So, you’ve finally heard from the agent you’ve been dying to hear from. Great. The letter starts something like this.
“Thanks for sending your manuscript. I really enjoyed the writing…”
By now you’re thinking, “holy cow. She enjoyed the writing. I need to get my pen ready. The one I’ll sign the representation contract with.”
But your read further, unable to control the banging of your heart against your chest. You try, but fail to control your heavy breathing.
“While I thoroughly enjoyed the story and writing as a whole…”
Uh–sounds like there might be a huge BUT coming, and as HUGE as my BUTT is, it’s not mine.
“I just couldn’t connect with the character enough to consider representing it. I wish you success and blah, blah, blah, blah.”
The blah is what you see as your eyes fill with tears, and your head with.. screaming? No. That scream has escaped through your mouth. How can it be? How can an agent who “enjoyed the story and writing” be unable to connect with the character? Makes no sense!
You begin thinking that just maybe the agent is shining you on. Maybe the agent skimmed your genius manuscript and didn’t really read it. After all, there is wonder and brilliance on every page. Did she not see that? Denial sets in. Then anger creeps in behind it. That stupid agent. Yes. That agent must not be all that smart. How could she be? You’ve spent months not only writing, but revising then editing and revising again. What does she know? How many sales has SHE made in the past few months? She’s going to regret not signing you. UGH!
Back to the drawing board. Back to seeking out new agents for your genius work of marvel. Besides, she did say it was well written and the story was great. Didn’t she? Maybe she IS smart. But WAIT. Maybe you should consider what else she said –about not connecting with the character. What does it mean, really?
I’ve heard a lot of this lately and yeah, I probably didn’t need that long intro but, I figured a great deal of you have been in that same position. It’s a rather common phrase in use by agents and editors. And you know what? It’s not poppycock. It’s real advice. So heed it. Before you can, let’s explore its possible meanings. In my very humble opinion, there are three possible reasons why this could be the case. Have a look below and let me know what you think.
1. Cannot connect with character = I just wasn’t feeling your character
Sometimes, it is as simple as, the agent/reader/editor was unable to see him/herself in your character’s shoes. In this case, it can be as simple as the reader not LIKING your character because (s)he used a certain catch-phrase too much and the reader found it annoying. Or, the reader doesn’t like redheads and your character is one. Maybe your character reminds the reader of someone who the reader doesn’t like or continually does things within the context of the story that are inconsistent, and out of character or against the beliefs of the average reader.
2. Cannot connect with the character = failed characterization
You did not present a realistic enough characterization or relatable enough character for the reader. This could be due to a highly unusual character with needs/ways not like that of the average human/female/male of a certain age. This person perhaps does not act in a realistic way or has experiences that are pretty foreign to the reader. Perhaps the character is of a different background/ethnicity and there is a lack of character building that has happened to explain why the character would act, speak, look the way he/she does. Or, perhaps some of the character’s reactions do not match the situation given what the reader would expect to happen.
3. Cannot connect with character – failed mythology, plot, theme
This is way more complex and makes the character the scapegoat for an entire bag of issues. Whereas the character is in fact at the center, many things must be fixed in order for the character connection to work. If the mythology is flawed, the character will not be able to be fully explored or at least realistically portrayed within the context of the world. Additionally if the theme of the book is not relatable overall–meaning the overall theme is interesting but fails to actually be realized, then there will be a reader disconnect. Finally, if the plot falls apart, and the book is mainly composed of heavy character vignettes, the character will take the fall for the failure and become highly unrelatable to the reader as (s)he fumbles through a non-working plot.
I hope this has helped you to decipher this critical piece of feedback relating to your character and characterization in your novel. So, if you happen to receive this type of feedback from an agent, reader or editor; don’t be offended. Take the advice and try to see if potentially you can match it to one of the above reasons and FIX the issue within your novel. It will be much stronger for it.
Write well,
Georgia
Excellent analysis and certainly good advice. I think you could offer a course titled Rejection 101–or what you can learn from No Thanks.
Posted by C. Lee McKenzie | June 19, 2011, 2:19 PMhow about a course called, pushing through rejection–five things you can do right now to… sadly, we can’t add drinking or eating chocolate to that list. but really, it’s a great idea as depressing as it sounds.
Posted by georgiamcbridebooks | June 20, 2011, 10:18 AMGreat post. This is something I think we have all heard one, twice, ten times =/ But, it’s good advice. Why would you ever want to put a book/character out there that the majority won’t connect with? Any revision on your character or plot is just for the best. Rejection hurts, but I think it hurts more coming from the reading public once your book is out. Whether for agented or unagented authors, it hurts just the same. Take the time to really dive in and fix the flaws.
Posted by Trisha Wolfe | June 19, 2011, 3:32 PMI agree, Trisha. I think mostly we stand in our own way–especially when it comes to this type of advice becuase we love the characters so much. We know them so well we don’t take the time to give them the proper life they need on screen. OR, we spend too much time, because we love them–like spending two hours getting ready to go to the party and then we’re so late when we arrive we’ve missed all the good parts. Wasted.
Posted by georgiamcbridebooks | June 20, 2011, 10:20 AMAs an agent I try not to use “could not connect w/ character” as a reason to reject things. Though it’s frequently used as an excuse by editors to reject manuscripts that our agency pitches, I find it unhelpful at best, and disingenuous at worst. One might as well say, “I didn’t like your book” or “I didn’t like your writing” which is no less enlightening than the “could not connect” approach but certainly more forthright. As I state on my own blog* (shameless plug), rejection letters aren’t intended to by ciphers that will allow you to shape your book into something publishable, they’re intended to make you go away. Only in aggregate can you get a sense of where you may have misstepped, and even then you’ll probably require some unbiased editorial advice in order to perform better. Editors and agents aren’t often interested in providing pro bono book doctoring, especially not via rejection letter. Only occasionally will an agent or editor make an effort to write you a long and detailed rejection that amounts to a critique of your work, what you’ve got right, and what the deal-breaker was that got your manuscript sent to the recycling bin. Most times, however, what you’re receiving in the mail, while neatly personalized, is little better than a form rejection, and is often the hurried attempt by an agent or editor to clear some space on their desk. I don’t say this to be callous, but because it pains me to think that anyone would carefully scrutinize such a lazy excuse for criticism for valuable information about how to become a better author.
*While I know it’s kind of a dick move to link to one’s blog in someone else’s blog comments, what I wrote about this subject in my own blog is apropos, so I may as well give you the link so you don’t have to dig through my Twitter feed to find it: http://bit.ly/e1wDC3
Posted by Evan Gregory | June 22, 2011, 2:49 PMI completely disagree with you–thus my post. I think there is MUCH to be learned from the not so standard rejection letter–if you are willing to learn and can take criticism. Furthermore, YES, you are being a dick here but I approved your comment anyway. I believe in free speech–even if we disagree. I think your attitude and POV is one that leads to a negative view of agents. As a young agent, I would think you should do well to carry yourself in a more professional manner. It is the not only the role of the agent to reject that which he is not interested in. It is the role of the agent to instruct and educate the new class of writers who would seek to write books for the next generation of readers (my opinion). Adding a line or two of genuine advice or even info as to what went wrong could hardly be considered book doctoring. I have been to your blog (following the link you provided) and by your own admission, you have limited experience in this business. Yet, you consider your blog a tool and resource. I wish you would consider using the knowledge and experience you DO have in a more positive way. We are a community of rather small size. We do our best to support one another. Sure, there are times when someone comes along (often someone who has no idea of the rules) and tries to stir things up for bad. But for the most part, we are a supportive community of writers, readers, agents, editors, teachers, librarians, bloggers, etc. I am delusional? Maybe. But I do not like the tone or the implication of your post and since this is my blog, I’m happy to tell you. If you come back, say your peace, but do so in a respectful way and please watch your language or I shall wash your virutal mouth with soap! Have a great day and thanks for reading my blog!
Posted by georgiamcbridebooks | June 22, 2011, 3:09 PMMORE: And while I know agents don’t have time to always write extras or give anything above and beyond the standard rejection letter–my comments are in response to a particular phrase used often and explained above. The “agent” I replied to seems to go on about agenting in general and writers taking away (or not) real infiormation from rejection letters regarding how to fix their manuscripts, the role of an agent as well as the true intent behind a rejection letter (for all agents). I do not think he should speak for all agents and feel he should speak only for either himself or the agency he represents.That is my point. Or one of them.
Posted by georgiamcbridebooks | June 22, 2011, 3:16 PMI don’t presume to speak for all agents. Just for myself. I find annoying when editors use the excuse of not “connecting” with a character to pass on project, I avoid it in my own letters because it’s vague and unhelpful. It’s trying to pass of a matter of taste as a matter of critique. If one doesn’t identify with a character they ought to be able to say why fairly succinctly. That they don’t is telling, but not in the way you might imagine. It’s telling, because it shows just how little they’ve thought about it. It’s okay not to like things. We make those kinds of evaluations all the time, but it’s also okay to say so, and that’s the problem here. Folks are afraid to express themselves in meaningful ways, and it’s easier to hide behind phrases like “not connecting” because taking that position is easier than being thoughtful or truthful.
Posted by Evan Gregory | June 22, 2011, 9:42 PMCall me too diplomatic (I actually have been called that
but I see valid points in both the arguments. And yes, it’s true what Georgia says in that all agents are different. It’s unreasonable to expect every agent to mean the same thing when they use such a common phrase. And that’s where the frustration often comes. How can you tell if it’s just a worn phrase that has become all but meaningless for one agent while it is actually intended as helpful critique/advice from another.
The one thing I’d caution—and only because I’ve made myself neurotic doing it—is reading too much into rejection letters. After a while, it’s easiest for me to take things at face value, consider what it says as far as my manuscript, and if I disagree, move on to querying the next round of agents. That’s all any of us can really do.
But thanks, Georgia, for addressing the topic.
Posted by Michelle | June 22, 2011, 6:09 PMHey Michelle–
I feel so old when I have to act this way! Grrrr. Thanks for your diplomacy, of which I am usually just as gulity of. I am happy to disagree with folks so long as it is a respectful conversation and not laced with rotten language (as well as a post on a highly trafficked site with a link back to his blog). Any one of the agents I work with, or any agent for that matter would have come on and politely disagreed with me had they wanted to. I always welcome discussion. I don’t welcome disrespect and unprofessional behavior. WHEW. OK — now, on to what we were discussing.
I think you’re right as far as focusing on rejection is concerned. Too many times we get bogged down in the rejection part. It’s too hard not to.
My post was never meant to be a be all and end all definition of this phrase in use by all agents–and why I offered three possible meanings to the phrase as well as a slew of other potentail unknown reasons including–who knows and the agent simply did not like it! It was meant to give meaning to the phrase for writers who are left baffled by it when it is given as a reason for the rejection of their work. Those writers who are truly seeking a way to improve the work and banging their heads against the wall trying to understand what they’re doing wrong may need clarification on this phrase.
Is it in common use? Absolutely. I state this. Is it possible that it could just be a catch phrase that encopmases a myriad of problems that are easier to just lump into this statement? Absolutely–I state this as well.
The important thing to remember is that one must consider all commentary and criticism as valid. HOWEVER, in order to improve, one must be able to take away only that which will allow him to make the work better by doing that very thing.
You are so right not to focus on the rejection, but to focus on the reason for the rejection. If it is something in one’s power to fix, then strive to do this. If not, so be it. Move on. Write, write, write.
As for you, my dear–what do you know of rejection?
xoxo
Posted by georgiamcbridebooks | June 22, 2011, 7:59 PMOh, I’ve only received 100 or so rejections myself, for various projects.
Posted by Michelle | June 23, 2011, 4:13 PMThis is good. I am writing non fiction right now so if I get a failed to connect,,,,, well thats an epic fail for me…lol
Good advice though as I do hope to write beyond non fiction as well
Posted by Sheila (Book Journey) | July 1, 2011, 9:10 PMGreat insight, both in the post and here in the comments. As a slush reader for an agent, I always try to provide specific feedback as to what didn’t catch my attention–slow opening, flat characters, no tension, etc. Not sure if any of that feedback makes it into the rejection letters, but as a writer on the other side of the fence too, I definitely appreciate knowing what it was about my work that didn’t click for the reader.
And I *hate* the form queries that are just a quarter sheet of paper that don’t even bother with the nicety of using my name or manuscript title. That doesn’t help an author in the least.
Thanks again for the great post, Georgia!
Smiles!
Lori
Posted by Lori Strongin | July 3, 2011, 10:24 PM