The Slush Pile
Let us consider the slush pile.
David Patterson, a senior editor at Henry Holt, whose taste in books I admire greatly, sent me an article from The Wall Street Journal online entitled: "The Death of the Slushpile."
Way back when, the slush pile was an uncomplimentary term used by publishers for the unsolicited manuscripts they received by the bucket load from aspiring writers. As the above article will tell you, "slush is dead." At least it is with commercial publishers. Apparently they were finding that it exposed them to copyright infringement lawsuits. Every time a book was published with even the most remote parallels to an unsolicited submission, the publisher was accused of using the slush pile as a flower garden of ideas to pluck. Copyright infringement suits are to publishers what medical malpractice suits are to doctors. Publishers have attempted to reduce their exposure by inserting an "indemnity clause" in the book contract. This provision, hateful to all writers and their agents, puts the onus of defending against copyright infringement claims, no matter how frivolous, on the shoulders of the author.
But I digress. Publishers were also finding that the payoff from sorting through slush didn't justify the time and expense of a 22 year old entry level editorial assistant plowing through unpublishable manuscripts. And, in truth, finding something good out of the slush pile was a little like winning the lottery.
So now if you push the "acquisitions" button on a publisher's website, you will see that they will accept only agented submissions. The slush pile is no more. On one level, I find this puzzling. The legendary publisher, Alfred Knopf, once said, "Agents are to publishers as a knife is to a throat." Now they have bestowed upon us at no cost the exclusive license to act as the toll gates of the literary superhighway.
Well, ok. There is a cost. And that cost is - slush. Agents have replaced the editorial assistants in sorting through the unsolicited manuscripts. I don't call it slush. It's a demeaning term. I have spoken in a previous blog posting (Ann Lamott and Albert Camus on Writing ) that writing is a courageous act. And the activity deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. I prefer to use the term: "queries received over the transom."
A lot of the big-time agencies don't have much truck with slush either. And I am told that finding an agent for a number of genres is about as hard as finding a publisher. But, look. I hear about agents who get 100 queries a day. What are they to do? I'm a smaller and newer agency. I get about 40 queries a week. It seems to be growing though. Most of the queries I get are for fiction or personal memoir. My website and my listings on agent directories clearly state that I don't accept fiction and personal memoir. But I try to respond in a timely manner. Mostly I politely copy and paste a "thank you, but it is not for me."
I have taken on a few projects from the slush pile. Excuse me. From over the transom. And I got one published by an author who was living in his brother's under heated attic in Maine. On the day of publication, he wrote the op-ed piece in The New York Times. I'm pretty proud of that. And other agents whom I respect all have stories of great projects that they fished out of the slush. So I urge aspiring writers to send their projects out. Hope for the best…. But expect the worst.
People in publishing always like to talk about the great projects by unknown authors that rose above the slush. The Diary of Anne Frank was originally rejected by the Paris office of Doubleday. Stephanie Meyer's Twilight was discovered by a young assistant agent. Philip Roth got his first story picked up by The Paris Review. And J. K. Rowling had her Harry Potter rejected by 20 publishers before it was sold to Bloomsbury UK.. John Toole's Confederacy of Dunces was rejected by just about everyone in publishing until it found a home after the author's death. It went on to sell several million copies and win the Pulitzer Prize for fiction.
When I first became an agent, I went around New York for a few days talking to editors. I asked all of them what was their biggest mistake in book acquisition. (This would be a good blog posting. We'll do it another time.) My favorite response was from a very prominent editor who rejected The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco. But she said it wasn't really a mistake. She thought it was lousy and boring. Because of her judgment on the book, it would never have succeeded with her as editor.
And so, gentle reader, if you will excuse me, I need to go back to reading my slush. I will set aside my world-weary cynicism and approach the task with eagerness and hope. Because I know that, amidst the dross and the folly, lies the novel of the next Jane Austin – waiting to be born.