However, hopefully at least some of my readers will pick up on the fact that the villain is weak and desperate rather than mustache-twirling evil, and that even so he probably wouldn't have tried to solve his problems by blackmailing Anna and Jack if they hadn't both snubbed him earlier in the story.

Susan, that seems to make it even easier .' Weak and desperate' is far more interesting than "mustache-twirling", as we all know; and if the tragedy (conflict, whatever word you'd like here) is that they've brought this situation on themselves by small human foibles, and are now looping it and caught in it, then you're really getting into the full banquet of Austen.

Well, by eschewing Mortal Enemies and spy subplots, I'm already deeply in Austenish territory, at least for a Peninsular War romance--the war matters, of course, but the character conflicts are all about money, class differences, and sex.

Yeah. Real bad guys stopped tying people to railroad tracks...I'm guessing it's a union thing.

Susan, yup - but I was thinking more about the way in which those particular human foibles are handled. Always remembering, of course, that I love "Persuasion" above all else in the Austen canon.

You'd probably like Anna, then--it's a bit Persuasion-esque, come to think of it, albeit with a radically compressed timeline.

You're probably right. I'm nuts for "Persuasion".

Bev, Deena, sending you new stuff.

Damn. I'm 0-for-3. Just heard back from the editor at Harper Collins, the final place I sent a partial after the Oct. conference, and this is the first rejection that's actually making me a bit discouraged and self-doubting:

Thank you for sending LUCY AND MR. WRIGHT. While I thought this was a charming concept, I'm afraid I wasn't sufficiently engaged by the writing and ultimately thought the story wasn't strong enough to distinguish it from other books within this competitive genre. Therefore, I must decline interest.

"Charming concept?" I feel damned with faint praise. And this is the first person I've run across who apparently doesn't care for my writing itself.

t angry rant And what's this about distinguishing it from other books in the genre? At least I'm not submitting yet another implausible suspense scenario with Napoleonic spies, or yet another series about a group of brothers or army buddies. t /angry rant

Susan, All rejections translate ultimately as "This isn't a good fit for my book."

For some books, there is no good fit. But a rejection is ultimately a rationalization -- they all mean "this just didn't work for me". This rejection says "I get a zillion Regencies a year, and I didn't love this one enough to work with you on it." Which sucks to hear, obviously.

If she'd said "Resubmit it with a plague-ridden poodle", you'd care why she rejected it. This is a generic "not for us" rejection, and you just add it to the list of NOs that come before the final YES.

Yeah, I know. I'm just a little disappointed--it would've been nice to work with them, since they seem to treat authors well, turn out attractive covers, etc.

Susan, yup. What Betsy said, especially the bit about "I get a zillion Regencies a year, etc."

Who else are you submitting to? Want a shortlist of agents, just to see what they're after?