To ask anyone who knows about books/grammar/literary agents if this is as bad as I think?

[Thosebloodyfullstops]

I wrote a book. I worked really hard on it - research, rewrites, etc - but my one blind spot that I’ve always struggled with is punctuation in direct speech.

So my sentence might read -

‘I am going out now.’ he said.

Instead of the correct -

‘I am going out now,’ he said.

I’m so hot on all other aspects of grammar and spelling but as I say just seem to have a blind spot about this!

Amyway I asked a friend to proof read the book in exchange for me doing him a few house related and driving favours of equal time and value. He is a comms expert and former journalist and sub editor. He sent the book back to me as a word doc saying it was all proofed grammatically and spelling wise. I didn’t give it a full read through afterwards again but began to send it out to agents, the first 50 pages anyway.

Anyway yesterday I did look and there are still lots of direct speech errors like the one above.

I KNOW I should have read it again and I KNOW I should have gone through it myself. So I don’t need lots of posters coming on to tell me that. I would just like to hear opinions on how bad it is. I’ve sent to about 15 agents so far. Will they just stop reading at the first punctuation error? Would my sample be rejected on that alone if they like the rest of my book?

Ugh just wish I could send myself back in time a month and undo all of the emails I sent out!

@TrueScrumptious

Don't be daft, no one proof reads a quick mn post, you're being needlessly snarky

I’m currently reading a book in which the author talked about “flaunting the rules”. That’s really the sort of thing editors should pick up on.

No good though if the busy agent doesn't read past page one due to poor grammar, which is more the OP's point.
Rowling had a great product but struggled to find a publisher.

Neither, unless the crap one is written by a celebrity. Your badly written story isn't getting read, let alone offered representation.

I'm talking about non-fiction as well as fiction. The principle is the same.

Children's picture books are fiction too.
The competition might be a little less for adult fiction but sorry, poor grammar shows a lack of attention to detail and will put some agents off. They are investing in the writer as much as the book.
It's not B&Q buying the latest widget. Normal marketing rules dont apply. Anyway, getting bored so it's a wrap from me.

I meant adult non-fiction as well as fiction; I was referring/replying to your post.
I don't know what 'normal marketing rules' are or why you want to explain that books and publishing aren't B&Q.
I've been at the in-house end and then the freelance end for twenty-odd years, and this is my experience and observation. I don't know what else I can say.

I do enjoy the 'getting bored now' response to people having different opinions or experiences that seems so common on here.

How do you know this?

I work in the industry and have seen it happen. Not often, but if the story is stunning and - more important - easy to market, but the script imperfect, it might still get picked up. Whereas polished scripts where the story is unremarkable will get dismissed immediately.

Agree with this.
I've said it before but it bears repeating – why do people think there are armies of gainfully employed freelance editors and proofreaders if publishers will only take on manuscripts with impeccable grammar, spelling and punctuation? Speaking for myself and for friends/colleagues doing the same jobs, between us we do everything from changing the odd wrong full stop to taking apart a whole manuscript and putting it back together to improve the structure, flow, timeline, plot, everything.
For better or worse, in mainstream commercial publishing anyway, an author's marketability (which is not limited to but includes contacts in useful areas like the national press/a good online following/TV profile/physical appearance) is a hue factor in deciding whether or not to acquire their book. Nuts and bolts of the book itself – well, that can always be fixed down the line.

Rowling had a great product but struggled to find a publisher.

Presumably not because of crap grammar and spelling though. Publishers overlooking a book on content is different to publishers overlooking a book on execution.

In reference to some argument above, I also imagine that errors are more glaring in children’s picture books due to the fact that they contain about 0.5 percent as many words as a standard novel. So you’d want those manuscripts to be extremely clean.

At any rate, when I sent my final manuscript to my publisher (largest publishing company in the world) it was pretty fucking close to pristine and the copy editor commented that she rarely edited such clean manuscripts. Given that there were still a handful of errors in mine, I can only assume that the majority of manuscripts are quite ropey even after passing through an agent (which mine didn’t… I was commissioned directly by the publisher).

I've said it before but it bears repeating – why do people think there are armies of gainfully employed freelance editors and proofreaders if publishers will only take on manuscripts with impeccable grammar, spelling and punctuation?

To be fair, this is explicitly stated if not heavily implied in many if not most publisher's websites.

Several state that they won't accept you if you don't use the precise spacing, word counts or font in your submission, so you can see why writers feel obliged.

Many publishers acquire the bulk of their books through known and trusted agents, not direct. These guidelines are more about weeding out the worst dross from the unsolicited submissions of which they’ll publish a handful.

armies of gainfully employed freelance editors and proofreaders

I used to be a freelance copy-editor for an academic publishing house and many of my freelance colleagues were only working freelance as a result of the publishing industry's decision to cut editorial costs by outsourcing the roles. Increasingly, publishers were desperate to spend as little as possible on copy-editing - and of course the corresponding expectation is that authors should sumbit works in as polished a state as possible.

In any case, it isn't really a copy-editor's job to correct basic grammar mistakes. There are many, many other tasks.

With work from publishers hard to come by, members of the 'freelance army' are increasingly promoting themselves directly to authors, offering to help them get their work into shape before it is submitted. Which of course raises the standard of submission and makes a polished manuscript more and more necessary.

Of course it is true that if an agent or publisher spots a marketable submission, they won't be put off by several grammar errors. But with so many unpublishable submissions to wade through, a reader is much, much less likely to spot a manuscript's potential if they become distracted and pissed off by errors.

And the potential of the author will rightly be seen as diminished. An agent/publisher will want to be able to see the author as a little business person, in addition to being a creative, well versed in marketing imperatives and able to make decisions about hiring support where necessary.

Well, OK, yes, then I'll change "publishers" to "agents and publishers", because I see the same on both.

Some post the opposite - they're looking for quality writing not grammatical perfection.

There's also the context of often-sketchy writing advice - groups, classes, blogs, books.

I'm not saying that it's true, or even that it's unfair for publishers/agents to reject crappy underdrafted work.

I'm just saying that when a million and one people are saying the same thing, it's not that surprising that people take that as true!

I'm just saying that when a million and one people are saying the same thing, it's not that surprising that people take that as true!

It is true. No reputable agent is subbing a manuscript littered with errors, and no reputable publisher is acquiring manuscripts littered with errors.

Several state that they won't accept you if you don't use the precise spacing, word counts or font in your submission, so you can see why writers feel obliged.

It’s the work of two minutes to convert a submission to double-spacing, change the font to Courier or Times New Roman or whatever and make sure it isn’t over a certain word count.

Hardly arduous, and a world away from the ominous warnings here that commas on the wrong side of speech marks are so egregious they might scupper a submission’s chances.