[John Whitworth]

Competition
Lucy Vickery
Wednesday, 9th June 2010
Lucy Vickery presents the latest competition
In Competition 2650 you were invited to submit a letter from a publisher rejecting the Book of Genesis or Revelation.
You lambasted both for a lack of coherent plot and narrative inconsistencies, and prescribed extensive editing. There were redeeming features, though: Paddy Briggs applauded the ‘geriatric sex narrative’ in Genesis, while J. Seery found much to commend — ‘Noah’s robust response to environmental challenge has current market appeal...’ — but ruled out publication on the grounds of ‘the author’s unwillingness to undertake the usual promotional tours’. Brian Murdoch also saw signs of promise: ‘The opening nude romp, the phallic snake and all that begetting could be a turn-on, and we liked the trendy eco-disaster stuff with all the cuddly animals, and especially the fun bit where Noah gets plastered and exposes himself.’ Gripping!
Commendations to Terry Saunders, Jan D. Hodge, D.A. Prince and Barry Baldwin. The winners, printed below, get £30 each. The extra fiver is Chris O’Carroll’s.

Thank you for letting us read the manuscript of your multi-generational family saga. We find much to admire in your economical storytelling style, and the leitmotif of hostile, destructive relationships between family members is well sustained. However, the episodic nature of the work and the occasional haphazard intrusions of magical realism strike us as significant weaknesses. Moreover, many characters seem rather sketchy and underdeveloped, too often performing momentous actions for unclear or inadequate motives. In particular, you appear to offer no credible explanation for the bewilderingly mercurial behaviour of your character God, with his comic-book mood swings from benevolent superhero to thin-skinned, psychopathic supervillain. We also find your sex scenes brusque and perfunctory, marred by such unappealing locutions as ‘knew his wife’, ‘went in unto her’, and the much overused ‘begat’. The story could benefit from substantial rewrites in this area.
Chris O’Carroll

Genesis, though not without merit, needs reworking before it is publishable. For instance, in the Creation sequence we need to see some of the process in action. Show, not tell. Your dominant character, God, says ‘Let there be light’ and you continue ‘and there was light’. Not good enough. Creation of light is a fascinating theme and we need to see God in his lab, mixing protons or whatever. Details. The Adam and Eve triangle with the serpent is engaging and well told. But here’s another missed opportunity: explicit detail as the characters discover their sexual feelings would add that ‘oomph’ factor. There are plotting flaws too. Where do A&E’s offsprings’ partners come from? Are we touching on incest here? If so let’s have it, hot and strong. Kiddies will like the Noah story. Is this a separate book? And, please, if you resubmit, single-sided A4 rather than stone tablets.
Gerard Benson

Our reader was taken aback to find that your manuscript was not, as the title suggests, a contribution to rock-group history, for which there is still a considerable demand, but a piece of speculative fiction, part magical-realist, part-allegorical, all taking place on a planet created ex nihilo by an omnipotent Ming-like dictator. Unfortunately the market for speaking animals, invented mythologies, protagonists with only a forename and the like has reached saturation point. Also, to take up a formal issue, the genealogical lists of implausibly long-lived characters which occupy several chapters do not advance the story and hardly seem relevant to the outcome. Nonetheless, there is evidence here of literary skill as well as of a bold if undisciplined imagination, which suggests that with different material you may find a publisher. Have you ever considered writing a biography of the Pet Shop Boys?
G.M. Davis

I can honestly say that we have never before seen a manuscript quite like yours, although its imagery and diction recall some of the verbal pyrotechnics associated with Allen Ginsberg’s ‘Howl’, or with the psychedelic excesses of Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing books, or perhaps with the promiscuously allusive surrealism of Bob Dylan’s early electric phase. (And your overwrought, sanguinary, self-conscious occultism might put some readers in mind of certain passages from the work of Aleister Crowley.) It is a noteworthy accomplishment to hold your narrative voice at the febrile pitch you have chosen, and no doubt there will always be some vogue for non-rational literature replete with arcane symbolism that hints at multiple meanings without clearly signifying any one. In the hands of the right speciality niche publisher, your book might acquire an avid cult following, but I fear there is no place for it in the mainstream market.

K.M. Smith
When I saw that your Book of Genesis was but the opening volume in a projected ‘Pentateuch’, itself but the opening of a yet longer sequence, I felt the despair common to most publishers confronted with science fiction or fantasy epics. Congratulations! Your book exhibits all the shortcomings of the genre: crashingly portentous authorial voice, ludicrous nomenclature, a frankly sociopathic failure to engage with human character and a total absence of humour. Still, at least you don’t attempt to describe characters or landscapes, doubtless having your eye on the film rights. Your hyperbolic pedantry rather fails you where plot is concerned. Why does God place a Tree of Knowledge in Eden when he doesn’t want Adam and Eve to eat its fruit? Where did Cain’s wife spring from? Don’t answer: we will not be publishing your book. If there’s one thing the publishing world doesn’t need, it’s another Silmarillion.
Adrian Fry

[Terese Coe]

Hilarious! Congrats to Chris, and thanks for posting these, John.

I wonder how many of the winners have worked as book editors? Or slush editors? They do sound professional.

Especially on the mark:

Davis' "...all taking place on a planet created ex nihilo by an omnipotent Ming-like dictator." Ha! And that's the way it was...seemingly.

and Chris' "...the bewilderingly mercurial behaviour of your character God, with his comic-book mood swings from benevolent superhero to thin-skinned, psychopathic supervillain."

Indeed...

To my mind these are far more articulate and funny than most of of the competition poems I've seen.

[Chris O'Carroll]

Thanks, Terese. You're kind to assume that those of us who seem conversant with the literary rejection message style must have written such letters professionally. I'm guessing that there are quite a few writers who know the form all too well on account of having received their share of rejection letters. Not me personally, of course. I'm just sayin'.

[John Whitworth]

The rejection letters I have had - and good God I've had plenty - rarely extend to the third line. They are also written by knuckle-dragging illiterates, quite unlike the well-read people here.

[Jayne Osborn]

Congratulations on a brilliant piece, Chris.
I've only just realised that my Speccie didn't drop through the letterbox yesterday...or today...hmm. Perhaps my postman is reading it before he delivers it.

[Terese Coe]

And you're astute, Chris, to see that I was intentionally kind. :-) And sincere too!

John, Long before the internet was invented, individualized rejection letters were indeed a rarity--in fact they were preprinted cards or boilerplate letters for the most part. Still, I've read some good rejection letters in volumes of Letters to writers--nothing this amusing of course. And I wasn't referring to your poems or those of the stalwarts here...there are so many competitions now for whatever...wherever.

This challenge fairly cried out for outrageous responses, and that's what is so good about the chosen winners--that and the fact they won.

[FOsen]

Bouncing this up again to give well-deserved congratulations to Chris for two hilarious winners - that's a first, as far as I know.

Frank