How to Deal with Editor Decisions

by

The submission button is pressed. Weeks or even months pass, punctuated by the agonizing silence of the inbox. Then, the email arrives. The subject line, a harbinger of things to come, holds the fate of your manuscript. Opening it is a moment of truth, a raw unveiling of whether your creative progeny has found a home or been sent back to the drawing board. For every writer, the editor’s decision is a pivotal moment, fraught with emotion and demanding a strategic, rather than reactive, response. This isn’t just about accepting or rejecting; it’s about navigating a professional relationship, honing your craft, and maximizing your chances of publication. This guide will equip you with the practical tools and psychological resilience needed to transform editor decisions from potential setbacks into powerful stepping stones.

The Immediate Aftermath: Processing the Decision

The first rule of dealing with an editor’s decision, regardless of its nature, is to resist the urge for an immediate, emotional response. Your initial feelings – elation, crushing disappointment, anger, confusion – are valid, but they are not the ideal foundation for professional action.

Step 1: The “Cool Down” Period

Receive the email. Read it once. Then, close it. Walk away from your computer. Go for a walk. Make a cup of tea. Do anything that allows you to create a physical and mental distance from the immediate emotional impact. This crucial “cool down” period prevents rash emails sent in the heat of the moment, which can damage professional relationships beyond repair. For a rejection, this might mean a day or two. For a revise and resubmit, a few hours might suffice. The key is to allow the initial jolt to subside.

  • Example: You receive a rejection for your novel. Your first instinct is to fire off an email detailing how the editor clearly misunderstood your brilliant literary masterpiece. Instead, you close the email, go for a run, and spend the evening watching a comforting movie. The next morning, you reread the email with a clearer head, noticing specific feedback rather than just the “no.”

Step 2: The Dispassionate Reread

Once you’ve achieved some emotional distance, reread the editor’s decision carefully. This time, your goal is comprehension, not reaction. Pay meticulous attention to every word. What are they actually saying?

  • For Rejections: Look for any specific feedback, even if it’s brief. Sometimes, a rejection might contain a single sentence like, “While well-written, we found the pacing in the second act lacked urgency.” This isn’t a silver bullet, but it’s a valuable data point. Is the rejection a form letter, or does it feel personalized? A personalized rejection, even if still a “no,” often indicates they saw potential and put thought into their response.
  • For Revise and Resubmit (R&R) or “Accept with Revisions”: This is where meticulous reading is paramount. Highlight every single suggested change, query, or point of concern. Understand the scope of the revisions. Are they minor grammatical fixes, or do they involve significant plot restructuring or character development?
  • For Acceptances: Even with an acceptance, there might be conditional clauses or an offer to move forward contingent on minor tweaks. Read these carefully to understand expectations before signing any contracts.

  • Example: Your short story receives an R&R. The editor states, “The protagonist’s motivation for betraying his sister feels unconvincing. We also suggest shortening the opening scene by half; it’s delaying the central conflict.” You highlight both points, recognizing one is a fundamental character issue and the other a structural suggestion.

Step 3: Acknowledge, Categorize, and Prioritize

After your dispassionate reread, make a note of the overall decision and then systematically break down any feedback.

  • Categorize Feedback (for R&R/Rejections with feedback):
    • Substantive/High-Level: These are issues that impact the core of your story – plot holes, character arcs, thematic clarity, overall pacing, or voice consistency. (e.g., “The stakes aren’t clear,” “The antagonist needs more depth,” “The humor feels forced and inconsistent.”)
    • Structural: These relate to the organization of your manuscript – chapter breaks, scene length, narrative flow, or point-of-view shifts. (e.g., “Consider rearranging chapters 3 and 4,” “The flashbacks disrupt the current timeline,” “The story needs a stronger inciting incident.”)
    • Line-Level/Small-Scale: These are specific wording choices, grammar, sentence flow, wordiness, or factual inaccuracies. (e.g., “This sentence is a mouthful,” “Check for repetitive adjectives,” “Ensure consistent capitalization of the fantasy terms.”)
    • Queries/Suggestions: Editor might ask questions or offer ideas without demanding a specific change. (e.g., “Could the sister have a stronger role?”, “Perhaps exploring the consequences of this decision earlier?”)
  • Prioritize (for R&R): Once categorized, think about which changes are most critical and which might be less impactful or align less with your vision. This prioritization will inform your revision strategy.

  • Example: From the R&R example above:

    • Substantive: “Protagonist’s motivation for betraying his sister feels unconvincing.”
    • Structural: “Shorten the opening scene by half; it’s delaying the central conflict.”
    • You mentally (or literally) flag the motivation issue as the most critical to address first, as it affects the core credibility of your character.

Handling Rejections: Turning “No” into Growth

Rejection is an inevitable part of a writer’s journey. What distinguishes successful writers isn’t the absence of rejections, but their ability to learn from them and persist.

Strategy 1: The Form Rejection – A Numbers Game

Most rejections are form letters. They are generic, impersonal, and offer no specific feedback. This is not a judgment on your worth as a writer, nor is it a condemnation of your manuscript.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Do not respond. A form rejection is a closed door. Responding will only make you seem unprofessional.
    • Track it. Log the submission date, rejection date, and the publication/agency name in your submission tracker. This helps you monitor your submission history and identify potential patterns (e.g., are you consistently getting rejected by literary journals but having success with genre magazines?).
    • Submit again. The very next step after receiving a form rejection should be to find another suitable home for your manuscript. Research new outlets, tailor your cover letter, and send it out again. Persistence is key.
  • Example: You receive a form rejection from The Quarterly Review. You log it, sigh briefly, and then immediately open your submission spreadsheet to identify three new literary magazines that accept similar work. Within an hour, your story is out again.

Strategy 2: The Personal Rejection with Feedback – A Learning Opportunity

These rejections are rare and invaluable. An editor took the time to provide specific thoughts, indicating they saw something promising in your work, even if it wasn’t the right fit for them at that moment.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Express gratitude (briefly). A polite, concise email acknowledging their time and feedback is professional. Do not argue, justify, or attempt to re-pitch the story. (e.g., “Dear [Editor’s Name], Thank you for taking the time to read [Manuscript Title] and for your thoughtful feedback. I genuinely appreciate your insights. Sincerely, [Your Name].”)
    • Analyze the feedback objectively. Is the feedback consistent with previous rejections? Does it resonate with your own self-assessment of the manuscript’s weaknesses?
    • Decide on action. You have three options:
      • Implement the feedback and resubmit elsewhere: If the feedback feels valid and manageable, revise your manuscript based on it. Then, find new potential homes. This demonstrates a willingness to learn and improve.
      • Decline to implement and resubmit elsewhere: If the feedback fundamentally clashes with your creative vision or feels off-base, you are not obligated to implement it. Simply submit the manuscript as is to other places. Not every piece of advice is perfect for every story.
      • Shelve the manuscript: Sometimes, the feedback (or a pattern of similar rejections) indicates a deeper issue that requires significant overhaul, or that the story simply isn’t working as it stands. Shelving it, for now, allows you to move on to fresh projects with a clearer head, potentially returning to it later with more experience.
  • Example: A personalized rejection states, “While your world-building is intricate, the protagonist feels too passive, and we struggled to connect with her journey.” You re-read your story and realize they have a point. You decide to revise the first act to give your protagonist more agency, then resubmit to a different publishing house known for character-driven narratives.

Navigating Revisions: The Art of Collaboration

An R&R or “accept with revisions” is an exciting, often challenging, opportunity. It means an editor sees the potential in your manuscript and is willing to invest their time and expertise in making it better. This is a collaborative process, not a directive.

Strategy 1: Understanding the Editor’s Vision

Before you lift a finger to revise, ensure you fully grasp the editor’s core concerns and their vision for the manuscript.

  • Ask Clarifying Questions (Strategically): If any feedback is ambiguous, vague, or seems contradictory, it’s perfectly acceptable to ask for clarification. Frame your questions respectfully and specifically. Do not question the need for the change, but rather the how or what of it.

  • Example: Editor note: “The central conflict needs more gravitas.” Your question: “Could you elaborate on what aspects of the central conflict you feel lack gravitas? Are you suggesting the stakes aren’t high enough for the characters, or that the conflict itself doesn’t feel globally significant within the story’s world?”

  • Prioritize and Outline: Once you understand the feedback, create a plan. List all the requested revisions. Categorize them as high-priority (core story issues) or lower priority (line edits). Then, outline how you intend to address each point. This roadmap will keep you focused and prevent you from getting overwhelmed.

Strategy 2: Executing Revisions with Intent

Approach revisions not as a chore, but as an opportunity to elevate your manuscript. Every change should be purposeful.

  • Address High-Level Changes First: If the editor has concerns about plot, character, or theme, tackle these first. These substantive changes often ripple throughout the manuscript, making smaller line edits easier later. Don’t polish sentences that might be cut entirely.

  • Be Flexible, But Stand Your Ground (Thoughtfully): The editor is offering expert advice, but it’s your story. There will be instances where you disagree with a suggestion, or where implementing it would compromise your artistic vision.

    • When to Compromise: If a suggestion improves the story without fundamentally altering your vision, even if it’s not how you initially conceived it, be open to it. Editors often see things from a fresh, objective perspective that you, as the creator, might miss. (e.g., An editor suggests cutting a beloved subplot that, upon reflection, genuinely does slow the main narrative. You compromise).
    • When to Stand Your Ground: If a suggestion feels truly wrong for your story, would alter a core character motivation you believe in, or would force a thematic shift you don’t intend, you can gently push back. However, always be prepared to articulate why their suggestion won’t work and, crucially, offer an alternative solution to the underlying problem they’ve identified. Never just say “no.” Say “no, but here’s why, and here’s what I propose instead.”
  • Example: Editor comment: “We think character X should die at the end; it would be more impactful.” You feel strongly that Character X’s survival is crucial to the story’s message of resilience.
    • Bad response: “No, they can’t die, it’s my story!”
    • Good response: “I understand the desire for that kind of impact, and I agree the ending needs to feel powerful. However, my intention with Character X’s arc was to demonstrate the quiet strength of survival in the face of overwhelming odds, rather than a tragic sacrifice. My concern is that their death would inadvertently shift the thematic focus from resilience to despair. Instead of their death, perhaps we could amplify the cost of their survival, showing the physical and emotional scars, making their triumph feel hard-won rather than easy?”
  • Track All Changes: Use “Track Changes” in your word processor. This provides a clear record for the editor to review and allows them to see how you’ve addressed each of their points. It also acts as proof of your diligence.

Strategy 3: Resubmitting the Revised Manuscript

Once revisions are complete, package them professionally.

  • The Revision Letter/Memo: This is perhaps the most critical document for an R&R. It’s a precise, point-by-point response to every single piece of feedback the editor provided.
    • Format:
      • Start with a brief introduction: “Thank you again for the opportunity to revise [Manuscript Title]. I’ve carefully considered all your feedback and believe these revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript.”
      • Go through each of the editor’s original points, quoting or paraphrasing their feedback.
      • Follow each point with a clear explanation of how you addressed it, providing specific examples or page numbers if helpful.
      • If you didn’t implement a suggestion, explain why respectfully and offer your alternative solution to the underlying concern.
      • End with a brief conclusion, re-expressing enthusiasm and readiness for the next steps.
  • Example (Excerpt from a Revision Letter):
    • Editor’s Point 1: “The protagonist’s motivation for betraying his sister feels unconvincing, making his actions in Chapter 5 difficult to accept.”
      • Your Response: “I completely agree this was a crucial area for development. I’ve added a new scene in Chapter 2 (p. 31-33) exploring the protagonist’s desperate financial situation and the manipulative influence of the antagonist, which I believe now provides a clearer and more sympathetic foundation for his difficult choice. Additionally, I’ve subtlely enhanced his internal conflict in Chapters 4 and 5 to better convey his struggle.”
    • Editor’s Point 2: “Suggest shortening the opening scene by half; it’s delaying the central conflict.”
      • Your Response: “Thank you for this excellent structural suggestion. I’ve trimmed the opening scene significantly, removing descriptive passages that could be integrated later and tightening the initial dialogue to bring the reader into the core conflict more swiftly. The revised opening now effectively sets the stage without losing any essential information.”
    • Editor’s Point 3: “Could the sister have a stronger role in the climax?”
      • Your Response: “This was a thought-provoking comment, and while I didn’t integrate her directly into the physical confrontation of the climax (as I felt it would detract from the protagonist’s personal battle), I have strengthened her emotional presence and impact immediately following the climax. She now plays a more active role in the resolution’s aftermath, guiding the protagonist towards processing his choices and setting up her role in a potential sequel. This choice maintains the protagonist’s central struggle while giving the sister more narrative weight in the broader arc.”
  • Attach Both Documents: Send the revised manuscript (with track changes visible unless otherwise instructed) and your revision letter. This meticulous approach shows professionalism, respect for the editor’s time, and demonstrates your commitment to the project.

Receiving an Acceptance: The New Beginning

An acceptance is the culmination of countless hours of work. It’s a moment to celebrate, but also one to approach with clear-headed professionalism.

Step 1: Celebrate (Briefly, but Fully!)

You’ve earned this. Take a moment to savor it. Tell your trusted network. Pop champagne. Dance around your living room. Acknowledge the achievement.

Step 2: Read the Contract (Carefully!)

This is paramount. Do not skim. Do not sign blindly. A publishing contract is a legally binding document outlining your rights, responsibilities, royalties, and the publisher’s obligations.

  • Key Clauses to Scrutinize:
    • Rights Granted: What rights are you giving away (e.g., print, e-book, audio, foreign, film)? Are they exclusive? For how long? Are there territories specified?
    • Royalty Rates: What percentage of sales do you receive? How are these calculated (net receipts vs. cover price)? Are there different rates for different formats (hardcover, paperback, e-book)?
    • Advance: Is there an advance? How is it paid out (on signing, on acceptance of revised manuscript, on publication)? Is it recoupable (standard in publishing)?
    • Editorial Process: What is the timeline for revisions? Who makes the final editorial decisions?
    • Publication Date: Is there a target publication window?
    • Marketing & Promotion: What is the publisher’s responsibility for marketing? What is expected of you?
    • Termination Clauses: Under what conditions can either party terminate the contract?
    • Options Clause: Does the publisher have a first right of refusal on your next work? If so, what are the terms?
    • Reversion of Rights: When do the rights revert to you if the book goes out of print or isn’t published?
  • If You Have an Agent: Your agent will handle the contract negotiation. Trust their expertise, but still read the contract yourself so you understand the terms. Ask your agent to explain anything unclear.

  • If You Don’t Have an Agent: Consider consulting an entertainment lawyer or a literary contract specialist. The fee will likely be a fraction of what you could lose by signing an unfavorable contract. Organizations like the Authors Guild offer resources and advice.

  • Example: You receive a contract. You notice the foreign rights clause is very broad, granting the publisher worldwide rights for an unspecified period. You also see the e-book royalty rate is significantly lower than industry standards. If you have an agent, you immediately raise these points. If not, you consider consulting a lawyer before signing.

Step 3: Professional Onboarding and Collaboration

Once the contract is signed, you’re officially a published author! The next phase is the true collaborative journey.

  • Maintain Clear Communication: Respond to editorial emails promptly. Meet revision deadlines. If you foresee a delay, communicate it well in advance.
  • Be a Team Player: Publishing a book is a team effort involving editors, copy editors, proofreaders, designers, marketing teams, etc. Be professional and respectful in all interactions.
  • Embrace Further Revisions: The acceptance isn’t the end of revisions. You’ll likely go through developmental edits, line edits, copy edits, and proofreading. Each stage serves a crucial purpose in refining the manuscript. Approach them with the same open-mindedness and professionalism you applied to the initial R&R.

  • Example: Your editor sends you the developmental edit letter. It suggests moving an entire subplot to an earlier section of the book. While daunting, you reread the argument, see the logic in how it would improve pacing, and commit to the large-scale reorganization.

Mastering the Mindset: Resilience and Growth

Beyond the tactical steps, dealing with editor decisions requires a strong mental framework.

Pitfall 1: Taking It Personally

An editor’s decision, whether a rejection or a request for revision, is almost never a personal judgment of your worth. It’s a professional assessment of a single manuscript at a specific point in time, evaluated against the needs of their list, their market, and countless other submissions.

  • Actionable Mindset: Separate your identity as a person from your identity as a writer. Your writing is a product, and products are subject to critique. Remind yourself: “This isn’t about me, it’s about this manuscript and this market.”

Pitfall 2: Defensiveness and Argumentation

Whether rejected or asked to revise, arguing with an editor is a career-limiting move. It signals a lack of professionalism, an inability to take feedback, and a potentially difficult working relationship.

  • Actionable Mindset: Approach feedback with curiosity, not combativeness. Even if you disagree, seek to understand the editor’s rationale. “Why might they be saying this?” “What underlying problem are they trying to solve, even if their suggested solution isn’t ideal for my vision?”

Pitfall 3: The “One Shot” Mentality

Believing a single editor’s decision is the absolute final word on your manuscript can be paralyzing. The publishing world is vast, subjective, and constantly evolving.

  • Actionable Mindset: Cultivate a “many doors” philosophy. One rejection is just one door closing. There are always more doors to open, more editors to query, and more ways to tell your story. Embrace the iterative nature of writing and publishing. Every revision, every new submission, is a new chance.

Pitfall 4: Rushing the Process

In the eagerness for publication, writers sometimes rush revisions or submit too quickly after a rejection, without truly integrating feedback or refining their work.

  • Actionable Mindset: Patience is a virtue in publishing. Take the necessary time to revise thoroughly. Allow for the “cool down” period. Treat each submission as a serious endeavor, not a lottery ticket. Quality over speed, always.

By internalizing these mindsets, you transform the emotional roller coaster of editor decisions into a systematic, empowering process. Each decision, good or bad, becomes a data point, a learning opportunity, and a stepping stone on your ongoing journey as a writer.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

Dealing with editor decisions is a masterclass in resilience, professionalism, and continuous improvement. It demands tactical responses to specific outcomes and a robust psychological framework to navigate the inherent subjectivity and challenge of the publishing world. By embracing the “cool down” period, dissecting feedback clinically, differentiating between various types of rejections and acceptances, mastering the art of the revision letter, and, crucially, maintaining a mindset of growth and collaboration, you transform the often-daunting process of submitting your work into a strategic pathway towards your publishing goals. Remember, every decision—whether a “no” or an enthusiastic “yes”—is an integral part of your evolution as a writer. Approach each with preparedness, grace, and an unwavering commitment to your craft.