If a lot of rejections,

jack hudkins said:

Why not self-publish?

At least you can get 'something' out there and who knows what might happen, right?



.

Click to expand...

Two things. 1. Self-publishing does not improve teh quality of your writing, and the reason for a lot of rejections is almost always poor quality. 2. I can pretty much guarantee what will happen. Nothing at all, except that you'll never sell anything.

jack hudkins said:

Why not self-publish?

At least you can get 'something' out there and who knows what might happen, right?

j.

Click to expand...

For many authors (myself included) it's not just about "getting something out there." Unless you write in a particular niche that already has a solid market, "out there" is already over-saturated, with little chance of really standing out unless you're some kind of marketing wizard (which I personally am NOT).

I strongly believe that agents and editors and marketing teams still have a valid role in today's publishing industry, and I want them by my side as I try to make my mark in it. They've made it their business to know what will sell and how to sell it, and I'm perfectly content to leave that to them so that I can focus on writing.

Also, if an author is getting a TON of rejections, with NO interest being shown at all (no requests for more materials, for revisions, etc) then I think that s/he should get some betas, post some things in SYW, try to get feedback from contests, etc and see if there's a reason why no one seems to be interested. Sometimes it's just a matter of timing or trends or finding the right person for the work, but sometimes there really is something wrong with it that the author doesn't see.

I'm with Calla Lily. There's a difference between a query letter that gets you nowhere (writing a query is a drastically different skill than writing prose) and actual pages getting rejected.

And there's a difference between pages that get form rejections, and pages that get rejected with a more personalized response.

Personally, I'm a big proponent of self-publishing, but I think an awful lot of people go into it with unrealistic expectations. It's a huge amount of work to do properly, and often very expensive. (I'd never self-pub without hiring a professional editor, myself, not to mention a professional cover designer.) It can, if you're producing a quality product, be a great solution, especially for some genres.

But just because there have been lots of rejections? That seems like a reactive choice rather than a proactive one. There are plenty of solid business and creative reasons to choose self-publishing that depend on your specific goals and circumstances. A large selection of rejection letters, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a strong argument.

WendyN said:

Also, if an author is getting a TON of rejections, with NO interest being shown at all (no requests for more materials, for revisions, etc) then I think that s/he should get some betas, post some things in SYW,

Click to expand...

What if your beta responses are good, but you're getting query rejections -- and rejections with no feedback?

To be fair, I haven't sent out that many, so "unrealistic" probably applies there too. My problem in particular is knowing what that signifies. For instance, if I send out a query that includes query text, synopsis, and first X pages/chapters, and I get a form rejection -- can I depend on them having read the whole thing, or is it possible that they stopped on the query? Without feedback, there's no way to tell. The only thing I can infer is that I don't get any better response with just query, or query+synopsis. So maybe my query just sucks to the point where they throw the email against the (fire)wall after one paragraph.

Calla Lily said:

There are so many variables.

--the agent already reps a book similar to yours
--your voice isn't what the agent prefers
--the query was good but the first chapter(s) weren't what the agent expected
--the query didn't hook the agent
--the chapter didn't hook the agent
--the agent has [insert genre] overload for whatever reason

Those are just off the top of my head.

Click to expand...

Yup.

And this is why form rejections suck.

lizmonster said:

But just because there have been lots of rejections? That seems like a reactive choice rather than a proactive one. There are plenty of solid business and creative reasons to choose self-publishing that depend on your specific goals and circumstances. A large selection of rejection letters, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a strong argument.

Click to expand...

This. There are a ton of excellent reasons to self-publish, but rejection isn't one.

As for an MS that has great beta-reader reviews but only rejections, I don't know. I think that's a write another MS and see kind of situation. I just shelved a MS that had that exact thing going on (and was fortunate enough to figure out why from personalized rejections -- voice and recently published novel that was too similar). I'm going to query the next thing and see what happens, work on something else, and then reevaluate the shelved manuscript to possibly self-publish it. But we'll see. This is why I think always working on the next thing is a good idea.

Depends on the reason for rejection. If it's because an agent/publisher doesn't know how to market it then sure, self-publishing is an option.

If you are getting rejected for reasons such as it's not ready, weakness in the writing etc. then self-publishing is a bad idea.

Angry Guy said:

What if your beta responses are good, but you're getting query rejections -- and rejections with no feedback?

.

Click to expand...

If beta reader actually help, then why are slush piles filled with horrible manuscripts, and even worse queries? Every blasted bad manuscript I see usually comes with a letter saying how much beta readers loved it. The worse the manuscript, the more likely it is that such a letter will come with it.

Beta readers almost always mean the blind are leading the blind. Stop listening to beta readers, do your homework, and learn to trust your own judgment.

And sometimes, just sometimes, the writer sucks dead dust bunnies, no matter what beta readers say.

Really, though, beta readers love every truly horrible manuscript and query I see. If you want freshness and originality, combined with great writing, it must come from you, not from beta readers who will do everything possible to make your query and your manuscript read just like what every writer they read does. This is great, if you want to submit same old, same old, but it's terrible if you want to be published.

Jamesaritchie said:

If beta reader actually help, then why are slush piles filled with horrible manuscripts, and even worse queries? Every blasted bad manuscript I see usually comes with a letter saying how much beta readers loved it. The worse the manuscript, the more likely it is that such a letter will come with it. ant to be published.

Click to expand...

James, surely that depends on beta reader? Most authors even at the highest levels will happily acknowledge their early-draft-readers. All beta readers are not created equal, of course, but that means not all beta readers are useless. I've read for some writers here and in real life, and I think it's been helpful for them. And certainly the writers who read for me were incredibly helpful.


ETA: And just having someone to discuss a finished ms with is a relief, and a bit of a boost.

Jamesaritchie said:

If beta reader actually help, then why are slush piles filled with horrible manuscripts, and even worse queries?

Click to expand...

Maybe the writer didn't use beta-readers. Maybe the writer used the wrong beta-readers. Maybe the writer used the praise but not the criticism provided by the beta-reader. There are a lot of maybes in play. I think it's bad advice to tell writers not to use beta-readers. I have a couple (that I've met here at AW) whose opinions I trust and who have greatly improved my writing with their critiques. Critiquing their work has also helped me build my skills.

Jamesaritchie said:

If beta reader actually help, then why are slush piles filled with horrible manuscripts, and even worse queries? Every blasted bad manuscript I see usually comes with a letter saying how much beta readers loved it. The worse the manuscript, the more likely it is that such a letter will come with it.

Beta readers almost always mean the blind are leading the blind. Stop listening to beta readers, do your homework, and learn to trust your own judgment.

And sometimes, just sometimes, the writer sucks dead dust bunnies, no matter what beta readers say.

Really, though, beta readers love every truly horrible manuscript and query I see. If you want freshness and originality, combined with great writing, it must come from you, not from beta readers who will do everything possible to make your query and your manuscript read just like what every writer they read does. This is great, if you want to submit same old, same old, but it's terrible if you want to be published.

Click to expand...

This is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem isn't with the idea of betas, it's with the fact that for most writers, beta means 'my best friend Suzie and my uncle Ron-John'. "Betas love it but agents hate it" just means "you have bad betas"

A good beta isn't someone who lavishes your book with praise, they're someone who understands the publishing industry, understands commercial fiction, and can help you pre-emptively identify the issues that will turn off agents and editors. They're qualified writers/editors who can help you catch your blindspots. My betas are all professional published writers, and their input was beyond valuable. I don't know that I would never have received representation without them, but it certainly would have been harder and taken longer.