AUTHORS: IF YOU FEEL REJECTED YOU'RE NOT ALONE

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

DAVID OSHINSKY, NY TIMES - In the summer of 1950, Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
turned down the English-language rights to a Dutch manuscript after
receiving a particularly harsh reader's report. The work was "very
dull," the reader insisted, "a dreary record of typical family
bickering, petty annoyances and adolescent emotions." Sales would be
small because the main characters were neither familiar to Americans nor
especially appealing. "Even if the work had come to light five years
ago, when the subject was timely," the reader wrote, "I don't see that
there would have been a chance for it."

Knopf wasn't alone. "The Diary of a Young Girl," by Anne Frank, would be
rejected by 15 others before Doubleday published it in 1952. More than
30 million copies are currently in print, making it one of the
best-selling books in history.

The Anne Frank reader's report is part of the massive Knopf archive
housed in the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at the University
of Texas. The document is one of thousands tucked away in the
publisher's rejection files, a place where whopping editorial blunders
are mercifully entombed. Nothing embarrasses a publisher more than the
public knowledge that a literary classic or a mega best seller has
somehow slipped away. One of them turned down Pearl Buck's novel "The
Good Earth" on the grounds that Americans were "not interested in
anything on China." Another passed on George Orwell's "Animal Farm,"
explaining it was "impossible to sell animal stories in the U.S.A."
(It's not only publishers: Tony Hillerman was dumped by an agent who
urged him to "get rid of all that Indian stuff."). . .

Today, as publishers eschew the finished manuscript and spit out
contracts based on a sketchy outline or even less, the scripting of
rejection letters has become something of a lost art. It's hard to
imagine a current publisher dictating the sort of response that Alfred
Knopf sent to a prominent Columbia University historian in the 1950s.
"This time there's no point in trying to be kind," it said. "Your
manuscript is utterly hopeless as a candidate for our list. I never
thought the subject worth a damn to begin with and I don't think it's
worth a damn now. Lay off, MacDuff."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html?
_r=1&ref=review&pagewanted=print


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||