Week in Review 6/19/16

Welcome to the week that was!

On Monday, we talked about query stats.

InkStainedWench (not wretch, as I always try to write!) captured my thoughts exactly:

NORMANS...honestly!

When I was a copy editor, we had a SINGLE KEY that saved an edited story in our file, sent it on to be typeset, and deleted it from the screen. Save/Set/Delete. It's beyond me why agents can't come up with a function that deletes an unwanted query from the inbox and fires off a canned rejection in one stroke.

That's EXACTLY what I have, and when you run the numbers it's something like five minutes to reply to 100 queries a day (not to READ, just to do some sort of reply.)

And QueryTracker is now running a service called QueryManager that does EXACTLY this.

SiSi said:

I'm with InkStainedWench. How long can it take to send a form rejection? And maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if you are so busy and overworked that you truly don't have the time, maybe you should close to new queries until you catch up. I'm having a hard time understanding the business strategy here.

DLM replied:

SiSi, Janet has said the administrative trivia involved in closing to queries is significant, and it's a real pain.

Yup, what DLM said. TOTAL pain in the ass.

roadkills-r-us said

A year or so before that I also queried some short stories. I could only find a few markets, so there were few queries. Every query received a rejection. 100%. Including several by USPS. But those were all directly to magazines, not to editors.

If I'm reading this correctly, you are sending queries for individual short stories? You don't query short stories. You send the entire story. Most places that publish short stories now take submission only via Submittable, an electronic submissions portal that lets you know your story was received, and when it's accepted or rejected. I LOVE LOVE LOVE Submittable.

If you're querying a collection of short stories, most stories need to have been previously published for a publisher to have any interest.

Donnaeve made my blood run cold (nice work Donna!) with this:

I wonder what would happen if agents went back to another "old school?" Changed their querying process to SASE again? :) I hear screams from woodland critters. Maybe agents too. Think about it...the agent could then reply via email, thus turning NORMAN's into responders. I.e. slow the trickle at the front end of the pipeline. NO? Stupid a** idea? Am I being escorted out of the building with my box of pens, stapler, and my pathetic, almost dead, office plant?

Or escorted to my office to deal with the BINS of mail. Before email it took four interns working daily to open and sort the incoming queries. Agents who can't be bothered to hit two keys for an auto reply are going to balk at the three minutes per letter it takes to reply to a paper query.

I timed it.

*I* am going to balk at that.  100 queries a week, 3 minutes, 300 minutes, 5 hours JUST to reply, not counting reading time. nope. not doing it.

On Tuesday we had the results of the writing contest.

Coming as it did right after the massacre in Orlando, I was prompted to ask what one person could do to stand against the violence. 

Interestingly enough, later in the week I happened to be reading Killing Custer by James Welch (don't confuse this with those god-awful "historical" books by Bill O'Reilly) and was reminded  that even with only rifles and handguns, massacres happened (176 Native Americans on the Marias River in 1870 to start with.) 

When I think about this both the terrible things that are happening now, and the terrible things we know happened long ago, I remember this phrase from Nadia Bolz-Weber's memoir PASTRIX: The Cranky, Beautiful Faith of a Sinner & Saint 

Every time we draw a line between us and others, Jesus is on the other side of it.

This had great resonance for me, maybe it will for you too. For those of you uncomfortable with the Jesus part, think of it this way: every time we draw a line between us and others, love is on the other side of it.

Kate Higgins said

Life is diverse and basically good or it would not have continued on this planet. And the one thing that is impossible to murder is love, it shows up in compassion, helping hands, memorials and hugs for those who have lost their loves and their lives.

I propose that next 100 word contest be one that will discombobulate us woodland creatures. Next time we write a compelling story that does not contain a salmagundi of murder, melee, massacre, mutilation or evil minds. The twist and turns and mental angst can still be included, even enhanced, but the insinuation of extermination could be missing.

Now that would truly be a challenge (especially for a certain shark we all know and love). Can we do it with the same creativity with which we produce mayhem?

How many of you had to look up salmagundi? Just me?

On Wednesday we talked about shopping an offer

Lucie Witt asked:

So if (when, dammit) you get an offer, you tell agents with the full and anyone who you queried less than 30 days ago. What about agents who only have the partial? And I admit I'm a little confused about the less than 30 days part. Let's say I queried an agent 60 days ago and I know from query tracker stats that their average response time is four months. Would I really not let that agent know I had an offer? Why is it bad form to let an agent know you have an offer if they've had the query for more than 30 days? I have most the etiquette in this post down pat but admit I would have probably let all agents I'd queried (who aren't Normans and who state in submission guidelines they respond) know I had an offer.

First, I can't believe it takes agents four months to reply to a query. Yeesh! But Lucie makes a good point here. The 30 days I suggested was based on the idea that agents reply to queries within 30 days. Since y'all know MUCH more about response times than I do, what I should have said was "let everyone who is still in the response time window" know. I meant for you to exclude those agents who say "no response means no."
And certainly NOT to let an agent know of an offer if s/he has sent a rejection. That's akin to neener neener, and it's not going to win you any friends. I know darn good and well that things I pass on will get offers and go on to do well. I'm generally ok with this, but you don't need to remind me of it when you get an offer.

AJ Blythe asked:

have a question *waiting to see if razor sharp teeth snap this way*

If you get an offer from an editor, is sending an "I have an offer but want you to consider..." query to agents still considered shopping?

Asking because I am pitching to an editor at a conference later this year, and the answer to this particular question is the only thing that has me worried. I don't want to shoot myself in the foot because I really want an agent.

No, it's not shopping because an offer from an editor is not the same thing as an offer from an agent. And mostly you're not going to get offers from editors (at least with big publishers); you're going to get requests to read the manuscript.

I've said before, I'll say again: pitching editors and getting requests at conferences and SENDING those mss before you have an agent can twist you up like an octopus on skates.

Wait, I haven't said it. I've written it but you haven't seen it. It's one of next week's blog posts.

Kyler asked:

What about a small press offer?

It's not considered shopping an offer if you take an offer from a publisher and then query agents.

Claudette Hoffmann asked:

I hope "interest" or even "keen interest" expressed by editors after viewing one or two pages at group sessions does NOT count as a submission, let alone an offer. (I was hoping for revision feedback on a secondary project, the primary project got constructive feedback from agents).
The order of presentation can get complicated quickly.

It does not.

What counts as a submission: sending the FULL manuscript to an editor at their place of work.

What does not count: everything else, including but not limited to: 

1. sending your query to QueryShark; 

2. sending pages for a manuscript critique by an editor or agent at a conference, or as part of a contest prize; 

3. discussing your idea, pages, manuscript with an editor or agent in a pitch session, at the bar, in the hall, at the ball, on the prowl, in a towel, at the Sphinx, on the links, with some drinks, (particularly when she says it stinks.)

BJ Muntain said

Claudette: 'Interest' is only a submission if they ask for a partial or full. An offer will say 'offer'. And even then, get it in writing.

BJ normally gets things right but this isn't. Interest is NOT a submission if they ASK for a partial or full. It's a submission when you SEND it. The distinction is important here cause I can hear you parsing this out with your little woodland creature claws.

A reminder: an editor or agent asking to see your work does NOT mean you have to send it, even if you pitched it.  Not sending it feels rude I know but it's NOT. And you don't have to email to say you're not sending it. It certainly is nice if you do but it's not a requirement.

Your wording on that kind of email doesn't have to be 100% truthful either:

Dear Agent Who Turned Out To Be a Nincompoop:

It was a pleasure to meet you at the Carkoon BaleOfKale Stir Fry and Writing conference. I just wanted to let you know that the ms we discussed "1001 Ways to Caramelize Kale" is going to be undergoing substantial revisions based on feedback I received, so I won't be able to send it as requested.

Thanks for your interest in my work; it was a real plus of the whole conference."

Dead Spider Eye said:

I'm confused too because hawking for the best deal is bad form in the letter but it's hunky dunky when the prospect is in an agent's queue; as in, put the offer on hold for a fortnight and inform other agents. There might be a distinction there, if there is, it's a mighty fine one that's gonna be lost on most authors. Personally I've never been convinced, that and agent putting forward an offer is going to swallow being told to wait for a fortnight, so the author can try and trump the deal. I suppose though, that would depend on the author but... wouldn't that apply in this case too?

There is more than a fine distinction between telling the agents who already have the query or manuscript that you've received an offer, and going out to solicit more offers after having received one.

It's akin to starting to date someone after you receive a marriage proposal, versus telling your other suitors that someone has popped the question.

As to being "told to wait a fortnight" that is STANDARD practice when you make an offer. Generally it's not two weeks, it's more like one week or ten days, but I always expect to wait after making an offer. In fact, it's rather reassuring that there is other interest.

Meg Dobson said:

    I had a legit small press offer to publish while 1st 20 pgs of manuscript were in hands of agent to critique for SCBWI conference. I waited for the conference. Was that bad form? I figured editor wouldn't read it until just before attending. I did sign with original Poisoned Pen imprint offer but person in charge of conference was irate that I wanted to sign with press before seeing the agent so I waited. Press was aware of my situation and waited it out with me for which I am eternally grateful!

It's not bad form, it's sensible. I've had several prospects on hold while they attended conferences, or got feedback. My goal is to get the best manuscript possible and a client who wants to work with me. If they find an agent better suited to them at the conference, well, better now than later.

And what the hell is the conference coordinator doing sticking her/his nose into your business? That's absolutely none of their concern.

John Davis Frain (aka Manuscript Frain) said:

I heard a tale at a recent workshop I attended that was similar to Janet's cautionary tale. It was a different story because it had a different ending, but it too involved a writer who had been working with an agent on a WIP for the better part of a year. The agent had afforded this writer quite a bit of time and a number of tips for their WIP. At the workshop, the writer told the agent he was stopping by to say hi, but was going to meet with a couple other agents.

"Oh no you're not," she told the writer. "Or else..."

On Thursday we talked about meatloaf. Well, more accurately we talked about putting your own spin on tried and true tropes or characters. I just compared it to meatloaf.

Colin Smith asked:

As far as you know, Mighty Shark, is your perspective fairly universal among agents--i.e., most agents will look to the writing and the originality of the story, and not simply form reject the moment they see "werewolf" or "vampire"?

I look at the writing in the query but things like "blonde bombshell" and "shadowy billionaire" and "Muslim terrorist" often lead to quick rejections.  When you put your own spin on things, one of the things you do is describe your characters differently. That applies to werewolves, vampires and zombies too.  How to do that? Hell if I know…but I'm not the writer here, am I?

As to what other agents do? I don't know. LeahB's comment leads me to think there's a lot of skimming going on:

LeahB said:

And a slightly on topic comment this time--I can't remember the blog, but there's a writers' blog that has agents comment on queries (not queryshark, I remember that one!). In one query's opening line, a young girl says she's a vampire. From the rest of the query, it's clear that the vampirism is in her head as a coping mechanism for her terminal illness. One of the agents reading for the blog saw "vampire" in the opening and passed with the comment "I don't do vampires". Oh, it made me feel so bad for that writer.

My takeaway from that: some agents skim their queries, looking for reasons to reject. Which is why we should query widely.

Golly, that sounds familiar.

Oh man, that just hurts my heart to read. I know we skim, I know *I* skim, but to miss something like that, ow ow ow.  I really hope another more careful reader agent looked at this, cause that's a very interesting premise for a novel.

I like what Celia Reaves said here

Years ago, when I was first thinking about writing a textbook, a speaker at a conference said that before beginning a textbook writing project you have to ask yourself what he called the Passover question: What makes this book different from all other books? (For those who don't know, in the tradition of the Passover Seder there is a series of questions to be asked by the youngest present, and the first of these is this: What makes this night different from all other nights?)

Good advice. A werewolf book can work, even in today's market, if you have a solid answer to that question. (And, of course, if the writing lives up to the promise.)

And I think Steve Stubbs has the final word on this topic perfectly:

Let me add a comment to that. There is no way I would read a book about vampires but some time ago I decided to sample SALEM’S LOT, just to find out what is so great about Stephen King.

I did not expect much. The movie was majorly sucky IMO. But I cracked the book anyway. Imagine my surprise when King had me believing in vampires were real for so many pages. Imagine my astonishment when I found myself gasping for breath when some character in the book idiotically walked down the street late at night and the vampires “fell on him.” King didn’t say anything else. The vampires “fell on him.” He did not have to say anything else. My imagination took it from there.

If the OP can write like that it doesn’t make any difference how shopworn the tropes are. After all, by the sixteenth century romantic love had been done to death by uninspired hack writers. And then some English guy wrote a play about Romeo and Juliet and the world has been transfixed for four hundred years. Romantic love is still a shopworn trope.

R&J is as fresh as it was the day it was first staged.

Except of course for this from Stephen Kozeniewski which just cracked me up completely:

What if my story is about an author who's a werewolf querying an agent who's a vampire? And it's all an epistolary?

On Friday we discussed Twitter and querier/agent interactionsthere:

Catie Flum who prompted the post contributed this elaboration:

    As always, Janet is very smart about all of this. When I tweeted this out because someone hurt my feelings. I did not expect it to become a THING and a thing it became! It is interesting when people take what you say and misinterpret it, or don't see the follow up conversations you had with people about it on twitter. Also when people start talking about it and don't know you or how you use twitter.

    In this case, it was specifically about people who interact a lot right before they send a query and when that query or requested pages are sitting in my inbox, then the moment they get a rejection stop interacting AND then months later, they start interacting a ton again and a few days later a new query comes into my inbox. That is a case I will remember them and that they were nice and friendly only because they could get something from me. Especially when I gave them much more than a form letter the first time because I knew them on twitter I believe in being nice and friendly because, well, you are nice and friendly. It may not bother other agents, but agenting isn't the first time I've had people be nice just because I can get them things and it is something that I am sensitive to.

    The other way I have noticed that people unfollowed it is that I follow a lot of writers I don't represent. I like writers. I think they are cool people and like to see what they say. That said, I will NEVER follow a writer when I have their pages. I don't want to get their hopes up and I know many writers would obsess over that. So a few days after I send a rejection to a writer who I really like on twitter, I'll head over to their twitter to follow them and see that they have unfollowed me. And that feeling sucks.

    Just my two cents

This reminds me of the very huffy tweet I saw once from a fellow I didn't follow. He was making a big splashy statement about unfollowing me because I wasn't talking about the "biggest issue in publishing today" and he meant the advent of ebooks and private publishing.  I didn't take up arms in my own defense (it's my twitter feed and if I want to yammer about whisky and cats, then heck with you) but his bellicosity made even the idea of conversation with him seem like no fun.

I only follow about 300 people, and periodically I unfollow those who don't follow me. I figure if they don't want to talk to me, it's ok, nothing personal. But to follow and unfollow more than once? Well, asshattery.

And now that there is a mute button? No need to for anyone to know they can't be seen or heard.

I like what Megan V said here

    When it comes to agents, it's best to treat twitter like an informal professional communication. I try and think of it as a social gathering for a company. In this case, plenty of people would be miffed if a person introduced themselves and then just turned around and flounced off for no good reason...

And what RachelErin said here too:

I recently found my twitter niche by retweeting science and history writers I follow as inspiration for fiction writers, particularly SFF and histfic. It's really fun for me, and since not many fiction writers follow the crazy amount of scientists I do, I think I bring something new to the conversation.

My favorite way to interact with agents is to reply when they ask "reading anything good?" or "I just finished X, and loved it, what should I try next?" I started responding to those after Janet suggested using those questions to break the ice at conferences - completely non-threatening or clingy, but if they do remember me when I query they remember that I am well-read =). I don't try to look up their clients, or anything that fancy, I just answer honestly.

And DLM

Leah B, my sense of the "I'll notice" in this case is not so much that an agent cares who follows them or unfollows, but that the pattern of following someone, perhaps chatting them up, around the time of querying - and then unfollowing when a writer doesn't get what they want is common enough to be irksome. It's not about followers so much as it is authorial behavior; if you flounce off my twitter because I rejected your work, maybe it's an indicator of how you'll behave as a client. At the very least, it shows someone's using Twitter for ulterior reasons, so even if their unfollow isn't a sign they're fickle it may align with enough people who are to look that way.

And Andrea mentioned a particularly loathsome practice by some agents on Twitter:

Oh... this reminds me of something else. Am I the only one who thinks agents making fun of queries they receive are not acting in a very professional way? I don't know if it still happens, but a few years ago I used to see it all the time. Agent receives query, shares exasperation with the rest of the world on Twitter, and a whole bunch of aspiring authors reply to show their sympathy with Agent, and in the end everyone has a good laugh about it and conclude that the poor misguided soul who sent the ridiculous query must be a complete idiot. I understand that agents must get frustrated with silly queries, but is this really necessary? I'm a teacher, and I have to deal with stupid (no, really) questions or comments from parents all the time. Well, maybe not all the time, but it happens frequently. It's exasperating and frustrating sometimes, but it's part of the job. If I started tweeting about this and my boss found out, I'd be packing my bags the same day, because it's unprofessional behaviour.

I'm not talking about the way Janet writes about queries, because she spends a lot of time trying to educate us woodland creatures and I love her common sense. I'm talking about agents who think it's necessary to make fun of potential clients, followed by a whole hoard of aspiring authors who are desperate to be "part of the club". Back then, when I came across this on Twitter a lot, it almost put me off traditional publishing, because if this was an indication of what the rest would be like.. then no thank you.

I find this loathsome.

On the other hand, I do sometimes tweet about things I see in my incoming queries that perplex or annoy me. Recently someone queried me about something that was "heartwarming" that did NOT involve a flamethrower. Perplexing. Some general tips on queries of course (like "must read" in the subject line means I probably won't) but I hope it's not perceived as making fun of writers.

And for the last word on this subject I like what Angelica R. Jackson said:

I do admit to paying closer attention to an agent's feed when they had my materials, but that's just human nature--on some level, you're hoping to see something specific enough to let you assume it's about your novel, and an impending offer. Like "OMG, I must have this MG zombie space pigs epic!"

And that's exactly what has stayed my hand at the keyboard when I've wanted to tweet "OMG you would not believe what I just read in this amazing ms!"

On Saturday we talked about one of the blog readers success stories:

I must tell you that I keep a file of these kinds of emails and on days of strife and spleen, I read them. It reminds me that publishing is indeed a long game.

Some comments that were sort of off topic but wonderful:

A month later, I met the guy who's ruined me for All the Boys ever since.--DLM

Susan Bonifant said:

I love any of Janet Reid's posts that might veer into the rant lane, but I really love a post that offers free advice on not being an asshat.

I was hoping for a dog meme, however, following that "Any questions?" closing.

Well, ok then!

Any questions?

In a horrifying moment of brutal honesty DLM revealed;

When I was querying agents, I looked for reasons to eliminate them from MY list. I'd nix an agent whose website was entirely pink and flowery,

*looks at blog background.*

*looks at DLM*

Slinks off to weep copious tears in Sunday hammock, comforted only by the NYT crossword puzzle.

Subheader noms:

Inevitably writers are either too harsh with themselves, or blind to their own weaknesses. --E.M.Goldsmith

In publishing, as in life, it's just too easy to pick the wrong hat; the one with a sphincter in it is not a winning look --DLM


An asshat on Carkoon
Shopped an offer too soon
And no amount of sphincter clenching
Could diffuse the gut wrenching
Of a derriere-chapeau NORMANed past June

--Karen McCoy

Ice water is ice water is ice water until you add lemon and sugar. Love it.
Add a lima bean... --CarolynnWith2Ns

I can understand focus in a writer. I can understand artistic writers too. What I can't understand are writers who continually knead a dead meatloaf--Craig

publishing is a long game and persistence and humility can pay off in the long run.