Reasons for Rejections

Last week and this week I've been going through submissions, trying to get as many replies out before Christmas as possible for two reasons. One: I don't want to wait until I have time at Christmas and send them then (usually rejections bum people out--to varying degrees--and I try very hard not to send them around the holidays). Two: I know I'll be inundated with inquiries between Christmas and New Year's because many people have some time off (and New Year's resolution time involves following up on things quite often), so I'd like to be preemptive.

This has it fresh in my mind why books get rejected. I want to talk in detail about a couple of them here.

Note that this is assuming you a) sent work in a genre the publisher IS, in fact, seeking, and b) followed the guidelines to the letter. Between half and two thirds of submissions are rejected (or ignored) for one of those two reasons. I state right on the submissions page that I may not reply to anything not following basic guidelines; if I have the time, I'll try to send a polite note back requesting people resubmit, but if it's a particularly busy day, I delete the submission.

Also note that this is assuming you weren't snarky or insulting in the cover letter. Honestly, if you have a total dislike of either editors in general or me in particular, simply don't submit. No one is going to accept a book by someone who shows nothing but contempt for who they're sending their work to.

For the rest, it comes down to one thing: the editor didn't love it. Now WHY they didn't love it is another story...

It's not right for our catalog.

I've seen a few that had polished cover letters and a good sense of their craft, but the book wasn't right for us or isn't something I thought would do well with us. In these instances, there's nothing the writer can do except keep submitting and find the right publisher.

But the main reason, however, is...

The book isn't ready yet.

Sometimes during review I don't even get to the point where I'm trying to decide if the book is right for us or not--the author has sent in a poor cover letter and unproofed manuscript, so the work is rejected without much more consideration.

This *is* an area a writer can control. I'm going to break it down into a few points:

Mechanics

Your cover letter shouldn't have grammar errors and spelling mistakes. I know typos happen and I'm fairly forgiving of them, but if your cover letter shows you don't know how to use a semicolon, I'm not even going to open the manuscript to glance through. And when I get to the manuscript and find serious misspellings and errors in the opening paragraph? Reject.

Yes, every publisher (by which I mean legit ones--let's not even get into the others) has editors on staff to work with you on your manuscript, and no book goes out without at least three rounds of edits, but it's not their job to teach you even a medium level grasp of the English language, let alone a basic one. It's not the editor's job to hold your hand. They will point out weaknesses, flaws, and help you polish the book, but they shouldn't have to teach you how to properly use punctuation.

I'm not going to suggest writing books because they aren't necessary. Go to your local library and check out half a dozen current novels close to the genre you write in. Read them with the distance of a writer. How is punctuation treated within dialogue? Can you find a pattern with how commas are used? What about the flow of the sentences? Open your document next and compare. How do YOU treat punctuation? Is there any rhyme or reason behind your comma usage? How do your sentences read? If you do this and feel totally lost, it's really, really not the time to be submitting your manuscript.

Your job as a writer is to communicate the story. It's not enough to just put words on a page: those words have to come together in a way that both makes sense and is clear to others. The only way to compose words in a pleasing fashion--to communicate your message effectively--is to learn more about the craft of writing, usually through reading and practice.

Story

By the same token, communication involves presenting the story in a way that will grab and entertain your reader right off the bat.

The reader's time is valuable. You, the writer, are competing with many other forms of entertainment for your reader's time. The opening of your story needs to make her the promise that the time she spends with you will be worth it, and then you need to follow through and keep that promise by entertaining her for the whole book.

Perhaps because we deal with speculative fiction so much--which involves a large amount of specific world-building--but I see a lot of books where nothing is happening in the opening chapters. The only promise the reader is given is that she'll be bored. Examples of nothing happening:

There's a prologue. Please don't comment back with examples of good, working prologues--yes, I know there are some. But the odds that your book needs one is slim to none. The prologue typically takes place outside of the main story...*why* would you want to start that way? I've finished writing seventeen novels and I had prologues exactly twice: my first and second written novels, which have never--and will never--see the light of day. Ninety-nine percent of the time, you don't need a prologue.

Info-dump. You know how in just about any episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer there's an exposition scene where Giles figures out what's going on and then has to tell the rest of the Scoobies/viewers? There's a reason those scenes fall in the latter half of an episode rather than the beginning.

If readers "need" backstory, it's your job to find an appropriate time to give it to them. I know you've done a lot of work inventing your world and the plot, but there are ways of crafting your story so that the information is fed slowly over time when it's relevant. Too often I see books where chapter one might as well be a prologue because it's nothing but a long monologue telling me about how different the world is now (this is common with post-apocalyptic books). Don't tell; show. Start with a character doing something in the world. Context will give me clues as to the changes between their world and mine; trust me to put two and two together.

Again, go back to those half dozen novels you took out of the library. Look at their opening pages--look at their opening lines. Look at how immediately the author grounds you in the character and in the world.

Then look at how the author followed through with the promise to entertain in the opening pages, because even polished first chapters can fall apart quickly. How?

The stakes aren't high enough. A story is a character with a goal and obstacles between her and said goal. What happens if she doesn't achieve her goal? Does it matter to her? Will it matter to the reader?

As yourself "so what?" as often as possible. If there's no sense of a ticking clock, if there's no compelling reason for her to achieve her goal, why would the reader keep reading? This isn't to say that "high stakes" must equal "end of the world." But the stakes must be appropriate for the genre and the characters. If the police officer doesn't catch the killer, more people will die--possibly someone the police officer loves. If the heroine doesn't track down the evil wizard in twenty-four hours, she'll die of some horrible magic spell. Yes, both of those are overused tropes, but they became popular for a reason: high stakes. You have to find your own.

The main character isn't compelling. Characters need flaws. They also need virtues. A balance is necessary. Too flawed and no one will like him. Too virtuous and he won't be realistic. You can have the most unique, interesting plot in the world, but if your characters fall flat, your reader won't stick around. Character is the reader's window into your world. Readers don't identify with that tree over there or the long history of vampires vs. humans. Readers identify with other people.

There are dozens of other reasons--development of relationships, plot resolution, number and quality of supporting characters, etc--but those are the biggest reasons I don't get past a few pages or even the synopsis.

So how do I know why I was rejected if you don't tell me?

The sad thing, folks, is that I have another hundred and fifty manuscripts to go through and can't conceivably give custom rejection letters.

Sending off a form letter takes two minutes (reply, copy & paste letter, write author name, hit send). Sending a custom letter is very time consuming and it's not my job to be a critique partner for hundreds of people. That's why I try to have as many informative blog posts as possible here and chat about slush on Twitter--the hope is that some time addressing issues I see over and over will be useful to a lot of people rather than spending hours and hours writing individual letters. I know it sucks. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. The odd time I've sent a custom rejection letter I've either been ignored (a thanks for the feedback might've been nice) or yelled at (or been in the process of trying to write a tactful one when I got yelled at for not responding yet) so I've had to give up the practice in all cases.

I can offer a few general suggestions to lessen the odds that you're rejected for any reason other than the book not being right for the publisher:

1. It's probably not a good idea to send in your first novel. It's one thing if you've written a lot of fiction before, but if you haven't, put away that first novel and work on something new. Yes, that first one might be brilliant: you'll know in six months to a year when you open the book again and re-read it. The publishing industry is NOT going to collapse in the mean time, so just wait. Keep writing, keep practicing.

2. It's probably not a good idea to self-publish your early efforts. At the risk of getting hate mail over this, I'm saying it anyway. I'm seeing a LOT of books in slush now by writers who self-published earlier work with the claim they got great feedback, but what they sent in just isn't up to par. I've been trying to figure out why--correlation isn't causation by any means, and this really deserves its own blog post, but I suspect it's because writers who write and get rejected over and over but keep with it will eventually really hone their craft, whereas the ease of self-publishing has led to people publishing before they're ready instead of using that time to polish their writing. Of course there are exceptions and a lot of self-publishers work extremely hard; anecdotally, however, this is what I'm seeing in my slush pile. I think caution is usually the way to go.

3. It's probably a good idea to ensure you have quality beta readers over quantity. It's really a good idea to have an extra set of eyes on your work...but I see a lot of people who assure me their work has been read by great critique partners, yet the work has glaring errors. Not all beta readers are equal. Not all opinions are equal. The goal of a beta reader must be to make the book better, not stroke your ego because he or she is afraid of hurting your feelings--or worse, because he or she doesn't know any better. I feel the same about critique groups; the right one can be invaluable, but some do more harm than good. Caution, caution, caution.

4. It's probably a good idea to read more books than Harry Potter, Twilight, and The Da Vinci Code. Does this really need more of an explanation?

I know it's frustrating to be in a position where you want your work to be better but aren't sure of what you can do to make it all it can be. Those awful agents and editors won't just tell you what you're doing wrong, you're getting conflicting advice, and it sucks. It's a horrible, murky part of being a writer where you have to find your way on your own...but everyone does it. It's part of the job. There is a wealth of information out there if you just look, and combining knowledge with time and practice will get you through to the other side.

If you'd like further reading, I have a guest blog interview up at Amanda Devine's blog right here. We talk about submissions, the mechanics of writing, and other stuff.