A couple of different people recently sent me the link to a Salon article about the opportunities for self-publishing in the electronic age. No new information for anyone who’s in the industry. But what stopped me and made me think I should comment is what the article’s author, Laura Miller, thinks about the “slush pile,” those unsolicited manuscripts and proposals that end up on the desks (or in today’s electronic submission era, more likely the desktops), of editors and agents.
You’ve either experienced slush or you haven’t, and the difference is not trivial. People who have never had the job of reading through the heaps of unsolicited manuscripts sent to anyone even remotely connected with publishing typically have no inkling of two awful facts: 1) just how much slush is out there, and 2) how really, really, really, really terrible the vast majority of it is. Civilians who kvetch about the bad writing of Dan Brown, Stephenie Meyer or any other hugely popular but critically disdained novelist can talk as much trash as they want about the supposedly low standards of traditional publishing. They haven’t seen the vast majority of what didn’t get published — and believe me, if you have, it’s enough to make your blood run cold, thinking about that stuff being introduced into the general population.
I have a different take on slush than Laura Miller who, as far as I was able to tell from her bio, has been neither a book editor nor a literary agent. Yes, some is bad, as bad as Miller claims. Most of it is pretty good though, in one way or another, just not good enough. Authors take too long to get to the point. Or they provide information dumps instead of action. Or they repeat the same information in different ways, over and over, slowing the action to a crawl. Or they don’t know the difference between dialogue and conversation.
But that doesn’t mean the writers are untalented. With coaching in technique, lots of pruning, and a few other tweaks, most of the books I’ve had submitted to me could have been publishable.
Because I did quite a bit of book doctoring before becoming an agent, in the books I reject, I often immediately know how to fix what’s wrong. As a literary agent, however, I don’t have the time to do it.
Nor does it make sense to do it, unless I’m in love, which I’m sure is how most agents and editors feel. Even those books I do fall in love with, and believe should be fought over by any publisher with a pulse, are too often, instead, being rejected by editors who agree that someone should publish it but who won’t acquire anything unless they are in love.
So, what should the aspiring author take away from the above? Two things:
1) Your technique is at least as important as your talent, and in most cases, more so. As Miller notes, lots of people complain about the writing skills of Dan Brown and Stephenie Meyer, but both are masters of story-telling technique. And they’re too busy counting their $millions to care what you think of their talents.
2) Publishing is often a numbers game. Getting rejections doesn’t necessarily mean your writing isn’t up to par. It often means that it hasn’t yet landed on the desktop of the agent or editor who will fall in love.
- Anita Bartholomew
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 14 comments }
Very honest and straightforward post! As a new writer, it helps to know how an agent views submissions. I sent out my first manuscript to a few agents before realizing it needed more work. I was fortunate enough to get feedback from one of those agents (who offered to read again if I revised). I greatly appreciate that she took the time to let me know what worked, what didn’t…sometimes just a line or two can point a writer in the right direction. But I appreciate how busy agents are – and if you offered a few lines times the hundreds of submissions you receive – well, that’s all you would do all day!
I’m doing a series of phone consults with an editor right now. Wow – I’m learning so much about the craft of writing. It’s a worthwhile investment. And rather a fun experience!
Well-said, Anita. I especially loved: Getting rejections doesn’t necessarily mean your writing isn’t up to par. It often means that it hasn’t yet landed on the desktop of the agent or editor who will fall in love.
Blessings, Buffy
I loved your post, Anita! I believe the exact same thing–you can learn writing technique. What’s more, it changes over time. For example, Turgenev with his long-winded descriptions would have to do a lot of pruning to get published now.
Thanks,
Elena
Great post and absolutely true. This is quite a subjective business. It’s really the same as someone who enters a book store and reads the inside of the jacket of 20 books. They decide on two or three to buy and leave. Being an agent has a larger scale, reading thousands of queries and deciding on a few to read the fulls.
Thanks for the insight.
Thank you, Anita. We struggling writers wish we knew how agents viewed our queries.
We know our end of the transmission. But the shores upon which our query arrives are shrouded in the same mystery as those ancient maps which read : Here Be Dragons.
And thanks for giving us hope that with a little more polish and a lot more growing in craft, we will one day land on the shores of acceptance.
You made my tired evening a bit brighter, Roland
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I definitely want my work to be “dressed for Sunday” before presenting her, and I’m a little daunted by stories of successful writers who have had ALL THESE EDITORS revamp their work. How does one find one of those awesome editors?
I found your take very encouraging and also a bummer. It’s wonderful to think a lot of work out there is publishable even though agents/editors reject it. As a writer, it takes some of the sting out of the rejections. On the other hand, the idea the work would be publishable if the writer received that little bit of help to tweak the project but is left with instead “not for me” is disheartening. So close but so far away and left with little direction.
I know agents/editors are pressed for time. They can’t take on every project. In a way, it reminds me of doctors and lawyers who take on that one or two pro bono cases a year. They do the best they can with the few clients who really move them but ultimately have to say no to the vast majority.
Wow! What an eye-opener. To a new writer, or any writer, this post shows what agents think and what they’re looking for. It’s nice to see that rejections are not always a reflection that there is no hope, but maybe a push to tell say you’re almost there and keep working.
Thanks, Anita. I can tell you are a very kind and gentle person who really cares about writers.
Laura B.
Well said, Anita. When I finish my manuscript, a memoir, titled “Reflecting Absence, ” I will query you. Margie
That was a very thoughtful comment. It really helps to know that some agents out there are looking on benignly on us, poor blighted would-be writers!
With your positive approach to the slush pile (that everyone agrees must be awful), you’ve made my day! Many, many thanks!
Hi Anita –
I’m late to this discussion but I wanted to say, great post. It’s the kind of thoughtful honesty one would hope to get from agents / editors. I was bothered by the Salon piece — by the snarky tone, the condescending attitude, and most of all, because large parts of the piece made no sense. She talks at one point about the great danger that, because of self-publishing, readers will now have to wade thru slush piles. Makes no sense — readers do not have to battle with slush piles — the gatekeepers do this, because they are paid to do it. So Miller is projecting a problem that affects her onto people it does not affect. Anyway, enough said — nice post.
- Warren Berger
“…masters of story-telling technique.”
Yes. Story Telling.
Why do so many lose sight of that?
I’ve stumbled across a couple of query-writing contests (and even participated, on occasion) and it certainly gave me a glimpse of the challenges a literary agent must face. So many storylines grabbed me. The challenge of narrowing down the field of submissions to a manageable number has to be overwhelming.
Thanks for reminding us that even submissions that don’t get picked can be full of potential!
Wonderful blog and terrific/thoughtful post. Nice new perspective on the slush pile too. *Fingers crossed* that you fall in love with my Query! Thanks again for such an enlightening post. Love it when agents share their inner-workings with us restless writin’ folks.
Comments on this entry are closed.