Here is a publisher's rejection I got. - Save the cat

 This is the Email they sent me after my submission. (Part of me feels like they are just trying to flog their magazine, but that's a whole different think to think about atm)

 

Hi Jack,

 

Thank you for submitting your words to us. They made for an enjoyable read with much promise.

 

We especially enjoyed the musicality, which gave us a strong taste for what the novel could grow into. This was original in how it was deployed by sprinkling it through the prose in a causal way.

The prologue and first chapter felt a little rushed and the prologue may be better suited as a flashback with more detail. Enjoy those moments – really soak them up and watch the pace to get readers as lost in nature as the character.

What this would also benefit from is an element of Save the Cat – give this a google if it’s unfamiliar to you. Essentially, readers need something about the character to empathise with as early as possible. This at present reads a little flat. Whilst the characterisation is strong and clear with some beautiful imagery and great use of language, there isn’t that affinity we need to have with a main character to keep us reading on to find out what happens to them.

 

That being said, the snippet of a later part of the novel showed much improvement in terms of pace. You clearly have the skill and creativity to rework these earlier sections.

 

We won’t be asking to read more of this manuscript at this time but welcome you to resubmit once you have redrafted. Please feel free to submit any other work too.  

You may have already seen that we are currently accepting submissions of shorter pieces in any genre for issue 2 of our literary magazine. The theme is ODDITY. You can find out more and submit here: https://hack-publishing.co.uk/magazine/

 

Happy writing,

 

The Hack Team

Now, I really hate this beat sheet save the cat thing. It bothers me. So I gave this reply:

Thank you kindly for the reply.

I think what you are doing for people is absolutely brilliant. I love the personal touch of genuinely replying with a hand-typed email. That is wonderful. I hope you all realise what good work you are doing. Your company is providing an opportunity for literary magic to flourish, and I admire that. It's good for the world.

I'm not sure if you correspond. I'm guessing not. So I won't expect a reply, don't worry. But just in case I have an opportunity to ask someone with your level of insight and wisdom on the matter, I'll give the opportunity a chance;

I actually used to have the prologue as a flashback. All my beta readers at the time, probably about 15 of them, said to not have it as a flashback and that it needs a prologue. I resisted a lot, and then I paid an editor to work on it, and they said always keep it in chronological order unless there is a very specific reason for a flashback. Flashbacks are bad, everyone said. So are you sure that your advice is correct on that?

I also had my character save a cat, (it was actually three kittens,) basically as a test, and edited it back out. It stuck out too much. It was like painting glitter onto something because everyone wants sparkly stuff. It's narrative glitter. A plot hole sticker. A narrative spoon of sugar. Save the cat is a trend. Just like  how Joseph Campbell's hero's journey was a trend in the Star Wars era. It feels too obvious, forced and formulaic, and EVERYONE is doing it, and it's very vey boring. Charles Bukowski never had his character save a cat. It never happens in John Fante's Bandini Quartet, or Jack Kerouac's Dharma Bums or any of the authors write in that beat style. So what I want to know is how did those authors create an affinity that we "need" to have with a main character? Because as far as I can tell, they didn't.

If I had my character simply find an abandoned chick and raise it and it flies off by the end of the prologue, is that really creating any depth to the narrative? In John Fante's book the kid gets a BBgun and goes down the beach to massacre hundreds of crabs, it was an evil act, yet I wanted to read more and more.. What did he do differently that has the effect of "saving the cat," so to speak? Albert Camus' character starts his very first line with "Mother died today. Or it could have been yesterday." And it goes on with him having zero concern for his mother's death, just inconvenienced and bored.. Why did I want to read more? Charles Bukowski's character was a horrible and quite nasty person who masturbated as a vouyer and never redeemed himself, he was an alcoholic and treated women badly, yet people devour his books. John Fante's character was cruel and heartless a lot of the time, even as a child in the first book he was proud of his father for cheating on his mum. These stories were compelling despite being in complete opposition to this save the cat forumale that has made it onto the current wave of literary popularism in recent years. How is that the case, in your opinion?

 

There must be a more genuine solution. Something with an authenticity that doesn't require some act that reflects a Jesus quality. Like, I'm not writing a script for a Hollywood movie where you just insert hero name here, pick an outfit, choose a weapon, and blam you got the next batman/wolverine/superman/gladiator/braveheart so long as you follow these bullet points. It's a beat-style memoir of a busker overcoming hallucinations of his dead brother by facing his shadow self through music. He takes drugs. He's not a hero. He's not spiderman. He doesn't rescue cats. So how can writers do what Charle Bukowski and John Fante and Jack Kerouac did? Or do you feel like times have changed now, and writers should just use the cookie-cutter, paint-by-numbers kind of thing because it ticks the boxes that accept manuscripts into the current trend?

I eagerly hope to hear your views and opinions on the matter. No worries if you don't have the time or energy to reply though. I just thought I'd try my luck at getting an expert's opinion.

Peace x

Kindest of regards,

Jack. H