|
||||
|
||||
|
|
A lot of writers I know have the mistaken idea that, if they write the best book they can possibly write, someone somewhere will want to publish it. That might be true except for one thing: personal preferences.
A writer I know recently sent me a rejection slip that her agent had received from an editor. The editor liked the story, liked the inter-personal conflicts, and liked the character development.
So, you ask, what's not to like?
Unfortunately, plenty. |
|||
|
Here's more of what the editor had to say: "I'm afraid I'm going to pass, for several reasons. First, I wasn't personally a fan of the author's staccato writing style. However, I'm sure its effect is dramatic if you are a fan of this style, so hopefully you'll find someone who warms to it. Also, I did think the book seemed very short, at around 80,500 words. "As we'd usually be looking for around 100k in a novel, I guess this wouldn't be impossible to address but I'm afraid the other elements weren't really working out for me. Urban fantasy/paranormal fantasy is becoming a very crowded area in terms of submissions, as you know, so we really need the right elements of plot, characterization, voice, placing and style to come together in a strong proposition to take it further. Unfortunately, I didn't feel these elements came together here for me personally, but hopefully you'll find someone who does enjoy this combination." Personal preferences. The question that immediately jumps to mind, of course, is what should the writer do, if anything? Certainly, she could change her style, if she's talented and experienced enough to do so. And she could take a closer look at beefing up the plot, strengthening the characterization, improving her voice, and nailing the placing. Would it be worth her doing so? What do you think?
Uh-huh. That's the same thing I think.
Ask a writer to spend six months making these kinds of "tweaks" to a completed novel--not to mention adding another 20 thousand words to the property, and the writer runs the same risk the next time she submits it, albeit with slightly different comments.
Either the pace isn't right, or the narrative feels "bloated," or the setting is too mundane, or the dialogue is stilted. Do you get my point?
No matter how good a literary property may be, there's always the element of personal preference that enters into the picture to act as a stumbling block to a sale.
So, what's a writer to do? Do what I tell myself to do when I get a turn-down such as that from an editor. Consider all of the negatives, correct those that have merit, and discard the rest. If your work really is as good as you believe it is, let it sink or float on its own accord.
That's the only real way to write effectively. Until then, the next time you receive a negative turn-down from an editor, don't panic. Don't take it personally. And don't overreact. Remember, an editor, with very few exceptions, is only human. And in the end, it's the editor who has the deep pockets and the writer who's looking to share in the wealth.
Until that time rolls around...
Smoke if you got 'em.
|
||||
