Editors and readers claim to like protagonists who are different, maybe even unexpected. There are limits to their affection, however, and writers must beware of exceeding those limits—even if the writer doesn’t agree with them.
That warning does not refer to political biases. Writers brave (foolish?) enough to inject politics into their novels are asking for criticisms not necessarily related to their prose. Have your protagonist waver to starboard across the political divide these days and you can reasonably expect resistance from most traditional publishing houses. And reviewers. You may not have to worry about reader complaints, because you may not ever get your novel into the hands of readers. Unless, of course, you revert to the ebook option and self-publish.
But what if you want to publish in the traditional way? And what if your hero displays no untoward political leanings? Can an unusual protagonist still invite the displeasure of editors and readers?
The answer is a resounding yes; let me give you an example of what can happen.
My juvenile novel called SAMSON AND THE CHARLESTON SPY (Level Best Books, 2024) involves four southern children who live in 1861. Once they watch the bombardment of Ft. Sumter offshore from their homes and overhear part of a conversation involving General Beauregard, they decide that something was amiss about it all. Despite a full day of sound and fury and brilliant explosions at the Union-occupied fort in Charleston Harbor, not one Yankee was killed. Someone must have warned the Northerners that the attack was coming. Based on that premise, they spend the rest of the book trying to find the spy who warned the enemy. The novel is filled with history and adventure, and it’s got a boy protagonist, which publishers claim to be seeking.
My agent cleaned up the script, tightened it and even sent it to a sensitivity reader, because, as one would expect, race is always an issue with a Civil War era novel and actual conversations back then, even among children, will no longer pass muster in polite society. Despite all that, one Big Five acquisition editor told Regina on the phone that she, the editor, would consider the submission if we could somehow arrange for Samson and his friends to become heroes to the North. She didn’t like the idea of CSA sympathizers winning even a small victory (i.e. by identifying the traitor who forewarned the Union troops).
I understand that was the smallest possible sample size, but even so, it indicates a northern bias—160 years after the Civil War! No wonder our nation is so divided in so many ways.
Writers have no way of knowing what other biases stand in the way of a manuscript submission. A publisher of one of my earlier novels refused to publish a second of my books unless I changed the priest protagonist into a former priest. Since the overarching theme of the book was the man’s attempt at redemption, I argued that he could only hope to redeem his soul if he remained true to his vocation. The publisher would not relent; he died two years later without ever publishing anything else of mine. In fact, he never spoke to me again. I swear I was polite in my dealings with the guy; he always seemed professional, worldly, and had previously evinced no dislike of religion or religious characters. Maybe he was just having a bad day. I can tell you I had many bad days after that conversation; I liked that publishing house and respected the publisher’s opinion.
The point is, a writer has no way of knowing what kind of prejudice he is going to encounter with a submission. When his stuff is rejected, he usually has no idea why it “didn’t capture my interest.” The reason for a rejection may be pure editorial bias.
To account for that bias, fellow writers recommend looking over what kind of books an agent represents or an editor publishes; do this before submitting any work, and then look up the agent or editor on Amazon and Goodreads reviews and on their blog posts on the firm’s website. Editorial biases often show up then. Fledgling editors or assistants to agents may actually take pleasure in trashing a manuscript. It’s one way of exhibiting the power they have as an acquisition editor or an agent, both with the juice to make or break your writing career. Look for language that gives away their immaturity. One reader at an independent house called my novel SGT. FORD’S WIDOW “gross.” NPR called it “fine fiction,” “compelling, suspenseful, and moving.”
I admit to feeling distressed when I received the “gross” rejection from that publisher, but it’s important to look past those kinds of critiques of your work. Writers are often sensitive souls; that’s one reason we write, to express our sensitivities to life. A nasty reply to a sincere submission can hurt, way down deep. It seems so uncalled for, but that’s how some people are: the assume they know what kind of person you must be and they pull out their knives to go on the attack if they don’t like your kind. As they mature, they will probably grow out of that thoughtless cruelty, but replying to their attacks will not hasten their maturation. A writer should never react in writing to a bad review or a malicious rejection email.
Editorial biases are real and important. I suggest trying to forget them and moving on from rejection. Rejection may have no more to do with your work than some folks’ residual anger that the South had the effrontery to secede from the Union in 1861.