publishers reject Jane Austin novels!

[andyandy]

this is a great story - and hope (or should that be no hope?) for any budding novelists out there :D

Her work has endured for two centuries, sold in its millions and inspired countless film and television adaptations. But would Jane Austen be able to find a publisher and an agent today? A cheeky experiment by an Austen enthusiast suggests not.
David Lassman, the director of the Jane Austen Festival in Bath decided to find out what sort of reception the writer might get if she approached publishers and agents in the age of Harry Potter and the airport blockbuster.

After making only minor changes, he sent off opening chapters and plot synopses to 18 of the UK's biggest publishers and agents. He was amazed when they all sent the manuscripts back with polite but firm "no-thank-you's" and almost all failed to spot that he was ripping off one of the world's most famous literary figures.
Mr Lassman said: "I was staggered. Here is one of the greatest writers that has lived, with her oeuvre securely fixed in the English canon and yet only one recipient recognised them as Austen's work."

snip

So, styling himself Alison Laydee - a play on Austen's nom de plume A Lady - he typed up chapters from three of her most famous books. First he sent off Northanger Abbey, calling it "Susan" - a title Austen had used for an early draft - and changing the name of the heroine from Catherine Morland to Susan Maldorn.

Mr Lassman expected to be branded a fraud. But he was surprised when publishers and agents failed to spot they had been sent the work of Austen. Bloomsbury, publisher of the Harry Potter books, for instance, suggested the chapters had been read "with interest" but were not "suited to our list".

Still, Northanger Abbey is not seen as one of Austen's great books, so next he sent off Persuasion, under the title The Watsons. Again the letters of rejection flooded in. JK Rowling's agents, Christopher Little, were among those who turned it down, saying they were "not confident" of being able to place it.

Then he played his trump card, sending off Pride and Prejudice, calling it First Impressions, again an early title Austen had used for it. The names of the main characters and places were changed, but with no great guile.

Mr Bennet became Mr Barnett while the estate Netherfield becomes Weatherfield, the fictional setting for the TV soap Coronation Street.

And he did not change the opening line, one of the most famous in world literature: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."

Still the deception was not spotted and the rejection letters thudded on to Mr Lassman's doormat, most notably one from Penguin. Its letter read: "Thank you for your recent letter and chapters from your book First Impressions. It seems like a really original and interesting read."Spot the difference


First Impressions Alison Laydee


It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.

"My dear Mr Barnett," said his lady to him one day, "have you heard that Weatherfield Manor is let at last?"

Pride and Prejudice Jane Austen


It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.

"My dear Mr Bennet," said his lady to him one day, "have you heard that Netherfield Park is let at last?"http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2129738,00.html

[fuelair]

Of course they rejected them - no sex, no bodices ripped and no incantations!!

[Zep]

No broomsticks, wands, evil spirits and flying cars. Or Quidditch.

[gumboot]

I doubt they read them. Very few (if any) publishers in the UK will accept manuscript from anyone other than a literary agent.

In addition, it's something of a theme that many of the greatest works are rejected repeatedly before someone accepts them.

The Beatles were rejected.

Twenty publishers rejected Gone With The Wind. And so on.

-Gumboot

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I'd also suggest that, given how many manuscripts most publishing houses receive, even if an editor or agent did recognize it as Jane Austen, I can easily imagine him/her assuming the sender was a crackpot, and then sending out the same generic rejection letter that they send to everyone. I doubt most publishing houses have time to write personal letters to every nut who sends them a manuscript, especially if it is a plagiarism of a well-known work. Did the guy expect a letter saying,

"Dear Sir, the manuscript you sent us is a total rip off of Jane Austen's work. You are a damn plagiarist and a fraud! Shame on you! Signed, So and So publishing."

I seriously doubt any editor or agent is going to take the time to do that. I'm really not placing too much importance on this particular stunt.

Plus, this has been done before. I remember an article four or five years ago about someone who did the exact same thing, and even sent books that the very publishing house he sent them to had published. Of course, they were all rejected. *shrug*

[Beanbag]

Similar experiments have been conducted with movie screenplays. The screenplay for Casablanca was resubmitted under the original title "Everyone Comes to Rick's" to several studios. All of them rejected it as uninteresting and unmarketable. No explosions, no nude scenes, only a few gunshots fired.

Beanbag

[Miss Anthrope]

Similar experiments have been conducted with movie screenplays. The screenplay for Casablanca was resubmitted under the original title "Everyone Comes to Rick's" to several studios. All of them rejected it as uninteresting and unmarketable. No explosions, no nude scenes, only a few gunshots fired.

Beanbag

Well, this is the mark of pandering to the lowest common denominator.

[Big Les]

Did the guy expect a letter saying,

"Dear Sir, the manuscript you sent us is a total rip off of Jane Austen's work. You are a damn plagiarist and a fraud! Shame on you! Signed, So and So publishing."

I seriously doubt any editor or agent is going to take the time to do that.

One of them did. The guy (and a representative of that company) was on the radio yesterday. But the rep (whilst pleased that they had bothered to read and had rumbled the scam) pointed out that the other companies probably did reject his submissions on spec without reading them.

[Beth]

Not very encouraging for aspiring new writers. Even if you can write as well as Jane Austin, it's almost impossible to get a publisher to look at it.

[-Fran-]

I must admit I really hate Jane Austen. Forced to read her in the university I didn't even get through the first chapter awake. I ended up just skimming the book, and reading about it. I would have rejected it too :)

[Darat]

Why would a publisher today consider a Jane Austin (without her name) for publication today even as a "historic" novel?

[drkitten]

Not very encouraging for aspiring new writers. Even if you can write as well as Jane Austin,

This sentence is inherently contradictory. If you write like Jane Austin, you're not a "new" writer.

Fashions change; the only reason Austin is read today is because she's a "classic." An unknown who wrote in her style wouldn't sell four copies.

If you doubt me -- the best selling English book of all time is the King James Bible. Try writing in that style and see what editors think....

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Let's see - waste time sending letter in reply to unsolicited material pointing out that it is plagiarised, with the risk that you end up in further correspondence, OR

send a generic rejection letter.

I know which I would go for. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about whether it was recognised or not based on receiving simple rejections.

[Michael Redman]

If it is their policy to only read what is sent by agents, perhaps a letter stating so would reduce the future burden of replies to such submissions. Telling someone you've read what you haven't read seems likely to solicit more submissions from desperate authors looking for anyone to read their work.

[Alice Shortcake]

I'm inclined to agree that the Austen submissions were recognised, thought to be the work of a time-wasting crackpot and dismissed accordingly.

[timhau]

I must admit I really hate Jane Austen.

Same here. It's like Harlequin romance from 200 years ago. As Mark Twain said, "Jane Austen? Why, I go so far as to say that any library is a good library that does not contain a volume by Jane Austen. Even if it contains no other book."

However, I wouldn't call Austen unpublishable. At the very least, she can write. Unlike, say, Richard Patterson. I find it unbelievable that his crap got published; the fact that he's a bestselling author is a travesty.

[Ranb]

While I enjoy some classic books, some of them are awfully dull. I was unable to enjoy Homers works (dry translation maybe), Jane Austin, Last of the Mohicans, most of the Bible and some others. I do like Shakespeare, but I had to learn to enjoy it in my late teens.

Ranb

[HawkeyeMD]

*headdesk* AustEn. Jane AustEn.

Realizing that I'm outing myself as an obsessive former English major, but can we PLEASE try to not create an ongoing meme by spelling her name correctly?

She is not the Six Million Dollar Man. ;) Those who are already doing so, thank you.

I think this was a silly stunt too, and the rejections were probably simple routine form letters. Also, I love Jane Austen. :) I don't insist that anyone else do so, mind you.

[jenspen]

[QUOTE=timhau;2785812]Same here. It's like Harlequin romance from 200 years ago.

Uhmmm. Have you read any of them? Wit, subtlety, complexity, stylistic elegance and penetrating observation are just a few of the attributes that have guaranteed her enduring fame.

And why are some of the posters so proud of despising great works of the human spirit? (Sorry, got a bit carried away there).

[-Fran-]

And why are some of the posters so proud of despising great works of the human spirit? (Sorry, got a bit carried away there).

I don't :) But there are so many examples of 'great works of the human spirit', can't like them all. Jane Austen is one that bores me to death

[hgc]

Why would a publisher today consider a Jane Austin (without her name) for publication today even as a "historic" novel?


Why not? I read Austen regularly (just read Persuasion earlier this month), and she really is better than almost anyone going. I would happily read any new fiction of that quality, regardless of the subject matter.

[aries]

heh :p

I think I've read somewhere, maybe 10 -15 years ago, that Doris Lessing?once tried tp submit a work under a plume de nome (another name). It got rejected. However, when the publishers etc. learned that it was a famous writer like Doris Lessing that did write the novel, then they were doing the :j1: dance and smiling like this :D (the book wasn't really that good anyway ;) ).

Also, didn't the Harry Potter books get rejected many, many times??

I'm sorry, some of you didn't enjoy Homer's works. It probably wasn't a very good translations. Most Homerian translations were done during the 19th century which means they often today have a high raving style that seems 'dry' to us. Homer used every day Greek,I believe, and instead of using commong English (or Danish), the translaters felt compelled to use the King's English (and by that I mean Oxford English).

[Blue Mountain]

heh :p

I think I've read somewhere, maybe 10 -15 years ago, that Doris Lessing?once tried tp submit a work under a plume de nome (another name). It got rejected. However, when the publishers etc. learned that it was a famous writer like Doris Lessing that did write the novel, then they were doing the :j1: dance and smiling like this :D (the book wasn't really that good anyway ;) ).
I've heard Agatha Christie once sent a manuscript to her own publisher under a different name, and it was rejected. Mind you, by then she was an established author. Name recognition means a lot.

Also, didn't the Harry Potter books get rejected many, many times??
I believe it was, but I don't know how many potential publishers passed it up. Can you imagine having to go to bed every night knowing you sent a rejection letter to J. K. Rowling?

[Remainder of aries' post snipped for brevity]

[timhau]

Uhmmm. Have you read any of them? Wit, subtlety, complexity, stylistic elegance and penetrating observation are just a few of the attributes that have guaranteed her enduring fame.


Yes. I was forced to read several, because in an earlier life I was a Comparative Lit student. I tried to re-read Pride and Prejudice a couple of summers ago under the misconception that it couldn't possibly be as crummy and boring as I remember it being. But it was.

And why are some of the posters so proud of despising great works of the human spirit? (Sorry, got a bit carried away there).

First of all, 'great works of the human spirit' are to Jane Austen what the Tropic of Capricorn is to the North Pole -- not completely opposite, but pretty darn far in the other hemisphere. Second, even if this wasn't the case, why on Earth should I be forced to like books that I loathe just because they've somehow sneaked their way into the literary canon?

[timhau]

I believe it was, but I don't know how many potential publishers passed it up. Can you imagine having to go to bed every night knowing you sent a rejection letter to J. K. Rowling?

Her Wikipedia entry says 12 (and the 13th only accepted it because the company chairman's little daughter loved it). However, since the J.K. Rowling feelgood story sounds too good to be true, some aspects of it actually might not be.

[baron]

I don't see anything amazing about this. This experiment was naive. The publishers acted correctly in rejecting these works because they would not have sold.

In the current market, Jane Austen novels sell in such volume because they're written by Jane Austen. The subject matter and writing style is not in demand and would not be well received from an unknown author. That's not a judgement of Jane Austen's abilities any more than it's a judgement on society, it's a simple reflection on changing social structures, tastes and desires over the generations.

Thinking about it, I take back my statement that the experiment was naive. Lassman must have known that the novels would be rejected or he wouldn't have undertaken the experiment in the first place, and therefore it's logical to conclude he must have known why they would be rejected.

It's just a publicity stunt. Forget about it.

[Stellafane]

An aspiring writer once did something like this a few years back, handing in a manuscript that simply copied an early Jerzy Kosinski novel. Everyone rejected it, including one dude who complimented the faux writer on his lucid writing style, "reminicent of Jerzy Kosinski."

(BTW, I love Jane Austen to death. P&P is one of my favorite plots of all time -- and not so much as a single kiss between Eliza and Darcy!)

[slingblade]

Not very encouraging for aspiring new writers. Even if you can write as well as Jane Austin, it's almost impossible to get a publisher to look at it.

Which is why, when people tell me I ought to write a book, I often just smile vapidly and change the subject.

[baron]

If you write a book and it's genuinely good, and there's a market for it, and you're persistent, it will be published. No question about that. I wrote a novel once. I didn't get published on account of it being ****.

[roger]

There's a big difference between writing style and writing quality, IMO.

I can't think of any way to prove that, so I offer it only as a personal observation. But I ask you to perform the following thought experiment: imagine somebody submits a script for a modern TV comedy, with phrases "I beg thee, upon my honour, that thoust...." Ain't going to sell, no matter what follows the "..." (be it Shakespeare or trash), because we don't speak like that.

While I am sure there are exceptions, I believe most of us who read the classics, Austen included, do it despite the style, not because of it. We read for the quality of the writing, and either put up with the style, or enjoy it for what it is.

Bad writers regularly try to emulate the writing style of the past, confusing style for quality. You get endless poems with "O" (copying yeats), but the poet is no Yeats, with or without the "O". It's not the style that makes his poems great (I'm ignoring the complication of the originality of style, which can have it's own genius. But even there there is no genius in copying somebody else's brilliant style). Poetry editors get poems with "O" in them every day, along with poems with no capitals (coping e. e. cummings), etc. They all get binned. I'm sure it's the same with novel editors. What's the miniscule chance that someone actually copied an dated way of writing and speaking so perfectly, and turned out a book that is both great and will be a good seller. No, in the bin it goes.

At least that's my take on this stunt.

[Just thinking]

And how many SF movies of late are taken from the great author's of that genre?

Clarke?

Asimov?

Heinlein?

etc.

[Darat]

And how many SF movies of late are taken from the great author's of that genre?

Clarke?

Asimov?

Heinlein?

etc.


Philip K Dick - still being mined!

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I must admit I really hate Jane Austen. Forced to read her in the university I didn't even get through the first chapter awake. I ended up just skimming the book, and reading about it. I would have rejected it too :)

Sacrilegious blasphemy! :eye-poppi Say no more or my poor ears may bleed!

As for publishers rejecting literary masterpieces, I mean, you hear stories like that all the time.

My favorite one is how (according to IMDB.com) in the 1980s, Warner Brothers sent out copies of the script of Casablanca under the original title to numerous studios and not only did no one recognize it, they rejected on the grounds that there was "too much dialouge", "not enough sex" and "too unoriginal".

[timhau]

My favorite one is how (according to IMDB.com) in the 1980s, Warner Brothers sent out copies of the script of Casablanca under the original title to numerous studios and not only did no one recognize it, they rejected on the grounds that there was "too much dialouge", "not enough sex" and "too unoriginal".

The "too unoriginal" is a pretty good reason for rejection here.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

The "too unoriginal" is a pretty good reason for rejection here.

Uh, no. The "too unoriginal" is the most looney one because they didn't even recognize the script of Casablanca, so how could they have thought it was "unoriginal"? Someone at the office must have just yanked an arbitrary and neither here or there excuse out of their finger.

If it had come to me, I'd be tongue-in-cheek sending it back:

"I liked it better when it was called Casablanca!"
"An Academy-Award winning script, for sure!"
"Hey, hasn't this been done before?"
"What would you say to re-writing it as a prequel to Play It Again, Sam ?"

[Madalch]

Uh, no. The "too unoriginal" is the most looney one because they didn't even recognize the script of Casablanca, so how could they have thought it was "unoriginal"?

Not really.

I've never watched the movie, myself, but I remember hearing a friend complain about it because it was so full of cliches. He stopped when he realized that everything that was a cliche in the movie was original at the time, but became cliched as so many other movies copied it.

As for literary style, styles change. Austen's style matched her time period. It doesn't match our current style. No modern novel will be published in that style because nobody wants to read it.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Nobody would want to read it? People read Austen's works today. Quite alot of people. Her works are perhaps the only 18th century novels to have ever inspired web and bookclub fanfictions in the 21st century.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Nobody would want to read it? People read Austen's works today. Quite alot of people. Her works are perhaps the only 18th century novels to have ever inspired web and bookclub fanfictions in the 21st century.

And of course those are NOT modern novels. How many of those who like Austen's works would go out and buy a book in a similar style by an author they have never heard of?

If you want to read a book that is like Austen, then you are going to read Austen, not some modern novel by a no-name author. Which is why publishers would reject such a book.

[hgc]

...
As for literary style, styles change. Austen's style matched her time period. It doesn't match our current style. No modern novel will be published in that style because nobody wants to read it.


Where do you come by this insight, that nobody would want to read it? Would a single counter-example blow your claim? I would want to read it. Austen is not the least bit archaic in style.

When was the last time you read an Austen novel anyway? Which one?

[-Fran-]

I must admit I really hate Jane Austen. Forced to read her in the university I didn't even get through the first chapter awake. I ended up just skimming the book, and reading about it. I would have rejected it too
Sacrilegious blasphemy! Say no more or my poor ears may bleed!

I'm sorry :p