Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Is it true that stories get rejected simply because the stories are not appealing enough and not because of the quality of the writing?

+0
−0

In other words, if the writing is poor or not good enough but the editor likes the story, then a revision is requested.

I'd like to add that part of the reason for asking this question is because there is a temptation to try to somehow 'test' the idea of a story first, in terms of whether or not editors will be interested in it, before investing the time and effort to work on making the writing as good as it should be. It is sometimes frustrating to work hard on the writing of a story only for it to end up being rejected anyway because the story itself just doesn't suit them.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/37498. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

1 answer

+1
−0

Those are two different questions!

Yes, stories get rejected because the stories are not appealing enough.

No, if the writing is bad, the story premise probably doesn't matter, the writing will be rejected anyway.

Publishers & editors & agents are all basically the same when it comes to judging a book, Let's call them gatekeepers. Gatekeepers are primarily interested in making money by selling books to the public. Cool new ideas? Sure, those can sell.

But gatekeepers are not really interested in teaching, or babysitting, or hand-holding. They have plenty of authors that are good at both writing and inventing stories. Imagination is not in short supply out there!

Many of these gatekeepers look at only the first five pages of a book, no more, before they decide whether to read it. Some will not read past the first half page. That should tell you the answer to your second question: If the writing is poorly done, they reject immediately. First books generally return very little money to either publisher or agent, and are only worth their time and energy if there is very little work to do on the writing part.

If the writing is done well, then the commercial potential of the book becomes an issue: If readers will be disappointed by a poorly crafted story, then again, the book is not going to sell well.

The primary driver of sales is endorsements to friends (or the public) by "early adopters" that took a risk and bought the book. Early Adopters are the small percentage of readers (maybe 3%) that make a habit of reading new authors, taking a chance on buying a new book and being the first to find a new gem, even if they are often disappointed. They tend to be able to afford this habit (in time and money) and to enjoy being in on the ground floor, being the first to discover a great new author, etc. It is a personality thing. Most importantly, they are trend leaders, others that are more risk-averse let the Early Adopters risk and lose, and then jump in when the Early Adopters say it is worth doing. If you don't break through the Early Adopters, you don't sell books.

Agents tend to be an extreme version of Early Adopters, they just figured out how to make money at being the first readers, and recommending their great finds not just to friends, but publishers (with editors).

Many agents request just the first five pages of your novel to judge it. A query letter with that may tell the basic story, but if the writing is not good, out it goes. It just isn't worth their time, and their stack of submissions is typically endless. Gatekeepers tend to be fast readers, finishing quicker than a page a minute. You get about ten minutes of their time to convince them to invest more time than that. Then you are done, or they do the work of requesting your manuscript. They may STILL not represent you if that needs too much work, or if it turns out your story is not satisfying or has big plot holes.

You have to do both. Write well. Write a good story. Even that is no guarantee of sales. For some reason or another, these "first readers" have to feel like they really want to tell their friends about your book and share the experience of it. I'd call that "emotional impact", their takeaway from the first read cannot be just "nothing wrong with it," it must be enthusiasm to share it (or sell it).

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »