'Not only does this bog down in the middle, but the author tends
to stay too long with non-essentials. He seems to have little idea of
pace... and that puts me off badly'
- on Len Deighton's The Ipcress File
'A long, dull novel about an artist'
- on Irving Stone's Lust for Life
'You're welcome to Le Carre - he hasn't got any future'
- on John Le Carre's The Spy Who Came In From the Cold
All of the above are quoted in Rotten Rejections compiled by
Bill Henderson (Pushcart Press, New York, 1990), a truly wonderful book
that will give encouragement to every writer as it shows critics to be
fallible! Mr Henderson started his publishing company after receiving
many rejections for his own novel.
'Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is
good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.'
- Samuel Johnson
No one likes rejection. Of any kind, on any subject, from
anyone, let alone on the fruits of your literary efforts. But if your
manuscript is rejected, you'll be in good company, as you'll see from
the quotes above. Take consolation from the fact that almost every
successful writer - even those who seem to permanently reside in the
bestseller lists - has had to face rejection at some point in their
career. Turning rejection to your advantage changes a negative act
into a positive one.
Publishers (and agents) will often reject a novel with bland phrases
such as 'it's not right for our list', which can be infuriating.
Sometimes this isn't just a brush off: it may well be the truth.
Did you check what they published (or represented) before sending the
material? Did you do your other homework properly? If your manuscript
really isn't right for their list then you've wasted their time, and
your own, and that of your manuscript. Do some more research. You don't
necessarily need to be downhearted about the quality of your writing. If
you have submitted your romantic novel to a publisher who doesn't
actually publish romantic fiction and they reject it, then it is
probably not a criticism of your novel's quality, but rather a
straightforward instance of it really being wrong for their list.
Some editors will use that phrase as a get-out. Either they haven't
looked at the novel properly, or don't want to say exactly why they are
rejecting it, or they simply don't have the time to respond in detail.
The sheer volume of the material submitted to agents and to publishers
means that, unfortunately, a large proportion of it will be rejected
without being read through entirely. This will never change: there
will always be many more people writing than can be published. Trying to
become a published writer is not for the faint-hearted.
Many writers feel anger when their manuscript is rejected. This is
only natural, you've worked long and hard producing something you have
confidence in, and for a stranger to bounce it back to you can seem
callous and unfair. But look closely at the rejection letter. Does it
contain more than a few bland generalizations? If it does make specific
remarks about your novel - rather than just how full their publication
list is etc. - seize upon those remarks and analyse them. Any
comments at all that can be used to make your novel better are like gold
dust. Don't let constructive criticism slip through your fingers
just because you're unhappy that the editor hasn't fallen in love with
your creation.
If an editor says your characterization is thin, maybe the following
exercise would be useful: try rewriting your character biographies only
from the facts you've given about them in the novel, taking care not to
include anything that isn't actually on the page. When you wrote the
character biographies in the first place you were including everything
that you knew about the characters. Did all of that information
actually make it to the final draft of the novel? If a scene that
demonstrated some vital fact about your hero was cut, it could explain
why an editor found the characterization thin. Reinstate it, or get that
information back into the novel in another way.
If you see a comment that the novel lacks pace, go through your
manuscript and draw a flow chart of each character's actions and
appearances within each chapter. I've seen my client John Harvey,
creator of the Resnick detective novels and television series, do this
for his work. It's fascinating, and extremely useful in spotting
potential lulls in the plot or points in the book where you lose a vital
character from the scene for too long.
Any and all comments, whether negative or positive, can and should
be used to help you constantly improve your manuscript. That's not
to say that all comments will be helpful, of course. It's often said
that if you put six editors in a room with a manuscript you'll end up
with seven different opinions. There is never an absolute right and
wrong when it comes to fiction. Inevitably you will find editors
contradicting each other, often in the most infuriating way if you are
the writer. This is another reason for doing homework in advance of
offering. As with everything else in life, there are horses for courses.
Getting a good match between author and editor is an art form, and
something that agents spend a lot of time perfecting.
Recently, we had two different television companies rejecting the
same script, one, because the producer liked the storyline but not the
characters. But the producer at the second company said she was turning
it down because the storyline was poor even though the characterization
was particularly well done. Nothing can be learned from those two
rejection letters, except that you can't please all of the folk all of
the time!
Some of the suggestions for taking editorial criticism can also be
applied to dealing with rejection with regard to ego, for example. No
matter how much you are infuriated by a rejection letter, I would
suggest you should keep it, filed safely. You can then do one of two
things with it: use it later, in conjunction with others, to revise the
manuscript if you don't get offers meanwhile. Or laugh at it secretly
after you've become a successful writer! I would counsel against
replying to it with a point by point refutation. The editor didn't love
your book: contradicting their reasons won't convince them to love it.
I have never believed that suffering was good for the soul - I'm not
that much of a masochist - and ideally I would like all of my authors to
be accepted by publishers in the first month of submission. But life's
not always like that.
Don't think that agents themselves don't get upset when receiving
rejections from publishers. Obviously agents are one removed from the
hurt - I didn't actually write the novel - but if I believe in an
author's work (and I shouldn't be representing that author if I don't)
then it's a blow to see it rejected. It's also a blow to my professional
pride (if I know my job, liking a novel should mean I can sell it), and
it's then painful to have to deliver the bad news to a client I respect.
Copyright © 1999 Carole Blake
About
Carole Blake
