When a writer submits a manuscript to an agent, they obviously will get an offer of representation or a rejection. But rejections come more often than offers, even for some of the great writers out there, and when writing a rejection (I always feel bad, I mean I want to love everything), I can send off a quick "form rejection" - the it's not for me but I'm sure someone else will love it or I can send notes with reasons why I don't love it.
So, once upon a time I was a writer - I think a lot of people in publishing have done some writing. But I'm better at editing and critiquing than I was at writing, and I'm sure the whole I never let anyone read what I wrote thing didn't help me much.
But when I read a manuscript (and this is when I've requested the full) I don't want to send just a form rejection or a rejection that doesn't really explain why I'm rejecting. Because if I was the writer and I was taking the step to send my work - my blood, sweat, tears, and tireless nights - out into the world, I'd want feedback. Or at least, I think I would. And of course, as the reader I've spent a few hours of my life reading and taking notes on this manuscript trying to think of ways to make it better. I don't want to throw those notes away, then all that time I spent has no pay off.
I've taken to sending rejections with a few of the most important notes I've written just as a this is what turned me off kind of way, and I do make sure to mention that they're only my opinions and someone else could totally disagree with me.
Some writers have written back to express thanks for my opinion and time and effort - a few I've even kept a running dialogue with and have looked at the manuscript again as another set of eyes before they submitted to another agent - and some writers don't respond at all which is fine too because there's enough traffic in my inbox. But some writer responses, which usually fall into the rant or justification category, make me wonder if a form rejection would just be better off.
Rants. I've gotten a few scathing responses about how I didn't understand the genius of the work (which is quite possible. When I was teaching, I told my students quite often I did not know everything). But this is kind of, well, rude. And unnecessary. There aren't any writers or any books out there that everyone loves. (As a camp counselor I tried to connect with all the little kids by talking about Harry Potter and three little girls told me he was evil and against Christians. And those classics? People argue about them all the time, they even have a name for them - literary critics.) Writer's have to learn to take criticism - even if they don't agree with it. I have no problem with a writer who thinks I didn't understand the genius of their work, but I don't need them to write me a manifesto via about it either. And it's a poor way to represent yourself. Publishing is a small industry and people network with each other a lot. What if an agent who likes a manuscript runs into someone who has received a rant from the writer? Most people don't want to work with people who send ranting emails.
Justifications. I know a writer hasn't just slopped something down on paper for no reason. I know there's a reason, probably a good one, for the choices the writer made. But as a reader who can't see into the writer's mind I have a different impression and a different perspective. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it might mean another outside person should read it too. And while I'll take a justification over a rant any day, it doesn't really accomplish anything for the writer. It's not going to change my mind. My reactions are mine and they're honest, and they still exist no matter the writer's intention. And manuscripts and books don't go out to editors or the public with a justification attached for the writer's choices. Perhaps for the writer it's a more cleansing thing - to write a justification down, but it probably doesn't need to get sent off to the agent. I think these emails are ones that can get written and saved but never sent.