Two Reactions…

[AgentPete]

To last night’s Pop-Ups…

“I'm appalled, angry, shamed and betrayed by the way you handled my submission. I know you don't care about that but I wanted you to know anyway.”

and…

“Thank you so much for your positive review. You’ve made an old lady very excited. I appreciate your comments very much.”

Makes you go, hmmm, doesn't it...

 

[Rich.]

Hmmm and eyebrows raised, in fact, nostrils slightly flared.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

Oh dear. Oh no. I am sorry for that first writer. I know you care very much, Peter. I'm very sorry indeed they felt like that. I'm sure we all are. It is a risky business for the writer, subbing in public. They must feel so exposed, and we in the chat room don't wish to seem unkind or disrespectful but we've been there ourselves, not a few of us, and we're a robust lot and (perhaps?) don't always pull our punches. The writing is everything.

You set out your terms, but people have a way of not paying attention. Perhaps (MORE time spent by you) each sub could receive a standardised, reminder f the terms ahead of schedule, with the chance to reconsider and withdraw? They need to know in advance about the panellists and the chat room if they don't automatically already.

The second one WOULD be happy as she received the thumbs- up. For them to be OK with the thumbs down, well, you won't win 'em all, no matter what kid gloves you're wearing, though I could never invoke the 'wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole' option.

Even if I really really felt that way about it.

 

[Geoff]

It's a shame that someone has taken the comments made too personally. In reference to the first quote, I think I know who it might be, but I can't recall any detrimental comments being made, certainly nothing offensive. .But in all seriousness, if someone doesn't want constructive criticism then they shouldn't expose themselves to the submission mill in the first place. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, keep out of the kitchen.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

An overactive ego is the tail that wags the dog.

 

[Magicman]

I had time to view the Pop-up of the 29th, which is rare. I found it well done and the comments appropriate for the submissions. As to the reactions, I'm not surprised (assuming the first was from the journalist - I know - never assume). The wonderful thing about humanity is the diversity. You can never predict the actions and reactions to situations. That's what we need to remember when we build our characters for our novels.

 

[Patricia D]

I watched this pop-up, and I've watched several others - even submitted to one. It's tough to be criticized in public, but that's what this process is about. As my mama told me, "If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question."

 

[Jay Aitch]

I agree with Katie. We are a bit hard-nosed in our comments (I know I am), but--and I say this with complete honesty--I want to love every piece of writing I am exposed to, including my own. Many opinions are emotive because it's the initial reaction.

As a reader I have been known to open a book from an unknown author and proceed to buy it on the strength of its first half-page. I have also put an innumerable amount back on the shelf and felt insulted by their mediocrity.

To commit to a story and a writer, the writing has to grab you by the heart and the head in an instant. Is that shallow; to want an instant "Wow" factor? Or a sign of modern-day impatience? Regrettably I fear it is, but c'est la vie. It may not be desirable or satisfying on a deep level, but that is the world we write in today.

Our reactions to PUS are thus a response as reader, writer, critic and self-critic, optimist and pessimist.

 

[AgentPete]

It’s actually not unusual to receive pretty aggressive “feedback” from writers whose work is “conventionally” rejected, i.e. via email or post. That’s one of the reasons many agents and publishers don’t give specific reasons, because it’s often an invitation to a barney – or at least, to a barrage of abuse.

And rejection can be pretty hard to handle, especially if you’ve invested a significant amount of your life in a project.

I wrote back to the person concerned (yes, I know…):


This is quite an insulting email. I doubt whether we will agree, but just for the record:
One submission was, in fact, called in last night. You would have seen that if you had bothered to watch the whole thing
There was no "ridicule" whatsoever, and I am amazed you construed it like that. Can you please indicate which part of the show you found "ridiculed" your writing?
I do understand that any criticism can be hurtful, particularly when you've invested a significant amount of time in a manuscript. But, if you can overcome your instinctive reactions to lash out, you will find that there is much to be learnt from criticism.
You do not have to "prove anyone wrong". You should consider what was said last night, and see what you can take on board. If, that is, you are interested in improving your writing.
I've already given you my own reaction to your writing, so I will say no more.
With all best wishes,

PC



It bounced back!

 

[Katie-Ellen]

Ay ay ay. Good thing your shoulders are broad enough to take it. He'd better stick with the 'thank you but no thank you' way of doing things.

On the bright side, no-one gave it the 'barge pole.....'

 

[Katie-Ellen]

It’s actually not unusual to receive pretty aggressive “feedback” from writers whose work is “conventionally” rejected, i.e. via email or post. That’s one of the reasons many agents and publishers don’t give specific reasons, because it’s often an invitation to a barney – or at least, to a barrage of abuse.

And rejection can be pretty hard to handle, especially if you’ve invested a significant amount of your life in a project.

I wrote back to the person concerned (yes, I know…):


This is quite an insulting email. I doubt whether we will agree, but just for the record:
One submission was, in fact, called in last night. You would have seen that if you had bothered to watch the whole thing
There was no "ridicule" whatsoever, and I am amazed you construed it like that. Can you please indicate which part of the show you found "ridiculed" your writing?
I do understand that any criticism can be hurtful, particularly when you've invested a significant amount of time in a manuscript. But, if you can overcome your instinctive reactions to lash out, you will find that there is much to be learnt from criticism.
You do not have to "prove anyone wrong". You should consider what was said last night, and see what you can take on board. If, that is, you are interested in improving your writing.
I've already given you my own reaction to your writing, so I will say no more.
With all best wishes,

PC



It bounced back!

A teensy bit chicken of 'him' to fire a salvo and then leg it, no right of reply.
That's all you could do really isn't it? Reaffirm Litopia's terms of engagement, express sympathy for his/her disappointment and wish him or her the very best with their writing.

 

[David Weller]

The problem with submitting material to agents/publishers is that 99 times out of a hundred an author receives no feedback at all. Hence not a single clue as to why said masterpiece was rejected. Was it because the material was rubbish or simply because the reviewer got out of bed on the wrong side that morning? This is why I value the feedback which AgentPete and those present in the Chat Room give. I'm surrounded by people only too willing to say that I'm the most talented writer since (insert name of your favourite author here}, but sometimes a little bit of tough love is worth far more in the long run than a momentary boost to one's ego.

I'm pretty sure that my next offering will have more that enough cow bell, but if you genuinely think it is a load of cow dung please feel free to say so.

 

[AngryPI]

Though it is in its beta form, I want the unfiltered truth coming from agents and publishers. Please don't let this response affect your submission process and critiquing method.

 

[Emurelda]

I agree - I do hope this unfortunate comment doesn't change the quality critiquing given for our submissions. It's a harsh process admittedly and I feel for the hurt expressed by the message.

I remember when mine was critiqued - oh how I squirmed and writhed inside. I was so embarrassed but like an excruciating exercise workout, we need to hear the truth about the quality of work. It's the only way we improve our writing muscle.

 

[Carol Rose]

Love the passive-aggressive "I know you don't care about that but..." statement. (yes, that was sarcasm)

You can't win 'em all, but I do agree with @Katie-Ellen Hazeldine that providing info about the chat room and panelists ahead of time might be a nice touch. As Litopians, we know what to expect from Pop-Ups. Someone who found the submissions page and hasn't been in the Colony yet doesn't understand you won't be evaluating the submission alone. It doesn't excuse the rude email, but at least this way no one can say they weren't told ahead of time what to expect.

 

[Magicman]

The problem with submitting material to agents/publishers is that 99 times out of a hundred an author receives no feedback at all. Hence not a single clue as to why said masterpiece was rejected. Was it because the material was rubbish or simply because the reviewer got out of bed on the wrong side that morning? This is why I value the feedback which AgentPete and those present in the Chat Room give. I'm surrounded by people only too willing to say that I'm the most talented writer since (insert name of your favourite author here}, but sometime a little bit of tough love is worth far more in the long run than a momentary boost to one's ego.

I'm pretty sure that my next offering will have more that enough cow bell, but if you genuinely think it is a load of cow dung please feel free to say so.

David, one author that I edit received specific feedback from Lee Child's agent (after he had met with Mr. Child). He proceeded to rewrite the opening of his novel, focusing on every word the agent wrote. He eliminated the majority of the wonderful non-conventional series of words that Lee adored - the reason why Lee sent my guy to his agent. His real problem was elsewhere in the novel and somewhat removed from the comments of the agent. An agent is one person with an opinion oriented on one thing - selling the novel. Many things can sway that opinion from one agent to another.

Specific advice/comments from a reader, a person doing a critique and even an editor are simply one opinion. Receiving the same from many sources may indicate action is required, but even then, Stephen King stated somewhere when writing about writing, that even when many made the same comment/critique, he didn't change what he wrote.

My guy didn't understand the comments made by the agent. When I requested the original manuscript (not the revised copy I originally received) and the letter from the agent, it was obvious to me why the agent wrote what she wrote. This author wrote in an exceptional literary style. The problem being, his story was a thriller. The two don't mix well when the refined writing skills degraded to enable the flow of the story. He either has to write a literary piece or a commercial story.

The long and short is that it does take a lot of words written, many mistakes, thousands of pages in the fireplace before most people generate quality material. In my opinion, finding your unique writing voice, the way you can tell a story, bring characters to life, paint a scene and direct the action is the most important and hardest thing to do.

 

[Amber]

Too bad for the first person. Entitlement at it's worst. I hate entitlement.

But hooray for the second person.

 

[Barbara]

The 'natural selection in the evolutionary food chain of writing'. Someone with an attidude like that will never go far; too rigid to look at their work and impove it; too arrogant to consider they may be wrong. Who would want to deal with that attitude ...

Like Katie and Carol mentioned: a big 'warning' on the sub page might work.

 

[David Weller]

David, one author that I edit received specific feedback from Lee Child's agent (after he had met with Mr. Child). He proceeded to rewrite the opening of his novel, focusing on every word the agent wrote. He eliminated the majority of the wonderful non-conventional series of words that Lee adored - the reason why Lee sent my guy to his agent. His real problem was elsewhere in the novel and somewhat removed from the comments of the agent. An agent is one person with an opinion oriented on one thing - selling the novel. Many things can sway that opinion from one agent to another.

Specific advice/comments from a reader, a person doing a critique and even an editor are simply one opinion. Receiving the same from many sources may indicate action is required, but even then, Stephen King stated somewhere when writing about writing, that even when many made the same comment/critique, he didn't change what he wrote.

My guy didn't understand the comments made by the agent. When I requested the original manuscript (not the revised copy I originally received) and the letter from the agent, it was obvious to me why the agent wrote what she wrote. This author wrote in an exceptional literary style. The problem being, his story was a thriller. The two don't mix well when the refined writing skills degraded to enable the flow of the story. He either has to write a literary piece or a commercial story.

The long and short is that it does take a lot of words written, many mistakes, thousands of pages in the fireplace before most people generate quality material. In my opinion, finding your unique writing voice, the way you can tell a story, bring characters to life, paint a scene and direct the action is the most important and hardest thing to do.

Hi Magicman.

Thanks for your very sound advice. Publishing really is a subjective business, isn't it?

I found that receiving rejections without knowing why the agents passed left me in a state of confusion. As a result I expended considerable effort reworking the first few pages. I did start to receive requests for further material, but also more rejections. I now suspect that this was simply because a particular agent liked a particular opening - not because it was an improvement on the version that it replaced.

 

[Rich.]

There are only a few people I count as heroes, and one of them is Ursula Le Guin. In her book on writing, Steering the Craft, she has some things to say that bear on this discussion [from the APPENDIX: the peer group workshop]:

BEING CRITIQUED​

The Rule of Silence: Before and during the entire session, the author under discussion is silent. [...] While being critiqued, make notes of what people say about your story, even if the comments seem stupid. They may make sense later. Note any comment that keeps coming up from different people. Do the same with online critique. [...] By far the best response to your hardworking critics is "Thank You". [...] If you truly can't endure the Rule of Silence, probably you don't really want to know how other people respond to your work. This is absolutely OK. It's a matter of temperament. Some artists can only work in solitude. [...] Always, in the last analysis, on your own or in a group, you are your own judge, and you make your own decisions. The discipline of art is freedom.​

--

We choose to be kind or throw tantrums, and the actions we take shape our relationships. To me this is obvious. I wish the angry one luck (they will need it), and hope they find what they're looking for.

 

[AgentPete]

What people often forget is that agents have to cope with rejection, too. But we can’t afford to burn bridges

 

[Rich.]

Yes, it's a demanding business, isn't it? More so as it's all so subjective. @AgentPete, what do you do (you personally) to keep your skin sufficiently thick?

 

[Barbara]

What people often forget is that agents have to cope with rejection, too. But we can’t afford to burn bridges

Good point, @AgentPete. It's easy to forget that as agents you're at similar mercy. In a sense you too are 'judged' when you pitch stuff further along the chain. I hope that when you have a publisher on board during the pop ups, that this particular view will become a bit clearer. It might be worth talking about it even; highlight a different angle to why agents reject work?

Shame that rejection has to be part of life. Not everyone is at the same stage of acceptance. Maybe that person will think about it and in a few day's time feel different about the feedback. I hope so, anyway.

 

[David Weller]

What people often forget is that agents have to cope with rejection, too. But we can’t afford to burn bridges

And rejection doesn't end there. I've lost count of the number of times I've gone into a bookshop, picked something off the shelf, read the blurb and then put it back.

 

[AgentPete]

Yes, it's a demanding business, isn't it? More so as it's all so subjective. @AgentPete, what do you do (you personally) to keep your skin sufficiently thick?

It’s no secret that I wasn’t very good at this in the beginning. I did take rejection very personally. If you’re passionate about something – your own writing, or that of your client – then it’s very easy to lose perspective. So I do know how deep it can cut.

I guess I just started playing a smarter game. Getting angry ain’t gonna get you no deal Getting smart, well that just might...

 

[Rich.]

Getting angry ain’t gonna get you no deal Getting smart, well that just might...

Hear, hear!

 

[Magicman]

Hi Magicman.

Thanks for your very sound advice. Publishing really is a subjective business, isn't it?

I found that receiving rejections without knowing why the agents passed left me in a state of confusion. As a result I expended considerable effort reworking the first few pages. I did start to receive requests for further material, but also more rejections. I now suspect that this was simply because a particular agent liked a particular opening - not because it was an improvement on the version that it replaced.

That's not wasted time and effort - that's called learning in most cases. Rejection directs us back to books and more experienced acquaintances in that trade to find the weaknesses or things that can be improved. If all car owners loved Henry Ford's Model T, that is what we would be driving today. Rejection drives us to learn and improve that perfect manuscript and in my opinion, the term "the sky is the limit" is limited. There is no limit to knowledge and therefore no limit to improvements. You just have to find that point where "it's good enough for now". Let the next one be better.

Smiles
Bob

 

[Jay Aitch]

Ay ay ay. Good thing your shoulders are broad enough to take it. He'd better stick with the 'thank you but no thank you' way of doing things.

On the bright side, no-one gave it the 'barge pole.....'

View attachment 2456

I wonder ... was his messenger killed?

 

[Katie-Ellen]

The last one? Aye. I wonder.....must go see.

Yes. He was referring to the Lives of Plutarch. Tigranes had had a messenger beheaded. After that, no-one would deliver him intelligence, and he did rather need it, as he was at war.....

 

[Robinne Weiss]

LeGuin's silence. Yes. I really appreciate good, brutal, honest feedback. But I prefer written, not oral feedback, because usually have to read it and walk away for a while to get over the first sting. My thought process usually goes from anger (that reviewer doesn't know what they're talking about), to despair (that reviewer is right, and I'll never be a good writer), to enlightenment (that reviewer is right, and I can fix those problems). Then the fun starts! It's less about fixing this piece, and more about knowing the next piece will be better from the first draft.