Post by Radrook Admin on Nov 8, 2021 2:10:43 GMT -5
Why Editors Toss Away Manuscripts at a glance
If you visit the editorial section of any publishing company, be it book or magazine-related, and observe the editors as they read manuscripts, you will notice that very often, they only simply read a few lines or paragraphs and unceremoniously toss it into the rejection bin. For those writers who have submitted their short stories or novels, this might appear to be a great injustice. After all, how can they really get the jist of what the story is about, or evaluate it properly, without getting the full picture? Why, if only he had read that beautiful ending! Or if he had at least become familiar with the endearing characters that were meticulously described. Or at the least, if he had only known the profound philosophical or moral lesson that the story conveys, then surely he would never have so flippantly dismissed the manuscript work in that hasty manner.
But is this really a fair assessment of what is really happening at editorial offices? Are they simply eyeballing and irresponsibly discarding manuscripts based on their disinclination to read? Are they actually reaching hasty conclusions based on insufficient, or none-representative evidence? Well, in order to illustrate what is really going on, let's consider how experts in their chosen fields evaluate others who attempt to convince them that they know what they are doing.
For example, let's consider someone who goes into boxing gym and claims to know how to box. Offers to show his technique. Enters the ring, and doesn't know how to jab, lacks balance, has little or absolutely no knowledge of proper technique. Does the trainer really have to watch this clumsy fellow for 12 full rounds to realize that he has no skills? Of course not. Just a glance at the person's faulty technique is enough to inform him that the fellow is not a skilled boxer. The same holds true for person trying claiming to know how to sing or play a musical instrument. We need not hear an entire song to realize that the voice is inferior in diverse ways, such as in tonal accuracy, resonance or emotional expression, or that the person is in serious need of singing lessons. Or that a person doesn't know how t play his musical instrument properly.
For example, let's consider someone who goes into boxing gym and claims to know how to box. Offers to show his technique. Enters the ring, and doesn't know how to jab, lacks balance, has little or absolutely no knowledge of proper technique. Does the trainer really have to watch this clumsy fellow for 12 full rounds to realize that he has no skills? Of course not. Just a glance at the person's faulty technique is enough to inform him that the fellow is not a skilled boxer. The same holds true for person trying claiming to know how to sing or play a musical instrument. We need not hear an entire song to realize that the voice is inferior in diverse ways, such as in tonal accuracy, resonance or emotional expression, or that the person is in serious need of singing lessons. Or that a person doesn't know how t play his musical instrument properly.
In a like manner, editors don't need to read entire manuscripts in order to accurately evaluate a writer and his submitted work. After just a swift glance, a host of writing flaws might become immediately evident. Flaws such as insufficient command of language. A total lack of concern or knowledge of punctuation. A jumbled use of tenses from present to past to future. Lack of characterization and a total dependence of using names such as Jack, Joe, Helen or Jill. An annoying repetition of information already revealed in order to pad the manuscript or due to an impoverished imagination.
Or the editor might immediately know that the story is based on some glaringly false premise which promotes prejudice or racism and isn't worth reading Or that it is shot to hell with glaring, extremely distracting, but easily-avoidable misspellings of very simple words. Or that the writer writes like some monotonous metronome by not having sentence variety, and so the story's rhetorical cadences become boringly predictable.
Or that the writer obviously has a very limited vocabulary and the uses multiple words when only one would suffice as a consequence. Or that the writer thinks that anything that rhymes or is arranged in stanzas, automatically becomes poetry. Or else that he doesn't believe in paragraphing, and so he splatters the story on the page in one monstrous, virtually unreadable, blob of text.
Or the editor might immediately know that the story is based on some glaringly false premise which promotes prejudice or racism and isn't worth reading Or that it is shot to hell with glaring, extremely distracting, but easily-avoidable misspellings of very simple words. Or that the writer writes like some monotonous metronome by not having sentence variety, and so the story's rhetorical cadences become boringly predictable.
Or that the writer obviously has a very limited vocabulary and the uses multiple words when only one would suffice as a consequence. Or that the writer thinks that anything that rhymes or is arranged in stanzas, automatically becomes poetry. Or else that he doesn't believe in paragraphing, and so he splatters the story on the page in one monstrous, virtually unreadable, blob of text.
Can such editors indeed be blamed for tossing such work immediately into the rejection bin? I personally don't think so. They are simply doing their job of seeking excellence and writing that will enhance the literary reputation of their publications and employers. So wasting time with such writers, when there are other writers who don't make such basic mistakes, is 100% justified.