Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Exclusives, the Dorian Gray topic

I am putting together a query plan, and one of the agents I'd like to query (because she has sold books similar to mine) has the following requirements:

- she accepts queries by snail mail only (50 pages plus synopsis plus SASE)
- if she requests a full, her site says, "we require one-month exclusivity"

I am of course hoping that agents will swarm over this book like sharks over chum, so where do I put this agent in the plan? I'm leaning toward dead last so her exclusivity requirement doesn't cause me issues, but again there's that whole "has sold books like mine" thing. Plus she'll receive the query later than the e-query agents (which is all the rest) so perhaps I'll already have an agent by the time she contacts me. (Heh. I am hilarious.) But if not, if others have the full, what do I say to her? If I tell her others have it and then later tell her she can have the exclusive, that tells her nobody else wanted it. Which isn't information I necessarily want her to know.
I'm sure you know my position on exclusives. They stink.
And a month is just ridiculous.

I wonder if she conducts all her business by snail mail?

Which is not to say I haven't thought about going back to written queries. I miss the paper and the ink. And I like to read on paper. And I think I read more carefully on paper.

But I also miss civilized air travel, actual card catalogs, and Cary Grant, but we're not getting those back either.

I digress.

If you want to query her, you abide by her guidelines regardless of what we think of them. You query on paper. If she requests the full, you send it to her only if you can give her the exclusivity she asks for OR if you write back to her request for the full and say other people have it, but you're glad to send if she still wants it.

Guidelines are not an indication of character. They're intended to help you send your work in the way that makes it easiest for the agent to read and consider it. If she wants her queries on paper, so be it.  If you elect to query her last, that's a reasonable prioritization.


Ellen said...

I ran into this issue several times when I was querying. Instead of asking permission to send a manuscript that was out on submission, I simply sent it to the agent requesting the exclusive and explained the situation thus in the cover letter:
The manuscript is currently under consideration by X other agents. I will not send it to any others during the exclusive period. And of course, if I receive an offer of representation before I hear from you, I will contact you before making any decisions.

Carolynnwith2Ns said...

I miss Cary Grant too but I don't miss the time lag regarding submitting paper and waiting for an SASE. I may be wrong but it smacks of an old fashioned way of thinking.

If this agent is your dream agent, my advice, hit her up first. If she wants an exclusive for a month, so be it. If she ends up as, 'the one', thirty days is a small price to pay.

North by Northwest, one of my favorite movies. "ROT" saved the day.

Jennifer R. Donohue said...

Does she operationally define this exclusivity? Are you to assume doorstep to doorstep? Are you to presume which day it falls through the mail slot at her office and count from there? One month plus snail mail = you might be "waiting for an exclusive" only to find the package never reached her.

(though if I'm being totally realistic here, sending an MS through the mail for a query probably involves tracking. Though therein lies the thing many of us don't like about some markets for magazine submissions, which charge for the privilege of submitting one's work....)

My library no longer uses the old card catalogs, and we used the actual cards as in-house notepaper for a very very long time. We automated in....1988? And were still using the cards for years after I arrived in 2005. I purchased one of them, actually (the card catalog itself, not one of the cards used in it), but we've yet to fit it into our overall household decor.

Colin Smith said...

I know this isn't the agent's intent, and I know this may be a little harsh, but demanding queries and submissions by snail mail is a bit like asking the writer to pay for the privilege of querying. Both the letter and the SAE will require stamps, which cost. And those 50 pages (single-sided, double-spaced, no doubt), will cost more because they will have to go into a suitably sized padded envelope (ka-ching), and be sent as a package, not a letter (ka-ching). AND if you want it to get there quickly, you'll send it First Class (ka-ching)... and you ought to send it Registered Mail to be sure the agent receives it (ka-ching). We may be talking less than $10 for all this, but compared to the $0 you pay for doing things electronically (you don't even have to pay for an internet connection--you can use public Wi-Fi at the library, or Starbucks, for instance), I think that makes a difference. Especially if the writer is already struggling with finances.

It's one thing to have a preference for the old ways, but if you're going to swim against the current and demand people conform to that old standard just for you, then I think you ought to have a bleedin' good reason for it. Like Janet said, does this agent not do any business by email? Does she send hard-copy submissions to publishers? Must editors respond to submissions by snail mail?
Does she demand editorial notes on paper, with red ink?

Opie: If you really want to query this agent, then by all means respect her guidelines, just as Janet advised. But I would not be enthused to have her on my query list. All the best to you!! :)

E.M. Goldsmith said...

This agent would not be on my list. My absolute current favorite author's agent is not on my list because of this kind of thing. My guess is these agents, already having a number mega best-selling authors in their stable, are not so hungry for new blood. I could be wrong. It might just be a love for paper, Cary Grant, and a slower pace in life. Query on, OP. There are lots of agents with great passion and talent to choose from.

french sojourn said...

I've always preferred John Robie, probably had some influence on moving here. The influence optically of Grace Kelly didn't hurt at all either.

But I also agree; Roger O. Thornton rules. (Again Eve Marie Saint didn't hurt either. But Jessie Royce Landis ( in both films ) stole every scene she was in.

Back to work. Cheers HAnk.

Unknown said...

With a whole month exclusive, does she provide comments? That would be my only reason to consider this.

Kregger said...

We've all heard of, met or read about the writers who finish a 50K "novel" for Nanowrimo, craft one query by 1 a.m. December 1st and group email to 200 of the writer's favorite agents by 8 a.m.
The writers cry the systems broken when their work garners a 30% rejection rate and 70% Normans.
These aren't evil people, simply misdirected.
Agents aren't evil people, they're simply overwhelmed.
It's the messenger...or in this case, the ease of delivery.
It's the internet. The thing that has made our lives easier (some would say not) has made getting the attention of an agent harder.
Imagine the days of no copy machines and manual typewriters. Every query typed individually. How long did it take to type 200 individual queries?
The point being, any writer who takes the time and expense of contacting Opie's fav agent is invested and has confidence in their work and that agent. As opposed to sowing dandelion seeds to the wind.
I see this particular agent's agenda as a method to weed out those writers not committed enough to spend either time or money on their manuscript.

The second worst crime I have in my business is when clients waste my time. I value my prospective agent's time, and always thank them.

MA Hudson said...

Snail mail and a one month exclusive make this agent sound as though they don't really want any new clients right now. I'd be putting her pretty low down on your list. Good luck. I hope you find someone speedy and approachable.

Heather Wardell said...

Outing myself as Opie and thanking Janet for the reply! It all sounds so logical when she says it but I'm sure you can imagine the lather I've worked myself into thinking about it. :) I've self-published 19 novels (all contemporary women's fiction) but this is my first historical and I'd love to take it the traditional route.

This isn't my dream agent (I don't believe in that), and so I think she's going last on the query plan. I agree with those who figure she probably has a pretty full client list and isn't actively seeking more (I forgot to mention that she and I are both not in the US and she only accepts queries from our country which further limits her pool), so I'm going to focus on agents who are actively seeking and also perhaps more my style technology-wise. I hadn't considered the 'does she contact editors purely by snail mail?' question but it does concern me now.

So yeah. Now I know what I'll do! Thanks, Janet, and commenters! :)

Amy Johnson said...

I was thinking along the same lines as Kregger. ("I see this particular agent's agenda as a method to weed out those writers not committed enough to spend either time or money on their manuscript.")

Also, some people here might get a kick out of learning that "scapegrace," a word from the 100th contest, is today's Merriam-Webster Word of the Day.

Her Grace, Heidi, the Duchess of Kneale said...

Shall I tell you about the evilness that was old-fashioned card catalogues?

From a librarian's pov they were the stuff of nightmares.

People always tore the cards out to find books on the shelf. Most of the time you didn't know any cards were missing until you found them abandoned, or you were doing a catalogue audit.

Them you had to type up new ones. And then file them. Card catalogue have these big rails to hold the cards. First you put the new cards in. Then you pulled out the rail. Then you tamped the new cards in place. Then you had to shove in the rail. That rail-shoving took fifteen minutes of brute strength.

OPACs are a beautiful doddle compared to the monsters that preceeded them.

Craig F said...

It just shows that there are still dinosaurs walking this Earth. Some people do not want to be in a digital world. They got told that they needed a website and handed over the brochure that made them rich in the first place.

If you think you miss Cary Grant, think about that agent and the world he/she/it lives in. It is still populated with black and white photos.

John Davis Frain said...

A month is a long time when you're waiting for something. (Remember the classic Timex campaign: Minutes hang like hours when you're waiting on someone.)

But put it in relative terms. How long did you spend writing your first draft? How long did you spend in revisions? Wait, don't actually think too long on the revisions part, it'll bring pain to several regions of your body.

Think of all the time you've put into your ms. Suddenly, a month doesn't seem like so long. PLUS ... there's so much else you can do during that month. Write the next one. Bang out four short stories. Submit!

The beauty of this agent's approach is that they weed out a lot of prospects before the prospects even show up at the door. You'll be one of those at the door. In a numbers game, you just increased your chances. There are different ways to prioritize.

Good luck to you.

Megan V said...

Just a note, because I am aware of certain reputable agent whose site is outdated and has been having technical difficulties for years, and who has similar requirements and I am pretty sure that OP may be referring to that agent...OP check out other sites, do more research. In the case of the agent I am referring to, it's necessary to refer to Publishers Weekly. On her website it says query and first 50 by snail mail only, but on the PW page you'll find that she accepts queries with first 50 pages via e-mail and in fact prefers electric correspondence. And if it is the same agent and you're still concerned about electronic correspondence, just note that I used electronic correspondence and I have had a full out with that agent for a little over a year.

Best wishes to you in the trenches. Remember to check various sources.

Colin Smith said...

Hey, Heather! Thanks for today's question. Certainly something for us all to chew on and opine about. :)

I'm sure there's the possibility that this agent is using snail mail as a filter. That's a nice, positive spin. But why should I go to the time and expense to snail mail her my wonderful novel that she might love, when I can email it to a bunch of other agents who might love it equally? I might be her perfect client, and she has filtered me out because of this arcane policy.

What if she will take email, but only her PW listing says so. Again, when did it become the writer's responsibility NOT to take the information she has made most publicly available as credible? Maybe every writer should subscribe to PW, but if the writer can't afford to snail mail, you can be pretty certain a PW subscription is beyond their budget. How much effort does an agent expect a prospective client to employ to find their most accurate and up-to-date submission requirements? When Janet switched agencies, she did her best to find all the places her old address was listed and update them. She didn't rely on writers trying to figure it out from conflicting sources.

This agent may well be an excellent agent, and a lovely person. But I agree with those who suggest she really isn't desperate for clients.

Megan V said...


I have make a correction to my last post. It was Publishers Marketplace I was referring to but my phone apparently likes PW better lol. You don't need to be subscribed to check an agent's PM page. It's free.

Colin Smith said...

Megan: Ha! OK... but I think my point still stands. If an agent's website says x, and PM says y, which are you going to believe? Without knowing any better, don't you usually take a person's website as the official source? Clearly Heather did, and I don't blame her. Why would a writer think to second-guess the agent's "official" internet presence and go check PM, PW, WD, or some other source? It may be a good idea, but I don't think it's fair to expect writers to do this.

Carolynnwith2Ns said...

COLIN pay for 50 pages, try 275 to 300. Ink jet 40 bucks. SASE is for a letter reply, not the whole manuscript. You're out the price of paper, ink, shipping SASE. Although if you get an agent out of it...

Megan V said...

Colin: I get your point but I also think it's important for writers to not rely on one resource before querying. There's been numerous situations where I have found outdated blogs or webpages and a very quick check at one or two other places via google has led to the most updated information. Just as I wouldn't advise anyone to rely on on one source of information for anything else in life, I really don't advise it when querying. There's a lot of outdated information out there and while it may not be fair to expect writers to dig through a ton of layers its better to get a bit dirty, then come away empty handed. In this case heather did the right thing and utilized more than one writerly resource. And what better resource is there than the QOTKU

Claire Bobrow said...

I can see both sides of this argument, but find myself agreeing with the points made by Kregger and Amy. What's the rush? It took long enough to write the darned thing. You could have a Cary Grant film festival during your month of waiting. But seriously, if it means that the agent takes a little more time with the work she receives, then that could be a good thing. If it means that she's simply behind-the-times, that is another. (My inner-libra is showing.)

Our two kids recently went through the absurd process we call college applications here in the US. That definitely increased my longing for the old-fashioned snail mail way. With the common application, kids can apply to so many schools that it makes absolutely no sense. How can someone be seriously interested in 25 schools? It's supposed to make the process more egalitarian, which is an important goal, but I think it has just made it nuttier.

Makes me wonder about the parallels with writers searching for agents.

Colin Smith said...

Megan: True enough, and I'm sure most writers (present company included) will stalk... um... diligently follow agents they are most interested in querying. That said, I do think agents should take responsibility for making sure their best, most up-to-date information is as easy to find as possible. If your blog/website is out of date, update it or take it down. Rather no web presence than an incorrect web presence. Yes, agents are busy, and maintaining clients is more important than maintaining blogs. But unless you are closed to queries, or not interested in getting new clients, you have to be concerned about good and accurate promotion. That's my point. After all, those agents will turn around to us and tell us to make sure our blogs/websites are up-to-date so people know where to get our books, or find us online, or where our signing events are... :)

Colin Smith said...

Claire: Don't get me started on the US higher education system...! Thankfully for y'all that's seriously OT, and Carkoon is particularly horrible this time of year. ;)

Claire Bobrow said...

Hahaha Colin! But just think, we could both get a PhD in Kale Husbandry while we're there.

Colin Smith said...

Claire: On Carkoon, Kale Husbandry isn't an academic subject; it's a lifestyle choice... 8-\

BJ Muntain said...

OP: If you want to see how your querying progress goes, then save her for a later round of queries, but she doesn't have to be dead last.

You don't say what kind of book you're selling, whether it's completely unique, or whether other agents have sold - and do sell - similar books.

If you query for awhile, but you don't get any nibbles, you might - after making sure your query is perfect - try her. If other agents are looking at your full or partial when she requests a full, tell her that, but that you won't send out any more fulls/partials until you hear back from her.

A month really isn't that long, in the scheme of things. When other agents are taking six months to a year to read a full, or even answer queries in some cases, a month is a relatively short time. And it's great that she gives a specific amount of time in her guidelines. Better than demanding an indefinite exclusive, where they might tie your book up for years.

It sounds like she can afford to be choosy. I'm thinking she's already well-established - the snail mail requirement is a hint that she's been around for some time, and that she hasn't felt it necessary to go electronic. Maybe she's even making it more difficult specifically to keep her number of queries down. So she doesn't NEED new clients, but she's open to the idea (otherwise, she'd just close to queries). She may be a tough sell, then, anyway, so don't pin all your hopes on her. Treat her like any other agent - follow her guidelines, of course, but don't set her above all others.

If there is a market for your type of book, then there are plenty of agents who sell your type of book. I'm thinking you found her name in the acknowledgements or something of books you feel are most like yours. And that's a great way to find an agent to query. But sometimes this path to finding an agent makes you feel more drawn to that agent.

If you query her, and if she offers representation, do use the same criteria you'd use with any other agent - find out how she works and whether her style will work with yours.

Regarding following guidelines: I've seen so many authors - even published authors - say to ignore the guidelines and just send the same thing to everyone in the same way. The way I see following guidelines is that it's the polite thing to do. I believe that everyone is worthy of respect, so I try to respect everyone. Following guidelines is one way to show respect for the agent you're querying. And it's more likely to open the door to a friendly relationship (business or otherwise) than by simply shooting out the same query in the same way to everyone out there.

And if you really want to query her, do so, even if she does want an exclusive on a full. After all, she may just reject you, anyway. As for agents swarming over your book - I hope that happens, too. I haven't had that pleasure, though. After a few months of not receiving any requests for a full, you may decide you may as well query her. After all, you could query 50 agents, and if only one of them requests a full, then that one full is technically exclusive, anyway.

Good luck in the query trenches, OP! I hope you find the perfect agent for your book.

InkStainedWench said...

Jennifer R. Donohue, like you, I am the proud owner of a lovely oak card catalog. It seems like the perfect place to store/organize some of my stuff. But what? I only have so many recipe cards.

BJ Muntain said...

Jennifer - and Inky (may I call you Inky?): Oh cool that you have a real-life card catalogue! Is it wooden? Please say it's wooden. Those are lovely. And I always thought they'd make a wonderful craft storage space, say for embroidery threads, needles, etc. Though you may need larger drawers for things like embroidery hoops and fabrics (yes, I used to do a lot of cross stitch.)

When I left my job at our provincial library about 20 years ago, we still had the wooden card catalogues, even though things were completely automated by then. In interlibrary loans, we usually needed to find books for patrons, and other locations in the province were the first place to look. Even after automation, we'd look in the card catalogues to see if an older book had missed the automation, and might still be at a library within the province. I'm sure they've thrown out the catalogues by now - they've moved twice since I left, and had to downsize both times.

Colin: I first started submitting stories back in the 90s, when everything was still done by snail mail. It cost even more to send from here in Canada to anywhere in the US, and getting American stamps could be difficult. For the SASE, you had to use American stamps for American publications, because they're unable to use Canadian or other stamps to send from the US. International reply coupons were more easily available, but cost a lot more.

And you know what? That was just the cost of doing business. It's not 'paying for the privilege of querying' any more than paying for gas or parking or even a bus pass is 'paying for the privilege of working'.

Ways to cut costs: Mark your manuscript (or 50 pages) as 'disposable', so you don't need to have a larger than letter-sized envelope to get a reply. Rather than sending it Registered, or otherwise tracking it, you just put in a self-addressed stamped postcard, that the agent/publisher/magazine editor just had to send out the next mail day to tell you they got the package. You'd fill it out yourself, of course, so they didn't have to do anything but mail it. It worked.

As for taking an outdated website down - that's not always easy. If you lose your password or something, or somehow are unable to access it, you can't really do much about it. I currently have two accounts on Google, because Google won't accept my password anymore on the first account. Unfortunately, that first account is tied to one of my blogs, which has been getting a lot of spam lately. But I can't do anything about it. Google won't even respond to my requests for help. I've known some website hosts that are the same way, especially earlier ones. And if those companies aren't really around anymore, but their computers are still online somehow, there's not a lot you can do. Especially if you don't have your own domain name to cancel or point elsewhere.

Now Colin, this isn't something I would normally say about you (but then, you rarely get so dramatic about disagreeing with something), but I do think you're being a bit over-vitriolic here. I'm not sure what about this situation has hit a nerve, but I do think you want to cool down a bit, have a laugh, and remember that YOU don't have to send anything by snail mail if you don't want to. If Heather wants to, that's her choice. It's not like every agent is going to start going snail mail again. After all, I'm sure it's hard enough when your e-mail queries start filling your inbox every day. Imagine having to carry all those paper queries around so you can read them in those off moments when you have a bit of time to yourself!

Heather (OP herself): Good luck! I hope your historical does wonderfully!

BJ Muntain said...

OFF TOPIC note: I've recently started posting my first thoughts before reading comments, and then responding to comments in a second comment, in an effort to shorten my comments. See how well that's working today? Well, I suppose I just have a lot to say here.

Sorry for the essays. This is my third comment, so unless someone specifically asks me something - or someone says something I feel I just NEED to answer - I'm probably done for the day. I hope.

Heather Wardell said...

Thanks for the additional comments and the good wishes! I'm definitely not "in a rush" - this book has taken just under 2 years so an extra month for querying wouldn't be a concern. It's more the vibe it gives me, and the fact that "the month" comes once she requests the full and I haven't seen any timeline for how long she takes to do that. I'm not interested in querying her first and waiting however long it is to first hear back from her. I'm not in a rush but I'm not sitting around either. I actually got the original idea for this book from a (different) agent's #MSWL and I think it's going to be popular. I hope. :)

In terms of whether this agent has an outdated website, the front page is full of details of a book just published this year so she's clearly updating her site, therefore Megan V and I are probably not be thinking of the same agent. (Interesting that another one seems to have the same requirements!)

I do look at other sources while querying but I absolutely take the agent website as the definitive answer if things aren't consistent and I'll keep doing that. Seems like the only logical way to go. How else would I decide which is correct?

Oh, and BJ, I will definitely follow the guidelines if I do query her. Regardless of whether I agree with them she has them for a reason, and I too don't agree with the 'query everyone with what I want to send and they can suck it up' concept you mentioned some authors use. As one amazing agent said (right on this blog) I am not a beggar at the banquet of publishing, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't show respect.

And I love the OT card catalog discussion. It might be faster to find a book on the computer but the romance is gone.

Colin Smith said...

BJ: Vitriolic? Worked up? Am I really coming across that way? Oh... I thought I was just having a nice, calm, back-and-forth with Megan. I gave a thought. She gave a counter-thought. I acknowledged her counter-thought and shared some counter-counter thoughts... isn't that what we call dialog (or dialogue)? :) I DO think we writers, in an effort to respect agents (which is right), sometimes err on the side of giving too much deference, and fault ourselves for lack of research, when the fault is actually the agent's for negligence.

Megan: If I made you feel attacked or beaten up on, please say so. That wasn't my intent, and I would like to apologize.

To your points:

Absolutely, 20 years ago that was the cost of doing business. I can remember when you paid $10 for Netscape Navigator. These days, anyone trying to sell you a web browser would be considered a huckster! You can get good ones for free. What are you really selling? Times change, and we need to move with them.

Yes, technical issues crop up. So, for the sake of clarity and to make potential clients' lives easier, you do what you can. Even if it means creating a new website, and making sure all links point there. Let the old ones die if you can't update them or take them down. Again, just asking of agents the same as they would ask of us. :)

That's all I'm saying.

Terri Lynn Coop said...

*hugs Shark blog*

Between Janet's outage and my massive problems with AT&T, I've been getting a message that the blog was gone or had been moved for most of the week.

To quote Grumpy Cat . . . IT WAS AWFUL!


Lennon Faris said...

When I was querying, any agent that didn't have a decent online setup and email communications I skipped right over. I am sure there are tons of really good agents that do things the 'old-fashioned' way, but I would have a tough time communicating via snail mail and telephone only. Plus, I would've used up a lot of trees.

To each their own, though.

Anyway, good luck, Heather!

Beth Carpenter said...

My agent required a paper mail query, but once she decided she wanted to read my MS, she switched to email. I assume, as others have said, this was an attempt to limit queries to people who were willing to follow her directions. It worked for me.

Jennifer R. Donohue said...

BJ it is a wooden catalog! Oak, maybe? And with brass pull knobs and little frames to put your labeling in. We may or may not use them for sorting/storing painted metal miniatures for Dungeons and Dragons because those are the nerds we are, and that is a thing we devote time and energy to (well, I don't tend to paint minis; I'm not terribly good/patient at it. But other members of my household do). But whatever we use it for, I couldn't let the opportunity pass.

Jennifer R. Donohue said...

Oh, additionally, my aunt and uncle in Phillie got one of those card catalogs when a library down there discarded it. They used it for their collection of Grateful Dead concert bootlegs on cassette! The drawers were just the right height/width for them.

Megan V said...

Heather that's interesting that there's another agent with the same requirements we may just have to share notes at some point :-)

Collin I actually thought we were having some pretty good back-and-forth I wasn't feeling beat up at all I thought you're having a great discussion. Thanks for checking in though. Sorry I couldn't respond sooner - those day jobs keeps us all busy.

Julie said...

Seems to me that if this is how said agent wants the query, it is probably a very good indicator of how the future with said agent is likely to go. Does the OP want to conduct ALL future business this way? Especially when the rest of the world has sort of moved on?

I'd have to have a really good reason for going that way, myself.

But that's just me.

It's pouring here in Vermont. I'm pretty sure it has rained at least part of every 24-hour period since maybe March. I think Noah might have come from Vermont and left some sort of legacy here...

Hope y'all are having a good day!


Colin Smith said...

Megan: *phew* OK. Thanks. :) And for the discussion, too!

Janet Reid said...

There's sort of off topic: owning a de-accessioned library card catalog.
There's REALLY off topic: jokes

Panda in Chief said...

If you think sending paper queries/full requests are expensive, try sending sets of slides of your work. Minimum cost of a set of slides $20, plus postage both ways. About $30 all told. Not to mention typing up slide labels and labeling 2" slides.

My friend Mr. Badger is last the last person on earth without an email address, smart phone, or computer. He may have a point.

Good luck with your queries, Heather!

BJ Muntain said...

Colin: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to panic you. I just took the tone from your first post. I've never known you to use the word 'bleedin' like that here. You sounded somewhat... distraught? Or even, pissed off. I know I get like that here, but I've never known you to. Just a little worried about your blood pressure, is all. :)

Colin Smith said...

BJ: Actually, I re-read that first post, and it occurred to me that my use of "bleedin'" may have been what you picked up on. I know, such foul profanity is usually beneath me. On this occasion, however, I thought I would give it a try. I do feel strongly about writers having a good balance between respect for agents and not feeling like beggars at the publishing banquet (Janet needs to copyright that phrase). But my blood pressure is fine. I'm chill. Really. :D

BJ Muntain said...

Good to know, Colin. :)