The Dear Jane Letter
Yesterday we posted the sample article from Jane Austen’s Regency World about this, and now it’s hit the media in the UK (thanks to Alert Janeites Kirsten and Tony A. for the links). The Daily Mail and the Guardian both describe the carnage: In the interest of literary experimentation, excerpts from several of Jane Austen’s novels, with some identifying details changed, were submitted to several literary agents and well-known publishers for representation and/or publication. The submissions were summarily rejected, and only one of the respondents admitted to recognizing the provenance of the submission.
We would caution our Gentle Readers to pause before purchasing chaise tickets to the ever-charming village of High Dudgeon. We opined yesterday that if the letter in the sample article is the actual query letter sent, the agents/editors probably never got as far as the plagiarized sample. As readers of the much-missed Miss Snark, Literary Agent know, literary agents and editors are usually overwhelmed with queries. If the query doesn’t have a good hook, in the interest of time and efficiency it is quickly passed to the rejection pile and a politely but firmly-worded rejection note sent, usually containing variations of the phrases mentioned in the articles: not quite right for us, we’re not sure where we would place such a book, our author slate is full at this time, yada yada. Longtime readers of Miss Snark also know (and readers of AustenBlog should know after some recent shenanigans) that nitwits abound and all think they are the next, well, Jane Austen, and agents and editors have to carefully toe the line between rude and encouraging to keep the crazies at arm’s length. If they make them angry, they get nasty e-mails, letters, and personal visits from angry and violent relatives and friends; if they are too encouraging, they get daily e-mails, phone calls, submissions of more bad writing, chain letter forwards, etc. If they did read the sample, they might have recognized the work and just decided to err on the side of caution and/or convenience and send out the standard rejection letter. This was a fun little exercise and makes great copy but we suspect it’s simply some hardworking people doing their jobs with nothing sinister about it.
That’s not to say that the workings of the publishing industry are not mysterious at best and positively Byzantine at worst. It’s probable that some of the agents and editors did read the sample and did not recognize Jane Austen’s work, and that is a real shame. But we submit that before we bewail the state of an industry that would not publish Jane Austen today, consider that without Jane Austen’s publications 200 years ago, the type of books considered “marketable” might be very different today. Jane Austen’s books were influenced by 18th century authors such as Fanny Burney and Samuel Richardson, and she in turn influenced the next generation of authors such as Henry James and George Eliot, who in turn influenced the next generation of authors in a continuing evolution to the current day. Today’s literature and literary style are different from what they were 200 years ago, and that’s perfectly natural. That does not lessen the value of the older works, and it certainly is not a conspiracy.
Comments are closed.
It’s hard to believe they would have sent out that letter as a query. It’s presentation of Jane Austen’s biography seems too arch and knowing. It’s like Shannon Hale writing, “…except Northanger Abbey (of course).” It seems to dare the reader not to get the inside joke.
Ugh! I committed the unpardonable crime of writing “it’s” when I should have written “its.” I think there’s a gremlin in my keyboard.
I find it very hard t believe that these agents and publuishers really did not recognise the writing, especially P&P. The one reply that said “Ha! Spotted your Joke!” may actually have been the least of the ‘clever’ responses. I have a suspicion that others recognised what they had, but very carefully declined to comment.
Oh, and the name-changing was pretty corny. That cover letter would have had me cringing- I’d have refused to read the sample chapters.
In short, I suspect Mr Lassman of being too dumb to recognise when he’s being toyed with. And I also suspect that literary agents and publishers are overwhelmed by unsolicited a manuscripts.
Mags, I agree wholeheartedly, …they might have recognized the work and just decided to err on the side of caution and/or convenience and send out the standard rejection letter. This was a fun little exercise and makes great copy but we suspect it’s simply some hardworking people doing their jobs with nothing sinister about it.
Who can blame them? Nowadays anybody and everybody who has read at least one book, in whole or in part, has seen the movie adaptation, and armed with a connected computer and word processor, may be inspired to think that they are going to write the next great literary masterpiece of their time.
Is it good or bad? Hard to say. But we are lucky that struggling writers need not give up after getting such rejections because there are a number of other ways of getting your work out… self publishing, print-on-demand, blogging—you name it. Talk about empowerment, indeed. And we are familiar with a number of writers who started out this way, are we not?
Agree with Tony A. The times are changing. For better or for worse!
Though there are some success stories among those who started out self-publishing or blogging, the truth is that your best bet is to obtain agent representation and let the agent submit to editors. If your writing is good enough, it will happen. Writers need to learn to accept criticism not only gracefully but with an eye to improving their work.
They’re covering this story on this evening’s “PM” programme on BBC Radio 4. To listen (you’ll have to listen to the whole programme; it’s in the second half-hour):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/
Update: I just listened to the segment. It was quite good, with both Lassman and an editor from Vintage Press talking about the issue. The editor talked mostly about the importance of persistence is getting a novel published, and (encouragingly, I thought) mentioned that both Roddy Doyle and Bill Bryson were picked up off the slush pile.
Well as an unpublished writer myself this story has much to get me in ‘high dudgeon’. I think the query was not all it could be, on the other hand, I do NOT feel Jane would be published if alive today. First of all, she had no formal education in writing. Secondly, she was not worldly or pushy or confident about her skills. Lastly, her storylines don’t sound very gripping. We love them, but they are everyday events set in a very small circle and setting. How can anyone really explain that they are very skillful at observing and capturing human nature in a unique and entertaining way? Why would any editor or agent believe someone (like Austen) at their word? Not when they can continue to publish the same hackneyed, bawdy trash that fills bookstores now a days.
I’m sorry- my animosity is showing.
Jane would be published but not in genre. There is room for “small” stories, but in the literary genre.
Persistence is important, and being willing to rework your stuff if it is getting rejected in all quarters. You might just need to rewrite the query letter. If you can snag an agent or editor, if you’re very lucky they might work with you to improve your work.
Alex Bowler is decidedly amiable.