WIR 2/21/16

In last week's review, Mister Furkles asked:

Janet,

Would you have not represented a client with novels like Father Andrew Greeley's?

I'm assuming this question was about my statement that I wouldn't work in the Christian market since I don't know enough about it.

Here's a link for  those of you who don't know the books of Father AndrewGreeley. I read the mysteries he wrote in the '80s starting with  The Cardinal Sins. These books were not "Christian fiction" although they did involve a cast of characters who were ordained clergy. These books were published and sold as mystery novels.

Christian fiction has certain parameters that involve redemption and faith. I think another requirement is that Christianity be seen in a positive light only. (Again, I'm not well-versed on this) I haven't read Father Greeley's novels in more than two dozen years but just glancing at the description, I'd say his novels really don't qualify as Christian fiction. 

If you disagree or have a more informed opinion on this, I'll be glad to hear it. 

The answer to your question however is no, I wouldn't have taken those books on, but not because they are Christian fiction. I don't take on any books about the Church. As a side note, I was both astonished and delighted to find one of the priests of my parish was a devoted fan of Charlaine Harris, and quite agog that I'd met her. The priest was an amazing guy, from Poland, now here, and reading genre fiction in English.

On Monday the blog came in two parts: (1) The Quiz (2) The answers

In the comment trail to blog post one mhleader said

Personally, I'd go with CHOICE #2 for all three scenarios. I'd make it a limited-time request (one week? two at most). I'd IMMEDIATELY email the other agents, explain that I have an offer for representation, and give them (slightly less) time to respond if they are also interested. (So, if I ask agent #1 for 2 weeks to think about it and investigate, I'd give the other agents with full mss. maybe 10 days.)

I should remind everyone that an offer (at least from me) is good for about a week. That means you give the other agents about five days to read.

There's a reason for this: I don't want to sit around while a potential client shops my offer for more interest and more agents in the scrum. My assumption when you query me is that if I offer, you want me as your agent. I understand you've done multiple submissions and support that. I hope you get multiple offers too.

I've seen authors query additional agents with "hey I have an offer but I didn't get a chance to query you yet so can you get back to me in a week" leaving the agent who offered (and read the manuscript in a timely manner) sitting around tiddling her winks.

If an author says two weeks, I say "you've got one" and if the author says "I need two" I say "you've got one" and if the author then says "well, I still need two" I say "the offer expires in a week. Use that information as you will."

And just so you know: that happens with offers from publishers as well. When I get an offer for a book I have time to notify the other editors, but it's days not weeks and if the other editors don't get back to me in time, it's toodle-loo.

Hermina Boyle asked:

1) Wouldn't you be telling agents at the 'sending out full manuscript' stage that you are sending fulls out to other agents?

a) Wouldn't some agents prefer to have an exclusive review and would pass on your manuscript if they knew it would be considered by other agents?
b) Telling an agent that others are considering your full would also bump up the priority on your manuscript, I think?

1: yes, you can. I don't ask about other agents reading until I get to the point of considering representation. Multiple submission is the norm these days.

1a: Exclusives Stink. Don't grant them. If an agent wants an exclusive, say no.

1b: no, it doesn't, at least not with me. That strategy is used too often by the unscrupulous (which of course you are not) to be effective any more.

And E.M.Goldsmith screwed her courage to the sticking place and asked:

At risk of being chased back to Carkoon, if any of these scenarios occur, would it be bad form to email Janet and ask if she knows the agent? Just to make sure the agent is, you know, real and not some jellyfish with a reputation for hanging writers and their dreams out to dry? Or is that a no-no.

No no no. No No NO. Really no. If I learned that some agent with a blog was privately emailing readers with assessments of other agents, I'd make sure my colleagues knew and we'd spend about a week laughing at such hubris.

Here's the reason why: I don't know who will be the best agent for you. I can give you questions to ask, but the answers are what you need to assess.

The best source of information on what agents are like with clients can be found on AbsoluteWrite. There's also information like this on QueryTracker. Other authors are your best source on this.

(Any comments trashing Absolute Write will be deleted. Calm, reasonable discussion is ok, of course, but venom is verboten.)

And Colin Smith really likes to stir the pot, he does:

"Okay, Janet, Jessica, Barbara, you've all offered representation, and I really don't know which to choose. So tell me, why should I pick you over your other two colleagues?"

I'm not saying I WOULD do this, or that this would be the right thing to do. But it would be fun to see how agents would vie for a client like this.

You might be surprised to find two of the three of us telling you that the third is the best fit. I've been in scrums where that has happened.  And if it was between BaPo and me, hell I'd call her and we'd discuss who wanted it more. If she did, I'd yield. Honestly Barbara is such a brilliant agent, and so good at her job I think you'd be insane not to choose her if she offered. Of course, don't tell her that, and if you quote me I'll deny it completely.

BJ Muntain asked

When you say "my conclusion is you signed with someone you preferred more than me"... What's the difference there if I were to give you time to read my manuscript and make an offer, yet chose another agent anyway? Then you'll *know* that I chose the other agent over you. And if I do, for some reason, wind up looking for an agent again, wouldn't the result be the same?

The difference is I had a chance to get in the game. That's a fair fight. Maybe I suggested editorial changes and another agent said it was fine to go on submission now. I can certainly see why I'd lose in that choice.

I don't mind can live with losing in fair fight. I don't like not being allowed to play.

John Frain asked:

So help me understand the difference between:

Option 2) Dear You, another agent just recognized my brilliance and wants to rep me. You have 7 days to come back with a better offer

(Five days later after you offer)... Sorry, I'm sticking with agent 1, but thank you for getting back to me.

versus

Option 3) Dear You, another agent just recognized my brilliance and wants to rep me. To save you the time of reading my manuscript, I'm withdrawing it from consideration at this time. Thank you for your interest.

In both options, if I have to go back a year later and query again because things didn't work out, it seems you'd remember me as something less than Shiny Prospective Client because in both cases you're not the one I wanted the first time around.

To me, I didn't waste your time in Option 3 and I didn't actually reject you as I did in Option 2.

For starters there's no "better offer" --all offers here are for the same thing: representation. Second, as I said to BJ above, I'd rather lose after being in the game, than not be in the game at all.

Three and most important: your job is not to worry about wasting my time. In fact, please stand up, find a nerf bat and bop yourself on the noggin six times for that statement. I am in charge of my time management. YOU ARE NOT.

My goal is to find great novels to sell and make authors rich and famous. Your goal is to write that novel. If I think you're brilliant, at least let me tell you so.

Then John Frain doubled down with this:

Okay, so we can pretty much agree that the obvious answers were 2-2-2. Not much mystery there, right?

So let's play contrarian for a moment.

Anyone in business has this happen to them. A company is told they have to go out to bid on a project. They know who they're going to choose. They decided before the bid process. But procurement requires them to get three bids.

So they put the job out to bid, even though in reality they really don't. What they effectively do is make two companies jump through hoops, spend resources of time and money, and then award the contract to the very people they originally planned to. Because they chose Option 2.

That seems to be the accepted way here in America.

I propose that unless you're actually entertaining a reality where you might choose someone else to award your business, it's unethical to go out to bid. If you already know you're going to award your business to a firm (let's call this firm Dream Agent, Inc.), then you're being unethical by requiring two other firms to go through the process of responding under the assumption that they have a chance to win the bid. You should instead award the business to your selected firm (Dream Agent, Inc.) and if other firms come calling, then be real about it: tell them not to waste their resources on a bid they can't win.

A couple years down the road, when the contract comes up for bid again (or, say, you have a different manuscript to offer) and you're no longer happy with Dream Agent, Inc. then you can go out to bid with those other firms and tell them they have a realistic shot at winning your business. This would be Option 3 as I read it.

I think both Option 2 and Option 3 are both polite and ethical depending on the reality of your situation. I also believe the earth can be flat or round and Schrodinger's Cat has 18 lives depending on where I find myself at the moment.

John, your logic lapse here is epic. I mean EPIC. As a writer, you're not sending out requests for bid and awarding a contract. That implies a certainty that simply isn't true.  As many of your fellow blog readers will attest: querying is not a sure thing. A requested full is NOT a bid. (I got an email last week that said "I've chosen you to be my literary agent" and after I laughed, I sent a rejection note cause that kind of naivete is just plain worrisome in a potential client.)

I signed three new clients last year out of  THOUSANDS of queries and almost a hundred requested fulls.

I turn down publishable work.

We're not getting bids on fixing your furnace here. I think the nerf bat might need a couple more applications.

MaggieMcT said:

In the example given if I know that there is no possible way I would go with anyone but the offering agent, I would not be comfortable playing games with the other agents.

I can't discourage you enough from this kind of thinking.

Until you've actually talked with an agent, heard her ideas for revision, and for the rest of your career, there's no way you should decide she's the only one you'll sign with. And honestly it's better for you to hear MANY opinions on these topics. At this stage, you guyz don't know enough about the rest of the process to know if one agent's answers are the right ones. The best way to figure that out is to hear many answers not one. Some of what we say will be new to you.

And it's not "playing games" to do this. Multiple offers is a daily occurrence here. Frankly, I'd much rather sign someone who has had multiple offers and made a choice than someone blindly assuming I'm all that and a bag of chips. REALLY.

On Tuesday, the topic was what a publisher pays for and what an author pays for:

Lucie Witt asked:

Hybrid publishing is interesting. When established authors write novellas and self pup connected to their published works, or put free short stories on their websites, I always wonder if they have to get publisher permission or run it through their agent? (Tiffany Reisz is an example - she has an eight book series but puts free stories on her blog that generally take place between books)

It depends on her publishing contract. My clients who do this talk to me about it first so we can stay on the right side of our contractual obligations. That means there's no one right answer.

E.M.Goldsmith asked:

I have seen that some publishers, even a couple big ones like Tor/Forge, are open to unagented submissions. I would not do this myself, but what happens with the author that splits the difference and goes to a traditional publisher directly without an agent? Can they get an agent with publishing deal in hand or do agents become wary of these writers? Does publisher treat them differently than a writer with an agent. What if their sales are middling or low? Does that hurt their chances of future representation or publication? Do they really save anything financially by going it alone? I imagine they really don't. But I could be wrong.

I do know several agents who've taken on clients who had deals in hand. The earlier in the process that happens the better. That means you don't say yes to the publisher till you secure an agent.

If that happens to you here's what you do: Query as you would normally except your subject line changes: RE: Query for Title -Publication offer from X Publisher received.

In the query you'll tell me which publisher and editor has made the offer and what your time line is. A lot of publishers will give you some time to secure an agent. They LIKE working with agents (surprised to hear that?)  

I respond to those queries as soon as I get them. I don't know how other agents handle it.

On Wednesday we talked about how to reference #MSWL in a query

#MSWL is a Twitter hashtag for manuscript wish list. It's a way for agents and editors to talk about what they really want to see right now.

Amelia Creed said

PS: I've noticed my queries with #MSWL in the subject line not only get a faster reply, but they tend to have a higher success rate. Of course, the sample's a bit too small to give a definitive answer.

I don't participate in #MSWL so I don't have any stats to offer, but this makes sense to me. I know I jump on things I'm looking for much more quickly than I do the general incoming queries. In my case "things I'm looking for" means history and biography. Queries for non-fiction get read much faster than queries for fiction.

On Thursday we revisited the evergreen topic of waiting time: specifically how long should you have to wait if you're a client.

I advised writers to get off the rodent wheel, but Amy Schaefer took issue with that:

Janet, you're missing the fact that the rodent wheel of panic is where writers get their ideas. We are champion over-thinkers for good reason. Sure, the anxiety-related side effects are horrendous, but it's worth it for that aha! moment we need on every page. 

Well, ok then. I always thought you got your ideas on the Wells Fargo wagon,

or  from those helpful souls who offered them to you if you'd do the writing and then you'd split the profits.

And this from Bethany Elizabeth gave me the chills:

It's such a real issue at my workplace that new hires are required to take a class on badgering. Yes, a real class. We learn how to badger. Aggressively.

Well, to be fair, first you start out as passive aggressive. One email, two emails, then a phone call (this can vary by urgency). Then another email with the first two emails attached. Then you go to their office or wait outside a meeting. Then you send them ANOTHER email and cc their manager.

Please don't come to my office! YIKES!

And please don't email anyone you think might be my manager. (I don't have one)

Donnaeve said

"At the beginning especially, I would like an agent who will email/text me periodically just to say "Hi, how's it going?"

Hey Colin, that happened all of twice for me in that first year when my debut was on submission. A "you haven't jumped off a bridge yet, have you" kind of email. And then a "hang in there!" I was, by the fingertips. :)

But more to that, I think agents tend to leave clients alone for the most part - unless they call to tell them they've sold the book, or want to discuss contract terms, or are discussing the next project. There could be other little biz tidbits they might contact you with, but honestly, you can count on months of nothing...b/c we're supposed to be producing the next magic thing they can sell. A "check in" email even once every three months could be perceived as "are you done yet?" or "Can you write faster?" Least that's how I'd view it.

This is one of the reasons Twitter and Facebook are valuable to me: I can talk to my clients very informally, or listen too, just as informally. Twitter was how I knew not to bug one of my clients: she posted pictures of the 48 inch snowfall in her front yard.

Or that a client's beloved pet has died. Or when there's a reference to a big life event, happy or sad.

For all it's crazy, Twitter has real value for that kind of low-key connection.

On Friday we have the writing contest. Results to be posted on Monday.

S.D. King asked:

Colin, on the spread sheet, what are the extra winner columns for? I am guessing that finalists can enter their entries? Perhaps this could be a shared Google Sheet where others could edit?

The extra winner columns are because there are multiple winners sometimes. Finalists do not enter their own entries. This is not a shared sheet with multiple editors. I like Colin. Multiple editors is a recipe for crazy. Please do not ask me for specifics on how I know this.

Thanks to all the blog readers who provided questions and comments for the round up this week. Even you who needed a nerf bat applied to your noggin. It's always interesting to see what you're thinking.  I appreciate your willingness to swim with the shark!

Subheader noms:

It's just like life: into every hashtag, a little dross must fall.--DLM

Been coming here for years, been writing for decades, been a smart ass know it all, all my life and today, I learned something. --CarolynnWith2Ns

The Slush Pile Café--E.M. Goldsmith

 HELLO. My name is unagented writer. You killed my query. Prepare to sigh.--Christina Seine