Slush Metrics

Editors and agents reach a certain point in their slush-reading careers where a quick glance at a query will tell them whether it’s worth reading onward.

You start to learn a certain set of warning signs, over time. For example, you learn after reading lots and lots of submissions that a query letter riddled with spelling errors and misused punctuation will usually accompany a submission with the same sorts of problems, and will be indicative of a would-be author’s lack of attention to detail. Therefore, if you see a query letter that looks like it was typed in the dark, you can expect that the manuscript is going to require a lot of extra work.

I don’t decide on correlations like that arbitrarily. They’re observations I’ve made based on lots and lots of data points. And the more new data I receive, the more they’re continually supported.

Other editors and agents have written about the sorts of problems they see in manuscripts and queries, and their reasons for rejection. Look at the posts from:

Colleen Lindsay and Janet Reid at FinePrint Literary
Betsy Mitchell at Del Rey
Rachelle Gardner at WordServe Literary
Tor editor Teresa Nielsen Hayden (see especially #3), and
Jessica at BookEnds, just to name a few.
And I’ll even include my own post from Dragon Moon’s open submission period.

Really, read these posts. They’ll teach you a lot about what editors/agents see and why they reject what they reject.

The more I work with submissions, the more I’ve noticed that they filter down, mostly, into a very simple six-point system.

Ready? Here it is.

0 – “Ow, ow, my eyes!”

This speaks for itself. It’s the stuff that horror stories are made of. Spelling, punctuation and grammar so badly lacking that the text is just about indecipherable, or worse, a narrative or plot so seriously flawed on so many levels that indecipherable would be an improvement. This either gets a form rejection because there’s absolutely nothing appropriate that I can say, or it gets a gentle recommendation to work on writing skills.

1 – Sigh of disappointment.

Weak voice, weak writing skills, weak narrative, wooden characters, or weak/flawed plot. Heavy-handed, contrived, too slow to get moving, or just not well thought out. Not scary-bad, just not strong enough for publication.

2 – Eh.

Nothing stands out about these manuscripts at all. They’re not deeply flawed, but they’re unremarkable. Sometimes the plot has been done too many times before in the same way, sometimes the language is too bland. There’s no interesting voice, no particular style to it, and just nothing special that stands out about the characters, the plot or the writing to set it apart and make me want to know more. Submissions that just don’t fit our requirements (length, genre, target market age, etc.) go here, as well.

3 – Aw.

Now we get into the top three rankings. Most submissions will already have fallen by the wayside before this point. “Aw” manuscripts have potential — there’s some spark that sets them apart from the “Eh” manuscripts — but they don’t quite get there. I want to like it, I see the seed of something interesting in it, but the spark never quite catches. Maybe there’s a neat premise that just isn’t executed well, or an interesting plot twist that comes too late after a reader will already have lost interest. Or there’s a good voice and pleasant writing style, but the plot is deeply flawed in ways too complicated to be easily fixed. Basically, there’s something compelling about these, but whatever it is, it’s lost amidst other problems that overwhelm the strengths. “Aw” is disappointment. These are the ones that I want to love, but can’t.

4 – Ahhh.

Where “Aw” is disappointment, “Ahhh” is relief. It’s the sound I make when I start reading a manuscript with good, engaging writing, proper technique, an interesting premise and engaging characters. I’ll ask for a full on an “Ahhh,” to see where it’s going and determine whether it lives up to the promise that it shows. Sometimes it won’t, and it’ll get bumped down to an “Aw.” Often, though, it will.

5 – Oooh.

This doesn’t need an explanation, does it? “Oooh” manuscripts grab me on the first page and don’t let go. They have it all — engaging voice; a strong writing style that’s technically clean, polished and error-free; an immersive world and characters; and a premise and a plot that keep a reader turning pages. These are the submissions that I end up falling in love with. I request the full already knowing that, barring some unforeseen turn of events, I’m going to want to acquire it. These are rare, but they’re what I hope for every time I open a submission. I want to say “Oooh” and fall in love with every book.

Tagged as: Colleen Lindsay, dragon moon press, Janet Reid, Jessica Faust, query letter, Rachelle Gardner, rejection, slush, submissions, Teresa Nielsen Hayden