Editor reveals reasons for writers' works often rejected

As a published author and editor, a lot has been learned—over the last 59 years—about writing's craft and art as well as the publishing business: meaning dues were paid, received what seemed more than a fair share of rejection slips briefly stating a novel did not fit some publisher's agenda. This latter was frustrating due to perceiving an editor's underlying message: there was something wrong with the story, but he or she didn't say what—until 1984, when a Mills-Boon editor in England returned a rejection filled with both praise and criticism.

Sympathetic to struggling writers, this author ultimately entered publishing's editor realm as a volunteer: interprets unpaid. As such and dubbed by writers as brutal but superb, talented writers receive an intensive edit of their first ten pages: after which, it is up to them to correct the entire manuscript—should they truly want to be published and desire to resubmit.

For writers focusing on romance, be aware: a vast majority of publishers neither consider it fine literature, rather garbage, nor its authors as good writers—for very sound reasons. Yet, there is no valid excuse for even that genus not being well-written. This article reveals what makes any genre or mainstream work good literature.

All skills require an innate talent to be the best at it. Anyone can learn to play a piano, but only someone with natural talent will rise above mere lessons. So it is with writing. As an editor, time is not wasted—editor's or writer's—where innate talent does not present itself and/or a talented writer lacks sufficient self-esteem to accept constructive criticism, then act upon it: the latter usually demonstrated by a writer arguing with an editor's criticism or abject refusal to make necessary changes. Of these, many have been encountered: their own obsessive desire for unconditional acceptance preventing them from succeeding in a field natural to him or her. Work is rejected and returned for many reasons, a few vital issues addressed herein.

Briefly and though it might seem petty, manuscripts will be returned unread if: 1) addressed to the wrong specializing editor within a publisher's house; and/or, 2) unaccompanied by query letter; or worse, 3) not an appropriate publisher. It is assumed such writers did not do their homework regarding a publisher to whom he or she submitted a composition. Also unread are: 4) documents not properly formatted; and/or, 5) not submitted according to publisher guidelines. Some do accept unsolicited manuscripts, while others require submission through agents only. Thus, it is imperative to research publishers before shipping: have and use a current copy of Writers' Market. It not only provides all information specific to each publisher but also includes data about proper formatting, query letters and so forth.

Getting a manuscript read is a writer's first, but certainly not last, hurtle. Nevertheless, it either must read well or, at the very least, reflect true talent and well-plotted story: or, be rejected anyway. It is rare for a manuscript to be accepted first time out; so, be prepared to rework and resubmit—as many times as it takes to achieve a contract. That British Harlequin editor was kind enough to say: "This mystery is well plotted with well-developed characters and kept me in suspense to the very end, but it lacks intensity. Also, it is 20,000 words short for our Intrigue line." Be assured: 20,000 words of emotional intensity were added, then shipped off again.

Once reading a manuscript, there are numerous problems a discerning editor will notice within its first few pages. At this point, he or she either will continue to read or summarily return it with a metaphoric pink slip void of reason. Initially, editors might overlook misspellings, poor grammar and/or improper punctuation. In the event an editor likes a narrative, he or she expects those issues to be corrected. If a writer happens to be weak in these three areas, it is wise to hire a professional to fine-tune a manuscript before first submission.

Editors' pet peeves: 1) redundancy; 2) echoes/machine gun rat-a-tat-tat/ hissing snakes/shushing/humming/ snickering/clichés; 3) poor grammar; 4) improper word usage, paragraphing and punctuation; 5) erroneous facts; 6) telling instead of showing; and, 7) repetitive use of a word or words——seven deadly sins causing rejection and classification as inferior to fine literature of what might have been good story-telling. Each error is discussed independently:

1) Redundancy: i.e. a character's career and/or product or specific incidents are repeated verbatim throughout a tale, as though readers might not remember. Twice is fine or even occasional vague recalls but not in the same chapter, otherwise readers feel insulted. Also redundant are combining certain words: i.e. and also, but rather, yet still, etc.

2) Echoes, etc: i.e. unnecessary use of words—echoes: and-and-and, her-her-her; machine guns: that-that-that, said-said-said; hissing snakes: his-his-his, the-the-the; shushing: she-she-she; humming: him-him-him; snickering: he-he-he; clichés: unless a new slant on old ones limited to dialogue only—generally not up to standard in fine literature. Further, writers use he said-she said so frequently that readers forget character names.

3) Poor grammar: improper grammar, improper sentence structure, split infinitives, etc.—i.e. respectively: If he was should be If he were; If he were only going tomorrow should be If he only were going tomorrow or If only he were going tomorrow. Exceptions: improper grammar and split infinitives are tolerable within character dialogue—in fact, considered appropriate to specific character personality and indigenous speech—yet, never satisfactory inside text. It is text where romance genres earn a reputation for being trash: that, and being riddled with explicit sex—this latter offensive and/or even boring to readers thus bypassed: in order to continue with a tale's plot, its driving force.

4) Improper word usage, paragraphing and punctuation: Dictionaries and Thesaurus can aid in resolving improper word use.

Paragraphing issues are two-fold: either too long and/or improperly separated. There always is a way to separate what might seem a necessarily long passage: causing readers to lose their place thus missing vital plot information. Good rule of thumb: change in subject or thought or character serves as perfect dividers. Never open a paragraph with But, or any words denoting But.

Dialogue, on the other hand, is easier: a separate paragraph for each speaker.

Punctuation is critical to reader comprehension of a writer's intent as well as for smooth reading: meaning no jerky starts and stops. Parentheses' never should be used: they tend to disrupt flow. Preferred are em and en dashes—as periodically used herein. Words also play a part in flow: either being somewhat poetic or outright stilted, stiff and/or a tongue twister—poetic preferred. A writer reading aloud his or her work goes a long way to determining flow. If it doesn't sound good to the ears, it will not go well with readers. A book lacking flow will be set aside and never again picked up. By word-of-mouth, it more likely will not be purchased by other potential readers.

5) Erroneous facts: This is an issue picked up by readers, more so than publishers. For example, one romance author cited a number of steps her heroine climbed before reaching the entrance to a particular Washington D.C. building. She was inundated with reader letters berating her for miscounting by one riser. Readers are knit pickers. If it's a fictitious building or location, they will not comment.

6) Telling instead of showing: Jane was very upset tells, while Jane snapped her hands onto her hips and frowned as she ground out angrily, "Don't even go there." shows. Rarely are exclamation points needed in good writing, so use them sparingly and never more than once during a character's speech: if at all.

7) Repetitive use of a word or words: Other than over use of words cited in Sin 2 above, this infraction encompasses other words for which there are many that could be used where repetition is necessary—i.e. wagon: cart, buggy, etc.; or, sin: infraction, abomination, violation, iniquity, wickedness, evil, transgression, error, mistake and so forth. An exhaustive Thesaurus and a good Dictionary are writers' most valuable tools. Additionally, when using replacement words always check its definition to determine if it truly conveys intent and/or applicable meaning.

A novel, written a few years ago by well-known mainstream author Daniel Steele, recently was read: her stories often made into television movies. This particular tale was, disappointingly, fraught with each of those seven iniquities: very unlike her earlier works. It appeared Ms. Steele simply wrote and shipped, as opposed to editing and re-editing her composition: which happens more frequently among well-established authors than one might think. Worse, it seems her editor merely approved the text without reading it, wholly relying on Ms. Steele's early demonstration of expertise. Alas, this book was set aside. It basically was too difficult to wade through, despite what could have been an entertaining read.

Authors MUST: neither, 1) assume good writing is consistent; nor, 2) depend on fame; muchless, 3) expect editors to do a writer's job. To do so can, and often does, gain only a loss of well-established reader markets and publishers.

In conclusion, avoiding these seven transgressions results in what our industry describes as tight writing: less, indeed, is more. Writers of genre, an area restricted to word count, especially need to concentrate on compact scripting: it is very tempting to reach a desired number by filling in with useless and/or unnecessary text, thereby being more susceptible to publisher denial. As for mainstream, unlimited to size, compaction is every bit as crucial to a good read.
* * * * *

To learn more about Ms. Quesinberry and her books, visit Unicorn Haven.