I’ve received editorial feedback along the lines of—“I like the premise, but not the voice.”
This usually means the idea & setting were good. But “the voice” (the personality of the narration, i.e. my writing) didn’t appeal.
I’ve received editorial feedback that said, “I like the voice, but the plot is full of holes.”
This generally means that my writing is appealing, but either the premise or the unfolding of it isn’t working.
I’ve received editorial feedback that the writing was skilled and the characters appealing, but this and that detail ultimately made this story commercially unviable.
This usually means it’s pretty good, but needs more fixing than editor has energy or passion for and, frankly, hotter properties are flowing in the transom with abandon.
And these were reactions to the same manuscript.
I’d like to learn from everyone. But this is confusing, confounding, and crazy making. (The three “C’s for short.)
What these reactions have in common is simple: we don’t want to pursue this to publication.
Where they differ also contains a shared a point. It tells me something is off, whether the feedback has labeled it or not.
What’s a storyteller to do? Let it sit. Let it sink. Then get back to work.
Don’t give up, because that’ll not even be a C. Giving up, while legal and legitimate, is also an automatic F.