Hooked!

Les Edgerton's book HOOKED is terrific (and not just cause I'm in it.)

Here's an interview that will show you why it was fun to hang out with him at Bouchercon

Yes, I will be glued to a television...somewhere!

BookTV is showing a panel presentation with several women featured in Adam Eisenberg's A DIFFERENT SHADE OF BLUE this Sunday, 11/1 at 4:30pm Eastern.

Here's the link to the full weekend schedule!

I'm catching up with my blog reading tonight

This Barbara Poelle person; where have I heard about her before?

Damn good advice

Susan Adrian is one smart cookie

Ok, it's a commercial, but what the hell, I like it

and just for fun, another look at the piece of music featured in the commercial

Friday Night at the Question Emporium #9

My latest manuscript came really close to getting an agent--I had several partial requests and a full manuscript request. Each agent that read my partial gave the same reasons for rejecting it, so I know what the problem is. I was wondering: when is it appropriate to revise and resubmit? (I was planning on taking 4-6 months to revise and make sure it's fixed, polished, and perfect.)

Absent the specific words revise and resend, never.
Sorry.

This is one of the main reasons to not query all agents at the same time. If you do get requests for partials or fulls, and you do get feedback on changes, if you've queried everyone, you've got no place else to go.

There are a gazillion agents out there though. Twelve pretty good ones work at FinePrint. Make a new list and query when ready.

Friday Night at the Question Emporium #8

Hi Janet,

There was a comment left on Moonrat's blog by anon, which was quite negative about Nanowrimo. In it, he or she said, "But I'd love to see how Advil consumption amongst editors and agents goes up in the months following NaNoWriMo as they're deluged by manuscripts that "I wrote last month during NaNoWriMo" and they're all unedited, unconsidered pieces of poo."

I was wondering if this is the case - that you do get a spike in submissions that the writer tells you they wrote during November.

Maybe?

I rarely keep track unless I'm doing stats for the blog like I did here and here

I try to do my queries twice a day. I usually respond to the ones I know aren't a good fit right away. I hold on to the "maybes" for a couple of days. Usually that's to read the pages or take a second look at the idea when I'm not tired/cranky/annoyed.

If there's a spike after NaNoMo, it would have to be HUGE for me to notice. Huge as in twice the number of queries. I get about 100 a week and I haven't really noticed it changing much in December over the past couple years. (January, yes, there's a spike)

And honestly, who cares if agents get more queries. Authors aren't in business to make agent's lives some sort of vacation at the beach. Query on. You'll either learn something or you won't. I'll either find something worth reading or pursuing, or I won't.

I think anyone who wants to write a novel in a month is nutso, but I make my living working with nutso. And if you want to query me with the results, go for it. What's the worst that can happen?

Oh wait:

No words needed

The elegant simplicity of genius.

Holy Vegemite Batman!

One of our most far flung authors was in town last week.
And tried to poison our interns!

Notes from the Effective Query class at SCWW

I did a presentation on Effective Query Letters this weekend at the South Carolina Writers Workshop conference. One of the attendees wrote up her notes for Chuck Sambuchino who posted them at his blog.

Here is the outline I used to teach the class too:

1. A query letter is a business letter

2. A query letter requires "show don't tell" just exactly like your novel does

3. A query letter MUST tell an agent what the book is about.
3a. Who is the main character?
3b. What happens to her?
3c. What choice does s/he face?
3d. What terrible thing will happen because of that choice?

4. A query letter should include the word count, the title and any publishing credits you have: Don't have pub credits? Don't worry. Don't reach either.

(the novel has to be finished. You don't have to say it is, but just know it)

5. A query letter must avoid several instant-rejection phrases:
fiction novel
sure best seller

Oprah
film potential
"dear agent"/"dear sir or madam"

6. Things to avoid in query letters:
Don't beg.
Don't flatter.
Don't demean yourself.

Don't quote rejection letters
Don't quote critique groups, friends, paid editors or conference contacts.
Don't ask rhetorical questions.

"they like me, they really like me"

I received a query this morning quoting a letter from a major publisher. The writer was sure this letter meant that all she needed was an agent and the publisher would buy her book. She knew I was unlikely to believe this without seeing the letter so she helpfully attached it for me.

It was left to me to break the bad news that this letter is, in fact, a form rejection.

These rejections are designed to make the writer feel hopeful. Publishers are not stupid. They are large companies with products to sell to consumers and the last thing, the LAST thing, they want to do is make consumers angry and unwilling to buy as in "oh those beasts at LaDeDah Publishers were so rude, I'll never buy one of their books again."

So the letter compliments the book in so general a way it can apply to any book they receive. It goes on to explain their policy of only working with agents, and then how to find an agent.

Their mission is accomplished.

One cardinal rule of querying is "do not quote rejection letters" but you can be forgiven for not recognizing a rejection letter that seems to compliment your book and steer you toward an agent.

So, how do you recognize all rejection letters now and forever more? Look for the phrase "Please send your novel to me now."

Not there? That's a rejection.

Whatever else it may say, without those words, it's a rejection.

another gem from The Rejectionist

this made me laugh...or was it cry?

Less than zero

Last Friday I had lunch with a conference attendee who'd just been told he wasn't a real writer because his "publisher" was one of those book printing mills.

Horseshit.

Make no mistake about this: if you have written and finished a novel you ARE a writer.

Don't let anyone, particularly some snotty so-called publishing professional, demean this achievement. You've written a novel = you're a writer.

It doesn't EVER have to be published, and you're still a writer.
You can publish it online, on your website, or with any of those book printing mills, and yes, you are still a writer.

It doesn't have to be any good at all, and you're still a writer.

It can be fanfic, derivative, or a reincarnation of Harry Potter as an android, but if you've written and finished a novel you are a writer.

Do not let anyone tell you any different. If they do, you know exactly how much weight to attach to their opinion: <0

So, you're coming to my class on Effective Queries tomorrow?

Bring your query letter.
Bring several copies.

BookEnds' Jessica gets it exactly right

I'm a devoted follower of the BookEnds LLC blog and you should be too.

The posts I read there are often times exactly what I'm thinking, only polished up, polite, and not accompanied by screeching.

Here's the latest in that category

This is the paragraph that really sums it up best:

Think of it this way: Wouldn’t my job, my life, be a lot easier if I simply submitted manuscripts exactly as they were when I originally received them from an author? If instead of asking for revisions again and again, reading the manuscript or proposal multiple times, and sending out revision letters, I just left it up to the editor? Wouldn’t it be easier for me to submit without crafting the query/cover letter I need to include to send to the editor? I spend hours on revisions, hours on the letter and even more hours following up with editors. Wouldn’t it be easier for me if I didn’t do any of that?

Like Jessica, I'm getting a lot of "I can't really write a good query so here are my pages" type emails. Frankly, it makes my job easier to get them. I just say no.

Changing agents

Kristin Nelson's blog post about changing agents prompted me to post what I ask people who are thinking of switching agents:

More than one was a bit taken aback by my point blank first question:
1. Have you terminated representation with your current agent?

If you have not, I will not talk to you. I've never done a survey of colleagues on this, but the bar chat is pretty much 100% in agreement.

Here's why: I never want a colleague or an author to think I poach or entice authors who are represented elsewhere. I don't want to second guess how another agent runs her business any more than I want someone second guessing mine.

My second question is:
2. Why are you leaving?

If the answer is something like "she sucks at this, that and this other too" and I know "this, that and the other too" is not one of my strengths, then the writer is better off looking for someone else. Better to send them on their way sooner rather than later.


3. What do you want to accomplish?
This is often the deal breaker. Changing agents is no guarantee of a revitalized career, an increase in sales, or a way to make you a more marketable writer. Agents are more interested in potential clients who are on their way UP the sales chart and who have a good career ahead of them.

I represent 41 clients right now. 7 have had other agents. Only two of those signed on within the last two years. What that means: if you're thinking of changing agents you might want to consider a bright eyed eager energetic newer agent who is actively looking for good clients.

Bought and paid for, yessirreee bubba

There's a real brouhaha percolating amongst the bloggerati about proposed changes in the Federal Trade Commission regulations about what constitutes compensated endorsement and to whom it applies.

Currently advertisers on radio and television (the public airwaves) are required to identify people who tout their product as paid endorsers. You've probably all seen the crawl on ads saying "paid spokesperson" If you watch the credits on game shows or on Oprah you'll see "products provided by Corporation XYZ."


Pretty basic, common sense stuff.

The proposed changes redefine compensation and who is required to disclose.

Why should you care about this? Because if you're an author, this will have an impact on you.

Here's why: the new regulations propose that anyone who receives compensation (not just money, but a product or a sample) be required to disclose that fact. Anyone includes bloggers, and tweeters. And if anyone posts information, or discussion, or opinion about it, they are required to disclose any connection to the product provider.


What the FTC failed to discern is that advertisers have assured access. They pay money, they get airtime. Or page time if you will in newspapers and magazines. Radio and television stations have entire departments dedicated to selling advertising time and space. Regulating them via the FTC is clearly in the public interest or every flim flam con man in the world would buy time on the evening news and claim to cure cancer with cupcakes (and broadcasting companies would let them if they paid enough, I'd wager.)

Reviews and discussions, including those in places like the New York Times are NOT advertisements. The advertiser is not assured of coverage. Every book publicity person in the universe would weep with joy if that were the case.

Companies are willing to assume a small risk (the cost of a product) for the chance or opportunity that the newspaper book reviewer will write about the book. Currently book reviewers are not required to announce how they acquired the book they are reviewing, or even any potential conflict of interest (although professional book reviewers observe a code of ethics that is MUCH more strict about this.)

There is a bright line that separates products being advertised and products being reviewed. It's pretty easy to tell which one is which.

It's not how the product was obtained or what medium is used to discuss the product. What clearly distinguishes advertised products versus reviewed products is how much assurance a company gets that there will be coverage-pay for play (sound familiar?)

No matter how or where you talk about a product, if the product provider is assured of coverage, that's advertising. That's entirely within the FTC's purview, and rightfully so.

What the FTC fails to understand here is that most bloggers and websites don't guarantee coverage at all. If they do, they should be regulated. If they don't, leave them alone.

And the best part of this is that even if every single blogger in the universe decides to become a shill for books published by my clients (just to use an example I think sounds pretty wonderful) there's still not a threat to the public good. One of the great things about the internet is that if you start acting like a paid shill, you lose your audience. Even if the products are splendid.



Now the reason the proposed FTC reg changes are important for you is that if these go into effect, there's a $1000 fine for violations. That means that if I take down that rather snotty FTC notice on the right side of my blog, and I mention a couple books here I received for free, and do so because the author asked me too, I could be asking for donations to help pay the fine.

You don't need those powerful imaginations of yours to work too hard to see what kind of chilling effect that could have on one of the most powerful weapons for visibility authors now have: word of mouth via the internet.

This is important. Follow the issue. Form an opinion (you should agree with me of course). Regulations don't have to pass Congress to have the full weight and power of a law. There are hearings though. Get heard.

The less charitable of my ilk might see this as a typo.

No no.

Clearly it's a reference to that sturdy novel long beloved by high school English teachers everywhere, Ethan Frome, since Fox News is known to employ clever jokers.

What else could possibly explain this, or even this:

(if you don't get the joke here, look here)

Toni McGee Causey rocks

Frankly, if you haven't bookmarked Murderati yet, you should get your brain transmission fluid topped off.

Once again Toni McGee Causey has a post that every writer should read.

A Different Shade of Blue arresting readers!

Adam Eisenberg's compelling story of female police officers in Seattle, on the record and in their own names, is arresting Seattle readers! It's #5 on the Elliott Bay Bookstore bestsellers list:


Paperback

1. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Stieg Larsson

2. Olive Kitteridge, Elizabeth Strout

2. How Soccer Explains the World, Franklin Foer

4. Fierce Conversations, Susan Scott

5. A Different Shade of Blue, Adam Eisenberg

Let's have a pop quiz!

Sucked up from the comments column is the driving force behind tonight's pop quiz:

I noticed you mentioned TNR 12-pt. font. At Seattle's PNWA conference in August, a book doctor told me to switch my manuscripts from TNR to Courier.

Got any advice, oh wise sage of the Publish-o-sphere?

Question: Which font should I use in manuscript pages sent to agents (assuming a particular font is not specified in the guidelines)

A: a literary agent says Times New Roman

B: A book doctor says Courier

Which one is right?

think carefully.

A or B?


Not sure?

Let's try another one:

Question: Do you need to know someone in publishing, ie have connections, to secure representation by a literary agent?

A: a literary agent says no

B: the authors in a survey are divided; some say yes, some say no



Still not sure?


One more, just for fun.

Question: If you want to find out who the agent is for a book (and it's not listed in the acknowledgements or dedication) should you call the publisher and ask for the editor of the book?

A: A switchboard operator at RandomHouse says "one moment, please" and drops you into the publicity department voice mail.

B. The switchboard operator at PenguinPutnam says "one moment, please" and drops you into the subrights department's voice mail.

C. An industry blog says "yes, the editor's assistant will be happy to tell you."





Still not sure of the right answer?

Here's the key: follow the advice of the person who actually DOES the job that you're asking questions about.

Don't follow some goofball book doctor's advice about query letters instead of an agent's.

Don't follow some unknown author's prognostications about how agents choose clients instead of an agent's.

Don't follow some well-intentioned but bone-headed advice from people who don't actually answer the phone at a publishing company.

It galls me to no end to see people slavishly following misguided instructions about query letters given by people who don't work in a literary agency, don't read queries, and don't know anything beyond their own experience.

It galls me further to see people repeat things as gospel which are absolutely and totally wrong; things they heard were true from people who don't work in literary agencies, don't sign clients and don't have the first clue about how this works (but have a lot of experience in how it doesn't.)

And it amuses the hell out of me to see people tell you to call publishers to ask for information.
Publishers are not in retail or reader customer service. They're also not the library. Their job is NOT to provide writers with information about agents.


I won't tell you how to write good novels, if you'll stop telling people how to get an agent. Deal?



Answers: A, A, and none of the above

Resurrection

In the last couple weeks I've had several semi-dormant projects take on new life. I'm not sure who was more surprised at this turn of events: the authors or I.

There's no predicting this turn of events. One of its characteristics is, after all, unexpected interest. It's fun, and maddening.

I have clients for whom I have not sold a book. As you might expect, the client isn't all that happy with this state of affairs. Sometimes the client is unhappy enough to leave. (Our author agency agreement gives everyone a 30 day right of termination of course; clients aren't actually indentured to me for life no matter what I tell them.)

Mostly though, they don't want to leave, they just want me to sell the damn thing. And I do keep trying. And as is the way of these things, my effort tends to taper off as the places to pitch narrow to a sad few. Usually at this point, the client is working on another project we hope will fare better.

Then sometimes, out of the blue, an editor will say "hey, I'm looking for Such and So" and after I regain my senses (because the editor was certainly NOT looking for Such OR So when I pitched before!) I am very happy to offer up Exhibit A: one lovely manuscript, with fresh crisp pages, in TNR 12 point, and delivered by a ripped bicycle messenger and oh goodness was that a stray bottle of whiskey in the pouch?; well never mind do keep it.

Or the publisher will reorganize, or branch out and suddenly Such and So is right there at the top of their wish list. I'm promptly draped on la telefonita pitching sweet words of woo to the editors there.

Or I'll figure out a whole new pitch that shows the manuscript in a New and Improved Light (cue chorus of heavenly angels here).

Sometimes this works.
Sometimes it doesn't.

It's one of the things that keeps every day new and exciting.
It's one of the things that keeps my clients climbing the walls.

And to repurpose what one of my fabu clients, Steve Ulfelder, says: "That's racing publishing!"