1. You sent pages and just a brief "Hi we met at such and such" but no actual query letter.
Even
if you met me previously, and even if I extolled your fabulous
sentences and begged to see your novel, you really need to include a
query. A query has some essential information that your novel's first
pages do not: word count, a preview of the plot, category. It's like an
intro call for your novel. Without it your novel is cold-calling, and
since I'm in sales, I can tell you without a doubt an intro is a whole
lot better than a cold call.
How you will avoid this: don't skate by thinking you can avoid a query. You can't. Just write the damn thing. A bad query is better than none.
2. You made a wildly inappropriate comment about the agent's photo on the website.
(This is from a colleague of mine.)
There
are ZERO circumstances under which this is ok. In fact, this is so not
ok that you could have a good book and we'd still say no. This is not
the kind of person any of us want to work with.
How you will avoid this:
Just don't act like a fucking knucklehead. If you've been told you have
knucklehead tendencies, get a second read. From a lady person. And
don't dismiss what she says.
3. There's literally more about the author than about the book.
I
don't care about the author, I care about the book. I'm not selling the
author, I'm selling the book. This applies to most of you. It does not
apply to celebrities, because in that case I am selling the author.
How you will avoid this:
Pare your bio to what I need to know. I don't need to know where you
went to school unless it was the Hard Knocks School of Deportment for
Youngish Agents.
4. You sent me a synopsis not a query. I don't even bother with these anymore.
How you will avoid this: Look at what the agent asks for. Send it. Yes, I know some agents ask for a marketing plan, and that's stupid, but I ask for a query and pages. Pages is not spelled synopsis. Neither is query.
If
following these directions is too much for a writer, it bodes ill for
following any other kind of direction, like what to do or not do on
social media; do or not do on a book tour; do or not do with the
editor. I like to have confidence in my author's ability to hear and
understand things.
5. You sent me a Kirkus review of your book, not a query.
I
don't take on books that have already been published. Some agents do.
They still need a query. If you just can't resist including a Kirkus
review, it's supplemental material to the query not in lieu of.
How you will avoid this:
by remembering a review is not a query. A query is a very specific kind
of letter. It has very specific information in it that an agent needs.
We ask for queries for a reason. If you think "oh hell, I'll send this
instead", well, see #4
Most of
you won't ever need this stuff, but if by some awful chance you
recognize yourself, REVISE YOUR QUERY and resend. When someone messes
up, I don't keep some sort of black list (other than for those who fall
under #2) I just read the query and reply. This isn't a zero sum game.
You can mess up and recover.
Any questions?
Showing posts with label Queries-stats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Queries-stats. Show all posts
Friday, August 25, 2017
Friday, June 23, 2017
Someone will always gleefully tell you how hard it is
(a)Word on the street is that diversity gets double the rejection rate of a story that's not diverse. Several of my friends who are People of Color reported rejection rates from 100+ before getting accepted, while the people who wrote say straight white (cis) (males) often report reject rates around 40-50 average. This doesn't seem to matter on genre either.
(b)Given the larger rejection rates for diverse and highly diverse manuscripts in the industry and me hearing that it sometimes takes 2+! years to get through all of the rejections before getting a hit, is it wiser or less wise to send in more than 5 submissions per round per month. I'm tempted to double it considering the higher rejection rate, but equally nervous about burning bridges while doing so.
(c)Also, I have a habit of writing outside of the usual American gold standard for "What makes a story good" by borrowing from the cultures I'm writing in (Of course with extensive research). I figure my primary audience should be the real life people that are represented by the characters. However, I also recognize that often agents and (white) readers won't recognize those conventions up front and say NO, that's a "wrong" way to tell a story. I'm also semi-frustrated because reports from College Lit class students report that the "World Lit" section only covers things like "Greek" and "Roman" which doesn't really help. (And most of the time they don't hit up the diversity within those lits either. Like the LGBTQIA.) I'm aware this results in a higher rejection rate for me as most people probably reading my stories while professing to want diversity, probably haven't say, studied what a Dream Record (Korea) is. I have no idea if the agent knows what Kishotenketsu looks like. Never gotten to read outside of American (and maybe European) Lit. Is there a professional way to battle this misconception in a query, so they don't auto-reject and give the story a fair shake just because it doesn't fit the gold standard American Mold?
Kinda trying to battle the systemic prejudice within publishing here and would love some tips on how to get through it in a less painful way.
Thanks for any tips you can give.
For starters "word on the street" means writer anecdotes, and listening to those at all, let alone drawing conclusions from them will make you crazy. It's akin to "my cousin's hairdresser's boyfriend had his kidney stolen by organ brokers and woke up in the park with an ice pack and a note to get to a hospital." Unless you know the guy's name, and saw the note, don't be so quick to believe things.
There's simply no way to draw conclusions based on rejection rates. Those are not measurable, replicable numbers. And given "no response means no" has become the norm, you're using the absence of data as data.
My little math loving heart quivers.
What you CAN measure is books that are PUBLISHED. And yes, there is a stunning lack of diversity in published books. That situation is starting to change, but publishing moves at a glacial pace in every single way except author rodent wheels, so that change is going to take a while to see.
And there's NOTHING you can do about this other than buy and talk about books that are the kind of books you write and want to read.
Your question about increasing your submission rate from five queries a month to ten implies you burn bridges by sending queries out too fast. I can't imagine why you think that. Querying doesn't burn bridges. Querying gets your project in front of agent's eyeballs.That's ALL it does.
As to paragraph (c) I literally don't understand what you are trying to say here. You've got a reference to gold standard (which has nothing to do with writing or novels), college lit classes (which have nothing to do with trade publishing) and references to auto-reject (which is generally due to things like "fiction novel" not things we might have to google like Kishotenketsu.)
Bottom line: You're missing a key quality for someone who wants to be a professional novelist. That quality is die hard certainty you are the exception to all the stats, all the anecdotes, all the BBS denizens that say you will fail. You have to look at daunting stats (and while you haven't collected those stats properly here, the stats ARE daunting) and say "that will not apply to me."
Without that determination, you will always find a reason you didn't succeed.And there will always always ALWAYS be a cacophony of voices telling you how hard it is, how racist, ableist, out of touch; how the powers that be are stacked against you. And all of it will be true. That can't matter to you.
Every single time I read a query I'm not thinking "this won't be the one." I'm hoping just the opposite. Your job is to write the one that is.
And every single person in my office is looking diligently for underrepresented voices. I sit in those meetings, I beta read those manuscripts. If anyone tells you agents aren't looking for this, ask if they're in the meeting, or reading the manuscripts.Yes it takes a lot of rejection to get to yes. That's always been true. It will never change.
Here's the answer to your question (Kinda trying to battle the systemic prejudice within publishing here and would love some tips on how to get through it in a less painful way) at long last: There is no less painful way. This is the reality you're working in. It's going to be a battle. It's going to have very few victories. I don't know if it's better to know that going in, or discover the hard way via experience.
What I can tell you is this: Don't listen to anyone who tells you that your book didn't get picked up cause agents are racist and insensitive and full of white privilege idiots. Yes, there are certainly some of those in the field. BUT, the biggest reason we don't take things we're actively looking for is the story or the writing aren't compelling.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Do the +/=*%! math
A recent query letter informed me that the writer:
And oncethe Shark Delay Team gave me back my keyboard I'd regained my sunny disposition, I thought let's get some data to substantiate my position rather than just firing off torpedoes of annoyance.
So I read the three chapters that came with this particular query. It took me just over four minutes, because frankly by chapter two I was skimming.
Here's the math:
Four minutes per query. I got 54 queries last week. 54 queries x 4 minutes each (minimum) = 216 minutes. That's 3.6 hours of reading time. Every week.
Contrast that with reading queries: I read the next ten queries in three minutes. I said no to eight of them, and flagged two to remind me to read the enclosed pages when it's not midnight and I'm not cleaning up singe marks on the keyboard.
If I'd read all the pages with those eight rejected queries, I'd have spent just over thirty minutes (8 x 4), not three.
In other words, I would have spent 27 minutes to get the same results that three minutes did.
Here are some other reasons "just reading the chapters" isn't an efficient query system.
*I won't know the word count. It does no good to read three chapters of a book that's only 40K or more than 200K.
*I won't know the category. I generally don't take on science fiction or women's fiction or anything with supernatural elements. It's not in your best interest that I do, since there are many many other agents more capable than I in these categories.
*I won't know if what I'm reading is a prologue.
*I won't know if I'm reading about the main character.
*Most important: I will have no sense of the plot or characters before starting. And that writer friends is death for you. It breeds confusion. Confusion is NOT GOOD in a query letter. You know how I know that? Cause the QueryShark said so. About 200+ times.
And most important: when a writer tells me that the way I've set up my business practices doesn't suit them, it doesn't take much imagination to seeing how other business practices I insist on don't suit them either.
*No, you can't call the sales department to ask why your book isn't in the local Barnes and Noble.
*No, you can't call your editor to ask why the editorial notes aren't ready yet.
*No, you can't call the six editors who passed on this manuscript to see if they have any suggestions for improvement.
The first purpose of the query letter is to entice me to read your book.
The second is to demonstrate you are not an asshat.
A passing grade is not 50%.
found the [query] process to be backwards. If I was an agent, I think I would want to read a chapter or three, and see if I was even engaged by the author’s storytelling ability. If an author can’t get my attention in that period of time, then that’s their own fault. But if I am intrigued, I could then contact the author, and they could tell me ...[about the book.]Fortunately the Shark Delay Team works 24/7 so the first response (which Sherwin Williams has inquired about patenting for use as a paint solvent) is now consigned to the ash heap.
And once
So I read the three chapters that came with this particular query. It took me just over four minutes, because frankly by chapter two I was skimming.
Here's the math:
Four minutes per query. I got 54 queries last week. 54 queries x 4 minutes each (minimum) = 216 minutes. That's 3.6 hours of reading time. Every week.
Contrast that with reading queries: I read the next ten queries in three minutes. I said no to eight of them, and flagged two to remind me to read the enclosed pages when it's not midnight and I'm not cleaning up singe marks on the keyboard.
If I'd read all the pages with those eight rejected queries, I'd have spent just over thirty minutes (8 x 4), not three.
In other words, I would have spent 27 minutes to get the same results that three minutes did.
Here are some other reasons "just reading the chapters" isn't an efficient query system.
*I won't know the word count. It does no good to read three chapters of a book that's only 40K or more than 200K.
*I won't know the category. I generally don't take on science fiction or women's fiction or anything with supernatural elements. It's not in your best interest that I do, since there are many many other agents more capable than I in these categories.
*I won't know if what I'm reading is a prologue.
*I won't know if I'm reading about the main character.
*Most important: I will have no sense of the plot or characters before starting. And that writer friends is death for you. It breeds confusion. Confusion is NOT GOOD in a query letter. You know how I know that? Cause the QueryShark said so. About 200+ times.
And most important: when a writer tells me that the way I've set up my business practices doesn't suit them, it doesn't take much imagination to seeing how other business practices I insist on don't suit them either.
*No, you can't call the sales department to ask why your book isn't in the local Barnes and Noble.
*No, you can't call your editor to ask why the editorial notes aren't ready yet.
*No, you can't call the six editors who passed on this manuscript to see if they have any suggestions for improvement.
The first purpose of the query letter is to entice me to read your book.
The second is to demonstrate you are not an asshat.
A passing grade is not 50%.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
more on waiting for laggardly agents to quit eating bonbons and watching telenovelas
I received a full MS request eight months ago today and received personal confirmation that it was received. This particular agent promises to respond to everyone, even when they are only querying. I'm concerned because I waited until the three month mark to politely nudge first then again at the six month mark, yet I never received a response either time.
I honestly don't know if there's anything I can do besides what you said about nudging every six to eight weeks. Like every writer, I'm hesitant to "annoy" the agent. Does eight months sound ridiculous in the realm of full MS submissions, or do I need to just suck it up and deal? Any help would be much appreciated.
Your question prompted me to look at my pending full requests.
1. received July 1, 2015
2. received July 29, 2015
3. received August 10, 2015
4. received August 17, 2015
+ two more from Fall 2015
+ two more from January 2016
1-4 are six to seven months old. I'm sorry to say that's actually the BEST it's been in almost a year as well.
Generally I try to answer nudging emails cause I understand that writers are on rodent wheels of anxiety during this process, but some agents can't stand to reply "sorry, not there yet" and so take the path of least reply and don't say anything.
I know this because when I've replied "hey, sorry, not there yet" it's all too common to get the reply "well, when WILL you get to it??" and the answer is "hell if I know." That's just not something you ever want to say to a writer, let alone in any kind of written format.
I will say that nudging every six to eight weeks feels pushy. I'd do more like 90 days.
Only you can decide when enough is enough.
I will tell you this: I've signed clients who waited more than a year for a reply. I've signed clients who've waited more than two years.
You
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Year end stats
I've been looking over my submissions list this week to see what I did (or didn't do!) in 2015.
Here's a rundown:
My general sense is I get about 100 queries a week.
That's 5200 queries a year.
In 2014 I requested 75 projects (both fiction and non-fiction)
In 2015 I requested 63 projects (both fiction and non-fiction)
I've still got six pending, so those will carry over into 2016, although they'll retain their 2015 number so I know to read them before starting on 2016-01.
From 2013-2015 I still have four people working on requested revisions.
In 2014 5 projects were withdrawn before I'd read them.
In 2015 3 projects were withdrawn before I'd read them.
In 2015 I signed four new clients:
2 were for fiction projects
2 were for non-fiction projects
3 came to me from incoming queries.
1 came from a referral from a friend of mine and fellow writer of his.
One of those four was familiar because he'd won one of the writing contests on the blog. Yes, I keep track of those writers.
I sold about 25 projects in 2015, although looking at Publisher's Marketplace you would not know that. A lot of the deals won't be announced until closer to publication date. And I sold one book three times so only one deal actually got announced.
And that doesn't count the deals we were offered and turned down. For a while this year I was laughing that I'd turned down more deals than I'd taken, but that stopped being funny right about March!
So what does this mean for you: This is a numbers game. Don't query one agent at a time, no matter what. Don't take rejection as anything other than your cue to send out another query to a new agent. You have NO idea why I didn't take on your project. Don't try to parse it out; don't think it's cause you're not a good writer.
Notice that one of the two fiction projects was from a writing contest winner? Yea, me too. And the other was a referral from a friend who knew the writer. Yes, it helps if I know you. Or at least it did this year.
I've signed and sold people from my query inbox that didn't have the advantage of a referral or a contest win. It's still the most common way all agents find new clients. BUT it doesn't hurt to have a leg up. So if you're nervous about entering a contest, think of it as a good way to get ahead of the other query writers. It sure can't hurt.
Any questions?
Here's a rundown:
My general sense is I get about 100 queries a week.
That's 5200 queries a year.
In 2014 I requested 75 projects (both fiction and non-fiction)
In 2015 I requested 63 projects (both fiction and non-fiction)
I've still got six pending, so those will carry over into 2016, although they'll retain their 2015 number so I know to read them before starting on 2016-01.
From 2013-2015 I still have four people working on requested revisions.
In 2014 5 projects were withdrawn before I'd read them.
In 2015 3 projects were withdrawn before I'd read them.
In 2015 I signed four new clients:
2 were for fiction projects
2 were for non-fiction projects
3 came to me from incoming queries.
1 came from a referral from a friend of mine and fellow writer of his.
One of those four was familiar because he'd won one of the writing contests on the blog. Yes, I keep track of those writers.
I sold about 25 projects in 2015, although looking at Publisher's Marketplace you would not know that. A lot of the deals won't be announced until closer to publication date. And I sold one book three times so only one deal actually got announced.
And that doesn't count the deals we were offered and turned down. For a while this year I was laughing that I'd turned down more deals than I'd taken, but that stopped being funny right about March!
So what does this mean for you: This is a numbers game. Don't query one agent at a time, no matter what. Don't take rejection as anything other than your cue to send out another query to a new agent. You have NO idea why I didn't take on your project. Don't try to parse it out; don't think it's cause you're not a good writer.
Notice that one of the two fiction projects was from a writing contest winner? Yea, me too. And the other was a referral from a friend who knew the writer. Yes, it helps if I know you. Or at least it did this year.
I've signed and sold people from my query inbox that didn't have the advantage of a referral or a contest win. It's still the most common way all agents find new clients. BUT it doesn't hurt to have a leg up. So if you're nervous about entering a contest, think of it as a good way to get ahead of the other query writers. It sure can't hurt.
Any questions?
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Query Question: Relationship between time on submission/offers of representation
Is there some sort of unspoken (or spoken, and I've just been oblivious) truth that when an agent requests a manuscript, the likelihood of their offering to rep decreases as time goes on?
In the past few months I've had as many as 14 fulls/partials out at once. I currently have 9 fulls and 3 partials out. The most recent have been out for 3-4 weeks; most are in the 3-4 month range. Some I've nudged, only as per their guidelines, sometimes with updated versions; they've responded they would happily read the newer version, and were sorry for being behind. One has had the manuscript (in one form or another) for over a year. And one has had a partial since January.
I'm constantly seeing Tweets like, "OMG SQUEEEEE! My How-I-Got-My-Agent story, on my blog!" and inevitably when I read it, their timeline indicates the person queried, got the full request within days, and then got the offer, again, within days.
Query Tracker seems to suggest similar. I can't find a single instance of a writer sending a requested manuscript, then hearing back with an offer 3-6 months later.
I'm afraid I'm sitting on a pile of rejections (or on-responses) because they've not offered rep within the first 72 hours. For the record, until I started seeing more and more of these "how I got my agent" stories and QT stats, I never would've expected to hear anything (good or bad) for at least 2 months. If an agent's going to offer rep, is it always on a project they're so excited about they put their entire jam-packed schedule aside to read the whole thing in two nights? (1) If it's something they aren't wild about, do they stick it in a pile for mass-rejection months down the road?(2)
It's hard to give up hope when I've had so much interest, but because no one's sent me an offer within hours/days of receiving it, based on Twitter/agented writer blogs/Query Tracker, I'm starting to feel down about the whole situation. (And yes, I'm working on other projects, but I can't get these floating fulls out of my head).
P.S. I detest the "word" SQUEEEE.
I've never signed a client that fast. Not ever.
Not even the amazing Patrick Lee whose query and pages were so enticing, I called him (rather than wait to email) to request the full and waited at my keyboard for him to send. I emailed him when I had finished reading the book, and it still took a week to sign him. I'm almost positive that's the fastest I ever signed anyone, and his query sat here for at least a couple weeks before I got to it.
Those stories about how fast someone got signed are due in large part to the enormous increase in the number of agents pursuing projects, rather than everyone reading faster and offering quicker.
The stats at QueryTracker aren't scientific. No one is required to report; those that do aren't required to report accurately. Twitter is just blather most of the time, not even as reliable as a news crawler.
In my experience, agents are actually reading slower. My colleague Brooks Sherman just signed a client who had been in the incoming submissions for a year. I've got GOOD manuscripts pending that have been here six months and longer (a fact of which I am not proud, but is indeed the stark truth.)
To answer your actual questions:
(1)No
(2)No
To answer the question you didn't ask:
No, you aren't even close to any kind of freshness date expiration on your submissions.
I've signed several clients after lengthy waiting periods. I'm currently working with a prospective client that's been on my radar since 2008. I fully expect to sign her as a client and sell her work when the novel is polished and ready to go.
There are all sorts of ways to drive yourself completely bonkers while your work is on submission. This is one of them. Don't let yourself get caught up in this kind of faux statistics game. Have confidence in your work, and have confidence in the process.
Publishing is a long game. You're learning that the way we all did: the hard way.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014
Dispatches from the Query Queue
Late last week I finally got to reading the incoming queries I'd flagged for more careful reading.
My preferred practice is to go through my incoming queries as soon as I can and reply as quickly as I can. Most of the time I know yes/no pretty easily. The nos are the easiest to see. Yeses often need an extra look. Thus, I flag them, and return to read after some time has passed.
Sometimes on that second read I wonder what the hell I was thinking. Most often though, the query holds up and I ask for the full.
Thus, last Thursday night I chased my new minion out of the office (the good ones have to be forced to leave most of the time,) and dove back into the query queue.
And there was one that I'd flagged just cause I liked the writer's stylish presentation of himself.
And because I didn't want to just blindly say no to a 280,000 word novel.
As Jenny Bent said quite recently "sometimes this business kicks the certainty right out of you. And maybe that's not such a bad thing."
And quite by chance that day I'd gone over to Amazon to copy and paste the flap copy for George RR Martin's first book in his Game of Thrones series. The book is what? 284K or so? Yup, about that.
So, I asked for the full.
280K words.
And what is your takeaway from that?
What I try to remember to tell you as often as I can: you learn the rules, but you don't have to always follow them. You learn them so you can break them on purpose if you choose, not by mistake cause you don't.
And how in the hell do you get me to request a tome of this size?
Well, some of it was timing (George RR Martin and Jenny Bent)
Some of it was stylish presentation (the query)
Some of it was the concept of the novel.
And most of it was the writing. It's good writing.
And I'll leap tall buildings in a single vault to get my hands on good writing.
I'll leap tall buildings AND elbow my slithering colleagues aside for good writing.
I'll leap tall buildings, elbow my slithering colleagues aside AND let you break every rule in the book for good writing.
Now, back to work. I have a lot more reading to do now than I'd planned on.
My preferred practice is to go through my incoming queries as soon as I can and reply as quickly as I can. Most of the time I know yes/no pretty easily. The nos are the easiest to see. Yeses often need an extra look. Thus, I flag them, and return to read after some time has passed.
Sometimes on that second read I wonder what the hell I was thinking. Most often though, the query holds up and I ask for the full.
Thus, last Thursday night I chased my new minion out of the office (the good ones have to be forced to leave most of the time,) and dove back into the query queue.
And there was one that I'd flagged just cause I liked the writer's stylish presentation of himself.
And because I didn't want to just blindly say no to a 280,000 word novel.
As Jenny Bent said quite recently "sometimes this business kicks the certainty right out of you. And maybe that's not such a bad thing."
And quite by chance that day I'd gone over to Amazon to copy and paste the flap copy for George RR Martin's first book in his Game of Thrones series. The book is what? 284K or so? Yup, about that.
So, I asked for the full.
280K words.
And what is your takeaway from that?
What I try to remember to tell you as often as I can: you learn the rules, but you don't have to always follow them. You learn them so you can break them on purpose if you choose, not by mistake cause you don't.
And how in the hell do you get me to request a tome of this size?
Well, some of it was timing (George RR Martin and Jenny Bent)
Some of it was stylish presentation (the query)
Some of it was the concept of the novel.
And most of it was the writing. It's good writing.
And I'll leap tall buildings in a single vault to get my hands on good writing.
I'll leap tall buildings AND elbow my slithering colleagues aside for good writing.
I'll leap tall buildings, elbow my slithering colleagues aside AND let you break every rule in the book for good writing.
Now, back to work. I have a lot more reading to do now than I'd planned on.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
The Code
One of the many many benefits of the Chum Bucket experiment is I'm forced to write back to authors about why I'm not going to read more of their work. This is harder than you'd think, and with Chum Bucket "cause your writing sucks" is never the answer.**
In the last round, I received a query from a good writer who had a mystery novel featuring a police detective. Her query referenced Steve Ulfelder's novels. She'd read them and liked them. It seemed then that I might like her book.
And I did, but there was something missing.
I thought for awhile about Conway Sax (the protagonist in Steve's novels.) Conway is an interesting character, a recovering alcoholic, a guy who drank away his career in racing, and now struggling to find his place in the world. A guy who frequently acts not in his own interest, but in the interest of others, even when it gets him in to trouble.
In this way, Conway is not just a protagonist, he's a hero. Not a superman hero, but heroic. He has committed himself to a code: he's going to do whatever his AA group The Barnburners ask of him. Maybe that's break the legs of a loan shark. Maybe it's drive someone to a safe location, some days away. Conway knows breaking legs is bad. He knows he should be at work, not on the road. He does these things anyway. He has a Code.
I think that's one of the main reasons I want to be in the Conway Sax world. Same reason I want to be in Jack Reacher's world, or Spenser's. These are guys with codes that say they're choosing to be heroic. I want to live in a world with heroes. Who wouldn't?
What I'm not saying is that every character has to be like this. In fact, not every character can. Some have to be venal. But your main guy, the guy we're going to root for, spend time with. Does he have a code? Does he need one? What is it?
You might not spell it out on the page although Robert Parker spent a lot of time doing that with Spenser. You might refer to it only elliptically or only by the consequences that adhering to the code generates.
But if your hero has a code, the readers should know or be able to intuit what it is. Which means we need to see it in action.
**Queriers to the ChumBucket are almost 100% thoughtful, well-prepared writers with good material. It's really rather wonderful.
In the last round, I received a query from a good writer who had a mystery novel featuring a police detective. Her query referenced Steve Ulfelder's novels. She'd read them and liked them. It seemed then that I might like her book.
And I did, but there was something missing.
I thought for awhile about Conway Sax (the protagonist in Steve's novels.) Conway is an interesting character, a recovering alcoholic, a guy who drank away his career in racing, and now struggling to find his place in the world. A guy who frequently acts not in his own interest, but in the interest of others, even when it gets him in to trouble.
In this way, Conway is not just a protagonist, he's a hero. Not a superman hero, but heroic. He has committed himself to a code: he's going to do whatever his AA group The Barnburners ask of him. Maybe that's break the legs of a loan shark. Maybe it's drive someone to a safe location, some days away. Conway knows breaking legs is bad. He knows he should be at work, not on the road. He does these things anyway. He has a Code.
I think that's one of the main reasons I want to be in the Conway Sax world. Same reason I want to be in Jack Reacher's world, or Spenser's. These are guys with codes that say they're choosing to be heroic. I want to live in a world with heroes. Who wouldn't?
What I'm not saying is that every character has to be like this. In fact, not every character can. Some have to be venal. But your main guy, the guy we're going to root for, spend time with. Does he have a code? Does he need one? What is it?
You might not spell it out on the page although Robert Parker spent a lot of time doing that with Spenser. You might refer to it only elliptically or only by the consequences that adhering to the code generates.
But if your hero has a code, the readers should know or be able to intuit what it is. Which means we need to see it in action.
**Queriers to the ChumBucket are almost 100% thoughtful, well-prepared writers with good material. It's really rather wonderful.
Monday, August 01, 2011
closed to queries now
Just a quick reminder that I'm closed to queries now until 9/30/11.
I need to get caught up or this group will be at my door quite soon:
I need to get caught up or this group will be at my door quite soon:
Monday, July 25, 2011
closing to queries 8/1-10/1
I'm going to take a break from receiving queries for August and September. I did the same thing last year, but only for August, and it worked out well. This year because Bouchercon is early and I've got a bunch of stuff going in September, I'm going to add that month as well.
I know I'll miss out on some good work, and that doesn't make me happy, but I really need the break to get caught up on the queries I have now and the fulls I have yet to read.
I know I'll miss out on some good work, and that doesn't make me happy, but I really need the break to get caught up on the queries I have now and the fulls I have yet to read.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
"not for me"
The amazing and awesome agent Suzie Townsend has some wise words on why she no longer offers feedback on requested manuscripts. Read it here.
I was stunned at her query stats for 2010. She requested and read a LOT.
Suzie is, in fact, alot of awesome.
I was stunned at her query stats for 2010. She requested and read a LOT.
Suzie is, in fact, alot of awesome.
image ruthlessly lifted from
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Query letter stats
I recently took a whack at the query stack and here are some of the reasons I said no to about 50 queries in an hour:
Thinly disguised novel that's really a memoir and thus, egad no: 1
Most people don't live interesting enough lives to be good candidates for a memoir. If you're writing a novel drawing from the "interesting events of your life" you'll need a pretty stringent assessment of just how interesting that is. Assume it's not, and work on persuading me.
Recitation of events - not enticing: 1
Have you ever asked a little kid about his or her day at school? They can't tell things in narrative form yet so there's a lot of "and then this, and then that." Fortunately they're kids, and thus not querying me. When you query me, you really need to be able to describe your novel more enticingly than a kid describes a field trip.
Interesting concept/query so over written it boded ill for novel: 1
Less is more. Let me say that again: less is more
Spent so much time telling me what the novel isn't, didn't tell me what it was: 1
These are the guys who are going to fix everything wrong with fiction today, genre by genre. Well, ok, but what the hell is the book about?
ewwww: 1
Yes, you can gross me out in queries. But we're also done when you do.
I think the author is seriously deranged: 1
And not in a good way.
sadly out of touch about publishing time lines: 1 I'm selling books for 2011 and 2012 now. Mostly Fall and Winter 2011. If you have a book that's perfect for 2010, you're too late. And you're probably too late for 2011 too unless it's such a fiercely hot topic of interest I can sell it quickly. Figure at LEAST two years between sending a query and seeing a book on the shelf.
Sadly out of touch self-help book: 2
Some problems were big in the 70's. That doesn't mean I want to read about them now.
Non-author submission: 2
I don't care who you are or what relationship you have to the author. If you're not the author, don't query me. This includes all material for people who are dead.
blatant ripoff of another popular book or movie: 2
I don't live in a bubble. I've seen Star Wars, and Avatar, and if I haven't, the people in my office who read submissions certainly have. "Fresh and new" means I didn't pay $12.50 to see it at the Bijou recently.
Don't want to read this/cliche characters and plot: 3
Shadowy billionaires, reclusive blonde bombshells, beautiful female anything. Yawn.
Down on his luck private eye; renegade cop; Islamic terrorists; granola swilling eco-slime.
Yawn.
Now a blonde bombshell granola swilling shadowy billionaire private eye--that interests me.
Nothing compelling or enticing about the novel: 3
When my response is ho hum, that doesn't mean yes.
Nothing fresh or new with usual elements of a novel: 3
In other words, not bad, but not good enough.
Bad writing: 3
All writing is bad on the first draft. The trick is not to send the first draft AND to be able to edit yourself. It also helps if you know some basic stuff such as why "try and do" is incorrect. (If you don't know why, ask me)
Misc: 3
Reasons too specific to the query to list here, but I was tempted to call this category TSTQ for a reason.
Don't want to read this: 5
This is where the subjective part comes in. Some novels just don't interest me. Nothing bad or wrong with them, just not for me.
No idea what the novel is about: 11
And let's assume I'm not stupid, ok? I can read. I can follow a string of sentences and extrapolate information, and have been known to actually draw the occasional conclusion.
What this category covers are the people who tell me about themselves and their marketing ideas, and give me a brief concept statement. That doesn't tell me what the novel is about.
A string of events, particularly if it's backstory is NOT what the novel is about.
This is one of the hardest things to figure out when you start writing queries. I've been known to make my authors write the pitch letters for their novels cause I couldn't describe what the novel was about (yes, I read it!) This is HARD. Practice is essential. If you ever track me down at a writing conference, this is the class I teach most often. And if you want to talk to me about this at a conference, this is one thing I'll help you with any time.
Here's the good news:
referred to another FPLM agent for consideration: 1
requested fulls: 2
(categories were women's fiction and crime novel)
Thinly disguised novel that's really a memoir and thus, egad no: 1
Most people don't live interesting enough lives to be good candidates for a memoir. If you're writing a novel drawing from the "interesting events of your life" you'll need a pretty stringent assessment of just how interesting that is. Assume it's not, and work on persuading me.
Recitation of events - not enticing: 1
Have you ever asked a little kid about his or her day at school? They can't tell things in narrative form yet so there's a lot of "and then this, and then that." Fortunately they're kids, and thus not querying me. When you query me, you really need to be able to describe your novel more enticingly than a kid describes a field trip.
Interesting concept/query so over written it boded ill for novel: 1
Less is more. Let me say that again: less is more
Spent so much time telling me what the novel isn't, didn't tell me what it was: 1
These are the guys who are going to fix everything wrong with fiction today, genre by genre. Well, ok, but what the hell is the book about?
ewwww: 1
Yes, you can gross me out in queries. But we're also done when you do.
I think the author is seriously deranged: 1
And not in a good way.
sadly out of touch about publishing time lines: 1 I'm selling books for 2011 and 2012 now. Mostly Fall and Winter 2011. If you have a book that's perfect for 2010, you're too late. And you're probably too late for 2011 too unless it's such a fiercely hot topic of interest I can sell it quickly. Figure at LEAST two years between sending a query and seeing a book on the shelf.
Sadly out of touch self-help book: 2
Some problems were big in the 70's. That doesn't mean I want to read about them now.
Non-author submission: 2
I don't care who you are or what relationship you have to the author. If you're not the author, don't query me. This includes all material for people who are dead.
blatant ripoff of another popular book or movie: 2
I don't live in a bubble. I've seen Star Wars, and Avatar, and if I haven't, the people in my office who read submissions certainly have. "Fresh and new" means I didn't pay $12.50 to see it at the Bijou recently.
Don't want to read this/cliche characters and plot: 3
Shadowy billionaires, reclusive blonde bombshells, beautiful female anything. Yawn.
Down on his luck private eye; renegade cop; Islamic terrorists; granola swilling eco-slime.
Yawn.
Now a blonde bombshell granola swilling shadowy billionaire private eye--that interests me.
Nothing compelling or enticing about the novel: 3
When my response is ho hum, that doesn't mean yes.
Nothing fresh or new with usual elements of a novel: 3
In other words, not bad, but not good enough.
Bad writing: 3
All writing is bad on the first draft. The trick is not to send the first draft AND to be able to edit yourself. It also helps if you know some basic stuff such as why "try and do" is incorrect. (If you don't know why, ask me)
Misc: 3
Reasons too specific to the query to list here, but I was tempted to call this category TSTQ for a reason.
Don't want to read this: 5
This is where the subjective part comes in. Some novels just don't interest me. Nothing bad or wrong with them, just not for me.
No idea what the novel is about: 11
And let's assume I'm not stupid, ok? I can read. I can follow a string of sentences and extrapolate information, and have been known to actually draw the occasional conclusion.
What this category covers are the people who tell me about themselves and their marketing ideas, and give me a brief concept statement. That doesn't tell me what the novel is about.
A string of events, particularly if it's backstory is NOT what the novel is about.
This is one of the hardest things to figure out when you start writing queries. I've been known to make my authors write the pitch letters for their novels cause I couldn't describe what the novel was about (yes, I read it!) This is HARD. Practice is essential. If you ever track me down at a writing conference, this is the class I teach most often. And if you want to talk to me about this at a conference, this is one thing I'll help you with any time.
Here's the good news:
referred to another FPLM agent for consideration: 1
requested fulls: 2
(categories were women's fiction and crime novel)
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Two percent
The title of the post echoes a plaintive wail from the comment column on my year end stats for full novels.
It's actually more like 1.6% (2:124) but you're in the ballpark.
But I don't think of the 122 novels I did NOT sign as failures.
For starters, 9 of them just weren't right for me but got a referral. If you think of that as failure, we've got a very different perspective on what failure is.
9 got sent back with detailed notes and an invite to resubmit. That sure as heck isn't failure!
1 got "not this, but the next one", and that's sure as heck also not failure.
But more important than the numbers, it's what you do with them.
There are two ways to look at these results: you, the writer, made progress toward your goal, or you didn't. If you didn't, you use the information you learned in the process to figure out what to change so you'll make progress the next time. If you define failure as not achieving your goal, even good progress is defined as failure, and that's just a recipe for total frigging insanity.
If I were a writer looking at those stats, the first thing I'd want to make sure is that I'm writing something fresh and new. So, how do you know that? You don't just write something and assume its fresh and new cause you've never seen it used. Nope.
What you do is what Joe Finder did when he started his writing career. He read 200 thrillers. He researched what his genre looked like. Lee Child did the exact same thing. He had a very measured, thoughtful approach to creating Jack Reacher, from his name to his background. And Lee Child continues his voracious reading to this day. I purposely stalk him in the dealer room at Bouchercon to hear what he has to say about authors: he's an excellent writer, but he's a GREAT reader.
If I were a writer looking at those stats, I'd make sure I had fierce beta critics on my team. Fierce critics who would make me want to bathe in medicinal scotch at the end of their critique, but critics who would identify structural problems or voice problems, or plot problems.
If I were a writer looking at those stats, I'd say "Good. Now I know what the challenges are." And then I'd make my 2010 resolution: Get Fierce.
It's actually more like 1.6% (2:124) but you're in the ballpark.
But I don't think of the 122 novels I did NOT sign as failures.
For starters, 9 of them just weren't right for me but got a referral. If you think of that as failure, we've got a very different perspective on what failure is.
9 got sent back with detailed notes and an invite to resubmit. That sure as heck isn't failure!
1 got "not this, but the next one", and that's sure as heck also not failure.
But more important than the numbers, it's what you do with them.
There are two ways to look at these results: you, the writer, made progress toward your goal, or you didn't. If you didn't, you use the information you learned in the process to figure out what to change so you'll make progress the next time. If you define failure as not achieving your goal, even good progress is defined as failure, and that's just a recipe for total frigging insanity.
If I were a writer looking at those stats, the first thing I'd want to make sure is that I'm writing something fresh and new. So, how do you know that? You don't just write something and assume its fresh and new cause you've never seen it used. Nope.
What you do is what Joe Finder did when he started his writing career. He read 200 thrillers. He researched what his genre looked like. Lee Child did the exact same thing. He had a very measured, thoughtful approach to creating Jack Reacher, from his name to his background. And Lee Child continues his voracious reading to this day. I purposely stalk him in the dealer room at Bouchercon to hear what he has to say about authors: he's an excellent writer, but he's a GREAT reader.
If I were a writer looking at those stats, I'd make sure I had fierce beta critics on my team. Fierce critics who would make me want to bathe in medicinal scotch at the end of their critique, but critics who would identify structural problems or voice problems, or plot problems.
If I were a writer looking at those stats, I'd say "Good. Now I know what the challenges are." And then I'd make my 2010 resolution: Get Fierce.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Statistics to torture yourself with in 2010
Periodically I've posted tallies of my replies to incoming query letters. After one of those posts I realized that it might be interesting to keep tabs on what happens when I request a full. I started keeping notes sometime this summer. Between that date and today, I requested 124 full novels.
Here's what happened:
Just plain not good enough: 21 (a novel needs to be in the 99th percentile-these were closer to 90%--not bad, but not good enough)
Good premise, but the rest of the novel didn't hold up: 11
Not compelling or vivid, or focused; no plot/tension: 10
Slow start or the pace was too slow: 9
I didn't believe the narrative voice: 5
Structural problems with the novel: 8
Interesting premise, but not a fresh or new take on familiar plots/tropes: 7
Had caricatures rather than characters: 2
Boring: 3
Grossed me out: 2
Major plot problems: 2
Needed more polish and editorial input than I wanted to do: 2
Good books but I couldn't figure out where to sell them: 7
Got offer elsewhere; I withdrew from scrum: 2
Great writing, just not right for me: 2
Not right for me, refer to other agents: 9
Not quite there/send me the next one: 1
Sent back for revisions with editorial suggestions and I expect to see them again in 2010: 9
Getting second read at FPLM: 1
Got offer from me: 2
(the rest fall into the miscellaneous category of problems too specific to list here)
Here's what happened:
Just plain not good enough: 21 (a novel needs to be in the 99th percentile-these were closer to 90%--not bad, but not good enough)
Good premise, but the rest of the novel didn't hold up: 11
Not compelling or vivid, or focused; no plot/tension: 10
Slow start or the pace was too slow: 9
I didn't believe the narrative voice: 5
Structural problems with the novel: 8
Interesting premise, but not a fresh or new take on familiar plots/tropes: 7
Had caricatures rather than characters: 2
Boring: 3
Grossed me out: 2
Major plot problems: 2
Needed more polish and editorial input than I wanted to do: 2
Good books but I couldn't figure out where to sell them: 7
Got offer elsewhere; I withdrew from scrum: 2
Great writing, just not right for me: 2
Not right for me, refer to other agents: 9
Not quite there/send me the next one: 1
Sent back for revisions with editorial suggestions and I expect to see them again in 2010: 9
Getting second read at FPLM: 1
Got offer from me: 2
(the rest fall into the miscellaneous category of problems too specific to list here)
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Query Tally for..uh..what day is this?
Start time: 9:43pm
Starting number of queries: 36
The really easy and fast ones:
Word count so off base it didn't make it into the TBR folder: 3
Duplicate query of one already received/responded: 1
Instant rejection-fiction novel: 2
all of those took about a minute total
These were also easy but I read them before knowing they were auto-rejections:
Books I don't take on-previously published, sex abuse, etc.: 3
The ones I actually read:
Derivative ideas/concepts: 1
Jarring juxtaposition of gruesome plot and sprightly diction: 1
No interest in reading this book: 4
(the definitive "not right for me")
Bad writing: 4
Not compelling: 6
No clue what the book is about after reading the query: 6
Misc (reasons too specific to the query to blog about): 2
And the good news:
Queries set aside for further reading: 1
Queries pending answer to a question: 1
And the really good news:
Fulls requested: 1
Finish time including writing this blog post: 10:29pm
You'll notice the pattern emerging here, right?
I do a bunch of them all at one time.
I'm reading pretty quickly.
You have to catch my attention in the query letter.
You have to know the parameters: word count, fiction novel etc.
And it really really helps if you actually tell me what the book is about.
Starting number of queries: 36
The really easy and fast ones:
Word count so off base it didn't make it into the TBR folder: 3
Duplicate query of one already received/responded: 1
Instant rejection-fiction novel: 2
all of those took about a minute total
These were also easy but I read them before knowing they were auto-rejections:
Books I don't take on-previously published, sex abuse, etc.: 3
The ones I actually read:
Derivative ideas/concepts: 1
Jarring juxtaposition of gruesome plot and sprightly diction: 1
No interest in reading this book: 4
(the definitive "not right for me")
Bad writing: 4
Not compelling: 6
No clue what the book is about after reading the query: 6
Misc (reasons too specific to the query to blog about): 2
And the good news:
Queries set aside for further reading: 1
Queries pending answer to a question: 1
And the really good news:
Fulls requested: 1
Finish time including writing this blog post: 10:29pm
You'll notice the pattern emerging here, right?
I do a bunch of them all at one time.
I'm reading pretty quickly.
You have to catch my attention in the query letter.
You have to know the parameters: word count, fiction novel etc.
And it really really helps if you actually tell me what the book is about.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
a more informative query tally
Last night I posted a tally of results from general over-the-transom queries. Most of you aren't going to make the mistakes that got those contenders knocked out in what is essentially Round One.
There's a category I didn't mention last night because no one qualified for it. It's the "open queries" category. That's where I put the queries that pass muster in round one but haven't the time (or mindset!) to read just then.
I had 47 of those pending tonight. I started at 10:32 pm (see a pattern emerging here?)
I finished (but did not empty the file) at 12:47pm. I can only read for a couple hours before EVERYTHING looks like schlock and I want to reject everything for the most trivial of reasons. That's a sign to put down the mouse, and pick up the shot glass.
Here are the results:
Not right for me, but good, and probably right for another agent: 1
(rejected with referral)
Derivative premise: 1
(rejected with form letter)
Good concept; execution needs more help than I want to offer: 1
(rejected with personal note)
Novel fits best into a category I don't fare well with: 3
(rejections with explanation that it truly is me, not the book)
Not right for me: nothing compelling in early pages: 3
(not quite form rejection)
Now here's the good news:
Fulls requested: 3
One is marginal-the premise is good, the writing seems ok, and there weren't enough pages in the query to really know for sure if it will work, so I erred on the side of requesting instead of rejecting;
One seems like the start of a good commercial thriller;
and, one is so beautiful and so elegant that I'm almost afraid to read it because if it splats on page 50 it's going to break my heart.
Start to finish: 12 queries in about two hours (there were some brief interruptions during that time frame)
You can see from this that ANY kind of personal reply is a huge time debit. The other part of the process that adds a significant number of minutes is cutting and pasting the pages into Word so I can double space them, reformat them into TNR 12 and actually read them.
Single spaced text with no breaks between paragraphs is absolutely un-readable on a screen. There are nights when I see these in initial queries and I just don't have it in me to say anything other than no. There's a reason I yap a lot and loudly about formatting; that's one of them.
My reward for working hard? I get to settle in for a nice couple hours and read one of my client's manuscripts. Yes I have to think about editing notes on it, but it really will be a nice way to close the day.
There's a category I didn't mention last night because no one qualified for it. It's the "open queries" category. That's where I put the queries that pass muster in round one but haven't the time (or mindset!) to read just then.
I had 47 of those pending tonight. I started at 10:32 pm (see a pattern emerging here?)
I finished (but did not empty the file) at 12:47pm. I can only read for a couple hours before EVERYTHING looks like schlock and I want to reject everything for the most trivial of reasons. That's a sign to put down the mouse, and pick up the shot glass.
Here are the results:
Not right for me, but good, and probably right for another agent: 1
(rejected with referral)
Derivative premise: 1
(rejected with form letter)
Good concept; execution needs more help than I want to offer: 1
(rejected with personal note)
Novel fits best into a category I don't fare well with: 3
(rejections with explanation that it truly is me, not the book)
Not right for me: nothing compelling in early pages: 3
(not quite form rejection)
Now here's the good news:
Fulls requested: 3
One is marginal-the premise is good, the writing seems ok, and there weren't enough pages in the query to really know for sure if it will work, so I erred on the side of requesting instead of rejecting;
One seems like the start of a good commercial thriller;
and, one is so beautiful and so elegant that I'm almost afraid to read it because if it splats on page 50 it's going to break my heart.
Start to finish: 12 queries in about two hours (there were some brief interruptions during that time frame)
You can see from this that ANY kind of personal reply is a huge time debit. The other part of the process that adds a significant number of minutes is cutting and pasting the pages into Word so I can double space them, reformat them into TNR 12 and actually read them.
Single spaced text with no breaks between paragraphs is absolutely un-readable on a screen. There are nights when I see these in initial queries and I just don't have it in me to say anything other than no. There's a reason I yap a lot and loudly about formatting; that's one of them.
My reward for working hard? I get to settle in for a nice couple hours and read one of my client's manuscripts. Yes I have to think about editing notes on it, but it really will be a nice way to close the day.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Update on post below
I received three emails this morning from forlorn authors wondering why I hadn't replied to their queries since, as devoted blog readers, they read the post below and saw "done."
My foot sure looks lovely with that nice hole I shot in it my ownself, doesn't it.
Here's the scoop: the post below was for ONE day of queries. I've still got 46 in the pending file. That means if you received an email saying "this is not a form rejection, I just need more time" I do have your query, and I have not yet read it.
If you've sent me a query (via email) and have NOT heard back at all (and you have avoided the category of emails I don't feel compelled to answer--see blogroll) then write again.
Sorry for the confusion, and the consternation.
My foot sure looks lovely with that nice hole I shot in it my ownself, doesn't it.
Here's the scoop: the post below was for ONE day of queries. I've still got 46 in the pending file. That means if you received an email saying "this is not a form rejection, I just need more time" I do have your query, and I have not yet read it.
If you've sent me a query (via email) and have NOT heard back at all (and you have avoided the category of emails I don't feel compelled to answer--see blogroll) then write again.
Sorry for the confusion, and the consternation.
Query tally
A while back, somewhere in the comment trail, someone asked how many queries were essentially DOA.
I figured I'd tally my queries one of these nights and see what the number was; tonight I did:
I started at 10:52pm with 52 queries.
I had 32 left at 11:19
I was finished responding at 11:48.
So, roughly an hour to read 52 queries. Truthfully, that's a bit slow, in part because I was thinking of why I was saying no, and partly because I had to write up the tally sheet and record the decisions. I think I'd normally have finished in about half the time.
Herewith the results:
Here's the category you'll never be in since you read this blog:
Not from author/deleted with no response: 2
Here are the reasons for the other rejections:
Bad, bad writing: 2
Interesting idea, tepid opening, tepid writing: 1
can't sell this kind of book to save my sorry ass: 1 (non form rejection)
pages sent as attachment, not enough in query to interest me to have writer resend: 1
writers with VERY odd ideas of what makes a good kid's book: 1
authors trying so hard to be clever they are incomprehensible: 2
too busy describing the novel to tell me about the story: 2
great concept, wanted to love it, writing didn't hold up: 3
misused words: 3
not enough about the book in the query to interest me; first page not compelling: 4
unbelievable premise: 4
what the hell is this author thinking: 5
a complete and utter cluelessness about category s/he proposes to write in: 5
I have no interest in reading a book like this whatsoever: 6
And the most common reason I said no:
Boring, derivative idea: 9
The good news is:
fulls requested: 2
I figured I'd tally my queries one of these nights and see what the number was; tonight I did:
I started at 10:52pm with 52 queries.
I had 32 left at 11:19
I was finished responding at 11:48.
So, roughly an hour to read 52 queries. Truthfully, that's a bit slow, in part because I was thinking of why I was saying no, and partly because I had to write up the tally sheet and record the decisions. I think I'd normally have finished in about half the time.
Herewith the results:
Here's the category you'll never be in since you read this blog:
Not from author/deleted with no response: 2
Here are the reasons for the other rejections:
Bad, bad writing: 2
Interesting idea, tepid opening, tepid writing: 1
can't sell this kind of book to save my sorry ass: 1 (non form rejection)
pages sent as attachment, not enough in query to interest me to have writer resend: 1
writers with VERY odd ideas of what makes a good kid's book: 1
authors trying so hard to be clever they are incomprehensible: 2
too busy describing the novel to tell me about the story: 2
great concept, wanted to love it, writing didn't hold up: 3
misused words: 3
not enough about the book in the query to interest me; first page not compelling: 4
unbelievable premise: 4
what the hell is this author thinking: 5
a complete and utter cluelessness about category s/he proposes to write in: 5
I have no interest in reading a book like this whatsoever: 6
And the most common reason I said no:
Boring, derivative idea: 9
The good news is:
fulls requested: 2
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Query status update 6/11/2009
If you queried me by email I have responded.
I either sent you an email
1. passing on further consideration (stupid me, I know);
2. telling you I had your query and needed more time;
3. asking for the manuscript.
If you queried me and have not gotten one or more of those emails, query again. DO NOT email asking if I got it. I didn't-- (or you failed to say Hola Snookums in the email or sent it to every agent in the TO: line--those are emails I discard without response.)
I either sent you an email
1. passing on further consideration (stupid me, I know);
2. telling you I had your query and needed more time;
3. asking for the manuscript.
If you queried me and have not gotten one or more of those emails, query again. DO NOT email asking if I got it. I didn't-- (or you failed to say Hola Snookums in the email or sent it to every agent in the TO: line--those are emails I discard without response.)
Friday, April 03, 2009
How much time would you save by only responding if you were interested?
Janet, I'm curious. If you only had to respond to queries that weren't rejections, the requests for more pages and such, how much time would it free up for you to do other things, like catching up on partials or whatever?
Twenty minutes a day. Max.
Let me elaborate. There are a couple levels of the incoming queries.
The first and easiest are books that I know aren't for me. It can be for any of the automatic rejections I have listed; it can be that I don't really want to read the book (no matter how well written) which means another agent is a much better choice for this querier; or, perhaps it just doesn't engage my interest (not bad writing but not energetic).
Those are very fast decisions. I do those twice a day, once in the morning, once at night.
Even when I type in the querier's name (I was listening to #agentfail!) it doesn't take more than ten minutes.
Then there are the queries to which I give more longer attention. That takes maybe another two hours over the course of a week. This includes reading pages, thinking about the book, doing some research maybe.
So, sum total, maybe three hours a week? I guess that's a lot of time if you think I work a 40 hour week. I don't. Not even close. (no hyena yelps from the peanut gallery suggesting it's LESS than 40!!)
The other reason I don't ever want to do "no response means no interest" is that I know most people are hoping to hear yes. I have to disappoint a lot of people every week. I don't need to be rude to them on top of it. I don't have to imply my time is more valuable than their hopes. It's not.
I'm glad to receive every single query. I don't care if you misspell my name, call me someone else, or insinuate that my Herpet-American asssssistant is too slithery for her own good: if you write well, and it's a book I want to read, I will read it. I may not offer to represent it, but I will read it.
Fuck all that other crapola about do this /do that. Write well. The end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)