Rejections
Given the reviews and success I’m meeting as a self-published author, who grew weary with excuses and the ritual of the publishing world, I thought I’d post five of many rejections I received for my novel, Shadow Song. You may, or may not, find them of interest.
You write well, and you’ve obviously done homework on the Indian ritual and custom, but it seems to me that the book is too quiet and ‘domestic’ in its tone to do well for us just now.
Susan Allison
The Berkley Publishing Group
July 26, 1990
Though I liked your storytelling I’m afraid that I was unable to stir the enthusiasm of the powers that be for the Canadian Frontier subject matter.
Brian Thomsen
Senior Editor
Warner Books, Inc.
August 28, 1990
The event you have chosen to focus on is indeed loaded with possibilities however, the novel you have chosen to write about it seems to me to fall right between the genres of adult, almost romantic, fiction and young adult. By that I mean, I regret, that it is neither one nor the other — it is too coy for adult readers and too violent for the younger readers (although I realized young people are reading and watching things that would probably terrify me.”
You are also flying in the face of current sentiment about non-native writers (I am making an assumption about you here that could be quite incorrect) writing about native people. Native readers and writers are becoming both hostile vocal about their portrayal by non-natives and there will be opposition.
Susan Girvan
Editorial Co-ordinator
Macmillan of Canada
October 20, 1990
The premise is very interesting indeed, but the story moves along rather slowly. In view of the fact the sample is around 12,500 words long, yet it includes only the first two paragraphs of the synopsis, it looks to me as if the book is well over 100,000 words. This is not an economically feasible length for a first novel. You might want to think about conflating incidents and varying the emphasis to both shorten the book and speed up the narrative.
Laurel Boone
Acquisitions Editor
Goose Lane Editions
April 8, 1996
The following are the reasons that we found your submission unsuitable:
-
requires a fair amount of editing, which we don’t provide to that degree
-
writing in first person does not appear to enhance the protagonist’s development
-
not enough fantasy, too conventional
-
characters seem extremely predictable
We hope that this does indeed help you to better target your work for the market it is suited for.
Kimberly Gammon
Editorial & Sales Manager
Interestingly, most of them did not say the book wasn’t good, just that they didn’t think they could sell it, for one reason or another. Unfortunately, the bottom line rules in big business. Kudos to you for taking it to the street yourself with success.
That first one (from Berkley) left me banging my head against the wall. “Too quiet and domestic?” What the ???! Because, writing from female point of view is domestic, is it? Three rapes, two murders, and being stalked relentlessly is now considered “too quiet”? I guess you needed to work in a couple more car chases?!
I sympathize more with the Warner rejection. Thomsen clearly liked the book but couldn’t sell Canadian content to an American publisher. That has a very long Canadian tradition — you are in fine company with that one.
I get Girvan saying that it crosses too many genre boundaries to be marketable. Never mind that that is one of the big pluses of the book for me as a reader (your book certainly taught me a thing or two about historical romance — I promise to stop making disparaging remarks about that genre ever again — the fact remains that publishers today are driven by the marketing department not the editors, so clear market category is a necessity of commercial success, if not artistic integrity. So I understand that they didn’t know how to market Shadow Song, but it doesn’t make me happy with the state of publishing.
The comment on cultural appropriation is also understandable, if quite wrong in this instance. I can see a publisher not wanting to put itself in the middle of a controversy when it has 200 other manuscripts with no such potential baggage. But aside from the fact that controversy is as likely to sell books as not, no one who read this book could accuse it of appropriation because it is clearly written from the point of view of the English heroine, not the natives. I think this comment must come from reading the synopsis rather than the book itself.
I never heard of Goose Lane Editions, but since when does a Canadian publisher complain a book is too slow? “Moves along slowly” is quintessentially Canadian, and one of the things I loved about this book. You don’t get the sensual descriptions, the depth of character, the underlying tension of the relentless pursuit in a fast paced narrative. I am so tired of TV pacing that introduces a problem and solves it within 22 minutes plus commercials. This book needs all the space it takes, and there isn’t a wasted word or a redundant scene anywhere.
I am more sympathetic to the economic reality that it is harder to justify the risk of a thick book on a new author, but by god, did the READ the book? Some risks are worth taking, and this book definitely will find its audience. I think what they are really saying is that they are too small time to be able to afford it.
As for Hades, what can I say? I would have to agree that there is not enough fantasy elements for the book to fit comfortably within their fantasy line, so I would be okay if they just said that, though again, it must be frustrating having a great book nobody is able to market within their little niches — but the other comments are just completely off the mark. I have to say, this has certainly given me pause about sending them my own manuscript. Some of the books Hades has sent me to review are appallingly bad (too bad for me to actually review) so I just thought they were having trouble finding the great books — that they turned yours down when they had the opportunity… is troubling.
Lorina, thank you SO much for sharing these rejection letters. I wish more authors would do that. It certainly will help me face my own inevitable rejection letters if I see your book garnering such comments.
Thanks to both of you for leaving comments. It’s heartening to know this blog is actually read, and that I hit a common understanding with this post.
Interpreting rejections should be a course of study, I believe, because you really have to discern what it is an editor is telling you. For me, my frustration has always been that I’ve been told I can write, but that what I write isn’t publishable.
Well, you know what? My work IS publishable. I’m publishing it. And I’m ever so pleased with the modest success I’m having, and the comments readers are leaving here and elsewhere.
There are many paths to a goal.
That is the crux of the matter. Your book is publishable by a small press publisher, for whom a reasonable return on a small investment makes good economic sense. But the large commercial publishers have taken on so much debt acquiring their competition, that they now require every book they sell to be a best seller because everything relies on economies of scale to service their debt load. They’ve backed themselves into a corner where “publishable” means “best seller/ mass market / universal appeal” rather than “well written, significant, or great art”. The number of writers I know –many of them with long successful publishing records — who have received the “I loved your book but can’t publish it” letter is so large that I am seriously considering editing a series called “bottom drawer stories” — the great unpublishable stories of top writers who have a drawer full of stories that are too Canadian, or too literature, or too good to actually see print elsewhere.
Well, if you do edit such a book, give me a heads-up. That would be exactly the kind of thing I’d be interested in publishing.