One of the hardest things, as a publisher, is to reject a perfectly competent novel on the grounds that it doesn’t fit with your list. It’s hard, because you see a piece of work that is of publishable standard – maybe even that you enjoyed, and found much to admire in – and yet you won’t publish it, because it simply doesn’t … fit. It’s also hard because authors tend to be extremely sceptical of such grounds for rejection, and assume it’s just a catch-phrase for a polite brush-off from someone who hasn’t even bothered to read their submission in the first place.
Not true. Actually, it’s one of the most important grounds for rejecting a piece of work, apart from the obvious ‘this is just terrible’. Why? Because, especially when you’re a small independent publisher struggling to make a name for yourself, it’s absolutely critical to keep a focus. If, on a business model that has us publishing 12-15 books a year (the most likely scenario as we move forward) we threw a bit of everything out into the marketplace, no-one would have a clue what we were about. Here’s a piece of experimental fiction. Oh, and a nice work of chick-lit, very well-written… or if you don’t like any of those, how about a nice family saga? That would be an appalling mess. No-one would remember who we were – there’d be no recognition – because no-one would be able to find anything to catch hold of that really captured the essence of us.
No, the way forward for publishers like us with limited lists is always always to focus on what we do best, and never to waver from that focus. In our first year of operation we put a fairly wide range of novels out there – all of which fall into the category of ‘literary fiction’ (whatever that is … but we’ve already done that debate!) Now, as we’ve learned from that experience, what works and what doesn’t, we are very much more determined to only ever to publish work that fits perfectly – even if it means we only publish four works of fiction in one given year because we simply don’t get the right submissions.
There’s a column in this week’s Bookseller about exactly this same issue – suggesting that publishers should make the best of their brands. Pointing out the strong image that some publishers and imprints have – Virago, Penguin, Faber & Faber, Ladybird and others – and noting that it helps attract attention not only with readers, but also with booksellers, the media, and other critical audiences for a small publisher. All of which is true – and certainly something that we’ve found here at Two Ravens over the past few months. People recognise the snazzy raven logo, and something about our cover designs, as well as the type of work we put out there. Somehow that, along with our website, this blog, Corvaceous and everything else that we do, is beginning to add up to an image that people have of us and what we stand for. For better or worse!
So next time you get a rejection from a publisher saying that your work doesn’t fit with their list, don’t get mad. No-one has the capacity to publish all the good work that comes along, and there have to be good criteria for selection. And don’t assume that you know better than them what fits their list – bear in mind that the books you’re seeing now out on the streets will have been a year or so in the making, and it’s quite possible that something has shifted in their publishing philosophy since then, and that the books you’ll see out there in a year’s time – the books they’re picking right now – might be subtly different.
Sharon
