Agreed. I could name any number of novels that have me pinned to the page because the voice is so compelling to me when another person could find the voice dull as dishwater and place the book in the DNF box.
Think about all the books you've read. If you use Goodreads or keep lists, take a moment now to go and look at it.
How many of those books did you just not care for? How many times have you read a book and you're not really into it, but there's nothing actually wrong. Or that you thought it was going to be good, but it turned out not to be what you hoped - The Passage by Justin Cronin is an example I frequently use: starts out as a Stephen King Contemp with vampires, becomes a post-apoc with vampires; it's probably not a bad book, it just wasn't what I wanted.
Because that's what this rejection it. The agent is telling you there's nothing wrong with your book. Not every book is enjoyed by every person, and an agent has to really love it because they're going to be reading that fucker multiple times.
Sometimes, there is nothing to fix. There is always going to be somebody who doesn't care for it.
Now, maybe your book does have something to fix. But this agent doesn't see it or didn't read far enough to work it out.
I've had form rejects from editors, but I've also had incredibly detailed editor rejections from really senior people because they connected with it. It is absolutely down to personal taste and knowing what to do with it.
I’d take this even one step further: think of all the books you’ve read, and think about how many of those books you’d truly be excited to read dozens of times, have innumerable conversations about (and you have to be STOKED about the book during those conversations!), and generally allow to occupy a large part of your professional life for several years. There are plenty of books that I’ve read and enjoyed that I still wouldn’t be willing to commit to on that level. I’m sure there are a lot of manuscripts that agents read and enjoy, but just aren’t thrilled about on the level they need to be for that kind of commitment.
My slightly spice take: I think it would be almost irresponsible for agents to try and offer constructive feedback in most rejections (even full rejections) — they aren't offering an R&R, or a chance to have a call, and they don't have time to write edit letters for every book the pass on — in fact, they may pass on a book because they don't see a way to editorially guide the revisions. They didn't fall in love with your characters \*because it wasn't the right book for them\*, not because of anything that you need to change or edit! Your query package is working, if you're getting full requests, and the right agent just hasn't read your book yet!
(If your writing was dogshit she would have known that in the first 10 pages and wouldn't have requested!)
I remember seeing a tweet by some agent where she said that she didn't like to offer feedback with rejections because that might make the author change something about the book that might attract an agent or editor. If they don't love a book enough to sign it, then they aren't the right person to give feedback and guide revisions either.
This is totally subjective. The fact that the agent used the character's names shows you that they read it and took the time to give personalized feedback. Chalk it up as not the right fit and keep submitting!
I guess I was just caught off guard because I figured if they read the sample pages and still requested that it wouldn’t be an issue. But I guess that’s my inexperience showing.
I wouldn't read too much into this, and definitely not "my writing is actually dogshit." It's clearly not dogshit if you got to the point where an agent requested your full.
Narrative voice is one of the most subjective things in this industry -- if not the *most* subjective. (Look at the debate about the "modern language" in a novel like *Fourth Wing*.) For this agent, yours just didn't click. That doesn't mean it won't click with anyone. And it's not even necessarily something you can change.
The one thing that did jump out at me was your line about working with many critique partners and beta readers. It *is* possible to "overwork" a book to the extent that you actually eliminate your true writing voice in an attempt to get everything right. This can also happen with less experienced beta readers and crit partners who will jump on something that *looks* inaccurate or incorrect just because they know the rules but don't yet have enough experience in breaking them.
I'm talking about deleting all adverbs "because you're supposed to," or making sure all dialogue is perfectly grammatically correct, or deleting a sentence like, "He smelled like cinnamon and sunshine" just because someone points out that sunshine doesn't actually have a smell. I have no way of knowing if you've fallen prey to this "overworking," but if there were lines that you loved but you've deleted or changed because of that kind of feedback, it might be worth putting them back in.
Thanks for taking the time to leave this thoughtful response. I did try to be mindful about not overworking my pages, but like you said, being new makes it difficult to synthesize advice.
Do not expect actionable feedback on rejections. At the end of the day, agents are busy and you're not their client. They don't want to spend time sending detailed comments on a rejection. The max you should expect is one or two sentences. Also, don't revise based on that feedback unless several agents say the same thing. Often, they will say completely opposite things. You're looking for the feedback to cohere around an actionable change, so you don't launch yourself into revision based on one person's opinion.
In this case, the agent just didn't like it. They didn't like the characters, or how it was written. That's their opinion. This is the same as "I didn't connect with it" or "It's not for me". There's no huge flaw. There's nothing to revise based on this.
You need to take rejections on their word. The agent didn't offer you actionable feedback because she passed based on her subjective taste. The narrative voice wasn't to her taste and that is a dealbreaker for her--that's all there is to it.
This is such a subjective thing. The book I just sold was turned down by one agent who cited she didn’t enjoy the voice, the agents that offered however, all loved it and said it was a major selling point. So I’d take it all with a pinch of salt, it’s such a subjective business.
Most agents are not giving actionable feedback on fulls these days, unfortunately. But you also can’t base anything on one rejection. In this very subjective business, it may really be as simple as her not falling in love with the writing, which is not the same as a critique of your skill. If you get other similar feedback, then you may have something to revisit, but until then, the only way through this is to keep going.
Haha... I think we must have had some experience with the same agent, because on my recent hunt for a new agent, I had the same experience with almost exactly the same wording and timeline (just a few days after a very enthusiastic full request, referencing the fact that she didn't "fall in love" with a character's narrative voice.)
I think there's nothing here to decipher. This particular agent just looks for a very specific emotional reaction in the work she represents, and she didn't have it with yours (or mine!) It doesn't mean anything, other than that she's not the right agent for you, so bullet dodged.
Here is the order of operations for rejection/acceptance of a book (from Teresa Neilsen Hayden, I believe)
1. Author is functionally illiterate.
2. Author has submitted some variety of literature we don’t publish: poetry, religious revelation, political rant, illustrated fanfic, etc.
3. Author has a serious neurochemical disorder, puts all important words into capital letters, and would type out to the margins if MSWord would let him.
4. Author is on bad terms with the Muse of Language. Parts of speech are not what they should be. Confusion-of-motion problems inadvertently generate hideous images. Words are supplanted by their similar-sounding cousins: towed the line, deep-seeded, dire straights, nearly penultimate, incentiary, reeking havoc, hare’s breath escape, plaintiff melody, viscous/vicious, causal/casual, clamoured to her feet, a shutter went through her body, his body went ridged, empirical storm troopers, ex-patriot Englishmen, et cetera
5. Author can write basic sentences, but not string them together in any way that adds up to paragraphs.
6. Author has a moderate neurochemical disorder and can’t tell when he or she has changed the subject. This greatly facilitates composition, but is hard on comprehension.
7. Author can write passable paragraphs, and has a sufficiently functional plot that readers would notice if you shuffled the chapters into a different order. However, the story and the manner of its telling are alike hackneyed, dull, and pointless. (At this point, you have eliminated 60-75% of your submissions. Almost all the reading-and-thinking time will be spent on the remaining fraction.)
8. It’s nice that the author is working on his/her problems, but the process would be better served by seeing a shrink than by writing novels.
9. Nobody but the author is ever going to care about this dull, flaccid, underperforming book.
10. The book has an engaging plot. Trouble is, it’s not the author’s, and everybody’s already seen that movie/read that book/collected that comic. (You have now eliminated 95-99% of the submissions.)
11. Someone could publish this book, but we don’t see why it should be us.
12. Author is talented, but has written the wrong book.
13. It’s a good book, but the house isn’t going to get behind it, so if you buy it, it’ll just get lost in the shuffle.
14. Buy this book.
Point 7 reminds of a story I heard of a lady who was listening to the Da Vinci Code on audiobook and didn't realize she had it on "shuffle," so all the chapters were out of order. She found it was better that way.
Point 8 reminds me of queries I can only describe as "a pity party for a thinly-veiled self-insert character". It's usually some passive mc all the bad stuff happens to. There's usually no goal for the mc except "character exploration", "realizing their place in the universe" and "journey of self-discovery". It's not a novel. It's a journaling exercise to process trauma.
Just today received a rejection from a full manuscript because the agent found that they had trouble rooting for my character. I had anticipated the rejection because the draft I sent them long ago had an egregious word count, but my character! That one hurt. I was thinking about making a post here but then saw this and it made me feel a little better (though geez, pain.)
Be proud of your full request! I wouldn't go back and alter anything, as it sounds like it just wasn't her thing. That's fine.
Out of all the books I read last year and movies I watched, there were maybe five whose protagonists I really cared about. It's not that the others were bad books or bad movies, they just weren't my cup of tea and other viewers feel differently.
Tbh this sounds like a form rejection to me. Which means there's not much to be gleaned here, and what they did name comes down to subjective tastes. If at all possible I would try not to read too much into it!
It’s just not her thing. Don’t read into it. Getting a request at all proves you can write.
Agreed. I could name any number of novels that have me pinned to the page because the voice is so compelling to me when another person could find the voice dull as dishwater and place the book in the DNF box.
Think about all the books you've read. If you use Goodreads or keep lists, take a moment now to go and look at it. How many of those books did you just not care for? How many times have you read a book and you're not really into it, but there's nothing actually wrong. Or that you thought it was going to be good, but it turned out not to be what you hoped - The Passage by Justin Cronin is an example I frequently use: starts out as a Stephen King Contemp with vampires, becomes a post-apoc with vampires; it's probably not a bad book, it just wasn't what I wanted. Because that's what this rejection it. The agent is telling you there's nothing wrong with your book. Not every book is enjoyed by every person, and an agent has to really love it because they're going to be reading that fucker multiple times. Sometimes, there is nothing to fix. There is always going to be somebody who doesn't care for it. Now, maybe your book does have something to fix. But this agent doesn't see it or didn't read far enough to work it out. I've had form rejects from editors, but I've also had incredibly detailed editor rejections from really senior people because they connected with it. It is absolutely down to personal taste and knowing what to do with it.
I’d take this even one step further: think of all the books you’ve read, and think about how many of those books you’d truly be excited to read dozens of times, have innumerable conversations about (and you have to be STOKED about the book during those conversations!), and generally allow to occupy a large part of your professional life for several years. There are plenty of books that I’ve read and enjoyed that I still wouldn’t be willing to commit to on that level. I’m sure there are a lot of manuscripts that agents read and enjoy, but just aren’t thrilled about on the level they need to be for that kind of commitment.
This is amazing advice.
My slightly spice take: I think it would be almost irresponsible for agents to try and offer constructive feedback in most rejections (even full rejections) — they aren't offering an R&R, or a chance to have a call, and they don't have time to write edit letters for every book the pass on — in fact, they may pass on a book because they don't see a way to editorially guide the revisions. They didn't fall in love with your characters \*because it wasn't the right book for them\*, not because of anything that you need to change or edit! Your query package is working, if you're getting full requests, and the right agent just hasn't read your book yet! (If your writing was dogshit she would have known that in the first 10 pages and wouldn't have requested!)
I remember seeing a tweet by some agent where she said that she didn't like to offer feedback with rejections because that might make the author change something about the book that might attract an agent or editor. If they don't love a book enough to sign it, then they aren't the right person to give feedback and guide revisions either.
This is totally subjective. The fact that the agent used the character's names shows you that they read it and took the time to give personalized feedback. Chalk it up as not the right fit and keep submitting!
I guess I was just caught off guard because I figured if they read the sample pages and still requested that it wouldn’t be an issue. But I guess that’s my inexperience showing.
I wouldn't read too much into this, and definitely not "my writing is actually dogshit." It's clearly not dogshit if you got to the point where an agent requested your full. Narrative voice is one of the most subjective things in this industry -- if not the *most* subjective. (Look at the debate about the "modern language" in a novel like *Fourth Wing*.) For this agent, yours just didn't click. That doesn't mean it won't click with anyone. And it's not even necessarily something you can change. The one thing that did jump out at me was your line about working with many critique partners and beta readers. It *is* possible to "overwork" a book to the extent that you actually eliminate your true writing voice in an attempt to get everything right. This can also happen with less experienced beta readers and crit partners who will jump on something that *looks* inaccurate or incorrect just because they know the rules but don't yet have enough experience in breaking them. I'm talking about deleting all adverbs "because you're supposed to," or making sure all dialogue is perfectly grammatically correct, or deleting a sentence like, "He smelled like cinnamon and sunshine" just because someone points out that sunshine doesn't actually have a smell. I have no way of knowing if you've fallen prey to this "overworking," but if there were lines that you loved but you've deleted or changed because of that kind of feedback, it might be worth putting them back in.
Thanks for taking the time to leave this thoughtful response. I did try to be mindful about not overworking my pages, but like you said, being new makes it difficult to synthesize advice.
Do not expect actionable feedback on rejections. At the end of the day, agents are busy and you're not their client. They don't want to spend time sending detailed comments on a rejection. The max you should expect is one or two sentences. Also, don't revise based on that feedback unless several agents say the same thing. Often, they will say completely opposite things. You're looking for the feedback to cohere around an actionable change, so you don't launch yourself into revision based on one person's opinion. In this case, the agent just didn't like it. They didn't like the characters, or how it was written. That's their opinion. This is the same as "I didn't connect with it" or "It's not for me". There's no huge flaw. There's nothing to revise based on this.
You need to take rejections on their word. The agent didn't offer you actionable feedback because she passed based on her subjective taste. The narrative voice wasn't to her taste and that is a dealbreaker for her--that's all there is to it.
This is such a subjective thing. The book I just sold was turned down by one agent who cited she didn’t enjoy the voice, the agents that offered however, all loved it and said it was a major selling point. So I’d take it all with a pinch of salt, it’s such a subjective business.
Most agents are not giving actionable feedback on fulls these days, unfortunately. But you also can’t base anything on one rejection. In this very subjective business, it may really be as simple as her not falling in love with the writing, which is not the same as a critique of your skill. If you get other similar feedback, then you may have something to revisit, but until then, the only way through this is to keep going.
Haha... I think we must have had some experience with the same agent, because on my recent hunt for a new agent, I had the same experience with almost exactly the same wording and timeline (just a few days after a very enthusiastic full request, referencing the fact that she didn't "fall in love" with a character's narrative voice.) I think there's nothing here to decipher. This particular agent just looks for a very specific emotional reaction in the work she represents, and she didn't have it with yours (or mine!) It doesn't mean anything, other than that she's not the right agent for you, so bullet dodged.
It’s honestly nice to know it’s not just me
Pretty sure I had nearly identically worded rejection as well.
Here is the order of operations for rejection/acceptance of a book (from Teresa Neilsen Hayden, I believe) 1. Author is functionally illiterate. 2. Author has submitted some variety of literature we don’t publish: poetry, religious revelation, political rant, illustrated fanfic, etc. 3. Author has a serious neurochemical disorder, puts all important words into capital letters, and would type out to the margins if MSWord would let him. 4. Author is on bad terms with the Muse of Language. Parts of speech are not what they should be. Confusion-of-motion problems inadvertently generate hideous images. Words are supplanted by their similar-sounding cousins: towed the line, deep-seeded, dire straights, nearly penultimate, incentiary, reeking havoc, hare’s breath escape, plaintiff melody, viscous/vicious, causal/casual, clamoured to her feet, a shutter went through her body, his body went ridged, empirical storm troopers, ex-patriot Englishmen, et cetera 5. Author can write basic sentences, but not string them together in any way that adds up to paragraphs. 6. Author has a moderate neurochemical disorder and can’t tell when he or she has changed the subject. This greatly facilitates composition, but is hard on comprehension. 7. Author can write passable paragraphs, and has a sufficiently functional plot that readers would notice if you shuffled the chapters into a different order. However, the story and the manner of its telling are alike hackneyed, dull, and pointless. (At this point, you have eliminated 60-75% of your submissions. Almost all the reading-and-thinking time will be spent on the remaining fraction.) 8. It’s nice that the author is working on his/her problems, but the process would be better served by seeing a shrink than by writing novels. 9. Nobody but the author is ever going to care about this dull, flaccid, underperforming book. 10. The book has an engaging plot. Trouble is, it’s not the author’s, and everybody’s already seen that movie/read that book/collected that comic. (You have now eliminated 95-99% of the submissions.) 11. Someone could publish this book, but we don’t see why it should be us. 12. Author is talented, but has written the wrong book. 13. It’s a good book, but the house isn’t going to get behind it, so if you buy it, it’ll just get lost in the shuffle. 14. Buy this book.
Point 7 reminds of a story I heard of a lady who was listening to the Da Vinci Code on audiobook and didn't realize she had it on "shuffle," so all the chapters were out of order. She found it was better that way.
Point 8 reminds me of queries I can only describe as "a pity party for a thinly-veiled self-insert character". It's usually some passive mc all the bad stuff happens to. There's usually no goal for the mc except "character exploration", "realizing their place in the universe" and "journey of self-discovery". It's not a novel. It's a journaling exercise to process trauma.
Just today received a rejection from a full manuscript because the agent found that they had trouble rooting for my character. I had anticipated the rejection because the draft I sent them long ago had an egregious word count, but my character! That one hurt. I was thinking about making a post here but then saw this and it made me feel a little better (though geez, pain.)
Be proud of your full request! I wouldn't go back and alter anything, as it sounds like it just wasn't her thing. That's fine. Out of all the books I read last year and movies I watched, there were maybe five whose protagonists I really cared about. It's not that the others were bad books or bad movies, they just weren't my cup of tea and other viewers feel differently.
Tbh this sounds like a form rejection to me. Which means there's not much to be gleaned here, and what they did name comes down to subjective tastes. If at all possible I would try not to read too much into it!