff dialogue, terrible grammar and spelling. Rejection note with the best advice I could spare the time to offer for revision. My small editorial team doesn't have time to write an author's book for him The second example is from another US author. Her synopsis -- again a little awkward -- suggested a good story with strong characters. So I got to work reading the first two chapters, doing, as I often do, a simple line edit on the fly. It's second nature and doesn't distract me and also serves as a handy guide to an author if I must decline. Now this lass had it in her. She horrendously overuses tag lines, repeats words and ideas, etc, etc, etc. But that is repairable at my end. And her handling of dialogue is knockout. Very, very impressive. There's no need for massive author revision, as far as I've seen so far; it's simply a matter of sound editing to polish the diamond. So I've asked to see the entire manuscript for a full assessment. Some houses will immediately knock back an author if it looks like there's a lot of nit-pickin' editorial fiddling involved. We don't mind that work -- tedious as it can be, it goes with the territory -- but we will not attempt make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Total re-writes and tutoring are not part of our job description. John Jarrold is in the business of spotting author potential rather than cold single-title value, nurturing and coaxing the talent he spots over a period of years ... and he does a bloody fine job ot it. His reward is when an author he's selected -- not necessarily an isolated title that caught his eye -- produces work, with his expert support, infinite patience and long experience (as a quality author in his own right as well as an agent), that he can then dangle like sparkling gems before an acquisitions editor who has trust in John's ability only to recommend fine, polished work from authors who know what they're doing. John saves an acquisition a heck of a lot of wasted time, as well as serving his scribes well. Very best. Neil Attached Images Last edited by neilmarr; 07-31-2010 at 08:56 AM. Reason: to add DRM-Free badge

07-31-2010, 12:04 PM	#23
neilmarr neilmarr Posts: 7,215 Karma: 6000059 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Monaco-Menton, France Device: sony	There's a difference, though, Jim, between carefully selecting several publishers and/or agents, having done basic research on what they want and what they don't, paying some attention to their guidlines and then making a simulataneous submission ... and blitzing every house you can find an address for with what amounts to spam. The old landmail, hard copy submissions process on an individual exclusive offer basis could, indeed take years. It was soul destroying ... and darned exensive. With easy, instant and simulataneous submissions now possible, most smaller houses accept with good grace that non-agented authors will mass sub. That's fair enough if they've sussed things out and are not wasting time by mis-targetting and subbing in unworkable form. My own wee place, for instance, will gladly look at a synopsis and the first two chapters on this basis. I'm not sure how many others work like this, but when we request an entire manuscript on the basis of an initial sub (you're talking a lot of precious pro time at this stage), we get a tad more serious. Just a tad. The pros and cons of a small indie are fully explained to the author, all questions invited, and we advise that only when s/he's satisfied that we may be the right house should the ms be sent. We ask for nothing in writing until we make a decision, of course, but we do ask for an informal virtual handshake that s/he'll stick with us if we can offer a contract after reaching a decision. In the past ten years, we've never heard from a single author who thinks this is an unfair system. And in coming up 200 or so contracts now, I can recall only a couple of instances where an author has broken the gentleman's agreement and taken his book elsewhere ... both, by the way, after we'd spent many, many hours, not only on a full assessment read but after we'd freely provided a full professional copy edit, structural suggestions and a lengthy editorial report. On both sides of the fence (actually we play in the same garden), the huge majority of folks tend to play fair and are a delight to work with. Cheers. Neil Last edited by neilmarr; 07-31-2010 at 12:06 PM.

08-01-2010, 04:33 AM	#29
neilmarr neilmarr Posts: 7,215 Karma: 6000059 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Monaco-Menton, France Device: sony	When a slush pile exists, some blame must be taken by authors and agents. Remember that a slush pile is composed of unsolicited and univited work. Imagine the stink if every amateur gardener in France decided he'd like to sell through a major spermarket chain to become a famous brand name producer and, without asking first, dumped his produce in the car park for inspection. Even worse if the chain happens to retail home DIY materials and has no interest in tomatoes and lettuce. The trick is to avoid having your work added to the pile in the first place, either by making personal contact with an editorial member who actually says, 'Yep, I'd like to see more' or by working through a trusted agent who's known for his own rigorous filtering system and offers only target-specific, well prepared work. The synopsis and two-chapter sumbissions system works in that ALL full manuscripts are read because those mss are specifically requested by an editor on the strength of the synop and partial. Mine is a pretty small indie with only three professional, full-time editors. But proportinately, we receive as many subs as the editorial teams at any of the Bix Six. And, using this system and each putting aside an entire day each week to read submissions, in ten years we have NEVER had a slush pile. To say that a slushpile is full of mediocrity is daft, by the way. How does anyone know that for sure as long as a single submission remains unread? Cheers. Neil PS: I must apologise for some missing letters in words of one or two of my recent posts 'exenses', for instance, instead of 'expenses' and above I had 'autors' rather than 'authors'. I'm working just now on a table out on my terrace and with a wee netbook whose keyboard has been hammered to death over its single year of existence. I'm afraid I'm heavy-handed on keyboards because I was brought up on old sit-up-and-beg typewriters and using carbon paper to produce up to five copies of each page. Just can't get out of the habit. On a PC, it doesn't really matter because I can replace the keyboard every six months or so for a few bucks. On a laptop or netbook, I'm a disaster -- Lord High Keboard Executioner, me. N Last edited by neilmarr; 08-01-2010 at 05:39 AM. Reason: wonky-keyboard-generated typos.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Interesting take on one CEO's true attitude toward student needs	brecklundin	News	8	09-21-2010 09:28 AM
Short Fiction Authors, Various: Stories by Foreign Authors: Polish, Greek, Belgian. v1, 20 Feb 2008	nrapallo	IMP Books (offline)	0	02-22-2008 12:45 AM
Short Fiction Authors, Various: Stories by Foreign Authors: Polish, Greek, Belgian. v1, 20 Feb 2008	Madam Broshkina	Kindle Books (offline)	0	02-20-2008 08:41 PM
Short Fiction Authors, Various: Stories by Foreign Authors: Polish, Greek, Belgian. v1, 20 Feb 2008	Madam Broshkina	BBeB/LRF Books (offline)	0	02-20-2008 08:40 PM
how to clean more disk space in root file system to upgrade system	chinaet	iRex	1	12-18-2006 03:54 PM

07-30-2010, 05:05 PM	#16
neilmarr neilmarr Posts: 7,215 Karma: 6000059 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Monaco-Menton, France Device: sony	Sadly, Jim. Joe Public now has his own slushpile to wade through. There are thousands of self-published books appearing annually -- more by the year. They are not, by any means, all readable. I can well understand some authors' frustration with what are now known as the industry's fuddy-duddy and fussy 'gatekeepers', but I think many readers will soon come to appreciate the frustration an acquisitions editor suffers several times a day. Neil

07-30-2010, 05:23 PM	#17
MaggieScratch Has got to the black veil Posts: 542 Karma: 2144168 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania Device: Kobo Aura One, Kindle Paperwhite 2	Rejection from one agent is nothing to complain about. I would suggest reading Slushkiller, with particular attention to item no. 3, "The Context of Rejection," before getting upset about the time taken to read the submission. Your friend was of the opinion that his book was right for the agency; it was possible that the agent, or the assistant doing first triage of submissions, didn't share that opinion. Most agents who are actually selling books are in contact with editors who tell them what they are looking for. The book sent in might have been a certain genre, but not what the editors are looking for, and not something that intrigued the agent sufficiently to follow up and send it out anyway. Also, most agents only take on a few new projects per year. Yes, they encourage everyone to send in their work, because they don't want to miss anything good. The way for the author to beat those odds is to SUBMIT WIDELY. I would suggest that your friend, rather than bemoan the state of publishing, submit to a dozen or so more agents. If he receives similar quick responses from those agents, he needs to work on his query letter. If he is getting requests for partials or fulls and getting a lot of rejections, then he needs to work on his manuscript. It goes without saying that he is following each agency's submission requirements to the letter. If not, yes, instant rejection usually follows. Rejection (and its close cousin, the bad review) is the hardest thing for an author to get accustomed to, but it is part of the job. That doesn't make it any pleasanter to experience, of course, but it is the truth.

07-30-2010, 07:00 PM	#18
neilmarr neilmarr Posts: 7,215 Karma: 6000059 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Monaco-Menton, France Device: sony	*The way for the author to beat those odds is to SUBMIT WIDELY* Perhaps, Maggie. But I would suggest SUBMIT WELL. Too many developing authors haven't a clue about how to compose a query letter or to construct a good synopsis. Many don't even thoroughly check the agents and publishers they submit to and suss out what they'll consider and what they definitely don't need. It's a waste of everyone's time and talent. What puzzles and frustrates me about this is that we're in the Age of Internet when good, sound advice is freely available if you take the trouble to seek it out. Folks spend years in the attic, burning midnight oil and pouring their hearts into a book ... and then throw it away by dashing off sloppy covering material and spamming publishers and agents with zero interest in the type of work the author has produced. Few authors-in-waiting realise that they can actually sell a story on synopsis. If the story idea is gripping and characters are appealing in a tightly written summary, there's always an editorial way to fix the manuscript itself. Neil

07-31-2010, 04:36 PM	#25
kcmay Addict Posts: 363 Karma: 500001 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Georgia, USA Device: Kindle2	In 2005 I attended Viable Paradise workshop. Two of the instructors are long-time editors with Tor, one of the largest and best publishers of SF and fantasy books. They said again and again that the slush pile is filled with mediocrity and that if you write a good book, it will get read. Great writers truly stand out.

07-31-2010, 08:57 PM	#27
J. Strnad Guru Posts: 915 Karma: 3537194 Join Date: Feb 2009 Device: Kobo, Kindle 3, Paperwhite	"They said again and again that the slush pile is filled with mediocrity and that if you write a good book, it will get read." I'd pretty much expect them to say that, and to possibly even believe it. But when you hear authors' stories about how many agents/publishers they had to submit to before getting any interest, you have to think that isn't the case. What if the author had stopped at the 19th agent or the 39th publisher before being accepted? How many rejections do you collect before deciding that your work is no good?

08-01-2010, 12:09 AM	#28
kcmay Addict Posts: 363 Karma: 500001 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Georgia, USA Device: Kindle2	Good doesn't necessarily mean marketable. Getting a manuscript read won't guarantee publication. An editor might love a book but not think he/she can sell it. But first we have to write a good book that gets our manuscript read by an editor. If we can't get anyone to read it, we might have more craft-honing to do.