Need help deciphering a reply from an agent.

[scribe]

I've had lots of rejections.

 

It sounds to me like you're trying too hard to make your writing sound like "grown-up" writing: that you're being pretentious, probably without realising it, and that if you relaxed more and let your own voice through, your writing would improve.

 

If you like, you could PM me a para or two of the piece concerned, and I'll send you back a bit of a crit. But I will be honest. Just be aware of that. You might not like what I say.

 

This is what makes it worthwhile,a kind gesture PL .I will send you my last ten chapters .

[Peacock Lady]

Scribe--do you know nothing? It's the first three chapters you should be most worried about!

 

Ha!

 

I'm a very rigourous editor. I'm not kind. You might not want to hear what I have to say.

[sauerkraut]

I'm not sure I'm that qualified to comment, as I've never submitted my writing to an agent - nor am I likely to, the way I'm going! But here's my two pennorth anyway, and apologies if it's only telling you stuff you already know.

 

My question would be - who (or what?) are you writing for? If commercial success is the priority, then perhaps you do have to rehash everything to please a wider market. (Or to please the agent?) But if you don't want the "soul" taken out of your writing, then perhaps you need to keep hunting for a more sympathetic agent and hope there's a "niche" for your work out there somewhere. To me, the agent's "self-consciously literary" phrase means that he doesn't understand what it's about and doesn't think it's commercial enough, therefore not worth his while!

 

I remember reading somewhere that Laura Ingalls Wilder (Little House on the Prairie) was criticised when she first sought publication for exactly the opposite reason: her writing was far too simple and straightforward to ever be sellable! She refused to compromise, wanting to remain true to her own writing style and not caring too much if she made a load of money out of it, and the results speak for themselves.

 

From the pieces of yours I've read on here, I have to admit I do get confused and I am also someone who prefers more straightforward story lines. But you have a unique writing style and I think it would be a shame to corrupt it too much to try to fit some commercial "norm". Find an agent who allows for a bit more artistic temperament and creativity in his writers, that's my humble opinion.

[scribe]

Scribe--do you know nothing? It's the first three chapters you should be most worried about!

 

Ha!

 

I'm a very rigourous editor. I'm not kind. You might not want to hear what I have to say.

 

Yes but while your reading three you might as well read ten ,but i was only joking with you.I just thought it was a very nice gesture but if you wish to be know as fearsome bitch so-be-it .(ONLY JOKING AGAIN )

[Peacock Lady]

That's how I am known everywhere else, so it's going to happen here.

 

Grr.

 

Point is, I take writing very seriously and don't think there's much point saying, "How lovely!" when the writing needs work. If writers are never told what's wrong with their work, they might never work out what they need to change to make it better. I know I only ever improved when I listen to real advice: and good writing advice is rarer than hen's teeth out there, I'll warn you. Take it where you can!

[Peacock Lady]

Just a thought: the fact that you got a personalised rejection is important. If the work had been considered completely dire, you'd have probably only got a form rejection. Consider yourself complimented; revise and move on.

[scribe]

That's how I am known everywhere else, so it's going to happen here.

 

Grr.

 

Point is, I take writing very seriously and don't think there's much point saying, "How lovely!" when the writing needs work. If writers are never told what's wrong with their work, they might never work out what they need to change to make it better. I know I only ever improved when I listen to real advice: and good writing advice is rarer than hen's teeth out there, I'll warn you. Take it where you can!

 

I totally agree with what your saying .The truth hurts sometimes but it's better than giving false hopes

[coyleys]

Kaimani

I have read quite a lot of your writing, and I’m impressed with your literal powers of description, to the point of envy, however I feel what your stories lack is the story its self, you seem to have 80% description and 20% plot and feel these parameters should be reversed.

After reading a couple of pages, although impressed I do find myself getting fed up with lack of story.

I mirror Shoeshines thoughts…..

 

Kaimani, your writing is exquisite, and quite powerful. Your expression of emotions and concepts are brilliant.

 

But.......as a reader, I like to see a fairly quick-moving basic tale with several well defined characters, a riveting plot and maybe less of the technical "innermost" feelings of the character's emotions expressed at length.

 

 

And as it has been said before……

Quote…Mantaspook

 

(Revised 'tricked up' version of Ghost)

The concise conclusion is this: You are getting too involved with the writing when you should be concentrating on the storytelling.

[jomarch]

As someone who has received many rejection slips in the past I think you should be grateful for such constructive criticism- I never experienced such a helpful rejection!

I haven't read your work so can't comment on it, but I will draw your attention to two things.

Who are you writing for? If it is just for yourself then it doesn't really matter what others think, and maybe, somewhere there will be someone who considers you a genius and the rest will be history.

However, I sense that you would like to get yourself into print- so I would recommend doing some research.

Look for publishers who like 'literary' texts, as opposed to those who want to satisfy the market for a simply told narrative.

Compare the book world to a global restaurant- what sort of people do MacDonalds want in their kitchen? And who do the top chefs employ?

There is a lot of money made in MacDonalds, but it doesn't make the food good.

[Giraffe77]

scribe, that much i got!!! but what does that 'too selfconciously 'literary'' mean??!!

 

I think it's something like: When you are reading that book (or story) you don't get to forget that you are reading a book.

A really good book (and this is just my opinion) may not be technically perfect (if ever such a thing exists), but it carries a unique voice- it makes you forget the world around it and just want to get lost in there eg. To Kill a Mockingbird or Isabel Allende's Eva Luna stories. Good acting, good writing, good singing, good cooking: they always make it seem simple and natural (however much work goes beyond the scenes)

Sometimes if we try to write very good sentences they may become artificially literary, which may be what the review was referring to?