Over 120 rejections- it's a long road

Thewitt said:

Self publish.

It's not the anathema that many make it out to be.

Yes, you will have to market your book on your own. Big deal. Do it and move on to the next project.

Click to expand...

It's worse than most make it out to be. I've had the unpleasant duty of trying to read self-published novels and short stories for years. No matter how you slice it, 99.9% of them are not just poor, they stink in every possible way. Most border on semi-literate, at best, and that's being kind.

There are several reason why a particular book isn't picked up by commercial publishers, but the number one reason, by a huge margin, is because the writer either has no talent, or hasn't yet developed it. And if the writer actually does have talent, the next book, or the one after that, will be published.

Trying to read self-published books is worse than trying to read a bad slush pile. At least there's hope in the slush pile. There is none in self-published books by new writers.

But, what the heck, it is easy. It requires zero talent, zero skill, and zero dedication or patience. This makes it so easy that anyone on earth can do it.

Jamesaritchie said:

Trying to read self-published books is worse than trying to read a bad slush pile. At least there's hope in the slush pile. There is none in self-published books by new writers.

Click to expand...

Classic response.

Jamesaritchie said:

There are several reason why a particular book isn't picked up by commercial publishers, but the number one reason, by a huge margin, is because the writer either has no talent, or hasn't yet developed it. And if the writer actually does have talent, the next book, or the one after that, will be published.

Trying to read self-published books is worse than trying to read a bad slush pile. At least there's hope in the slush pile. There is none in self-published books by new writers.

But, what the heck, it is easy. It requires zero talent, zero skill, and zero dedication or patience. This makes it so easy that anyone on earth can do it.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I have read my fair share of bad self-published books. I have also read fantastic and highly enjoyable self-published books. I will concede that it's tough to find the gems -- the Internet has made it easy for anyone to self-publish, whether they've revised and had beta-readers/CPs or not.

However, based on what I've seen, the #1 reason a book isn't traditionally published is NOT a lack of talent.

If an author has managed to get an agent, there's talent there. I think the main reasons a book wouldn't get through acquisitions are:

1. The subjectivity and personal tastes of the editor, having nothing to do with the writing itself, but the tone, theme, etc. It just might not be what they love enough to put all the time/energy/budget into publishing it.

2. The holes in an imprint's list at that particular time don't match up with the book. They're just not seeking a book like this right now, which isn't to say it couldn't sell a year or two from now.

3. Low sales of comparable, recently-sold books.

If the author has not managed to get an agent, it's not necessarily because there's a lack of talent. Agents are fully aware of what editors/imprints are looking for, and I'm sure factor in the above three points when considering a query or MS (along with their own personal tastes).

And of course, this industry is so subjective. There are traditionally published books that have thousands of Amazon reviews with an average of 4.5 stars that I disliked so much I had to stop reading.

If you've been through the beta-reader/CP rounds and everyone loves your book, and you haven't been able to get an agent or book deal, self-publishing should not be considered defeat. All it means is that the stars didn't align at the particular time your MS was ready for querying/sub.

Kensingtons said:

(Or they say it's too dark, which makes me even crankier when Hunger Games sold like freaking hot-cakes and mine is nowhere near that bad.

Click to expand...

I keep getting the "too dark" comment, too, which makes zero sense to me... readers seem to be gobbling up "dark".

I see a looooot of self-published books, as they come to me for possible review in the newspaper where I work. They run the gamut.

I've seen very strong self-published books by authors who published with the Big Five in the past and can't get a deal because their last book had low sales. I've seen great self-published books by nobodies. And beautifully written but hopelessly dull ones. And ones with a great concept and a way-too-leisurely pace. And ones that just weren't for me, but sold many copies on Amazon. And ones that really just needed a professional edit. And many, many, many, many unreadable ones.

My advice for anyone contemplating it: Get rigorous beta reads. Do revisions. Get copyediting. Listen to all your readers. Give them the benefit of the doubt if the majority don't think your book is ready. And for the love of all that's holy, please edit your Amazon blurb like there is no tomorrow. There's no excuse for errors in that blurb. None.

"Dark" is one of those things, I think. It's a descriptor that covers such a wide range (from The Hunger Games to Saw to Eraserhead to "Game of Thrones" to death metal to 1930s cabaret to The Book Thief, etc., etc.) that it really doesn't say much. Everybody has their personal comfort zone when it comes to "dark" material, and their ideas about where the target market's comfort zone is.

An agent who asked me to do revisions actually wanted my book more dark. She told me to darken it up more, but ultimately, she passed. One of those "writing is lovely, character is great, story is solid, but..." kinds of rejections. Don't you hate those?

"Dark" is very subjective, and I think it is selling right now. So don't give up hope yet.

Gah, I've been getting the "too dark" comment from editors, too! I asked my agent about it, and she said "dark" is more acceptable in dystopians or societies where it's "kill or be killed," but editors aren't going for "dark" in YA contemp these days.

What do you all think of this? I know I've seen plenty of dark premises sell lately, so... IDK. Maybe "this is too dark" is just another way to say "not for me."

Well, I've never had a novel published or self-published, so my thoughts aren't worth much. But I never let that stop me from running my mouth, so here:

It's hard, but not impossible, to be successful with self-publishing. It is also hard, but not impossible, to be successful in traditional publishing. So! Give it a shot, and use a pen name. That way if the sales record totally blows, it won't hold you back from getting traditionally published with your next novel.

diana86 said:

Gah, I've been getting the "too dark" comment from editors, too! I asked my agent about it, and she said "dark" is more acceptable in dystopians or societies where it's "kill or be killed," but editors aren't going for "dark" in YA contemp these days.

What do you all think of this? I know I've seen plenty of dark premises sell lately, so... IDK. Maybe "this is too dark" is just another way to say "not for me."

Click to expand...

I feel like I've seen a lot of dark YA contemps recently, though maybe the tide is turning. My book is super-dark, but it's a psychological thriller, and the "dark" material is not exactly stuff your average teen would ever deal with. So there's an escapist element. Maybe it's the "dark-and-gritty problems of everyday life" books that aren't selling as well right now.

Many of us whom have gone the traditional route of publishing do so because not only do we desire the professional support, the photo on the back of the book or inside the dust cover, the ISBN, the New York Times review and sitting on Matt Lauer's couch in the morning and Charlie Rose's table in the evening, we desire the legitimacy the traditional route to being published provides.

Even the book bombs, nobody can take that away from you.

I don't have as dismissive a view of self-publishing as the esteemed Jamesaritchie, but if I were in his position, I very well might. Self-publishing is a short-cut, but without it there are some very good and very successful books that never would have seen the light of day. It doesn't happen all that often, but sometimes the agents, editors and publishers are wrong and the writer is right.

There is no obligation by a writer that must follow the same path others have if that path isn't the right one for them. I've interviewed far too many musicians who thought once they were signed by a major record label, they were on Easy Street. Much to their dismay they found out along with mainstream acceptance comes mainstream rules and restrictions.

The work itself is of greater importance than whether it passes the scrutiny of an agent, a publisher or a board. All it takes is one person who loves the book as much as the author does and is willing to go through hell and waters high to champion it.

Do the work first and sweat the approbation second.