Rejection: it's about the pumpkin.

"He trashed my novel" is what a writer said to me about an editor he’d paid for a critique. He felt badly about it. Sure he did, considering how much work and heart goes into writing a novel. Then he paid a second editor to edit his book. She started but soon declared that she couldn’t continue with it. The writer was feeling defensive and picked on, so I volunteered to take a look at a sample.

Well, I did, and I’m now trying to figure out how to deliver an honest critique in a way that won’t make him feel “trashed” again. I’m a novelist as well as an editor, and I feel strongly that I should help him understand the shortcomings in his narrative. But it’s a form of rejection,  hard to do and hard to take.

I’ve been on the receiving end of bad reviews from agents and critique group members, and I’m sure of one thing: we—writers, editors, and agents—need to do a better job of give and take.

Writers need to understand that rejection is not about THE PERSON. Nope. It’s about THE WORK. If you grow a pumpkin that turns out undersized and someone points out that fact, it's not personal, it's about the pumpkin.

To take rejection personally is to miss an opportunity to be saved from a mistake. I was in the ad business for a ton of years and everything I did was critiqued with close, hard looks because money was riding on every idea, every word--and the same is true in publishing. I learned a lesson that has served me well—if someone questions (i.e. rejects) my work, there’s a 50% chance I’m right…and a 50% chance I’m either partially or totally wrong.

On the flip side, surely there’s a way to for agents and acquisition editors to do a better job with rejections. Yeah, a pre-printed rejection note saying that even though the work was interesting it just didn’t fit our needs may be an innocuous white lie intended to decline without rancor, but neither the writer nor the rejector have been well served.

If the writer learns something about real deficiencies in his submission, then there’s a chance revisions will be made that make the next submission that much closer to professional. That’s good news for the agent/editor—the more professional the work they see, the better the quality of the projects they represent/publish.

So how about a checklist designed to give sincere feedback, even if it is coming from a harried assistant who’s had only time enough to look at a query letter and five pages of manuscript? It would only take seconds, yet could help both sides.

Help me make up a checklist. Think of shortcomings that it would help a writer to learn about. For example, what if the agent/assistant/editor could check one or more items such as:

___ For me, the grammar in the submission did not reach a publishable level.

___ For me, overwriting (too many details/adjectives/adverbs) robs the work of pace and tension.

___ I don’t believe that I can sell this story/topic.

___ I felt the pumpkin was too small for our customers.

Send me suggestions for more input items. Let’s put a critique sheet together and post it for agents and editors. Please send your ideas.

Also, I’m looking for good flogging material, so email me with an example, published or unpublished, of something that peeves you or you have a question about. If it’s from your own work, tell me if I can post it or if you want a “private reading.”

Comments

[Chris]

I do agree that editors must be sensitive to the personal feelings of the writer, and ought to point out the good as well as the bad (a well-placed “I like this turn of phrase!” in the midst of a manuscript can make a writer’s day!). However, I’ve always felt that it’s the job of the editor to be as critical as possible in evaluating a manuscript (I don’t like the word “trashed” ­ it suggests a personal vendetta on the part of the editor, I think).

I believe the major problem a writer faces in receiving professional feedback is having placed his/her expectations unreasonably high. When supportive friends have encouraged us with “it’s great!” and “you ought to publish that!” we send our manuscripts out (to publishers, agents, or professional editors) with high hopes, and when we get a heavy dose of negative feedback and rejection, we can’t help but take it personally. All that red ink isn’t the fault of our writing skills…the editor hates us!

Writers truly need to change their mindset. When a professional editor, whom you’ve paid your hard-earned money to, returns a manuscript that’s more red than black, it’s not a personal attack, but a great opportunity. It is critical to break down every component and detail of the feedback, and learn everything possible from it. The ability to accept this type of feedback and use it to improve both your technique and your product is what separates the best writers from the rest. Writers who want to be authors (i.e. published), should be elated when their manuscript is returned in a heavily edited condition ­ especially if you’ve paid for a professional opinion. You’ve gotten your money’s worth!

Feedback, by design, is going to be negative a great deal of the time. I've heard it many times from many sources: it is impossible to teach someone how to write, but easy to teach them what NOT to do!