Week in Review July 18

Welcome to the week that was!

Last week had two posts for the week in review. The first was that it would be late because I had a really gawdawful headache.

I loved John Frain's comment:

(yes, it was blank)
Very evocatove of John Cage's 4'33"

I got some meds and do feel better, thank you all.

The actual review of the week came a couple hours later:

Adib Khorram revealed he collects conference ribbons. I used to have one that said "certified" Sadly, long gone after one of the massive cleaning binges that over take me periodically.

Turns out that if your comment is selected as the blog subheader of the week, you want to be exiled to Carkoon. Amy Schaefer, here's your ticket:

Hey, a subheader! Just a moment while I press PrtSc. I'll even overlook the fact it is attributed to boring old "blog reader Amy Schaefer," rather than "Paradise dweller Amy Schaefer" or "the massively talented Amy Schaefer" or anything else of a more descriptive nature. (Blog readers - don't give them an inch.)

The conversation drifted off into lies and lays which bewilder and bother most of us. I have to pause every time I use the damn word to make sure I have it right. It's and its too. And don't get me started on how to spell things like necessary and guartuntee. (those are uncorrected versions) Spell Czech is the only thing that saves me on those.

*pause*

turns out I spelled necessary correctly. That's the ONLY time that has happened in living memory.

On Monday the question was whether requested fulls go withan agent who moves agencies.

My answer was true but not helpful: it depends.

Kitty asked:

How would the writer know the agent has moved unless the agent notified the writer about the change of address? And if the agent did that, why not include the info about the requested manuscripts?

Most trade publications carry news of agents changing agencies, and writers see that. It's often tweeted, and updated on places like QueryTracker and Agent Query.

LynnRodz asked:

Okay, back to the OP, so what happens if let's say you query Agent A and Agent B at the same time because they're both at different agencies and both requested fulls, then Agent A moves to Agent B's agency and now they both have your manuscript and want it? And let's say, you weren't even aware that Agent A decided to move so this was definitely not your fault.

Talk about bad luck if both say, "Okay, never mind you can have it." and then neither one takes it. I think I read that scenario somewhere or maybe it was just a bad dream.

You email the agent who moved and tell her the other agent also has a full. They'll sort it out on their end. Most of us don't talk about requested fulls with our colleagues until we're ready for beta reads or to make an offer. That's NOT the time to find out someone else has it too.

Terri Lynn Coop asked:

Addendum to question. An agent moves to a new agency and takes their fulls. A bunch of the fulls, and maybe even the clients, are just not what this agency wants to be known for. Does everything (and possibly everyone) just get the heave-ho or does the agent try to place them?

I've never heard of that happening but of course, you guyz think of all sorts of things that could maybe possibly might go wrong in months starting with Q and twice when the blue moon is full.

Here's WHY that doesn't happen: when an agent moves it's not in a vacuum. The new agency has looked at the agent's client list, deals, and prospects. An agent that is strong in urban fantasy isn't going to land at an agency that only wants to do non-fiction unless the agency is purposefully branching out.

Agents aren't valuable for their own sweet selves; their value is in their clients and ability to find and sign good writers. In other words: I'm nothing without you.

When my colleague Brooks Sherman got Bent, we announced to the trade after he'd told clients and other writers who had fulls with him.

Our FPLM website was actually the last place to look for the updates, since those happen irregularly.


Then, the discussion meandered off (as it often does), this time to a Twitter brawl the ensued when a person calling herself an agent told writers they should expect to say yes to an offer of representation without dallying around to let other agents finish reading.

This is bad advice of epic proportion.

For starters, it's incredibly rude to the other agents who have requested your manuscript. If I request a manuscript I don't generally read it as soon as I wish I could. I tell writers that when they send the ms. If they get an offer, I hope they'll email me and inform me of their timetable.

For example: Dear Snookums, You've got Carkoon for Lovers and Other Strangers on your list of requested fulls from 2009. I've received an offer from another agent. I've told her I will respond within a week. Thanks for your time (all six years of it, you slacker) and consideration.

That gives me the heads up to read now, or forever hold my peace. Often I will ask the writer who the agent making the offer is. I do this because if it's a good agent and I know the writer will be in good hands I can say so to the writer even if I pass.

On the other hand if the offer is from someone like this person on Twitter I can offer some comments like "here's a link to questions to ask a prospective agent."

More important though is that "answer me now" demonstrates that the person calling herself an agent is NOT acting in the writer's best interests. I would think you'd want an agent who lets you know what your options are, and gives you advice on how to make a decision that's right for you, not for her.

Someone who wants you to act quickly rather than carefully raises a red flag for me.


And of course, when you look at this person's bio, there's no agent experience at all, no sales, no support structure, and no background in book publishing of any kind. This is a textbook example of why you want to be cautious about who you listen to for advice.

And I've also blogged about that more than once.

In the second blog post I said agents won't actively give you bad advice. I'll stand on that opinion, but I'm not going to call that person who tweeted an actual agent either.

 

and it turns out Dena Pawling has her own Janet!

This week started with Janet-the-agent felled by a nasty sinus headache, and Janet-my-daughter felled [literally] down the stairs at our church. X-rays today reveal only a bad sprain of the ankle, not broken thankfully.

On Tuesday the topic was the winner of the writing contest:

In addition to the kudos, Colin Smith rallied the troops to encourage more of our lurkers to enter.

There are a lot of us who regularly participate in these contests, but there are also some who don't. Maybe they feel intimidated by the quality of the winning entries. Or maybe they don't think they can tell a story in 100 words. Perhaps they're afraid to post their work, knowing hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people will read it.

What words of encouragement would you give to these people? What do you find most fun about writing drabbles?

There were a lot of terrific answers to that question. Bottom line is: just try it once.

CynthiaMc said:

I didn't know the "don't use the words as names" rule

It's not really a rule, in that using prompts as names doesn't get you disqualified or even prevent you from being a finalist. I just prefer that the prompts be used as words not names. I think it's a bigger challenge. I'd rather pick an entry that tries too much and doesn't quite get there, than something safe.

I mean, please, I represent guys like Sean Ferrell and Jeff Somers. They take all sorts of interesting risks in their fiction.

LynnRodz asked:

I wonder if there are other things we lose points on. I need all the help I can get.

Not really. I'm not much keen on the referential stuff (bringing me in to the story in either blog or shark form) but it's not like I hate it.

I was VERY glad to see that people are using the contests to try new things, and to get over shyness about sharing work. I encourage both those things. I'd rather see you try but splat than stay safe and boring. Interesting failure is better than boring success.



On Wednesday, we heard from a writer who was in the bleakest of places, wondering if agents were actually reading her queries.

I told her we were, in no uncertain terms, and also to quit fretting over something she had no control over. That is a recurring theme here with all you woodland creatures.

Kitty said:

there was a time when I did send out some of my stories. Some of the rejections came back so quickly I swore they passed my stories in the mail.

I actually stopped replying to queries on the day they arrived because writers were skeptical I'd read them. I do reply to paper queries the day they arrive and I'm sure people have wondered. Sometimes the post office likes to be speedy with bad news.

kaitlyn sage brought us a new word "lurky" to describe what she's trying to be less of. I intend to use it often.

Terri Lynn Coop reminded us of a great comment she wrote about how an anthology selected stories:

The comment was made here on this blog post was this one

A couple of years ago I subbed a story to a highly competitive anthology.

When they announced the list and 99.1% of us were not on the list, a flaming sour grapes war erupted on their message board.

The editors were cool enough to break down the stats and discuss the process a bit. It went something like this:

2200 subs for 20 slots.

10% totally ignored the sub guidelines.

30% were not of publishing quality, even with extensive editing.

That left 60% or 1320 for 20 slots.

They cut that number in half by eliminating stories by editing priority. The more editing it needed, the farther down the stack it went. Then they cut it at the halfway mark.

Down to 660 for 20 slots.

Next, they sorted by duplicate tropes. The anthology had a definite theme, so naturally many had similar storylines. They did a cage match between competing stories and kept the ones they liked best.

This brought it down to about 400 for 20 slots. The field has been reduced by about 80% and is still unmanageable.

Next up they did sort of a jury-selection thing. Each member of the editorial team got a certain number of vetoes. They could eliminate a story that just did not appeal to them, even if another editor loved it like fire. At this point it was, "This one has a cat named Fred, my ex had a cat named Fred, reject."

300 for 20 slots.

After all this, 90+ percent were still going to be rejected. 280 stories that had passed several rounds of selection. From these 300 they chose stories for length, variety, and gut-feel for adherence to their vision to the theme.

The same cry went up, "Where's my feedback? Why do you hate me?"

2200 is probably a typical month for most agencies. And they don't have 20 slots a month.

I have no clue where I ended up in this continuum. It doesn't matter. I revised the story away from the proprietary theme and it was short-listed for another anthology, so I would like to think I made it to the final rounds.

Some days it is quality. Some days it is theme. Some days it is a cat named Fred.

bjmuntain reminded us of one of the earliest forms of agent stalking on the internet.

Julie: I remember that guy, too. He would post everything he could about an agent who rejected him - phone numbers, everything. These days, I believe that would be called doxing. He used to get requests from agents to please take down their information (like their own phone number at work, instead of the office number), and he would gleefully post those requests, as well. *passes on the R O C Cola, takes a sweet tea instead* Didn't remember his name until reading Janet's link.

Julie was actually talking about a different guy, the writer who queried a novel about a woman composer. That guy didn't do the agent list. The agent list was from another writer whose novel was originally titled something about Oprah and mayonnaise. He only queried each agent once or twice, but posted agent contact info LONG before such things were the norm.

He's actually a pretty nice guy. I had a couple of conversations with him over the course of the years. And as it turned out, now our contact info is everywhere on the net so all that sturm und drang seems pretty funny.

Keeping that much data current is more than a full time job. Since I do exactly that with editors (but my data base isn't public of course) I have sympathy for him. It was particularly interesting to find out he sorted names by whether he like you, not by alphabetizing.

Stephanie had a reasonable complaint here:

My one complaint is when the agent uses an assistant to read queries. How the hell does a green college kid know what an experienced lit agent is looking for?

It's not so much that someone reading my queries knows what I am looking for, as knows what I'm NOT looking for and can cull those out for me. I don't actually have anyone doing that right now, but I do know agents who do, and that kind of culling can often cut the queries by half or more.

A lot of the queries I get are from writers who simply are not publishable right now. Even if they have a great idea, good plot, interesting characters, the writing is not good. And before anyone tells me that Dan Brown is a bad writer, let's all remember that he may not be literary but he's a pretty darn compelling commercial fiction writer.

The closest we can come to bad writing that did well is E.L. James and that was an anomaly. And no one found EL James in the incoming queries either.

And if you really want to make sure you wake up in the middle of the night wondering if you know how to write, here's our own Duchess of Kneale's link to wikipedia page on Illusory Superiority.

I remember when these studies first came out. It scared the crap outta me then cause I really thought I knew what I was doing. Yea, well, all these years later, when I really think I know what I'm doing, it scares me worse.

On Thursday I posted a list of ten things that are a redflag in any query.

This post got more comments than any other post in the history of this blog.

Laura Mary, who is apparently much much nicer than I said,

On the one hand it does seem a little harsh to be so hard on people for their naiveté, however, there is so much information out there, that there is little excuse for not knowing the basics at least!

I'm not saying I toss the query when I see this stuff. I am saying it tells me the writer is going to be a work in progress. I've taken on several clients who didn't know much about the ins and outs of publishing, but at least knew that a business letter format meant you referred to yourself in the first, not third, person.

Sam Hawke said:

When you hang out in places like this, where you assume most people know their stuff, it's sometimes handy to remember that a big chunk of your competition for agents' attention do stuff like this...

All those examples were drawn from queries I've received in the last three weeks.

Yes, sometimes I want to shriek at people. It's not like there isn't something called QueryShark to help you out.


Colin Smith asked about #4
4. The bio section refers to a recent retirement that now allows time to write.

On Topic: The point on the list that made me pause was #4. Is it a bad thing that one waits until retirement before taking up writing, or is it a bad thing to mention the fact in a query bio? I'm hoping just the latter since I'm sure some very good published authors have taken the opportunity of retirement to indulge that life-long dream.

Generally when I hear the underlying sentiment that the author just didn't have time to do this writing thing till now. Sort of like, ok, now I'll do this instead of that.


Most of the writers I represent have been writing since they were sprouts; writing through day jobs, small children, illness; adversity, famine and flood. Sure there have been breaks, sometimes for a couple years, but they didn't wait till they had time: they made time. And they made time because writing was something important to them. Something more important than other activities. More important than television. More important than a clean house. More important than golf.


I really dislike the idea that someone thinks all it takes to get this writing thing going is time. If it did, the best writers in the world would be guys in prison.





Irene troy asked about #6
6. The words "beta readers" are present.

Beta-readers? I thought using beta-readers was a good idea and one welcomed by agents. Or, am I being a bit dense and you mean don't include something such as: My beta readers loved this fiction novel?

Beta readers are terrific and every writer should have a bevy of them. What I object to is hearing about them. I don't want to know the sordid details of the novel's conception or development, much like I don't want to hear that about your kid's conception and development either. (no, really I Do Not!)


Since you wouldn't tell me if your beta readers hated it, you shouldn't tell me they loved it. In other words, we'll assume they did.


You also don't have to tell me it's written in English, uses standard spelling and punctuation, and you'd be glad to hand deliver it to my office via liveried footman in a horse drawn carriage if I so desired.

Susan Bonifant made me laugh with this one:

Please check again, maybe in a folder called "LOL" or "WTF" or something like that, for letters that have:

1. Suggested who should star in the movie
2. Included pictures of themselves dressed as character (my personal favorite)
3. Asked who else they should contact if you turn them down
4. Explained that it's your lucky day, now that they've queried you
5. Opened with a question like: "ever wondered who you'd be if you were the person you wanted to be before you were you and wanted to be someone else?"

I know they're there somewhere.

I'm sure they are. I created that list from recent queries. I just haven't seen these others in a while. But yes, they are red flags as well.

Jenny C confessed she's committed #9

9. Love for the written word is professed.

I am guilty of having professed my love for the written word, however it was done so in conjunction with mentioning my 17 years as a bookseller so does that make it ok? No? Ok. Nevermind.

If you mention you've been a bookseller ever, let alone for 17 years, I know you love writing and books. And doing inventory.

Irene Troy made me laugh with this:

Someone in my local writers group became very angry when an agent rejected her query. Note I said AN agent, as in singular. She turned around and wrote the agent back saying the agent knew nothing because her beta-readers loved the book. She also told the agent she would be sorry when the book was published, turned into a movie and then made her and another agent millions. Okay, one foot shot to hell.

DLM's reply made me laugh even more:

Irene, it looks like that querier had better get one HELL of an offer on their very second query ever, because otherwise there'll be a distressing lack of feet to shoot thereafter ...

I do get letters like that sometime. And I keep track of the people who send them. Here's one such entry from my address book

On Friday I announced a flash fiction contest for Go Set A Watchman. I read the book this week (it was a necessity since so many people were talking about it) I was not one of those die hard Mockingbird fans. I've read it, and I think it's a terrific book, but I knew that lightning doesn't often strike twice. My expectations were reasonable to low.

Even then, I was underwhelmed. I can see very clearly how an editor reading this suggested the revisions that became Mockingbird.

And if gossip is true, Truman Capote had a big hand in shaping Mockingbird (he and Harper Lee were friends both in Alabama and New York) Since Capote is long gone, this book did not benefit from his editorial eye.

Mostly though I think someone thought "hey we can make a boatload of money here" and didn't give a single thought to whether it was something that should, rather than could, be done.

I think the folks at Vulture made a good point about this book being much more suitable for an academic press:

The appropriate publication of Watchman would have been a scholarly edition issued a few years after its author’s death. The only person who comes out of this affair looking good is Tay Hohoff, the Lippincott editor who told Lee to start over.


Had Go Set a Watchman arrived as a scholarly curiosity, however, rather than as a preposterously overhyped publishing “event,” it would have taken its logical place in the ongoing debate about the racial politics of To Kill a Mockingbird. 

I don't think it's an accident that this novel came to light only after the death of Miss Alice, Harper Lee's sister, and after the author herself was clearly disabled by age and infirmity.

Honest to god, this is as clear a lesson in why you don't publish trunk novel as I've ever seen. AND the value of a literary executor who knows your wishes. Maybe Harper Lee did want this book published; who knows.


As I write this the flash fiction contest is in full swing, and I'm looking forward to seeing what you've done.

There were some totally off any sort of topic questions this week:

Janet - is QueryShark dead? There have been only two posts this year, the last in February.

I, for one, always found it educational, and I know there is a LOT of archived content still there. But I would miss it if it fades away. And I doubt I'm alone in that.

I've had a hard time finding queries with anything wrong that's new or interesting. I love QueryShark but there are only so many times one can give the same advice. The blog isn't dead but I've focused more on answering questions here for a while. With 265+ entries at QS, I'm hoping it's a pretty complete education about revising!

For those of you watching for an update, QueryShark as a Twitter account: @QueryShark. When a new post goes up, I tweet it. When a revision goes up, I tweet that too.

And there were some asides that I just loved:

Colin Smith mentioned his love of archaic languages. I had to look up Conversational Ugaritic.  I really love that alphabet. Maybe I'll get my name tattooed in Ugaritic:

kdjames has a portmanteau for us that I love:

Given all the twitter-frothing I've witnessed from agents about rhetorical questions, I'm surprised not to find that in the Top Ten.

Blog reader Jenz is published this week! Congratulations!

housekeeping:

ok, youze guyz, none of this "I was gone, and you didn't notice" stuff. If someone cares to comment on the absence of another, that's fine, but you can't try to glean it for yourself. The woodland creatures who enrich this blog with their amazing knowledge and humor don't need anyone telling them they're doing something wrong. Well, unless it's ME of course.

Got it?

Subheader choices:

"We don't hide crazy in the south. We parade it around on the porch and give it sweet tea, but seriously, are agents trying to drive writers nuts? Do they think it plumbs a new level of their soul?" --Julie M. Weathers

"Around here staying on the topic is sort of like turning ferrets loose in a pool of packing peanuts. Everyone now and then someone pops up momentarily and says, "Oh yes, topic." --Julie M. Weathers

"Janet's blog however is a spewing geyser of stuff nobody else touches. No wonder we lurk around here wondering what will come flying out next." S. D. King

"there's simply no reason to try and drive authors crazy, aside from the amusing aspect."--Julie M. Weathers

"'allo. My name is Mark Anthony Songer. You read my query. Prepare to sign." --Inigo Montoya

"I'm starting to believe success in the writing word is 50% good writing, 50% studying the industry, 50% perseverance and maybe a pinch of good luck. --Christina Seine

"Query?"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."--Scott Sloan

I'm going to be away from the computer when this blog post goes live, so I will not have changed the sub-header.  If you have a favorite, let me know. NO promise that the most popular one wins, but I can't quite decide so help me out.

Next week is the Midwest Writers Conference in Muncie, Indiana.  I'm in touch with some of the writers who are attending, and looking forward to meeting some of you blog readers who will be there.

Plus: