The Rejection: How Not to Burn a Bridge

Last week, I announced that we'd opened the IW Submission Portal for novel submissions.

Predictably, this has resulted in quite a few submissions. I have been keeping up with them--which is good. To date, I have issued four rejection letters and one revise-and-resubmit letter. I want Impulsive Walrus Books to be known as author-friendly throughout the community. And so I haven't issued a single form rejection letter. I think there's value and respect in an author submitting anything to me--even if that thing is something I don't like. So I try to respond with a behind-the-scenes peek into my brain as to why they are being rejected.

I have been on the receiving end of many rejections, and I know that when I received a little critique along with the rejection, it meant someone cared enough to take their time and give me that critique in the hopes of bettering myself. Some of those critiques have been pretty influential in improving my own craft, and I want to pass that on. And I've already run into at least one author who...doesn't get the value in this. Here's my critique of this man's work. We'll call him "Bob," and I'm omitting anything that could identify him, because this isn't about some public shaming.

First off, thank you for your interest in publishing with Impulsive Walrus Books.  I appreciate your enthusiasm.  That said, I am sorry to say that we will not be purchasing XXXXXXX for publication.

I have attached a word .doc with the portion of your novel that I read.  It includes the comments that I hope will show you my mindset as I was reading it.  These comments may sound harsh, but I hope you will take them in the spirit of constructive criticism that they are meant.  I do not simply want to say no--I want to show you how you can improve and maybe get a yes on the next go-round.

Here are the things I would work on were I you:

1.  Show v. Tell:

This is your biggest killer.  Almost everything you have is a tell.  You turn, look right at the audience, and convey a bit of data.  It's the most boring way to infodump anything on the audience.  Research and practice improving on this.  

2.  Verbs:

The most boring verb in the English language is the verb "to be."  It indicates no action or change whatsoever.  

The second most boring verb in the English Language is the verb "to have."  It indicates a status of possession, and not action or change.  

You have 20 sentences in this first bit I read.  9, almost half, use a conjugation of "to be."  (Is, was, were, has been, etc).  That's almost half.  Of the remaining 11 sentences, 3 are "to have."  In other words, over half of your sentences in this small section are conjugations of those two verbs.  This is bad.  This is how you subconsciously bore your reader.  

3.  Perspective:

OK, you start in a limited 3rd person.  This is good!  Limited 3rd lets you see into your characters head (which is what the first couple of sentences establish) while still staying in 3rd.  But then you break it.  There is no way this species thinks of themselves as "space spiders."  A spider is a terrestrial animal.  If these people are like spiders in space, then to them the spider is the "earth NAME."  

Likewise, how does a space spider analogize to fly fishing?  He's a space spider, and apparently he's spent time in the backwaters of Montana?  If that's your intent (and if it is, that's cool), then you need to make that point.  Have him remember his human friend doing some A-River-Runs-Through-It action.  Just dropping the analogy with no explanation means it's a perspective break.  Perspective breaks strain or snap suspension of disbelief.

To me, this is all good information. I took the time to run a sentence-by-sentence analysis to show him his verb usage problems. I pointed out specific examples of his problems. OK, yes, I only got twenty sentences in before I knew I wasn't going to be buying this book--but that means those are a pretty important twenty sentences.

Understand that this is a debut novel for a man, and that I am the third publisher he's been to with it. He was accepted once by a company that shut down before publishing the book. He was rejected a second time along with a letter that told him they really, really, really liked to book, gave no specifics, and then rejected him. I know all this because he put it in a cover letter that I didn't ask for in the portal.

So, here's my pro tip: If a slush editor (like me) goes out of their way and takes the time to give you this sort of information, you should be thinking of it like gold. They are telling you why they made the decision that they did. They are giving you insight into what you can do in order to get a different decision from them or someone like them next time.

If I had heard nothing back from this guy, that would have been fine. I would still be open to submissions from him. I've had two people write back to me thanking me for the critique; this leaves a positive flavor in my mouth, and makes me hope they'll work on their craft and get me something at some point.

In this particular case, though, here is what I got back:

Frog Jones?  Really?  If this is indicative of how you run your business it's pretty obvious you lack the social skills to succeed.  But good luck to you and thanks for sparing me. 

That's right. He mocked my pen name and then attacked me for critiquing him.

And this? This right here? This is just straight-up dumb. This burns a bridge for no reason whatsoever. It's sheer ego. Remember always that you are the seller, and I am the buyer. To me, an author is the product, not the customer. If I were running a press where I billed authors for our services, then fine--treat me with some disdain.

The customer is always right, after all.

But an author is not my customer. If anything, I am an author's customer. It is the job of the author to convince me to accept their work. The work is a product, to me--and I want the best product I can get, so that I can please my customers--the readers. So when trying to sell me something don't start making personal attacks. This response tells me that this "author" has no interest in improving their craft--they simply want to be told how wonderful their book is. You know, the book that uses nine be-verb sentences out of the first twenty and has two perspective breaks in that same period of time. It's not a good book. I do not want to try to sell it to others, because I do not believe in it. I gave you the critique so that you could know what it is that stopped you from making a sale.

I do not care how chapped your behind is about your critiques. Even if you don't want to respond positively, just don't say anything. Walk away. The emotional release this guy got from the half-second it took him to spew his rage at me is not worth it. Now I have more data on him. I know that he has no interest in pursuing his craft--that he is more interested in a hugbox approach that gratifies his ego than one that truly hones him into an author. Which means I have no use for him whatsoever. I hope he settles down, takes some breaths, and maybe talks to some other author friends. I hope he realizes how good it is to receive critique along with rejection. I hope he digs in, looks at what I said, and begins to reforge his work into something good. I still want that for him; I always did. But I am not betting on it, and without some change in circumstance I will not be spending my relatively valuable time on any more of his submissions. He has burned that bridge, and it is his job to reconstruct it.

I would recommend taking this as an example. Not just with how to interact with me, but an example of how to interact with anyone who gives freely of their time to critique your work. If you fo not have a positive response to give them, give no response at all. We are a relatively small community, and the further up the mountain of success you go, the smaller we get. Never, ever, ever go out of your way to burn a bridge in this community--there aren't that many bridges to begin with.