How do I recover from doing things the wrong way round

The problem is that if the book has already been rejected by most of the publishers, agents are going to struggle to find anywhere to send your book to even if they think it's worth representing.

If you've written, revised and revised the first book in the other series then in your position, I'd start querying that one. To agents. Perhaps put a sample up in Share Your Work once you've got at least 50 posts to make sure it's up to scratch before you send any of it out.

Good luck.

Old Hack said:

The problem is that if the book has already been rejected by most of the publishers, agents are going to struggle to find anywhere to send your book to even if they think it's worth representing.

Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder about the logic behind this industry practice. As far as the OP knows, none of those publishers even read his work - many of them weren't even accepting submissions in his category. So it's likely that those editors have never seen the work. It seems disproportionate to junk a work completely because there's an outside chance that an editor might possibly have glanced at it once. Does that make sense?

Did you approach any US publishers?
If not then it is still open to you to approach US agents

Parametric said:

I sometimes wonder about the logic behind this industry practice. As far as the OP knows, none of those publishers even read his work - many of them weren't even accepting submissions in his category. So it's likely that those editors have never seen the work. It seems disproportionate to junk a work completely because there's an outside chance that an editor might possibly have glanced at it once. Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

That was my initial thought, as well. I did not see that the work was rejected, just the submission.

Frankly, I'd keep it to myself in the query to the agent and disclose the backward approach if they are interested, and be sure to say, "I made a mistake and they did not accept my submission" as opposed to "I made a mistake and they rejected my book."

I have wondered the same thing as Parametric. If a manuscript is discarded unread, it's a tree-falls-in-the-forest sort of conundrum.

Parametric said:

I sometimes wonder about the logic behind this industry practice. As far as the OP knows, none of those publishers even read his work - many of them weren't even accepting submissions in his category. So it's likely that those editors have never seen the work. It seems disproportionate to junk a work completely because there's an outside chance that an editor might possibly have glanced at it once. Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

If the publisher doesn't accept submissions in that category chances are that sending it to them a second time round won't suddenly make them decide to change their policy on what they will and won't consider: all it'll do is irritate them.

waylander said:

Did you approach any US publishers?
If not then it is still open to you to approach US agents

Click to expand...

I agree.

nathanrudy said:

That was my initial thought, as well. I did not see that the work was rejected, just the submission.

Click to expand...

That's nonsensical. It's the work that's submitted. It's the work that's rejected.

Frankly, I'd keep it to myself in the query to the agent and disclose the backward approach if they are interested, and be sure to say, "I made a mistake and they did not accept my submission" as opposed to "I made a mistake and they rejected my book."

Click to expand...

Please, please don't do this.

Publishers barely have enough time to respond to all the mss they're submitted once. They will very rarely be happy to consider a ms a second time no matter who it's coming from, or why they rejected it the first time round.

If you submit to an agent, and they like your work enough to request more of it and then discover that it's already been shopped around to the extent where they can't send it anywhere new you'll have wasted a lot of their time, and they are unlikely to look upon you with kindness. You'll have broken the trust that has to exist between an agent and a client-writer.

Of course, it's up to you: but in your place, OP, I wouldn't submit to any agents without being completely upfront about the ms's history right from the start.

kellion92 said:

I have wondered the same thing as Parametric. If a manuscript is discarded unread, it's a tree-falls-in-the-forest sort of conundrum.

Click to expand...

But the only manuscripts and queries which are discarded unread are those in genres which the agents or publishers don't work*, in which case there's no point resubmitting because you'll only be rejected unread once again.

*Or those mss which are from stalkers, lunatics and dangerous or dreary obsessives, but I hope that none of AW's members come into those categories.

Old Hack -- nonsensical? If someone does not accept unsolicited submissions, then they are going to reject the submission, not the associated product. Doesn't matter if it's a book, a widget or a public policy.

I used to be an elected official in my local government, and if someone submitted a proposal to the Council at the wrong time and place, the submission would be rejected out of hand without our looking at the proposal at all. It is the submission that is rejected.

But if they came to the proper meeting, spoke at the proper time then we would consider the proposal on the merits. If it was rejected at that time, then the proposal was rejected.

If a publishers does not read it, it has not been rejected. Publishers that do not accept unagented submissions will have no idea you even submitted the work. It's all rejected without being read, without being catalogued, etc.

A rejection on a query is also not a rejection of the manuscript.

Unless you have actual rejections from the top publishers, forget all about it.

I dunno...

I think a lot of folks have *a lot* of faith that editors, their assistants, or even their slush pile interns have ironclad memories and, when they reject a piece of yours after looking at its title, it is burned in their memories from now to Judgment Day like some bad horror flick that just repeats over and over again.

Honestly? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm naive... but just, well, why can't you just - well - change your title and pitch agents, and just simply expect that any editor who considers a piece from your agent won't be like: "Oh wow, I remember a year ago that I had this college intern who told me about a piece similar to this in his slush pile! Therefore, I am going to not look at it because I sense mischief afoot! NO DEAL!"

Mharvey, that's my feeling. If a publisher "recycle queries unread," as at least one claims, or if an intern looks at the manuscript's title page before tossing or putting a form in the SASE, no editor will remember it because no editor has seen it.

If you got something back with a form letter reading "XYZ Publishing Company does not accept unsolicited manuscripts" nobody there read it. The person who sent you the form letter was probably an intern or a temp, so even if they were a memory artist who would recall your name and the title of the book they didn't read (which they aren't--if they were, they'd be working Las Vegas either as a mentalist act or as a card counter), they won't even be working there anymore. There is absolutely no need to mention the submissions that received that response to your agent.

Any submissions that got an actual form (or personalized) rejection a la "We read this and it wasn't right for us; best of luck" should be mentioned.

nathanrudy said:

Old Hack -- nonsensical? If someone does not accept unsolicited submissions, then they are going to reject the submission, not the associated product. Doesn't matter if it's a book, a widget or a public policy.

Click to expand...

I think you're missing my point. To quote you back at yourself, if someone does not accept unsolicited submissions they are going to reject the submission. And that's that.

Jamesaritchie said:

If a publishers does not read it, it has not been rejected. Publishers that do not accept unagented submissions will have no idea you even submitted the work. It's all rejected without being read, without being catalogued, etc.

Click to expand...

Sorry, James, you're wrong. Every publisher I've worked for, every agent I know DOES catalogue every submission under author, submission title, staff member who checked it, and actions taken (rejected unread, requested full, etc). It's an essential part of the job and comes in handy with the lunatic fringe who make wild claims of plagiarism and malpractise.

[query]A rejection on a query is also not a rejection of the manuscript. [/quote]

It's not a rejection of a book which has resulted from having read the ms: but it's a rejection of the book, nevertheless.

Unless you have actual rejections from the top publishers, forget all about it.

Click to expand...

This is bad advice. Really bad advice. Sorry to be so blunt, James, but honestly. It is.

Mharvey said:

I think a lot of folks have *a lot* of faith that editors, their assistants, or even their slush pile interns have ironclad memories and, when they reject a piece of yours after looking at its title, it is burned in their memories from now to Judgment Day like some bad horror flick that just repeats over and over again.

Click to expand...

They don't have iron-clad memories but as I wrote earlier, the publishers and agents I've had dealings with do maintain full indexes of the submissions they've received and the actions taken.

Honestly? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm naive... but just, well, why can't you just - well - change your title and pitch agents, and just simply expect that any editor who considers a piece from your agent won't be like: "Oh wow, I remember a year ago that I had this college intern who told me about a piece similar to this in his slush pile! Therefore, I am going to not look at it because I sense mischief afoot! NO DEAL!"

Click to expand...

You can try it. Some people do get away with it. But others don't and if you're caught out, you might well lose any interest you've attracted AND get labelled as a liar. Editors and agents need to trust the writers they work with: it's such a close relationship, and everyone involved in it is so emotionally vulnerable in all sorts of ways, that once that trust is gone you're in trouble.

IceCreamEmpress said:

Any submissions that got an actual form (or personalized) rejection a la "We read this and it wasn't right for us; best of luck" should be mentioned.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily: "wasn't right for us" is often rejection-code for "unpublishable dreck but we aren't going to tell you that because you're clearly unstable". And when you do mention your rejections remember that they were rejections, and not endorsements. Don't quote them in a "Publisher X rejected my book and said this about it, so it must be really fab!" way. I've lost count of the number of submissions I've read which quoted what were clearly form rejections which the author had mistakenly assumed were compliments.

I'd start querying the second series to agents. As this thread has demonstrated, the situation for the first series is complicated. With the second series, you get a fresh start. And if you get an agent with it, you can always discuss the first series, too.

Agents catalogue, and publishers who accept unsolicited manuscripts catalogue. Publishers who do not accept unsolicited manuscripts do not record or catalogue things they've never read or considered in any meaningful way. No one there has a clue about the manuscript, and wouldn't, even if they did write down the title and the author's name.

I don't know what publishers you've worked for, but there are none in the unsolicited category I know that receive a manuscript from a good agent, and then go through some list to see if that manuscript was sent in, and tossed unread, by the writer. And if so, they tell the agent it's already been rejected when not a page of it has even been read? That's silly.

Publishers that do accept unsolicited manuscripts are another story entirely, but a list of unread manuscripts kept by a publisher that doesn't even consider such manuscripts? What on earth would be the point? Every publisher I've worked for either returns them straight from the mail room, tosses them in the recycle bin, or deletes them from e-mail without caring.

Unread means just this. No one even reads the address, let along opens a package, writes down the title and writer's name, and then tells any agent who sends that manuscript in, "Sorry, the writer sent this in, and we didn't read a single page, but we know we don't want it, even if you think it's a wonderful book, and the next bestseller."

MAC, no harm is going to come of querying agents and being honest about what's happened. The worst you can be is exactly in the same spot, and you're still standing, right?

The best might be that Agent Y knows that when you submitted to House Q, some peon sent you a rejection letter, but Editor A+, who she really thinks will like this book, never even saw it. So your agent decides to take you on, and pitches to Editor A+ saying, "This was submitted to you, but I'm guessing X happened, and I think you'd still like to consider it because I think this book is a great fit for you."

Just don't be dishonest about it. Many, if not most agents will be turned off by your having subbed it already, but if they all say no, how does that make your situation any worse?

That said, in your position, I'd probably either a) query US agents or b) query the second series. It will be easier all around.

--jsschley, former peon who sent rejection letters

Jamesaritchie said:

Agents catalogue, and publishers who accept unsolicited manuscripts catalogue. Publishers who do not accept unsolicited manuscripts do not record or catalogue things they've never read or considered in any meaningful way.

Click to expand...

My bold. James, I'll repeat: the ones that I've worked for and with have done so. If I recall correctly, they began recording such information in earnest in the mid-90s and it's become more widespread since then, and for good reason.

I don't know what publishers you've worked for

Click to expand...

Labyrinth Publishing, HarperCollins, HarperSanFrancisco, Chronicle Books, S&S, Ebury, a few other biggish names and a handful of smaller ones.

but there are none in the unsolicited category I know that receive a manuscript from a good agent, and then go through some list to see if that manuscript was sent in, and tossed unread, by the writer.

Click to expand...

My bold (just for fun).

Publishers that do accept unsolicited manuscripts are another story entirely, but a list of unread manuscripts kept by a publisher that doesn't even consider such manuscripts? What on earth would be the point?

Click to expand...

Because as I've already written upstream, as the world becomes more litigious and people become more crazy publishers and agents have to protect themselves against claims of plagiarism, they have to be aware of stalkerish behaviour, they have to protect themselves from the worst of the nutters out there and by cataloguing submissions they begin (or continue) a paper-trail which helps with all of that.

Old Hack -- Not missing your point, just disagreeing with it. At this point there is no need for either of us to pursue it further.

P.S. LOVE the sparklies.

Old Hack, we don't disagree, I think.

The thing is that rejections that were "XYZ Publishing doesn't accept unsolicited manuscripts" weren't read by any of the submissions readers, let alone an editor. If indeed they were catalogued somewhere, that isn't in any way a disincentive for an agent to submit them to an editor, so there's no need to mention them to agents, as that ground is still verdant and fresh as far as the editors are concerned.

Not necessarily: "wasn't right for us" is often rejection-code for "unpublishable dreck but we aren't going to tell you that because you're clearly unstable". And when you do mention your rejections remember that they were rejections, and not endorsements.

Click to expand...

I think I failed to make my point there: the point I was trying to make was that those rejections are actual rejections that came through the editorial reading process, and MAC in Aus therefore has to tell the agent about them because those are publishing opportunities that he has already explored, failed to gain, and are now going to be closed to the agent.

So to be more clear: the pro forma "XYZ Publishing doesn't accept unsolicited manuscripts" rejections don't affect the agent's ability to submit the manuscript to editors at XYZ Publishing; the "Thanks, we've read your book and it's not right for ABC Publishing" rejections do affect the agent's ability to submit the manuscript to editors at ABC Publishing. Therefore, MAC in Aus should tell the agents about the latter, but doesn't need to give the agents lists of the former.

To present a different angle, is it possible that the real roadblock is not that the agent was turned off by the fact you had submitted to publishers already, but that the query itself was not appealing? I'm sure having submitted isn't a plus, but it may be that's 10% of the issue and a query that doesn't do much is 90% of it. Just throwing out ideas. Or that, like you stated, because it's a vampire series, the market is glutted with them and they're being really picky about what they're taking on?

You don't need to tell them who you've submitted to at this point, or ever really

What I think a lot of people are missing in the OP's post is that he sent to publishers that advertised as accepting unsolicited manuscripts.

I looked into both options and at the time there were more publishers willing to accept unsolicited manuscripts than agents (12:3) according to the Australian Literary Agents website I looked into.

Click to expand...

(Bolding Mine) I'm going to make a great logical leap and say that he didn't send to publishers who don't accept unsolicited manuscripts.

MAC, I don't know if the same is true in Australia, but here in the US, it can take publishers longer than 4 months to respond to queries. I've heard people say it can take up to a year or longer. So don't count those who haven't responded yet as rejections.

Why harp on something so quetionable, at best. You did submit to publishers and it appears that at least some of them read and rejected your work. End of story. For now, I think you should put that work in the drawer and submit new, unblemished material to agents and/or publishers.

Thump said:

You don't need to tell them who you've submitted to at this point, or ever really

Click to expand...

That's not accurate. You certainly shouldn't put it in the query letter, but agents absolutely need to know where you've submitted a work so they don't waste their time and yours resubmitting it to places it's already been rejected.

But a reread of this thread makes me think that the biggest issue with MAC in Aus's query letter is probably that he wastes part of the precious space talking about the places he's already submitted it. Not necessary and not appealing.

That said, scope may be right, and it's time to move on to another project. My understanding is that there aren't a ton of "agented manuscript only" publishing opportunities in Australia anyway, so MAC may have exhausted most of his options with this work at this time already.