Editors And Literary Agents: Why They're Just Not That Into You

Writer's Relief Blog :

Picture this. Your good friend texts you to say he just got home from a blind date. You call him right away to see how it went.

Read the whole story: Writer's Relief Blog

Comments

[NancyPeske]

12:30 PM on 05/04/2011

I know it's frustrating to hear "I'm just not in love with it," but considering the emotional and time commitment agents and editors must devote to shepherd a book through the publishing process, they really DO have to have passion for it. Remember, most books don't earn out their advances, and publishing is in a state of flux as dinosaur, fear-driven corporate publishers scramble to find a new business model, so the old adage "it's easier just to say no" is more true than ever.

http://www.nancypeske.com

[LearnMe]

10:50 AM on 05/04/2011

Classic HuffPo, the headline got me but the article stunk! I was really hoping to get a tongue lashing from some literary agent. www.learnmeproject.com

[3fingerbrown]

09:05 AM on 05/04/2011

I've been an editor for many years, and in my time I've kept a close eye on the work of dozens of other editors, and it's my firm belief that the number-one reason why a manuscript is rejected is that it's simply not good enough to invest money in.

Sure, we've all heard horror stories of the poor dope who rejected The Lord of the Rings or Gone With the Wind, but it's been my experience that a good editor will have a very high batting average by the end of his career.

Items like this one feed the delusion of marginally talented people that it must be someone else's fault that no one wants to buy what they're peddling. Reading it, I was reminded of the old ads on matchbook covers that said, "Draw Binky and win a scholarship to the Famous Artists institute!"

[NancyPeske]

12:34 PM on 05/04/2011

Hmmm, I don't know if I'd agree. Having been in charge of the editorial assistants' slush lunch at a major publishing house, I'll absolutely agree that there's an enormous amount of dreck out there in submissions piles. But when you compare, say, the nonfiction that gets published to the nonfiction that does not, platform is clearly not the deciding factor, nor is quality. I've seen brilliant books overlooked, and absolute garbage given first class treatment (usually for platform reasons--the author has a big name but the book is disastrously awful). Not having been a fiction acquisitions editor--by choice, because I loathed having to spend all my evenings slogging through mediocre submissions--I will trust that your opinion, 3fingerbrown, has some merit to it!
http://www.nancypeske.com

[SF TKF]

11:40 AM on 05/06/2011

Fiction and non-fiction are utterly different beasts.

[Jeffrey Bryson]

06:13 PM on 05/03/2011

This is the equivalent of those fake news stories that companies pay local newscasts to run. C'mon, HuffPo, you're supposed to be better than this.

[markdf]

01:59 PM on 05/03/2011

This article is nothing more than a promotion/marketing piece for a company looking to make money off writers. The post linked is nothing more but standard industry knowledge (i.e., it's tough to get published). Proceed with caution. (note: almost all their client testimonials are anonymous. Draw your own conclusion).

[SF TKF]

05:52 PM on 05/03/2011

But did you read the comments? Pure comic gold. Loved the self-published author slagging off on genre fiction (“Big Mac” novels vs. Filet Mignon with All the Trimmings novels). I couldn’t help myself. Had to go see what she writes (cause you know she thinks NY just can’t appreciate her filet mignoness). First, I find typos. And then I find a bizarrely discombobulated description of what sounds like either a mystery or women’s fiction. Easy to see why NY wouldn’t bite.