Ethics of rejection note with paid-for editing, etc recommendation?

[E G Logan]

What does everyone think about the ethics of a rejection letter that recommends PAID FOR:
"in-depth editorial analysis of your work by industry professionals",
"an honest, comprehensive and constructive review", and
a "group of award-winning and industry-leading editors, mentors and writers who have helped prize-winning writers polish their novels".
All with names and web links.

OK, after I stopped laughing (I am a professional editor. It's what I do), I was smarting. But then I thought: this is unprofessional at best. At worst, it's picking on people at their lowest ebb, with an implication -- if nothing more -- that there could be better luck after parting with cash.

It also suggested I should join a writers' group...

 

[Marc Joan]

Everybody has to make a living, I suppose. But I wouldn't like to make it like that. In the end, one must remember that the world is a Bad Place, with Bad People in. Smile sadly, and move on.

 

[E G Logan]

But it's not great business sense either. If they are sending this out to all their rejected submissions, which I assume they are, they are not exercising any quality filter. As an editor, I wouldn't like to receive some of those potential customers.

 

[Leonora]

I got one, but they weren't looking to make money out of it themselves. Given the vast number of people offering their services as literary consultants it's at least a recommendation of someone an agent considers competent. That's what I thought anyway. I rather hoped they didn't send that rejection letter to everyone, but they probably did.

 

[Barbara]

a recommendation of someone an agent considers competent

Or someone who is their friend. But I'm of the cynical kind.

I had one too. I just snorted with contempt.

A friend had an offer of representation IF she used a particular editior to knock her work into shape. It wasn't worded quite this bluntly, alas she did and paid a small fortune (a couple of grand). Yes, she got representation, but her book still hasn't sold. My case rests.

 

[Webbwalker]

Yes, I've had one of those, in a form rejection saying they were currently closed to submissions - nothing on the website about them being closed - and after I put a great deal of work into my submission to them. I was really angry, actually, very upset indeed. Worse by far than agents who don't even bother to reply at all, imo.

 

[Leonora]

Or someone who is their friend. But I'm of the cynical kind.

I had one too. I just snorted with contempt.

A friend had an offer of representation IF she used a particular editior to knock her work into shape. It wasn't worded quite this bluntly, alas she did and paid a small fortune (a couple of grand). Yes, she got representation, but her book still hasn't sold. My case rests.

I'm probably naive, I admit. I did use a consultancy once, and enjoyed the experience, but it didn't get me an agent or a publisher, tho I think I improved. The advice on here has been more helpful in the end. But the whole system is broken isn't it?

 

[Barbara]

I'm probably naive, I admit. I did use a consultancy once, and enjoyed the experience, but it didn't get me an agent or a publisher, tho I think I improved. The advice on here has been more helpful in the end. But the whole system is broken isn't it?

There's nothing wrong with consultancies as such. They can be beneficial and you can learn a lot. And if it helped you improve, that's good, and that's all that matters. Legit consultancies have their place.

I just question 'referrals' / suggestions via a rejection email. To me that smells of a business arrangement, which is fine per say. I get it. They too have to make a living. But ...

Re broken system: I think it's just like other creative industries, and we have to go into it with open eyes.

I once had an acting agent approach me re representation, saying I would need new photos, and here is a photographer, oh, and afterwards, there's an admin fee for their circular which goes round casting agents.

I think not.

 

[Carol Rose]

Back in the day, when I first wrote what would eventually become His Majesty's Secret (and which was published by Siren-BookStrand), I received many "rejection" letters like that - recommending book doctors, editors, etc. Different labels, same idea. A business arrangement between the agent or someone in the agent's office, and a someone else out there who collects serious money to give writing advice. This was the year 2000 we're talking about, and it was thousands of dollars back then! I didn't bite. Instead I joined RWA (Romance Writers of America) and began hanging out with published writers online and in real life. Took 11 years, but I got there. However, that was not without serious work on my part to learn my craft and keep honing it.

Editing is an entirely different skill set than crafting a story. That being said, it's also a totally unregulated profession. Anyone can hang out a cyber shingle and call themselves an editor. Doesn't always mean they know what they're doing, nor does it always mean their writing skills are top notch. And, depending on what you edit, the skill sets vary by wide margins. Editing technical manuals, for example, is vastly different than editing a novel. So the issue with these paid consultancies, book doctors, or whatever the current label is revolves around the skill set of the person doing the fixing. You don't know what you're paying for. You don't know if the advice is solid, or simply what that particular person believes is best, or has been taught by someone else is best.

One has only to skim the blurbs of the bazillions of craft books available to realize the wide continuum of "writing advice" out there. Some of it is contradictory, and some of it is downright bizarre. The best way any of us can deal with that is to seek out advice from people whose own work you admire as a reader. This is still subjective, no matter who is editing your book. My Evernight editor and I had many email discussions about particular points in my books where I flat out disagreed with her editorial opinion. And it really didn't matter who was right or who was wrong. The bottom line for me was always, "how will my readers react to this?" Sometimes it was only a guess, based on past experience. Of course, as a new writer, you have no way of knowing that, so it's easy to follow the advice of others and hope they're leading you down the right path.

 

[David Weller]

Editing is an entirely different skill set than crafting a story. That being said, it's also a totally unregulated profession. Anyone can hang out a cyber shingle and call themselves an editor. Doesn't always mean they know what they're doing, nor does it always mean their writing skills are top notch. And, depending on what you edit, the skill sets vary by wide margins. Editing technical manuals, for example, is vastly different than editing a novel. So the issue with these paid consultancies, book doctors, or whatever the current label is revolves around the skill set of the person doing the fixing. You don't know what you're paying for. You don't know if the advice is solid, or simply what that particular person believes is best, or has been taught by someone else is best.

Carol Rose has hit the nail squarely on the head and I agree with everything she says. And editing isn't the only unregulated profession. I've come across numerous unqualified individuals who have set themselves up as literary agents or publishers over the last five years. Fortunately they never seem to survive very long.

 

[Leonora]

Re broken system: I think it's just like other creative industries, and we have to go into it with open eyes.

I

You're right of course. I was just thinking about the inexorable multiplication of gatekeepers in this new world where writing is easier with the advent of the PC, and more and more people want to write. Same with music. I don't know about acting. But the difficulty of speaking to anyone in the publishing world and having your work read must inevitably monetize the system. It's a whole new business opportunity, with lots of desperate people willing to pay.

 

[E G Logan]

Not this one. I've just sent a couple of submissions (first time) to the e-book sector -- and, likewise, I'm planning to target some US agents this w/e.

I'm following advice I read recently: look at a rejection as a prompt to send out another well-crafted submission, rather than a reason for retiring to bed for two days.

[On editing: just to be clear, although these days I most do academic editing, in the early days of my career I worked in book publishing, then women's magazines. I honed my editing skills doing serialisations of top-selling novels. (You know, The Story So Far and New Readers Start Here.) I'm not a technical manuals editor.]

 

[Carol Rose]

Not this one. I've just sent a couple of submissions (first time) to the e-book sector -- and, likewise, I'm planning to target some US agents this w/e.

I'm following advice I read recently: look at a rejection as a prompt to send out another well-crafted submission, rather than a reason for retiring to bed for two days.

[On editing: just to be clear, although these days I most do academic editing, in the early days of my career I worked in book publishing, then women's magazines. I honed my editing skills doing serialisations of top-selling novels. (You know, The Story So Far and New Readers Start Here.) I'm not a technical manuals editor.]

With that kind of experience behind you, you must have had a true WTF moment when you received that letter.

 

[Andrew Okey]

What does everyone think about the ethics of a rejection letter that recommends PAID FOR:
"in-depth editorial analysis of your work by industry professionals",
"an honest, comprehensive and constructive review", and
a "group of award-winning and industry-leading editors, mentors and writers who have helped prize-winning writers polish their novels".
All with names and web links.

OK, after I stopped laughing (I am a professional editor. It's what I do), I was smarting. But then I thought: this is unprofessional at best. At worst, it's picking on people at their lowest ebb, with an implication -- if nothing more -- that there could be better luck after parting with cash.

It also suggested I should join a writers' group...

Hmm, I've only ever had one of those - so I'm wondering whether you got this from an agency whose name might have some connection to one of the more famous Biblical characters?? ;-) Like you, I started out offended and appalled, not least because it broke the courteous and polite "your work is fine and this rejection is only because you don't fit our profile" approach to rejections, and effectively implied my writing was really rubbish. But, after mature reflection, I decided to be generous and assume that this was just their cack-handed way of encouraging me to keep going. ..

 

[E G Logan]

What a sunny view of human nature you have! Sounds as though at least two agencies are doing this, since the one I got this from is named after its founder or founders. (I assume.)
My best reading of it is that the person sending this note out, trying to push some business in the direction of friends/colleagues/relatives, may not have thought it through. If he/she (no clues) could read this thread, his/her ears would be burning -- and the P45 might be in the post.

 

[Webbwalker]

And mine was from neither. It sounds like more than a few are doing this. I found it crass, rude and infuriating.

 

[WFLogan]

What does everyone think about the ethics of a rejection letter that recommends PAID FOR:
"in-depth editorial analysis of your work by industry professionals",
"an honest, comprehensive and constructive review", and
a "group of award-winning and industry-leading editors, mentors and writers who have helped prize-winning writers polish their novels".
All with names and web links.

OK, after I stopped laughing (I am a professional editor. It's what I do), I was smarting. But then I thought: this is unprofessional at best. At worst, it's picking on people at their lowest ebb, with an implication -- if nothing more -- that there could be better luck after parting with cash.

It also suggested I should join a writers' group...

If a rejection looks form, I take no notice. I've already done the things they suggest. Last year, an agent told me he 'couldn't get into the characters'. I'll finish the resulting redraft this week. The writing teachers, consultant, class members, and other strangers called it excellent and brilliant

 

[E G Logan]

My objection was that the agent/agency seemed to be capitalising on people at, frankly, their lowest ebb by trying to make money out of them.
All of these suggested courses of action mentioned in the agent email were to be paid for. (Not small sums, either.) And there is at the very least the implication -- if not any actual promise --that by doing any or all of them, the rejected submitter would stand a better chance in future.

I'm still cross when I think about it, and it was a while ago now.

 

[WFLogan]

It got my goat too, for the same reasons.