Here are a few home truths that might annoy an editor or
publisher and steer a submission towards rejection, despite the content.
Contrary to what many rejected novice writers believe,
editors and publishers are human. They have emotions and that’s why they can
get annoyed with writers who blatantly ignore or break the basic rules. Yes,
there are rules – usually stipulated in the publisher’s website submission
guidelines. There are other rules about layout that should be obvious, too, but
seemingly are ignored.
If a prospective author is cavalier about their submission,
then they’re unlikely to find their work being accepted.
Perhaps prospective authors don’t realise that writing is
competitive. Stating the obvious, editors and publishers generally settle on
those individuals who deliver on time
what is required. Editors are busy people and can devote only so much
time to an unsolicited piece. They want it to succeed; they want to find
a new voice. They don’t want to reject. So if you don’t want to fail at the
first hurdle, bear in mind a few of the factors that might tip your work in the
wrong direction – the rejection pile.
Indeed, it could be argued that rules were meant to be
broken and walls were meant to be climbed over. Fine: when you know the rules
of the game, then you can break them, though only for specific reasons.
Perhaps some writers will say, “Why follow rules and basic
layout? I want to show I’m an individual!” Number 6 from The Prisoner would be proud. Still, the fact is that standards are
set because they have been established over time and they tend to work by
making the process easier to run.
Basic layout isn’t rocket science. Prospective authors only
need to pick up any book from the shelves and the layout is there to see – with
two exceptions, double spacing (and right-justification for book MSS).
It shouldn’t need saying, but I’ll emphasise that writers
need to do their market research. If the publisher you’re aiming at uses
double-quote marks for speech, you should in your MS; if the publisher is not
consistent with his output, then don’t worry. Yes, as a general rule, UK
publishers prefer single and US publishers opt for double; but there are exceptions; check.
Editors hate it when indents are lacking in a submission when
a little market research would show they’re the norm. Unless the publisher or
periodical doesn’t use paragraph indents, your work should be indented. Yes,
online publishing tends to favour no indents and a space between paragraphs (as
in this blog) – that’s for ease of reading on-screen – it is not appropriate
for a book MS or any article submission, unless
stipulated.
I’ve encountered a few specific bugbears over the years; and
the odd instance is not liable to justify a rejection, but if repeated too
often, then it’s probably destined for the bin.
‘Baker stormed out the room. When he had left, Atkins sank
back in his chair.’
What the writer meant was, when Baker had left, but the
sentence implies that Atkins had left. This is a common error, committed even
by established writers. When re-reading for the final self-edit, check the
sense of your sentences.
‘Go away!’ he hissed. This is a pet hate because to hiss is
to make a sibilant sound, like that of a snake, which means there have to be
some esses in the spoken words. Again, careless published authors commit this
error.
Lengthy speech is very annoying. Few people in real life
talk non-stop for what amounts to half a page or more. This is lazy writing,
dumping information without thought. Fine, some established writers might get
away with it, but it is to be abhorred. If characters are speaking, natural
conversation involves interruptions, gestures, asides – all breaking up the
otherwise lengthy speech. Try to remember that any paragraph of unbroken
dialogue over three lines in length is suspect.
Information downloading (infodumping) should be avoided. A
long paragraph, often in speech, outlining some technical aspect of the story,
seems like a good way to get the information across. But it kills the story
because it’s dry and obvious – and it’s lazy writing. Drip-feed the information
subtly, instead.
Character references in speech.
‘Yes, Dillon, I know it’s difficult.’
‘I agree, Matthew, but what can we do?’
‘Well, Dillon, let’s go away!’
This constant character referencing in speech is annoying
and tedious. Usually it should be obvious who is speaking by the context, the
manner of the speech or perhaps a preceding attributed gesture, for example,
Matthew smiled. ‘Yes, I know it’s difficult.’
The same goes for using a narrative tag after each speech –
again, it should be obvious most of the time who is speaking.
Over-use of a character-name. When involved in the narrative
from the POV of a character, it is not necessary to constantly insert the
character’s name. ‘He’ is sufficient, if anything is needed at all. This
over-use constantly pulls the reader out of the character’s viewpoint and
shouts ‘author intrusion, author intrusion…’.
Dull writing ends up being rejected. What is dull? Bland
narrative. Use active rather than inactive descriptions. ‘The man was tall’ is
inactive. ‘The man strode purposefully, his tall frame quite intimidating’ is
active.
We humans are emotional folk, so it stands to reason that
our fictional characters have emotions too. Denying them any emotional response
makes them wooden and destined for the rejection bin.
‘The man moved across the room and opened the filing
cabinet.’ This is emotionless and tells the reader very little; we’re watching
a movie, but are not involved. Wherever possible, include emotion in your
description. ‘The man hesitantly crossed
the room, his gait a little unsteady as he approached the filing cabinet.
Warily, he opened the drawer…’ Not a great improvement, but the man now has
some feeling.
A flat storyline with little in the way of conflict is going
to end up being rejected. Without conflict, there is no plot and no pressure
for the main character, and essentially no story.
Exposition for the reader’s benefit is not only unwelcome,
it turns off most editors. No two characters should ever mention in dialogue
anything that both of them know already.
Pointless dialogue is tedious and slows the pace. Dialogue
is used to develop character, heighten the suspense or dramatic tension of a
scene – conflict again.
Using the wrong words can be forgiven, perhaps, but I’d
advocate that writers should try to avoid the usual pitfalls. One bestselling
writer uses ‘adverse’ when he means ‘averse,’ for example. I could cite several.
Word repetition (what can be termed word echo) shows up lazy
or inadequate self-editing and may be excused unless it becomes frequent and
thus annoying, in which case it may point to the rejection bin.
Rejection isn’t the end, of course. Every rejection is
subjective. Still, if they start to mount up, sometimes the text bears
reassessment. Perseverance, with critical self-editing, is the watchword.
Remember some of the greats have been rejected. In response to a submission by
Rudyard Kipling, the publisher’s rejection stated: ‘I’m sorry, Mr Kipling, but
you just don’t know how to use the English language.’
A good many of these points, plus others, are touched upon
in my genre fiction writing guide, Write a Western in 30 Days.
Purchase from Amazon.co.uk
here - currently (as of today) #96 out of top 100 on this site
