As Editorial Director for REUTS Publications, I’ve been privy to first-hand knowledge of publishing’s “mysterious” acquisitions process.  And over the past two years, I’ve witnessed innumerable querying blunders that hurt the author’s chances, rather than helping them. I’m not the first to offer up this kind of advice-oriented post, but armed with personal insight and pet-peeves, I thought I’d add my own thoughts into the mix.

So, with only a modicum of tongue-in-cheek snark (okay, make that a lot of snark), I give you:

What Not to Do When Querying

(aka How to Piss Off an Acquisitions Editor)
by Kisa Whipkey

There are plenty of posts out there that explain what you’re supposed to do when querying, the steps that are supposed to lead to that coveted moment where someone offers you representation. There are also posts that tell you what to avoid. But I don’t know that I’ve seen anyone really say the following, in all its blunt glory. Because the truth of the matter is this: there are definitely things you can do as a writer to increase your chances of a book deal, but there are also plenty of ways to blow it. (Also, it should be noted that this information applies to agents as well, not just acquisitions editors.)

So let’s break down some of the worst publishing faux pas you can make, yes?

DO:

Submit to publishing houses and agencies that interest you.

DON’T:

Submit to them blindly, and then ask a bunch of questions about how they operate. That’s something that needs to come first and is a dangerous game to play. Vet the places you’re planning to query before you hand them your work. Not after. That wastes everyone’s time, and there’s nothing agents and editors hate more than wasting time. We have precious little of it as it is. Be courteous and ask your questions up front, please. Most of us are more than willing to answer.

DO:

Query agents and small presses.

DON’T:

Query them both simultaneously, and definitely, definitely don’t use a small press as leverage for attaining an agent’s interest.

This one’s two-fold, so let’s start with the first half: don’t query agents and editors simultaneously. Small presses are fantastic. So are agents. But they lead to two completely different publication paths. And there’s nothing we despise more than falling in love with something, only to discover that the author wasn’t serious about working with us after all. It breaks our literary-loving hearts. So please, know where each publication path leads and which one is right for both you and your project.

Which brings us to the second half. This is a serious faux pas, and one I hope none of you ever commit. Never ever use a small press for the sole intent of gaining interest from an agent. Leveraging an offer of publication from a small press to get an agent’s representation (or even a bigger publisher) is like dangling a wedding proposal from someone you pretended to like in front of the mate you really want. It’s mean, and cruel, and makes you a horrible person. It’s also a sure-fire way to end up on a publishing house’s Black List. Yes, we have those. And publishing is a small world; we talk. So be careful which bridges you burn. Treat all parties involved with respect and professionalism. If you want an agent, don’t query small press editors. If you receive an offer from somewhere else, tell us. There’s a perceived divide in publishing, the us vs them mentality, but we’re all just people. And we all just want a little consideration. Is that too much to ask?

DO:

Research the various agents and editors you’re querying. Find out what they like, personalize your query, follow their submission guidelines, and all that other stuff you’ve seen touted a million times. It’s good advice. We appreciate that.

DON’T:

Spam your submission to everyone at the agency/publishing house. And definitely don’t resubmit the same query, after receiving a rejection, to someone else within the company. Publishing houses are like families. We all know everyone else, and we know what they like. So if we see a submission cross our desk that isn’t a fit for us, but would be for one of our colleagues, we’ll tell you. Better yet, we’ll tell them. (Or, alternatively, acquisitions can be a team effort, as it is at REUTS, and everyone who has a say has already read your work prior to the decision being issued.) Talking about books is one of the reasons we got into publishing, so you can bet our water cooler conversations revolve around that too. If you receive a rejection, accept it gracefully and move on.

DO:

Keep track of your submissions and the response times associated with each.

DON’T:

Incessantly hound an agent or editor for a decision. Wait until the listed response time has passed and then politely — key word there: politely — nudge for a response. Submission in-boxes are the first to brim over with a plethora of time-consuming tasks. And as I said above, editors and agents are incredibly busy people. Reading actually falls low on our priority scale, as our days are usually spent dealing with the various tasks associated with producing the projects we’ve already signed. So reading the new queries that rain down like, well, rain, is a luxury we don’t have on a daily basis.

We know you’re excited for your work, and that you can’t wait for that glorious day when someone from our side of the fence is equally excited for it, but constantly yapping at our heels like a chihuahua does nothing but annoy us. We don’t appreciate being backed into corners, and if you push too hard, guess what the answer is: NO. That’s not the relationship you want to have with your potential publishing allies, is it? You want someone to appreciate those words you slaved over, to savor the story you carefully crafted, and to join you in screaming its brilliance from the rooftops. Rushing a decision allows for none of those things. The most you’ll get is a half-assed read-through and a reluctant yes. Patience really is a virtue here, people. As much as it sucks, it will benefit you in the long run.

DO:

Follow agents, editors, and publishing houses on social media and interact with them. Forming networking connections is a fabulous way to form relationships that further your career. But be careful. There’s a fine line between creating useful contacts and this . . .

DON’T:

Abuse the accessibility social media gives you. We’re there because we genuinely want to meet the authors behind our next favorite read. We want to support the writing community and foster a kinship that bridges the gap between publisher and author. And we want friends who like what we like. We’re human. It happens.

We’re not there so you can harass our every waking moment with status requests, update requirements, or attempts to pressure us into taking your work by leveraging the opinions of others who have read it. That’s not the best impression to make, so just don’t do it, okay? There are a lot of factors that go into an acquisitions decision, but endorsements from random Twitter buddies isn’t one of them. Now, maybe if your random Twitter buddy is Stephen King or JK Rowling, that might be different. But still, save that for the query letter, or better yet, get them to blurb your book after it’s signed.

DO:

Create an online persona, platform, and all that good stuff.

DON’T:

Parade things you don’t want the world to see. One of the biggest factors in an acquisitions decision is actually whether or not the team involved would want to work with the author. So, in that sense, submitting a query is on par with a job interview. And guess what? We do our research. We may love your talent, falling all over your manuscript with gushing adoration, but if we discover that you’re the world’s biggest Prima Donna on social media, guess what? Your appeal just went down. Don’t get me wrong, opinions are great. Everyone has them, along with a certain piece of anatomy that usually accompanies that phrase. But think about how your opinions may be perceived by someone on the outside.

Shaming other authors, railing against other publishers, responding horribly to a rejection, and whining like an attention-starved kitten are not appealing things in a potential partner. Would you date someone who checked those boxes? Probably not. So can you blame us if we don’t want to work with that person either? Publishing is a long-term relationship, taking months or years to come to fruition, and you can be darn sure we’re not going to want to work with someone who will make that time an ulcer-inducing, grey-hair creating pain-fest. You could have the most brilliant masterpiece, but if you yourself are a piece of work online, I’m pretty sure you can guess what the verdict will be. So the moral here is this: think about your online persona. Craft one that will be appealing to both your audience and your potential publisher. And generally try to avoid things that would fall under the heading “authors behaving badly.”

The take-away from this candid look at the publishing process is simple, really. It all comes down to common courtesy. Editors and agents are people. As in human. As in we have lives and obligations and families too. And just like you want us to shower you with glowing praise and go to the ends of the earth to champion your project, we want you to understand that your manuscript is not God’s gift to publishing. We may think it’s brilliant, it may be among our favorite reads of all time, but it’s definitely not the only one we’re working on. Show respect of that fact, handle your interactions with poise and professionalism, and you’ll manage to avoid every single one of the querying faux pas I just listed. Sound like a plan?

Kisa is full of fantastic knowledge spanning from editorial to martial arts routines (and how to write fight scenes as realistic as possible). Her blog is chock-full of awesome, and you can follow her on Twitter (@KisaWhipkey) for instant gratification.

The post What Not to do When Querying appeared first on REUTS | Boutique Book Publisher |.

With every rejection we send, we like to leave the relationship open ended, allowing authors to reach out and ask the all-important question: why was my submission not accepted? Every author runs into this question, likely multiple times throughout the course of their publishing career. Of course we can’t divulge all the specifics, but we can give a broad explanation specific to your manuscript. We want to try and help our fellow author in any way possible, even if REUTS wasn’t the best fit for their particular story. On the heels of what’s quickly becoming the REUTS Full Transparency Series, which includes, “Hey, what’s taking so long?” The Delays of Publishing and What Not to do When Querying, I’d like to dive into a bit of the factors—or, in this case facets—of why a manuscript might be rejected.

[Side note: Also applicable is our Why Rejection Sucks, From Both Sides blog post]

Below you’ll find the five major facets that play a part in deciding whether to request a full-manuscript/offer a contract or reject a submission.

The Multiple Facets of Rejection

Writing Quality

Let’s face it: there are a lot of people out there pursuing their dreams of becoming a published author. A lot. Statistically speaking, that means we see both fantastic, amazing, I’m-so-jealous-of-this-writing writing, and then we see underdeveloped, needs-a-bit-more-experience writing. And, in the big, wide world of authors and publishing, most of the time the writing isn’t as spectacular as we’d like it to be when considering a submission. Since we’re immediately given some insight into your writing style via the query letter (and then samples, if they’re requested), your writing quality is almost like the first hurdle to overcome. It’s the first impression, just like a book cover in a bookstore. It’s something that can instantly determine our decision.

Now, speaking from a REUTS’s perspective, Editing Quality is different than Writing Quality. As we state on our website, we’re always looking for the diamonds in the rough (rough . . . rough . . . rough . . . Aladdin, anyone?) and try our best to read in between the lines, for the story beneath the words. That means if your weak points are spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc . . . we won’t immediately write-off your story (pun definitely intended). That’s exactly why we have an editing team—to edit (and trust me, they get hungry when you don’t have any editorial work to feed them). So the difference really is in the quality of the writing, the way you structure words into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, and this then leads me into my next point . . .

Story Building

Continuing from my point above, Story Building is something we try to determine from a synopsis and the sample pages we request. Sometimes the writing can be picture perfect, beautiful, the words flowing like velvet across the screen, but if the story doesn’t manage to suck us in right at the start, or continue to hold our interest, then we have a problem. Sure, with only a ten page (as requested by REUTS) manuscript sample, we’re not always able to determine if the story building matches up to the standards we’re looking for, which is why we’re more lenient on this point and will likely request a full-manuscript. But if you’re unsuccessful in, at the very least, grabbing our attention at the start of your manuscript, there is a slim chance we’ll request to read more. Just like your writing quality, the first few paragraphs of your story are meant to take an iron-gripped hold of us and never let go. It’s the ZING—BANG—POW of your story, and instead if I’m worked into a yawn, that doesn’t bode well for response.

Submission Formatting/Errors

This happens every so often, when an author (for whatever reason) doesn’t follow our submission guidelines. Either we get something addressed to another publication or agent, something outside of the genres we publish or completely negating the required fields of our form, any submission formatting/errors are cause for an almost immediate rejection. This just comes down to time (or lack thereof) of our acquisitions team members. We get so many submission that do follow our guidelines, we don’t have time to check up on the ones that don’t. Most submission guidelines are there for a reason, and to not follow them is not only disrespectful to the people you’re querying, but gives us a very bad first impression–of your attention to detail, of your interest in our company, of you. And we hate to say that because we want to be the cheering section for all authors pursing their dreams, but sometimes we have to draw a line in the sand.

Conflict of Interest

This one is simple and easy to determine from a query alone; if we currently have a title in our collection (either published or in production) too similar to something you’re pitching, we’re almost always going to send a rejection. Exception: if a submission can be coupled together with a title in a similar genre, with a similar feel (but not too similar, there is a difference) we may consider it. For example, if we have a meta-fantasy book in our collection about how story characters come to life (a la Off Book, by Jessica Dall), we’ll be more attracted to stories where book characters are aware of their existence, or a story where the line between a book world and the real world blur (a la Inkheart by Cornelia Funke or The Never Ending Story by Michael Ende).

Author Personality/Online Representation

We hate to say it but it wouldn’t be full transparency without addressing how authors maintain their online persona. At a boutique pub like REUTS, our team is 110% hands-on during the production of a book–that means dealing with the author on a daily basis. Since we have such a tight-knit team, and we consider ourselves (team members and authors) a family, that means searching for the right personalities to seamlessly fold into the bunch. Unfortunately, if via your submission or your social media accounts (e.g. Twitter) we see behavior that’s concerning, difficult to work with, or just downright offensive, it does weigh into our decision. And yes, this means we do check you out when you submit (otherwise known as online stalking). Authors should consider their submission to any publication or literary agency as if it’s a job interview, and there are quite a few things you don’t do when applying for a job:

• Bad mouth any connection to the individual or the company in plain view.
• Post questionable/offensive/any word that ends in -ist messages.
• Brag and or harass (either other authors or the people you’re submitting to)

It’s a bit of selfishness and a bit of a preemptive strike; we want to work with authors with good personalities, a positive outlook and who will make the long . . . tedious . . . and always stressful journey toward publication just a little more enjoyable. Our team tries to go beyond the publisher-author relationship, and many times we develop deep friendships with our authors. Trust me, the way you present yourself in any situation makes a huge impact on us publishing folk.

If you have any questions about this article, or have a question/topic for another article that might fit nicely with our REUTS Full Transparency Series (there, I dubbed it as such. It is so), let us know in the comments! Any member of the REUTS team is accessible, so don’t hesitate to let us know what you’re thinking.

And if you want to follow my spastic, usually incoherent ramblings, check me out on Twitter @amRuggs! I tweet a lot about gifs, memes, and booze, sometimes all in one.

The post The Multiple Facets of Rejection appeared first on REUTS | Boutique Book Publisher |.

In the publishing world, there’s a lot going on behind-the-scenes even when it may not look like it. In fact, the bulk of a publisher’s (or agent’s or writer’s) efforts aren’t publicly broadcasted. When an announcement is made or a book is released, it comes on the heels of weeks, or even months, of behind-the-scenes teamwork. Because we like full transparency and providing an inside look into how we do what we do, I wanted to touch on delays; why they happen, and why they aren’t always a bad thing. So in a fashion similar to Editorial Dir. Kisa Whipkey’s What Not to Do When Querying article, here’s:

“Hey, what’s taking so long?”
The Delays in Publishing.

For organizational means, I’m going to break down “publishing” into the main phases an author and publisher go through. Please note this is specific to REUTS and how we move through these individual phases. Though other pubs may have similar processes, there isn’t a “one size fits all” method to publishing.

Submitting

Number one delay: Slush.

Now, don’t assume that’s bad. Slush is just a term to describe all the submissions we receive. Some are good, and some are not so good. Kind of like snow—you’ve got the pristine, fresh snow, and then the mucky, brown snow. Mix them together, and you have slush. Not bad, just how it goes. Every publisher or agency has slush, and everyone has their own method of trudging through it.

Delay’s happen here from an overwhelming number of submissions. If you have 100 submissions looming in the slush pile, and each includes a query/synopsis and the first ten pages of the manuscript, there’s quite a lot of reading involved at the very start of the process. And, in order to make the most informed decision on whether or not to request the full manuscript, we read them all. This causes a delay at REUTS because of the unique method we’ve adopted to handle submissions. Instead of submitting to one Acquisitions Editor who then decides yay or nay (and if yay, has to convince the rest of the team to feel the same way), we have a panel consisting of the four REUTS directors. Each of our directors reads through each submission, provides their thoughts, and submits a decision. It then comes down to a majority vote. Only after a majority vote has been decided can we respond to an author regarding their submission. And at REUTS we provide a unique response email to all of our submitting authors, regardless if it’s good news or bad news.

Only then can we move a manuscript out of the “submitting” phase, and into the “reviewing” phase.

Remember, requesting an update only delays us further, since the time it takes to look up your manuscript, track down the email with any discussion, and respond back takes precious time away from actually reading your submission. Here are REUTS we always respond to a submission made. No exceptions. So if you haven’t heard from us, that’s actually better than if you had and received a rejection.

Reviewing

Number one delay: Reading.

If a submission makes it to the “reviewing” phase that means we’ve requested a full manuscript for further . . . review. Makes sense! This is, without a doubt, the longest part on your journey toward receiving that beloved contract offer. In requesting manuscripts with a minimum word count of 50,000 (and many times a story is well over that), it means an acquisitions team has to read a full-length book before making a decision. Just like in the “submitting” phase, our panel of four REUTS directors are involved in reviewing the full manuscript. Each director reads the manuscript, and then there’s the discussion. Since people read at different speeds, with their own set of different delays (remember: our directors have responsibilities to already signed authors outside of their acquisitions duties) there’s no way to accurately gauge how long it will take all four team members to read a manuscript. Then there’s the discussion, which is absolutely necessary, as each of our directors brings a different perspective to the table. Editorial Director Kisa Whipkey weighs in on the amount of work involved in bringing a manuscript up to publication standards. Marketing Director Summer Wier weighs in on how marketable the title would be in the current—and future—marketplace trends. This method, along with many other factors, allows us to determine whether a title will work within our collection or whether it isn’t a good fit.

We take our job very seriously, as I’m sure all Acquisitions Editors do, and that means taking our time to make sure our accrual of a new title will benefit both REUTS and—most importantly—the author.

Production
(editing, cover design, marketing, etc…)

Number one delay: Life.

Your editor won’t be your cover artist. Your cover artist won’t be your marketer. That right there means there are at least four people working together to produce your novel. And, guess what, those four people all have lives independent of each other, independent of REUTS. Yes, you’re included in that four, too. We don’t expect an author to focus on their manuscript 24/7, just as we don’t expect our production team to focus solely on your manuscript 24/7. It’s a fact many tend to ignore: life gets in the way. Sometimes you can’t control it. Sickness, death, children, leisure . . . delays sometimes happen because of the things you can’t plan for. It doesn’t mean your editor/cover artist/etc . . . isn’t fully vested in your project. It doesn’t mean you’re not a priority in the eyes of the publisher. It just . . . happens. As much as we try to account for life-based delays, let’s face it, they’re unavoidable.

In addition, on top of those life delays each team member involved in the production of your title has at least a handful of other books they’re also working on, simultaneously, and trying to make sure all authors receive the same amount of attention, especially if one of the authors has a book release looming sooner than another.

Sometimes this means we miss the original publication date, and it has to be pushed back (trust me, this happens a lot in publishing, and not just to independent presses). Many times that means scrambling until the very last second before a release day, making sure everything is set and ready to go. But always this means we’re working our very hardest for you and your manuscript. A delay doesn’t mean otherwise.

So you see, there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle that come together, from start to finish, to produce a book. Delays aren’t necessarily a bad thing. We’d much rather delay any phase of the process in order to give your story the time of day it deserves. In the “Submitting” phase, that means actually reading through your submission, and determining if we’re the best fit as a publisher or not. In the “Reviewing” phase, that means reading every word of that 50,000+ word story, becoming emotionally invested in your characters/world/etc… and trying to find a place for it in our collection. And then finally, in “Production”, where if everything wasn’t done digitally, our blood, sweat, and tears would stain your pages because we want to put out the very best product possible.

Publishing is largely a waiting game. That should come as no surprise. But just remember what they say:

Patience is a virtue.

The post “Hey, what’s taking so long?” The Delays in Publishing appeared first on REUTS | Boutique Book Publisher |.

It may seem silly for a member of a publishing company to gripe about how much rejecting manuscripts sucks. Having been on both sides of the email, I feel I have a new perspective that needs to be shared. One I wish I didn’t have to be a part of in either situation, but unfortunately that’s the name of the publishing game.

As an author, seeing a rejection pop up in your inbox feels like someone has taken a weapon (sharp or blunt, your choice) straight to the baby you carried, nursed and watch grow up for months, maybe even years on end. Like someone’s bludgeoning the spirit out of you limited supply of hope. I know. If I were to return to my querying inbox, you’d find one after another after another– from agents and publishers alike– stating why they didn’t believe in my story, why they didn’t believe in me. And. It. Hurt. What’s worse? There’s nothing you can do or say after hearing “no thank you”. Being an author, I learned you had to develop thick skin quick, and come to the realization that each no meant I was one step closer to a yes (at least, I would hope and pray)…

You’re probably thinking right now, “Ashley, you’re preaching to the choir,” I know. But (there’s always a but…) just keep in mind that every member of REUTS, and specifically our Acquisitions Team, have been authors– first and foremost– and are more than familiar with the pain and heartache a rejection can cause.

I never thought it would hurt as much from the sender’s point of view.

The problem (and beauty, you might say) of REUTS has come to be our relationship with our submitters on multiple different social platforms. As one of the team members who mans the official REUTS Twitter account (@REUTSpub), I have conversations, laugh and joke with, offer support/advice/an ear, and more with so many of our Twitter followers. It’s great! The Twitter writing community is booming, and we’re so excited to be a part of it (and thankful we’ve been so welcomed in)!

But what this means down the line is the very high possibility and reality of having to reject manuscripts from those individuals we’ve developed relationships with. It’s not because we don’t like you, don’t like your manuscript, or don’t believe in you. So many different factors go into a manuscripts final decision: genre, directed age group, word count, writing style, story plot, etc… and there’s a sweet spot with all our team members where a manuscript has the perfect balance and is offered a contract.

For example, you may have an intriguing plot with sparkling prose, in a genre we’re looking to publish, but if it falls outside of the YA / NA age group, you may receive a rejection.

Or, because we’re a small company, your manuscript may not fit into our production timeline, either forcing us to release a novel too soon and too similar to a previously contract author, or just not having all the man power necessary to put it through production.

We look into so many factors before deciding one way or another. We fight internal and external battles within one another when determining which manuscripts seem to fit into our collection, which we can help the most, and which the industry is interested in reading.

But with any and every moment we have to send a rejection to someone we’ve genuinely become friends with, it hurts. We never want to cause the same pain we’ve all experienced. And the roles reverse to where it becomes our turn to hope and pray. We’re hoping and praying our (hurtful, dagger-piercing) email doesn’t make you hate us, doesn’t make the relationship we look forward to seeing on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, etc… disintegrate. Just because we reject a manuscript doesn’t mean it won’t find a home elsewhere. We’re often rooting for that to happen as much as the author is. Because we still believe in them, even though we had to say no to that specific project.

In conclusion: Rejection sucks. Plain and simple. There’s no easy way around it, no magical formula to separate the emotions from the business. It just all around sucks. We love the new friends we’ve made, and hope REUTS can help you step towards publication, even if it may not be with us. We’re here and want to help– and that definitely does not suck.

The post Why Rejection Sucks, From Both Sides appeared first on REUTS | Boutique Book Publisher |.