How to avoid the slushpile

[Blackrook]

This is actually pretty discouraging. It shows that writers have absolutely no power in the system and rejection of their work is based on arbitrary and capricious decisions.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Except that the whole thing is written tongue-in-cheek and there is very little truth in it.

This article gets passed around the internet as though it were serious, and causes a lot of unnecessary anxiety.

[Ursa major]

And at least we get to submit our work in typed, or WPed, form.

Allegedly some jobs are filled only after a witchdoctor (sorry, graphologist) has been given access to the candidates' handwriting and has weeded out the "unsuitable". Talk about stupid.

[aremo]

Interesting article, and I'm sure there are some helpful suggestions buried beneath the thick layers of sarcasm! This acerbic, 'quippy' kind of attitude is something I've actually noticed in a lot of agents, editors and publishers in their online blogs and whatnot and I actually find it pretty off-putting. Is this, like Courier font, an industry standard I wonder? Honesty and straight-talking is good, but trying to sound clever and superior rubs me up the wrong way. But then I suppose I don't particularly envy their job.

Speaking of Courier - I never realised that submissions are expected to be in Courier font? I haven't read that before and have never sent anything in Courier before...I think it's a horrible typeface! Maybe I had better re-evaluate my dislike of it?

All in all, the article was very sobering. I realise now that trying to get published is a bit like playing the lottery. Like any industry, the publishing industry is solely driven by profit, even more so in these difficult economic times. I'm still going to try submitting my work, but I've kind of given up the dream of being a bestselling author. That's not a bad thing entirely, for I realised that I'm not really writing for fame, fortune or recognition. I simply write because it's in my nature to write.

[Bluenose]

As a newbie to the site and its forums, and someone who has just 'finished' a first novel and is poised to jump onto the submissions treadmill, I liked the article for it's irreverent insight into a complex industry. However, a quick look through the Writers' & Artists' Yearbook 2011 gives some very different submission advice. Which do you follow? Personally, I'm not convinced there's a perfect submission, a holy grail to which all must aspire. The overall message seems clear, get the submission basics right and hope.
It seems that luck plays an enormous part in anything where the submissions vastly outnumber the acceptance rate. I was horrified while working for a large charity to see a manager throwing half of the, thousand or so, new job applications straight into a bin without looking at them. His explanation was that they were the unlucky ones, and he didn't want unlucky people working with him. At least the insanity of the rejections process in I, Brian's post had 'some' logic behind it.
My gut instinct is that those authors fortunate enough to be published assume that they are not lucky but highly talented. Those that aren't published are highly talented but unlucky. But then, what do I know.
May good luck shine on you all.

[Ursa major]

As the saying goes, some people make their own luck.


If one has talent, if one hones it, if one produces something worthy of that honed talent, if one understands the market, if one follows the individual submission guidelines, then there's a chance of success. The fewer of those that apply to you, the more superhumanly lucky you have to be to progress. (In a universe seemingly based on probabilities, nothing can be ruled out, but it's better to try to rule oneself in.)

[Toby Frost]

This acerbic, 'quippy' kind of attitude is something I've actually noticed in a lot of agents, editors and publishers in their online blogs and whatnot and I actually find it pretty off-putting.

I completely agree. It's not terribly funny and more importantly it obscures the truth the author may have been trying to put forward. It also gives the impression that the writing business is full of people whose main aim is to sit round and laugh at your manuscript, which I'm certain isn't the case and doesn't help anyone. Aspiring writers are frankly easy to sneer at. I hate to say it, but there's a particular acerbic blogger I always imagine as the Joanna Lumley character from Absolutely Fabulous - probably not the image she was trying to put forward...

[Teresa Edgerton]

The article is neither as good nor as bad as most people think.

It wasn't written by an agent or someone at a large publisher. It was a humor piece written for a semiprozine by Kent Brewster, for regular readers of his magazine who would know that he was writing tongue-in-cheek. He would probably be horrified (or, alternatively, amused) that people are taking it for the gospel truth.

Wherever anything that article says contradicts something written elsewhere by an agent or other industry professional, follow that other advice.

In fact, unless you are looking for something amusing to read, I would advise not reading the article at all.

[Peter Graham]

Hi Bluenose,

Halifax? Or did you just like the name?

It matters not - a good and thoughtful post.

It seems that luck plays an enormous part in anything where the submissions vastly outnumber the acceptance rate. I was horrified while working for a large charity to see a manager throwing half of the, thousand or so, new job applications straight into a bin without looking at them.

My gut instinct is that those authors fortunate enough to be published assume that they are not lucky but highly talented. Those that aren't published are highly talented but unlucky

There is clearly an element of luck, but perhaps not quite as much people suppose. I agree with you when you say that most aspiring authors (self perhaps included) regard themselves privately or otherwise as highly talented. It therefore follows that any rejection shows a lamentable lack of taste and knowledge on the part of the person rejecting. If they were good at their job, they would clearly snap up the work immediately and make everyone concerned lots of dosh.

Added to this is the frequent complaint from some writers who seem to believe that they are entitled to a free edit or crit from a rejecting agent - the "it's one thing to reject it, but how dare they not tell me why they are rejecting - don't they undertsand that I wish to get published?" argument.

Take these two (often overlapping) views into account, and perhaps it becomes easier to see why agents might occasionally feel the need to be blunt about the realities or why they might want to speed up dealing with unsolicited submissions as far as possible. Inevitably, gems are going to slip through the net. But if lots of people are rejecting an aspiring author's work, it may not actually be their fault. It may be because:-

1. The author is no good at writing. Vast numbers of aspiring authors (and more than a few published ones) must surely fall into this category. And no matter how determined they are or how much they want it, they will just never be good enough. Either because they simply don't have the tools - no matter how much I wanted it, I doubt that I could ever be a Royal Marine - or because they don't really want it so much that they are actually prepared to do what it takes to get it.

2. The author can write, but the market doesn't want it. This isn't necessarily a problem for hobby writers or for those who claim to be compelled to write, but it is a massive problem for those who wish to earn some sort of a living from writing.

3. The author has not presented their work properly. The dreaded synopis and covering letter. The need to ensure that the sample chapters hit the ground running. The need to polish the work so thoroughly that you can see your reflection in it.

4. The author has not done their homework. They have no idea where their book sits or who their audience is. Perhaps they don't even really know what their book is about - the big, central question or tension.

Judging from what one sees, I would estimate that 95% on unsolicited submisisons (mine included) fall into one or more of the above categories. And if they do, then we as aspiring writers are the ones who are doing something wrong.

I think that agents want their clients to be commercially aware and commercially realistic. It's about making money, not massaging artistic egos or preserving great works which will finally come to be appreciated in 2300 AD.

So, if you want to be published, prepare properly. Research your agents, research what people are reading and why, get familiar with how it all works, make your mss the best it can possibly be, do not skimp on the synopsis or the covering letter, follow submission guidelines to the letter. All in all, present yourself as a level-headed, sober, fully prepared and commercially aware person who lives in the real world rather than in some self-created Dreamtime. Give them what they really want, not what you have decided that they want.

It's not easy to be genuinely critical of one's work or one's shortcomings, but it is necessary to try.

Me? I think I didn't do my homework and got my presentation wrong. So I'm dealing with all of that and will try again. And if it doesn't work this time, I will probably decide that I'm writing the wrong thing. And if it still doesn't work once I've written the right thing, then perhaps I will have to consider whether I really can write fiction at all.

Regards.

Peter

[Anne Lyle]

Very sensible, Peter!

If you want to read a more sensible explanation of how to avoid the slushpile, see here:

Making Light: Slushkiller

(Apologies if this has been posted before and I missed it.)

[Starlights]

this is a very useful article, thank you

[J Riff]

Phooie...search won't work for me so I can't find much of the vast info regarding cover letters that must reside somewhere in here.

re: Online submission - a little box where the 'cover letter' goes.
How much, how little, what to avoid, what to be sure and include...

doesn't seen the same as sending a manuscript off. Should it be kept short?

[Anne Lyle]

I use the same body text as I would in a snail-mail letter - v short for a short story, more detailed for a novel.

IMPORTANT - do not include snailmail addresses at the top of an email cover letter, it just makes you look clueless

If you must include full contact details, put them in a footer, out of the way.

HTH!

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by Anne Lyle

IMPORTANT - do not include snailmail addresses at the top of an email cover letter, it just makes you look clueless

Unless they ask for it. Which they do quite often.

[Anne Lyle]

At the top? Arranged in lots of separate lines, as in a printed letter? I've never seen that in a normal email (as opposed to a formal document such as an invoice, which is usually heavily formatted HTML).