Hi. I did click back on the link; I was going to cut and paste the posted note, but hadn't asked for permission to do so. There are a number of houses that still consider unsolicited manuscripts, depending -- always depending -- on what genre you're writing in.
Part of the problem with my ramblings is that they are very specific. Not so much in the sales rep/P&L/returns sense, but in the background that informs so much of the knowledge that I've sought out or retained; everything is permeated by that.
There's nothing wrong with being suspicious, fwiw; it could indeed be that they're being polite -- but then again, I don't think there's much wrong with being polite, given the alternative. I don't think there is a form letter for "not right in general" vs. "not right for us". I have seen cases where the rejection was a "brilliant, but not right for us", and in those cases, they weren't form letters, but they were still definitive; the editor in question thought a great deal of the book -- but was still unable to find her way clear to buying it.
In the general case, there isn't much to be made. Yes, this is frustrating. It's always frustrating.
In the modern day of the internet, etc., it's useful to have a writer's group, or beta-readers. Not so much because they're instant approval means that the work is good to go as is, but more because if they all have some general problem with specific bits of a book, it's probably a good bet that those have to be addressed in one way or another.
I realize this isn't telling you anything you don't already know. My first two rejections were entirely form rejections, and all I could take from them was: they didn't like it enough to buy it.
In this case, I think it's interesting that the letter makes clear reference to business concerns, though.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-08-10 08:34 pm (UTC)Part of the problem with my ramblings is that they are very specific. Not so much in the sales rep/P&L/returns sense, but in the background that informs so much of the knowledge that I've sought out or retained; everything is permeated by that.
There's nothing wrong with being suspicious, fwiw; it could indeed be that they're being polite -- but then again, I don't think there's much wrong with being polite, given the alternative. I don't think there is a form letter for "not right in general" vs. "not right for us". I have seen cases where the rejection was a "brilliant, but not right for us", and in those cases, they weren't form letters, but they were still definitive; the editor in question thought a great deal of the book -- but was still unable to find her way clear to buying it.
In the general case, there isn't much to be made. Yes, this is frustrating. It's always frustrating.
In the modern day of the internet, etc., it's useful to have a writer's group, or beta-readers. Not so much because they're instant approval means that the work is good to go as is, but more because if they all have some general problem with specific bits of a book, it's probably a good bet that those have to be addressed in one way or another.
I realize this isn't telling you anything you don't already know. My first two rejections were entirely form rejections, and all I could take from them was: they didn't like it enough to buy it.
In this case, I think it's interesting that the letter makes clear reference to business concerns, though.