Author Advice from an Editor
Hi, folks!
The following is a re-post of some advice I offered on a writer newslist to an author who was publicly blowing his stack over a rejection. Three weeks after the submission, he asked for/ demanded a reason for said rejection. When the editor wrote back (!) and said that s/he couldn't remember the exact reason but would check into it again, the author vented on our list, asking if "anyone else had ever encountered such f***ed-up unprofessional bullshit." My response is below. Although many of us already know these things, I figured that my observations about submissions and publishing might be of interest here.
PS: My use of all-caps was necessitated by the newslist's cranky formating. Any other use of emphasis probably would have been turned into gibberishtic wingdings.
Enjoy!
-----------------------------------
As a professional author, an occasional publisher, a writing professor, and an editor for over five years, I think I can answer your question... though my response might not be the answer you want.
Editors receive massive numbers of manuscripts. In order to process even a fraction of them, they (and/or their assistants) must scan copious submissions, applying a number of criteria(*) to see whether or not the submission in question warrants deeper consideration. This is not an elitist power-trip, but an absolute necessity. After all, even editors need to eat and sleep, and there's far more to an editor's job than simply scanning, reviewing and polishing manuscripts!
From my own experience, I can say that barely 15% of submissions get beyond this stage. The majority of submissions are poorly written, grammatically appalling, stylistically unsound, unproofed, badly-printed (if printed at all!), or otherwise violate basic publishing standards. I have no idea whether or not your manuscript fit any of those categories, but the overall rule is usually "If it violates Standard A, B or C, I'm not reading past page 1." Again, this is simple practicality. An editor simply does not have the time to make personal in-depth evaluations of everything s/he receives. There isn't time or energy enough to do so!
Beyond that, an editor must judge submissions by other criteria: whether or not the author(s) meet the promise of their premise; whether or not the project holds that reader's interest; whether or not the proposal fits the plans, needs, identity or limitations of the publishing company; whether or not a similar project is already in the works or on the schedule; whether or not the book is likely to exceed the H-U-G-E costs involved in producing, printing, stocking, shipping, marketing and producing said book; and finally, whether or not the editor enjoys, agrees with or believes in the proposal at all. Any or all of these considerations may derail a book during the reading stage - and believe me, an editor is too busy to keep detailed records about each element of every project that crosses his/her desk, especially at a major publishing house!
Publishing is not an infinite-resource industry. In order to stay in business, a publisher must establish a market presence, reach a core audience, and then supply that audience with ONLY A CERTAIN NUMBER of products per year. This number depends on the financial resources of the company and the projected cost/ profit ratios of the estimated publications. Publishing costs money - there's production(**), manufacture(***), distribution, warehousing, taxes, returns, damaged copies, overhead, etc., etc. etc. To meet those expenses - much less make a profit - the publisher receives 20% to 40% of each sold book's cover price. The other 60%-80% is taken by the author(s), distributors and retailers.(****) In order to meet those costs and stay in business, any publisher must balance the potential profit of each book with the resources needed to publish it. Again, I have no idea what your book is or how potentially marketable it may be, but that cost/ time/ profit ratio is a MAJOR consideration to any publisher who wants to keep publishing.
The bottom line here is, your prospective editor looked at your manuscript and for whatever reason decided it didn't meet their needs, standards, audience or projected schedule. He got busy, put the manuscript aside, and now isn't exactly sure why he decided against it. If you're nice and he's in a good mood, he might take a second look at it, and may even decide to change his mind... or at least write you a detailed letter describing his reasons. Those letters and evaluations take TIME, however, and it's neither reasonable, realistic nor (if you want to stay in an editor's good graces) SMART to blow up because you didn't get said detailed evaluation or acceptance in a hurry.
(Oh, yeah - and bashing editors by name in Internet forums is usually a pretty bad idea.)
Does that mean you're S.O.L? No. As I wrote above, the majority of submissions to any publisher violate basic professional standards. You can put yourself ahead of the pack simply by turning in clean, polished, proofread, well-written and appealing manuscripts. In my experience and observation, an author who takes the time and effort to do even that much usually receives more time and effort from the folks on the other end of that submission.
Good luck!
- Phil Brucato
PS: Your editor's response was pretty reasonable. S/he didn't go off on you, gave you an explanation, and offered to look over your work again and get back to you.
This isn't "F****ed-up bullshit," it's reasonable - more reasonable than an editor is required or even expected to be. S/he was being nice to you. Appreciate that.
If you want to play the game, chill. Don't take rejection personally - it's part of the business. And put things in perspective.
PPS: Three weeks is REALLY SHORT for a response time. The industry average is six-eight weeks.
And I hope your grammar, spelling and etiquette are better in your manuscripts and correspondence than they are in your post. I know that venting net posts are informal, but strive to achieve professional standards even in an informal venue. It's a good habit to have!
-------------------------------------
* - Spelling, grammar, proofreading, clarity, dynamism, subject appeal and other basic style considerations.
** - Editing, proofreading, illustration, cover art, marketing and layout.
***- Printing, correction proofs, shipping, customs fees, agents' fees.
****- The exact amount depends on the deals that said publishers work out with their distributors. The industry average, however, involves 5%-10% of cover price (after advance is paid out) to the author and 60% of cover price to the distributor (who then sells it to the retailer for 50%-70% of cover price). Lest that sound usurious, remember that retailers and distributors have huge bills to pay as well!
--------------------------------------------
The following is a re-post of some advice I offered on a writer newslist to an author who was publicly blowing his stack over a rejection. Three weeks after the submission, he asked for/ demanded a reason for said rejection. When the editor wrote back (!) and said that s/he couldn't remember the exact reason but would check into it again, the author vented on our list, asking if "anyone else had ever encountered such f***ed-up unprofessional bullshit." My response is below. Although many of us already know these things, I figured that my observations about submissions and publishing might be of interest here.
PS: My use of all-caps was necessitated by the newslist's cranky formating. Any other use of emphasis probably would have been turned into gibberishtic wingdings.
Enjoy!
-----------------------------------
As a professional author, an occasional publisher, a writing professor, and an editor for over five years, I think I can answer your question... though my response might not be the answer you want.
Editors receive massive numbers of manuscripts. In order to process even a fraction of them, they (and/or their assistants) must scan copious submissions, applying a number of criteria(*) to see whether or not the submission in question warrants deeper consideration. This is not an elitist power-trip, but an absolute necessity. After all, even editors need to eat and sleep, and there's far more to an editor's job than simply scanning, reviewing and polishing manuscripts!
From my own experience, I can say that barely 15% of submissions get beyond this stage. The majority of submissions are poorly written, grammatically appalling, stylistically unsound, unproofed, badly-printed (if printed at all!), or otherwise violate basic publishing standards. I have no idea whether or not your manuscript fit any of those categories, but the overall rule is usually "If it violates Standard A, B or C, I'm not reading past page 1." Again, this is simple practicality. An editor simply does not have the time to make personal in-depth evaluations of everything s/he receives. There isn't time or energy enough to do so!
Beyond that, an editor must judge submissions by other criteria: whether or not the author(s) meet the promise of their premise; whether or not the project holds that reader's interest; whether or not the proposal fits the plans, needs, identity or limitations of the publishing company; whether or not a similar project is already in the works or on the schedule; whether or not the book is likely to exceed the H-U-G-E costs involved in producing, printing, stocking, shipping, marketing and producing said book; and finally, whether or not the editor enjoys, agrees with or believes in the proposal at all. Any or all of these considerations may derail a book during the reading stage - and believe me, an editor is too busy to keep detailed records about each element of every project that crosses his/her desk, especially at a major publishing house!
Publishing is not an infinite-resource industry. In order to stay in business, a publisher must establish a market presence, reach a core audience, and then supply that audience with ONLY A CERTAIN NUMBER of products per year. This number depends on the financial resources of the company and the projected cost/ profit ratios of the estimated publications. Publishing costs money - there's production(**), manufacture(***), distribution, warehousing, taxes, returns, damaged copies, overhead, etc., etc. etc. To meet those expenses - much less make a profit - the publisher receives 20% to 40% of each sold book's cover price. The other 60%-80% is taken by the author(s), distributors and retailers.(****) In order to meet those costs and stay in business, any publisher must balance the potential profit of each book with the resources needed to publish it. Again, I have no idea what your book is or how potentially marketable it may be, but that cost/ time/ profit ratio is a MAJOR consideration to any publisher who wants to keep publishing.
The bottom line here is, your prospective editor looked at your manuscript and for whatever reason decided it didn't meet their needs, standards, audience or projected schedule. He got busy, put the manuscript aside, and now isn't exactly sure why he decided against it. If you're nice and he's in a good mood, he might take a second look at it, and may even decide to change his mind... or at least write you a detailed letter describing his reasons. Those letters and evaluations take TIME, however, and it's neither reasonable, realistic nor (if you want to stay in an editor's good graces) SMART to blow up because you didn't get said detailed evaluation or acceptance in a hurry.
(Oh, yeah - and bashing editors by name in Internet forums is usually a pretty bad idea.)
Does that mean you're S.O.L? No. As I wrote above, the majority of submissions to any publisher violate basic professional standards. You can put yourself ahead of the pack simply by turning in clean, polished, proofread, well-written and appealing manuscripts. In my experience and observation, an author who takes the time and effort to do even that much usually receives more time and effort from the folks on the other end of that submission.
Good luck!
- Phil Brucato
PS: Your editor's response was pretty reasonable. S/he didn't go off on you, gave you an explanation, and offered to look over your work again and get back to you.
This isn't "F****ed-up bullshit," it's reasonable - more reasonable than an editor is required or even expected to be. S/he was being nice to you. Appreciate that.
If you want to play the game, chill. Don't take rejection personally - it's part of the business. And put things in perspective.
PPS: Three weeks is REALLY SHORT for a response time. The industry average is six-eight weeks.
And I hope your grammar, spelling and etiquette are better in your manuscripts and correspondence than they are in your post. I know that venting net posts are informal, but strive to achieve professional standards even in an informal venue. It's a good habit to have!
-------------------------------------
* - Spelling, grammar, proofreading, clarity, dynamism, subject appeal and other basic style considerations.
** - Editing, proofreading, illustration, cover art, marketing and layout.
***- Printing, correction proofs, shipping, customs fees, agents' fees.
****- The exact amount depends on the deals that said publishers work out with their distributors. The industry average, however, involves 5%-10% of cover price (after advance is paid out) to the author and 60% of cover price to the distributor (who then sells it to the retailer for 50%-70% of cover price). Lest that sound usurious, remember that retailers and distributors have huge bills to pay as well!
--------------------------------------------