LordSoma
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 01:18:53 +0000
So, you've written a short story or a novel; you've edited it, polished it up nice, and put it in standard manuscript format. You think it's ready to be published. The problem is, you don't really know how publishers work. You know that your manuscript is going to be in a pile with other manuscripts and read by an acquisitions editor who's going to decide whether to publish it or not, but that's about it; you don't understand how they can possibly reject your manuscript without even having read all of it, or you're afraid, on some level, that the editor is going to steal your story and take credit for it himself. Chances are, you're inclined to believe one of the notions I'm about to debunk, and that's going to hurt you.
Here's the good news: after reading this, you're going to know how things really do work for that acquisitions editor, which puts you significantly ahead of most of the other people who are trying to publish. So read on. These are things you need to hear.
I. Getting Published Is Easy
PublishAmerica, poetry.com, and a myriad of other scammers would like you to think so, but that's because their job is to take your money by feeding your delusions. In truth, getting published is far from easy; if you're not ready to go in for the duration--and it's a long duration--then quit now.
A. It's going to be easy for you because you are a natural/have The Gift/whatever
Sorry. Even people with a natural talent for writing require huge amounts of time and effort to become publishable. There are no shortcuts, no matter who you are.
II. You Can Make Lots of Money by Being Published
Sorry again, but pay rates for literary magazines almost haven't changed at all in the last 50 years. This means that, adjusted for inflation, pay rates for authors are lower than they have ever been.
III. Getting Published Is Even Remotely Like Getting a Job
A. There are fancy tricks you can use to increase your "chances"
1. You should do fancy things with your manuscript to make it "stand out"
A lot of people seem to think that if you use a nonstandard format for your manuscript, or print it on colored paper, or use an unusual font, that it will "stand out," and thus the editor will notice it more and be more likely to publish it. Standard Manuscript Format exists for a reason. Research it, use it. Any of these tricks you use will only make the editor more likely to throw your work in the shredder. An even more harmful version of this is when the publisher's guidelines for books require you to send a query or synopsis or sample chapters, but the writer sends the entire novel manuscript anyway. Violating a publisher's submission guidelines in any way demonstrates to the editor that you are incapable of following directions, and no matter how good your writing is, you're going to be more trouble than you're worth.
2. You should play tricks with your manuscript to make sure the editor reads the whole thing
Every editor is familiar with the idea of turning a page upside down, putting a dollar between two of the pages, or any other tricks to make sure that they read the whole manuscript. Don't do this; rest assured that if your whole manuscript is worth reading, the editor will read the whole manuscript. Using tricks like these will demonstrate to the editor that you do not trust them, and no matter how good your writing is, you're going to be more trouble than you're worth.
B. You should call and e-mail the editor to make sure they've received your submission, to ask if they've had time to review it yet, or to ask if they've reached a decision, because this shows that you're on top of things
Editors don't like to be bothered. They have a phone that never stops ringing and a bazillion e-mails to answer every day. Moreover, they don't care if you are "on top of things." All they care about is whether your writing is good. Of course, there will be the chance the editor doesn't receive your manuscript, or that it gets lost, or that their reply doesn't reach you, and there are respectful periods of time after which it's okay (and probably a good idea) to shoot them an e-mail to make sure things are coming along. If you've submitted a short story, it's generally okay to do this after three months have gone by; if it's a particularly long short story, five months; if it's a novel, one year (yeah, I know).
C. The editor gives a s**t about your credentials
Editors receive a lot of lengthy cover letters with manuscripts in which the writer endlessly expounds on their own credentials: "I edited my high school newspaper, I have a degree in English Literature from Buggery University, I've placed short stories with (list of 35 different small press and student-run magazines)," and so on. I've seen some of these cover letters myself, and it's unbelievable the stuff some people go into; they talk about plays they've been in, how they raise their kids, how others describe their personality... Well, the editor doesn't care. Think about it: can you honestly imagine an editor saying, "Well, I've got a few stories here that are better written than Story X, but the author of Story X has a BFA in Creative Writing, so I guess I'll take it." There are almost no occasions when any editor is going to care one iota about whatever credentials you may have. The only two situations when they will care are: 1) Your list of previously published stories includes The New Yorker, Glimmer Train Stories, and The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and not just once, but multiple times. 2) The editor knows who you are without you having to explain. One thing I can imagine an editor saying is, "Well, I've got a few stories here that are better written than Story X, but the author of Story X is Anne Rice, so I guess I'll take it."
IV. Editors Are Evil
A. Editors reject manuscripts without reading the whole thing because they are evil
Let's be modest and estimate that the average literary magazine gets 500 submissions a month (I know for a fact that it's often twice that, but we're shooting for an average here). Let's be modest again and estimate that the average submission is 3,000 words long. That's 1,500,000 words a month in manuscripts, the length of 15 good-sized novels. Loads for book publishers are exponentially bigger. Some poor editor has to get through all that in preparation for next month's 1,500,000 words, on top of everything else. If your manuscript hasn't intrigued them within the first couple of pages, it's not worth it to them to read the rest; firstly because the rest of it is probably going to be just as bad, and secondly because rejecting the story without reading further is exactly what readers are going to do if they aren't intrigued within the first couple pages.
B. Editors reject manuscripts because they have something against the author's race/religion/age group/place of residence/whatever
First of all, editors don't have nearly enough time on their hands to take note of the race/religion/age group/place of residence/whatever of every author who submits to them. Second, none of these things are indicative of the quality of the author's writing, which is the only thing that the editor cares about. The only thing that has bearing on how likely an editor is to publish your work is the quality of your work. Nothing else matters one bit.
C. Editors reject your manuscripts because they don't understand your genius
Editors reject manuscripts because they aren't good, or because they receive ones that are better. That is that.
D. Editors reject manuscripts for any other arbitrary reason that I haven't mentioned yet
This goes back to the misconception that getting published is like getting a job; that there's some kind of trick to it, some minor nuance the editor won't tell you about that is being used to decide whether your manuscript gets published. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the one and only criterion that decides whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected is the quality of writing. If your manuscript is rejected by an editor (assuming it was submitted correctly), the reason is because it's just not up to par quality-wise. This may be hard to accept, but it is nonetheless the case.
E. The editor is evil and is going to steal your story or novel
Editors and publishers make money by publishing good writing, not by stealing it. You don't need to copyright your work or have it notarized before submitting it to a reputable publisher; doing so is generally a bad idea, especially if you go to any lengths to make sure the editor knows that you have registered copyright on the work and they will not be able to steal it. Doing so demonstrates that you do not trust the editor, and no matter how good your writing is--say it with me--you're going to be more trouble than you're worth. (yes, I just said that quality writing is the only criterion, but this assumes that you do not demonstrate that you will be difficult to work with)
V. Editors' Jobs Revolve around Their Submissions
A. Editors spend most of their time reading and responding to submissions
Not even close. In fact, most editors don't even have time for this at work. Submissions are an incredibly small part of the publishing business; business models, budgets, advertising, design, schedule, and all the other things that are required to get the product out there eat up most of an editor's day. If you're still wondering how they can not read your whole manuscript, or why they take so long to respond, this should give you a clue.
B. If your story is good but your spelling and grammar aren't, the editor will help you with them
As I said above, the editor doesn't have time for this. As hard as it is to do, you absolutely must respect the editor's need to manage their time (one thing that just may help you in the your cover letter is to thank the editor for taking the time to read). Sending in a story that hasn't been adequately proofread, with nonstandard grammar and spelling, demonstrates a lack of respect for just that, and will certainly qualify you as "difficult to work with." If it's too much trouble for you to learn proper grammar and spelling, then quit right now.
Subject to future ammendment
Here's the good news: after reading this, you're going to know how things really do work for that acquisitions editor, which puts you significantly ahead of most of the other people who are trying to publish. So read on. These are things you need to hear.
I. Getting Published Is Easy
PublishAmerica, poetry.com, and a myriad of other scammers would like you to think so, but that's because their job is to take your money by feeding your delusions. In truth, getting published is far from easy; if you're not ready to go in for the duration--and it's a long duration--then quit now.
A. It's going to be easy for you because you are a natural/have The Gift/whatever
Sorry. Even people with a natural talent for writing require huge amounts of time and effort to become publishable. There are no shortcuts, no matter who you are.
II. You Can Make Lots of Money by Being Published
Sorry again, but pay rates for literary magazines almost haven't changed at all in the last 50 years. This means that, adjusted for inflation, pay rates for authors are lower than they have ever been.
III. Getting Published Is Even Remotely Like Getting a Job
A. There are fancy tricks you can use to increase your "chances"
1. You should do fancy things with your manuscript to make it "stand out"
A lot of people seem to think that if you use a nonstandard format for your manuscript, or print it on colored paper, or use an unusual font, that it will "stand out," and thus the editor will notice it more and be more likely to publish it. Standard Manuscript Format exists for a reason. Research it, use it. Any of these tricks you use will only make the editor more likely to throw your work in the shredder. An even more harmful version of this is when the publisher's guidelines for books require you to send a query or synopsis or sample chapters, but the writer sends the entire novel manuscript anyway. Violating a publisher's submission guidelines in any way demonstrates to the editor that you are incapable of following directions, and no matter how good your writing is, you're going to be more trouble than you're worth.
2. You should play tricks with your manuscript to make sure the editor reads the whole thing
Every editor is familiar with the idea of turning a page upside down, putting a dollar between two of the pages, or any other tricks to make sure that they read the whole manuscript. Don't do this; rest assured that if your whole manuscript is worth reading, the editor will read the whole manuscript. Using tricks like these will demonstrate to the editor that you do not trust them, and no matter how good your writing is, you're going to be more trouble than you're worth.
B. You should call and e-mail the editor to make sure they've received your submission, to ask if they've had time to review it yet, or to ask if they've reached a decision, because this shows that you're on top of things
Editors don't like to be bothered. They have a phone that never stops ringing and a bazillion e-mails to answer every day. Moreover, they don't care if you are "on top of things." All they care about is whether your writing is good. Of course, there will be the chance the editor doesn't receive your manuscript, or that it gets lost, or that their reply doesn't reach you, and there are respectful periods of time after which it's okay (and probably a good idea) to shoot them an e-mail to make sure things are coming along. If you've submitted a short story, it's generally okay to do this after three months have gone by; if it's a particularly long short story, five months; if it's a novel, one year (yeah, I know).
C. The editor gives a s**t about your credentials
Editors receive a lot of lengthy cover letters with manuscripts in which the writer endlessly expounds on their own credentials: "I edited my high school newspaper, I have a degree in English Literature from Buggery University, I've placed short stories with (list of 35 different small press and student-run magazines)," and so on. I've seen some of these cover letters myself, and it's unbelievable the stuff some people go into; they talk about plays they've been in, how they raise their kids, how others describe their personality... Well, the editor doesn't care. Think about it: can you honestly imagine an editor saying, "Well, I've got a few stories here that are better written than Story X, but the author of Story X has a BFA in Creative Writing, so I guess I'll take it." There are almost no occasions when any editor is going to care one iota about whatever credentials you may have. The only two situations when they will care are: 1) Your list of previously published stories includes The New Yorker, Glimmer Train Stories, and The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and not just once, but multiple times. 2) The editor knows who you are without you having to explain. One thing I can imagine an editor saying is, "Well, I've got a few stories here that are better written than Story X, but the author of Story X is Anne Rice, so I guess I'll take it."
IV. Editors Are Evil
A. Editors reject manuscripts without reading the whole thing because they are evil
Let's be modest and estimate that the average literary magazine gets 500 submissions a month (I know for a fact that it's often twice that, but we're shooting for an average here). Let's be modest again and estimate that the average submission is 3,000 words long. That's 1,500,000 words a month in manuscripts, the length of 15 good-sized novels. Loads for book publishers are exponentially bigger. Some poor editor has to get through all that in preparation for next month's 1,500,000 words, on top of everything else. If your manuscript hasn't intrigued them within the first couple of pages, it's not worth it to them to read the rest; firstly because the rest of it is probably going to be just as bad, and secondly because rejecting the story without reading further is exactly what readers are going to do if they aren't intrigued within the first couple pages.
B. Editors reject manuscripts because they have something against the author's race/religion/age group/place of residence/whatever
First of all, editors don't have nearly enough time on their hands to take note of the race/religion/age group/place of residence/whatever of every author who submits to them. Second, none of these things are indicative of the quality of the author's writing, which is the only thing that the editor cares about. The only thing that has bearing on how likely an editor is to publish your work is the quality of your work. Nothing else matters one bit.
C. Editors reject your manuscripts because they don't understand your genius
Editors reject manuscripts because they aren't good, or because they receive ones that are better. That is that.
D. Editors reject manuscripts for any other arbitrary reason that I haven't mentioned yet
This goes back to the misconception that getting published is like getting a job; that there's some kind of trick to it, some minor nuance the editor won't tell you about that is being used to decide whether your manuscript gets published. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the one and only criterion that decides whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected is the quality of writing. If your manuscript is rejected by an editor (assuming it was submitted correctly), the reason is because it's just not up to par quality-wise. This may be hard to accept, but it is nonetheless the case.
E. The editor is evil and is going to steal your story or novel
Editors and publishers make money by publishing good writing, not by stealing it. You don't need to copyright your work or have it notarized before submitting it to a reputable publisher; doing so is generally a bad idea, especially if you go to any lengths to make sure the editor knows that you have registered copyright on the work and they will not be able to steal it. Doing so demonstrates that you do not trust the editor, and no matter how good your writing is--say it with me--you're going to be more trouble than you're worth. (yes, I just said that quality writing is the only criterion, but this assumes that you do not demonstrate that you will be difficult to work with)
V. Editors' Jobs Revolve around Their Submissions
A. Editors spend most of their time reading and responding to submissions
Not even close. In fact, most editors don't even have time for this at work. Submissions are an incredibly small part of the publishing business; business models, budgets, advertising, design, schedule, and all the other things that are required to get the product out there eat up most of an editor's day. If you're still wondering how they can not read your whole manuscript, or why they take so long to respond, this should give you a clue.
B. If your story is good but your spelling and grammar aren't, the editor will help you with them
As I said above, the editor doesn't have time for this. As hard as it is to do, you absolutely must respect the editor's need to manage their time (one thing that just may help you in the your cover letter is to thank the editor for taking the time to read). Sending in a story that hasn't been adequately proofread, with nonstandard grammar and spelling, demonstrates a lack of respect for just that, and will certainly qualify you as "difficult to work with." If it's too much trouble for you to learn proper grammar and spelling, then quit right now.
Subject to future ammendment
