Only after I emptied the coiffure-sized fire extinguisher on my spontaneously combusted hair, did I realize my NO!NO!NO! shriek reply on Twitter wasn't self-explanatory.
So, why is querying an unfinished novel a TERRIBLE idea?
Do I need to tell you it's harder than it looks to finish a book? If I do, this is your first book. More times than I care to remember has an "almost finished" novel been administered last rites and laid to rest in the steamer trunk.
You're querying something that hasn't been revised. If you finish and send it within a short amount of time, you haven't allowed enough time for revision. When I read it, I will know. And most likely you'll get a pass with "not fully cooked" as the gist of why.
Notice neither of these have to do with concept or execution. Or the writing. You can really shoot yourself in the foot by querying EVEN A GOOD NOVEL too early.
You're starting out on the wrong foot. I request the full, you reply with "it's not ready yet" and the implied "I just wanted to test the waters" means wasting my time is ok with you. Also ignoring the very specific guidelines that are there to help you avoid rookie mistakes like this.
Those are NOT qualities I'm looking for in a client.
You're free to ignore any guidelines you want. The QueryPolice will not show up at your door. There's no Ignored the Guidelines Blacklist. But, it's also not effective.
Your goal isn't avoiding the QueryPolice; it's getting an offer of representation.
AUTHOR here,
Sorry for the impersonal email but, I just copied and pasted all my 'contacts.' The purpose of the email is to announce that my first novel has just been published!! It's an e-book for now, the publisher says the paperback will be on the shelves sometime in October. You can find it right now on Amazon.com, Barnesandnoble.com or even as an iBook. Just put my name or the title (TITLE) and it'll pop right up.
And, if you do read it and think it's good, please consider writing a review and then, tell ALL YOUR contacts!
Thanks,
Author
Well, no.
Instead I'm going to block you on my gmail account and post a rant about ineffective promotion.
This is textbook ineffective.
For starters, I have no clue who you are.
I assume I get these from people who've queried me, and my name got added to their address book. A lot of email programs do that (add to your address book) automatically. It's something you want to be aware of.
Except a Savvy Author knows that "send all" is the kiss of death in any kind of promotion.
If you're not going to personalize your email (which you should but I'll fight that battle another day) at the very least you should send a form email to subgroups of your address book: friends/family; fellow writers; people in your address book you can't remember but they must be important if they're there, right?
Look at each name? Do you know that person? If you do it's ok to send an email. And by "know" I mean something other than a form email passing on your book.
If you do NOT know the person, why is their name in your address book?
You then target the email to why they are in your address book:
Dear Felix Buttonweezer,
We met at the Flash Fiction and French Fry Eating Contest at Coney Island.
My book is being published. You can find it here.
Dear Colin Smith,
We met when we were in the kale fields of Carkoon.
My book is being published. You can find it here
Dear Janet Reid,
We corresponded when you rejected my novel that's now being published.
Boy, don't you feel stupid.
Notice that none of those have a request to spam YOUR friends.
And none of them ask for a review.
Promotion is hard work, and it takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to get out there and do it. Short cuts like these are just plain stupid. Don't do it.
Ms,Mrs, Miss Reid, (Trying to stay politically correct),
No you're not.
You're being sarcastic about the use of Ms.
When people trot out "I'm trying to be politically correct" the subtext is you people who want to define yourselves, rather than be defined by others, are just too cute, and don't need to be taken seriously by the rest of us.
Maybe the very idea of "Ms" offends you; you think it's bizarre or wrong or something other than "the real world, deal with it like a human being." Fine. Think that. Rant about it on your blog. Holler it to the stars if you so desire.
But do not make the mistake of assuming everyone agrees with you. Or that I agree with you.
I don't care what you think; I care how you behave.
Now I can hear the prickly pears amongst you saying "jeeze Sharkly it's just a damn salutation" and you're perfectly correct. BUT it tells me something about you. Something I don't much like. And it's a HUGE red flag for a potential client, who in the course of what I would hope will be a long and prosperous career, will need to interact politely with all sorts of people, some of whom might prefer Ms. Or be gender fluid. Or transitioning genders. And I need to have confidence that you're not going to just bulldoze your way through those interactions with "well, you look like girl, why is your name Homer?"
Bottom line: I am very happy to coach you on the arcane
practices of the publishing world, but you have to come fully actualized
on basic etiquette.
I'm an amateur writer at best, but what do you do when a beta reader not only rips into your manuscript (which is fine) but also criticizes you as a writer? My last beta reader did just that.
The whole problem stemmed from a question I wasn’t able to answer to her satisfaction. To her, it seemed improbable that there could be humans on other planets. I told her there were theories that I wasn’t willing to go into detail about because 1.) it didn’t have anything to do with the story and 2.) I really hadn’t thought to expand on that particular detail. She persisted in getting an answer so I gave her a few theories.
This is a small portion of what she said in her 2,000-word email reply:
“Now, b/c my reaction was so strong, I decided to wait until I could discuss this with other writers… When I asked the group what they thought about this attitude the nicest ones responded the way I did. Both professors/authors gave me a look that screamed I’d just blasphemed the entire field of writing.”
“You aren’t ready to write. You need to scrap what you’ve written… and take a basic creative writing college course. The one lady suggested hers (and she’s a great teacher), but since you’re in GA I told her that wasn’t possible.”
“You need at least a bachelor’s intro level of understanding, if not a masters.”
“And if this isn’t something you can agree with then I’m afraid there really isn’t anything that can save your story.”
After reading her reply, I felt betrayed. I never gave her permission to share my manuscript or emails. To make things worse, she claimed to only have my best interest at heart.
I gave a polite response and thanked her for her help despite how I felt. I know I shouldn’t let it get to me, but this one stings.
Oh sweet mother of godiva! First, pour yourself a stiff drink. You not only earned it, you deserve it. Second, erase that For Your Own Gooder's name from your email list, your contact list, your "friend" list, your list of people you will ever ask for anything again.
She's quite clearly someone who takes great satisfaction in making people feel small.
There's a word for that...actually there are several words for that but let's just use this simple one: vile.
This Vile Person doesn't know how to critique.
She doesn't know how to help a writer.
And she has swathed herself in righteousness to cover her vile, mean-spirited self.
It's too bad you can't tattoo her in some way so other writers will not suffer at her hand.
Let's unpack this a little more: You said "To her, it seemed improbable that there could be humans on other planets."
Now, the real question here is could this particular reader, vile as she is, suspend disbelief for the notion of humans on other planets. If she could not, that might be a weakness in the story, but you'll notice she didn't know to say that. She tried to get you to justify an artistic choice. That's like asking why Picasso chose blue instead of purple.
Second, she passed along cruel and unhelpful comments to bolster her position. That's Not Only Do I Think This, All My Friends Think So Too. It's the behaviour of a third grade bully. Again, not the conduct of a self-actualized adult or even a person who understands the role of a beta reader.
This is my favorite part of her reply to you: The one lady suggested hers (and she’s a great teacher).
This is a textbook example of someone you don't want reviewing your work: somoene who has an agenda for "fixing" what you've done wrong. I'm sure you've heard of the "agents" who tell you they can help you fix things; here's a little side editorial service they run.(I should also note it's a poorly written sentence.)
All of us who read pages either for a living, or as a service to fellow writers, have come across people who need more help than they realize. You may fall into this category (although I have doubts given that your email is pretty damn cogent.) If you do, a beta reader might say something like "it's hard to get into the story because there are a lot of mistakes that bring me out of the story." Or, "I was never able to fully believe that humans could be on other planets." If something is truly terrible (and yes, I've seen that) you simply step back from being a beta reader and say "I'm sorry, I'm unable to read this for you."
It's clear to me that Vile enjoys being the arbiter of what Is and Is Not the One True Way. People like that are zealots. Zealotry is the antithesis of artistry.
I have but one question and it is this: how the ever loving hell did you get mixed up with this person? The answer to that is important because the takeaway here is that you chose poorly in selecting a beta reader. You MUST figure out how this happened so as to avoid repeating it.
There is no way her words won't continue to cut at you. Words do that. It will take a while to stop thinking about what she said. One way to do that (and you do need to stop that) is give yourself a mantra to say every time you think of her, and a specific thing to divert your mind to instead. (I use the rosary for this; when I think of something that unsettles me I recite one Hail Mary and then turn my mind to something else. It takes practice but it works.)
Here's your takeaway: Not only was she wrong, she's a toxic waste of human space, and you deserve better. Your job now is to figure out what got you ensnarled with her so as to avoid doing this again.
I'm sorry this happened to you, and I hope that you'll be able to connect with better readers soon.
I have some other suggestions on dealing with Vile.
How do you feel about the recent practice of "query contest hosts" requesting donations with entries? To me, it feels like it is coming dangerously close to a pay-to-play scenario. Is it right for hosts to profit off of these contests, when the agents participating are the ones adding value? The following is from the Query Kombat website:
Contests are very time-consuming, and in order to continue hosting each year, we’re asking contestants to give a $5-$10 donation when making their entries. Asking for donations is one way to ensure we’re able to give you the time needed to carefully consider every entry. Chosen Kontestants receive feedback from up to 27 agented/published writers on their query and first page, plus the ability to query agents they otherwise may not have connected with. Some agents even read requested contest entries before the rest of the slush pile! All Kontestants, chosen are not, receive free slush tips from the hosts and the camaraderie that develops from entering contests together. Many writers find lifelong critique partners and good friends from these contests (I did).
Donating this year is strictly voluntary. Giving a donation does not increase your chances of being picked. Giving less than $5 or more than $10 will also have no impact on your chances. Donating will not affect how many rounds a person makes it through if chosen. People who are not able to donate will not be disqualified.
Maybe it's because I'm a volunteer that this rubs me the wrong way. I understand that hours can add up when you're coordinating hosting an event, I've planned many myself. But while I might ask for donations to Girl Guides of Canada or the Red Cross, I would never ask someone to compensate me for my time.
And these hosts already benefit in other ways. There's networking, increased traffic to their websites, and name recognition.
What are your feelings on query contest hosts soliciting donations?
Pretty simple; it violates Yog's Law which is money flows TOWARD the writer.
I also note with some acerbity that whoever wrote that explanation really doesn't know how to pitch for shit.
Anyone who think an effective pitch is "send money, but it won't get you anything", or worse "send money cause it's helpful to me but not beneficial to you" is delusional.
These nice, well-intentioned people are not flim-flam artists (versus for example these lovely folks),
they're just trying to monetize something they like to do. It certainly isn't illegal or a scam. It's not even shady. They're upfront about the money and who gets it and who pays it.
That said: money should flow toward the writer. That's the best rule of thumb to remember when considering anything of this sort.
Lennon Faris asked in the comment column
Yog bothers me. It feels inconsistent. I'm not clever enough to be a Devil's advocate, but I'm genuinely confuzzled.
People
almost always have to pay money for a service they want (barring Query
Shark in which you pay with blood). I can see why you would never pay
someone to be an agent ("agent") for your novel, but a service is
a service. Writers pay for conferences, pitch time at conferences, and
critiques all the time. If you use your brains and reviews, you can
generally spot a scam. This isn't the initial premise of the post, but I
would consider a good critique money well spent.
So what's up, Yog??
This is a good question. The difference here is you are not paying for a service. What you get depends entirely on whether you're chosen (Chosen Kontestants). The organizers say the money doesn't affect that, and I believe them, but it still means you're sending money to people for an unspecified result.
I'm not saying don't do this.
I'm saying that when you see something like this, remember that money should flow TOWARD the writer, and evaluate the merits of an offer based on that. In this same vein are submission fees for magazines or journals, contest entry fees, prize entry fees etc.
It might also help you to know that they can't set up a pay for query critique service with agents if the agents are members of AAR. The AAR Canon of Ethics is VERY clear on that (it's #8 on the list)
The recent Month9 mess (small press cutting back their list due to health issues of the lead person, stories coming out about lack of support and non-payment going back a couple of years) has me wondering about how you handle a situation like that. So, here are my questions.
1. If you have a contract with a publisher and have not yet been published by them and information starts to come out that they are less than ideal as a publisher, is there any way to get out of the contract? Does this change based upon where the book is in the process? Signed but not delivered, delivered but not edited, fully edited and up for pre-order, etc.?
2. Does a book that's already up for pre-order count as a book that's been published? At that point are you just stuck going forward with it no matter how ugly?
3. What would you say to a writer who wanted a buy-out clause built into a trade publishing contract from the start? I've seen so many publishers go bankrupt or sour that it seems to me a prudent thing to have, but I suspect most agents would think I was absolutely insane to demand one.
4. If you are a writer who gets caught in a mess like this and your debut sales are horrible as a result, do other publishers take that into account when you try to get your next contract? Or is it the kiss of death? I'd think this happens often enough that they have to give some leeway, but then again it's such a competitive field that there are always shiny new authors to sign instead, so why bother with tarnished goods.
(1) You can "get out" of a contract only with the consent of the other party unless the other party has breached the contract. Since "the author must have confidence in the publisher" is NOT one of the terms of the contract, losing confidence doesn't have an impact on the contract at all. The only exception to this is if the contract has not been signed and fully executed (ie you've got signature of both parties, and the on-signing payment.) If you don't have a fully executed contract, you can (most likely) withdraw from it. Contract law varies by state so this is something you'll need to consult an attorney about. Almost everything can be negotiated, but it does take both parties wanting to negotiate something to get started.
(2) Once it's got an ISBN and is available for sale it's published. Obviously, the sooner in the process the better if you're contemplating making a change. Again, you're stuck unless the other party breaches the contract or is willing to negotiate to let you out of the contract.
(3) A potential client who starts issuing instructions about what they want in a publishing contract is a bad risk. There's no such thing as a buy out clause in a standard publishing agreement. No publishing company would tolerate it. The publisher invests thousands of dollars in overhead and production, expenditures that they and you and I hope adds value to the book. A contract that allows a writer to "buy back" the book at any time for something as amorphous as "losing confidence"would potentially cost them a lot of money.
A writer saying they've "lost confidence" in the publisher is so abstract as to be meaningless in a contract. How would you prove it? How would you disprove it? Most of the time when I hear writers talk about how publishers have screwed up, it's on things like "it was a bad cover" "my publicist sucked" "my editor left." Those are just normal woop and warf of life in publishing.
That said, your contract should have a bankruptcy clause, and a non-performance clause. The non-performance clause says that if the publisher doesn't pay royalties on time, and correctly, and doesn't fix the situation within a specific amount of time when notified, the rights revert to the writer. That's measurable. And paying royalties on time is to be expected. It's completely in the control of the publisher. There are no aesthetics involved. Run the report. Send the report. Pay the writer.
There is also a provision for reversion of rights if the publisher fails to publish within a certain time frame, or does not keep the book in print.
(4) Lots of writers survive idiot publishers.
What you really need here though is how to avoid getting snarled up with one of these over eager, under capitalized "we're here to fix publishing" people.
Here are the big red flags:
1. New Kid On the Block. One of the things I beat into my minions is "don't be first." Brand new start ups are fun, and exciting, but someone is learning the hard way when the boots hit the ground. I prefer they learn on someone else's client. With a start up publisher, I like to see at LEAST two years of sales. Not just acquisitions, two years of books on the shelf. And make sure that authors are getting paid for those too.
When Amazon went into the publisher biz, I can remember laughing at all the snafus they encountered. Just cause you're good at selling books doesn't mean you're good at publishing them. Which leads to flag #2.
2. Lack of actual publisher experience. I admire start ups, and I'm an entrepreneur to my finger tips but I also think that starting a publishing company with no publishing experience is a recipe for disaster. Some publishers recover from those disasters. Some do not. Generally the ones that do are the publishers who are building strong relationships with bookstores, reviewers, agents and other publishing pros who will help them. What they are NOT doing is trashing anyone in public (see #5) And they are publishing a small to moderate size list. Which brings us to point #3
3. Number of books published. A one-person operation proposing to publish 100 books a year is ludicrous. You simply can't do all the work required for something like that. Given small publishers often wear three or four hats (marketing, finance, overseeing acquisitions, foreign rights) they should plan to publish FEWER books not more.
They go for volume because they are looking for revenue. If they need to publish 100 books a year to pay everyone, they are headed for a reckoning that will not be pretty.
This is just plain accounting. Intentions, good bad or otherwise, don't come into the equation.
4. A website that is more about persuading authors to submit books than about actually selling the books they publish. By way of comparison, look at any website for a successful non-megawatt publisher. Even if they do take unagented submissions, it's not the focus of the website at all.
5. Denigrating people who ask questions or write critical comments in a public space. One does not run a business like an audition for a remake of Mean Girls. Well, I guess you can, but thanks, I'll be doing business elsewhere.
I have certainly had my share of uncomfortable conversations and interactions with publishers. You'll notice they have not been in public, nor will they ever be in public. If a publisher talked about any one of my clients in public the way that the Month9 publisher did, I'm not sure what I'd do, other than this:
It's very very easy to get sucked in to "someone wants to publish my book" and forget to ask some essential questions. That's why you have those questions written down and you know to ask them before you get too giddy to think straight.
And the last, and biggest red flag of all time:
6. Publishing is Broken; We're Going to Fix It. Confidence is a good quality in a entrepreneur. So is iron clad optimism. Hubris is not. Someone who tells you they're going to fix an industry they've never worked in is textbook hubris.
A lot of people come up with terrific ideas to improve things. The one I love most right now is this:
But when someone tells you they're going to fix a problem, it actually has to be a problem.
If you think what kinds of books get published is a problem, you can't tackle it from the acquisitions side. You have to tackle it from the sales side. What people buy is what publishers tend to publish. If you think not enough science fiction is being published, tell me how to find more science fiction readers, not that you're going to publish more science fiction books. Hubris is thinking that if you just publish it you can sell it.I wish that were true; wishing does not make it so.
A recent query letter informed me that the writer:
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 the 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.
Recently, a writer made a very astute comment on a QueryShark blog post.
A comment that gave me a real epiphany.
Naturally, being sharklike, I wished to send an email chastising her for being brilliant and insightful.
She, being clever, did not have her contact info on her blog. Or on her blog commenting profile.
Foiled!
But I will not be deterred.
Bethany, I'm looking at you.
And in case you're wondering, here's the comment (I underlined her comments I found particularly helpful and blue ink is a comment I added):
The problem with fantasy is that there's so much world building that it
can be hard to write a sensible query without spending too much time on
world-building. There's also a LOT of fantasy out there, and since high
fantasy doesn't depend as much on current culture as other genres, you
have more competition. There's no intrinsic reason why a high fantasy
novel written in 2016 will mean more to me as a reader than one written
in 1975. (This would apply to historical fiction as well)
So how do you set your query apart? I don't think the
answer is by focusing on the plot. By all means, describe the stakes and
the plot in the query, but that's not where your edge should come from.
Your edge should come from your characters. There is nothing new under
the sun, plot-wise. But fun, engaging, rascally characters? They're
timeless.
Why should I care about Blackwater? Is he noble? Blah. Is
he a reluctant hero? Yawn. Is he funny? Hmm... I could work with that.
Brooding? I'm a sucker for brooding heroes. Is he finicky, whiny,
feisty, big-hearted, foolish, intelligent, beautiful, ugly, sharp, dull?
The only things I know about your characters are their circumstances.
That isn't enough.
You've got a little of this with your first two
paragraphs, though the shark is right. First person is confusing. But I
sense reluctance, bitterness, and regret - three things that make
characters interesting. You lose that in the rest of your query. Give me
the regret, give me the heartache, give me the spilled blood. I want to
see your character staring over the edge of a cliff. Gimme! :)
My insight: What's at stake for the hero/heroine, what s/he wants, should reveal his/her character.
I don't think I've ever said that when we've talked about getting plot on the page, but I think it will be very useful.
Thanks Bethany. Now put your damn contact info on your blog so I can swim over with a thank you note.
Referrals can be a good way to warm up the otherwise-arctic query process. Good referrals are a recommendation to an agent from someone the agent knows. Really good referrals are when that someone has read your book, likes it and says so.
I pay very close attention to these kinds of referrals; when they come from my clients, I act on them immediately.
By act immediately I mean I google the author being referred.
Recently, one of my clients gave me the name of an author who was looking for an agent. The author was talking to friends, getting names. My client sent me a heads up that she's read the author's book, liked it, and had passed my name along to the author.
When I got my client's email, I immediately googled the author. Her website was the first item on the google results list so I clicked on it. (The other options were Amazon, Goodreads, Facebook, her publisher's site, Twitter, and then some book reviews.)
The website was a disaster of epic proportion.
Not least among the problems was that her website allows comments on her pages, and her comment column was filled with spam. (Remember discussing using blogs as websites?)
This is a TERRIBLE first impression.
If you're querying, you want to make sure your website or blog is spiffy.
Now, I can hear some of you plaintively asking why? why?It has nothing to do with the writing!
That's very true. It has nothing to do with the writing.
It has an ENORMOUS amount to do with the my impression of how much coaching you'll need on what are now the fundamentals of Being a Published Writer.
When you're a published writer, your competition is no longer the slapdash, the ignoramus, or the wretchedly bad writer. It's GOOD writers. It's PUBLISHED (or about to be published) writers. You're no longer competing for agents. You're competing for readers.
And if you think agents are tough to please, wait till you meet real readers in the trenches of the Amazon reviews. Or on your blog.
Or worse: not at all.
You want a website that gives readers value for their eyeball time. They're looking for info on your books, probably some info about you, and often a way to contact you. What they're not looking for (at least on your site) are cheap term papers or scented dog poop bags or ways to attract a man.
And yes, I help my clients with that stuff. So yes, I'm much MUCH more
interested in someone who's at least on the ball enough to watch their
blog for spam.
If you're at this stage of querying, google yourself to find out what I'll see first. Then make sure what I can see looks polished. At the very least clean up the spam! And have you checked your Goodreads page lately? What impression will I get there?
You'll notice all this happened BEFORE I knew anything about her writing or had even gotten a query from the author. In other words, this is something to take care of EARLY rather than waiting till you think you need it.
This kind of googling tells me how to prioritize this referral and subsequent query. If I'd seen something less daunting, I might have reached out to the author. As it is I'll wait for the query, and it's not going to be one of those I drop everything to read.
Have you come across www.authors.me? It purports to be a new way of querying for writers and query management, up through publication, for agents. Could this be a new wave for the future and could it eliminate the traditional querying practice? Do you have thoughts on this industry evolution (or devolution)? Below is a quote from their website.
ABOUT AUTHORS, INC. AUTHORS, Inc. is an Austin technology company dedicated to making the process of discovering new manuscripts better for the writers who write them and for the agents and publishers who publish them. AUTHORS has created a breakthrough service that puts everyone on the same platform for better communication, discovery, and submissions
I had not heard of this particular company, but I've seen this "new way of querying" before...many times. It's trying to solve a problem we don't have. And by we I mean you the writer and me the agent.
There's a fundamental flaw in the logic here. "Making the process of discovering new manuscripts better for writers" implies that the process in use now doesn't work well. It works just fine. You write to me about your novel. I write back. There's direct communication. No forms to fill out, no perplexing multiple choice. No money changes hands.
If the problem is that I don't take on your project, that's not a problem with the process, and fixing/changing/altering the process won't mean diddly squat.
The problem with querying isn't the platform. It's that supply exceeds demand. There are more good writers out there than there are reader eyeballs. No change of platform will address that.
Any reputable agent and publisher will tell you that. From looking at the staff of this company, I'm not sure any agents or publishers are involved. They certainly didn't ask ME what would improve the query process. (And don't think I'm lacking in an idea or two on that front!)
And the first thing you always want to do is find out who's being asked for money:
And tucked away in the Terms of Use (which is utterly confusing since it refers to the company as Authors; the agent as Licensee; and godiva knows what they call the actual writer, I didn't get that far) is this:
I don't know a single agent willing to pay to receive queries.
The first rule of sales: talk benefits, not features.
I get more than enough queries right now. I turn down good and publishable work every single day, and twice on Sunday.
What's in this for me? Nothing as far as I can tell.
There is however one group of folks in the industry for whom this is a sumptuous all you can eat buffet: faux publishers. And by faux I mean the publishing companies who make money from authors not book sales.
What better place to find a bunch of those inexperienced, gullible authors just waiting to believe they can be a success with a hundred bucks and a query letter.
These kinds of services come along once every couple years. Almost universally they are started by people who have no experience in publishing (and think that's a plus) and claim successes without actually giving details.
The Authors.me site has a thread on AbsoluteWrite.com and the CEO claims "11 publishing deals have been signed."
The next question of course is "with who" but that information wasn't provided.
I also didn't see the terms of service for writer submissions, but some comments on that waved some major red flags.
Bottom line: a lot of people will tell you the query system is flawed. Generally they have a solution for you that involves your money and their pocket. Believe little, if anything, from them.
PS If you describe your service as "intelligent design" it displays an absolutely tin ear for sales and marketing.
A friend of mine has a book releasing soon, and she made the decision to pay two-hundred dollars for a single review from someone who is, apparently, a respected NY book reviewer (I've never heard of him, but trust she's done her research).
He also offers a marketing package and uses his own review to promo the book. This was a red flag to me. If he's taking money for the marketing component, then how can you trust the review to be honest?
The other option is to use one of the companies where you pay a fee and the book is provided to random readers for a set number of reviews. If it were me, I would choose the latter, to be sure the reviews are honest.
Now for the question, which I hope will be appropriate for your blog:
What is your opinion of this practice?(1)
Do you suggest this to your authors (2a), or recommend against it? (2b)
Writing, publishing, and marketing books is a tangled road for most of us authors. Thanks for providing a road map.
1. This practice is a vile and morally bankrupt way to make money. It caters to writers' anxiety and lack of knowledge about how book publicity works.
2a. No
2b. Yes. In fact, it's stronger than recommend against. I'd insist that any client of mine NOT do it because it tarnishes every other legitimate review you might get.
You can't buy reviews worth getting.
You can't buy reviews from someone who actually IS a respected book reviewer. Apparently you can buy them from someone who claims to be.
Paid reviews are done by shills, not book reviewers. They won't tell you that. I just did.
If your friend hasn't coughed up the money yet ask if her research included googling the "reviewer's" name and his reviews appear on any site OTHER than his own. A "respected" reviewer gets quoted. (That's the whole purpose of reviews!)
If you want to test that theory, here are some respected reviewers: Ron Charles of the Washington Post. Oline Cogdill. Lesa Holstine.
There are LOTS of others.
If you want an easier test: do you recognize any of the books he's reviewed? Shills often find their targets among people who don't have access to the trade reviewers, or legit book reviewers.
The purpose of a book review is not to get a review. It's to use that review to get attention from readers. Readers pay attention to people they know. Unless this shill has real name recognition (which he doesn't because YOU have never heard of him) a review of any kind, let alone a paid one, isn't worth anything.
Here's the rule: Don't pay for reviews.
It's very tempting to think "what can it hurt" and that's exactly what these flim-flam artists are counting on. They KNOW you want to sell books, and they know how to write a pitch that hits every anxiety you've got about your book being published.
It requires a lot of confidence to turn away from this kind of beguiling sales pitch. Be confident your book will find readers the old fashioned way: people who read it and talk about it.
You'll find those folks on book reviewing blogs; on Goodreads; on Twitter. You'll find them from working your mailing list and doing events. It won't be easy. It certainly won't feel anywhere as certain as a "review from a respected NY book reviewer" but what it will be is real.
I have been working on a book series for almost a decade now, and the idea of handing it off to someone else worries me for two reasons:
1.) A publisher could acquire the rights, and skimp on the support they put behind it or never get around to publishing it. (Which would kill me. I've worked too hard on this project to let this happen.)
2.) I've done the research and the math, and I'm convinced that I could make more as a midlist indie than a midlist traditionally published author.
There are two ways to assuage both of these concerns:
1.) To indie publish, which I know will be a tough row to hoe, but at least I'll retain my rights and make sure the books get out there, though I won't have quite the reach of the traditional publisher.
2.) To hold out for a big offer from a big-name publisher, big enough to show how serious they are about getting the books in front of as many people as possible.
The odds of #2 happening are slim but only unachievable if I don't query anyone at all. Which is where my problem lies. I want to at least try for that big paycheck, but if I don't get it--if I'm only offered midlist offers--I plan to self-publish, which would leave the agent who shops it around with nothing to show for her time and effort. (Unless I get a post-self-pubbing rights deal.) On a scale of newborn baby to Bernie Madoff how shady is this plan? If I do decide to query, at what point should I discuss this with an agent?
It's not shady at all. In fact it's quite clear. Show you the money or you show me the door. I think you should be VERY upfront about this in your query. It will save us both lots of time. I won't read your manuscript and you won't need to wait around to self publish.
It's very clear from this that you have minimal understanding of the value of a publisher (large or small.) You should not undertake a business relationship with anyone unless you value what they bring to the table. And value is not the amount of cash they are prepared to pour over you.
"Retain my rights" and "never get around to publishing" demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how the publishing contract works, and what it does.
"Handing it off to someone else" demonstrates a mind set that is almost impossible to deal with in publishing. (See above about value of publisher)
Traditional publishing isn't perfect. Far from it. I spend a goodly portion of my days with a Taser trying to whip those fuckers into doing what they're supposed to. I have NO illusions about the state of publishing.
Which is not to say I don't value what they do, and the benefit they provide to my clients. I do. Very much.
What you're asking here is what are your chances of being a big splashy debut novelist. I can tell you they are minuscule even if you're a brilliant writer with a brilliant book that lots of people want to read.
You're an ideal candidate to self-publish and since you're sure you'll be a success there, I can't imagine why you would consider anything else.
In your Effective Query Letters post, you state 'Don't offer exclusives.' Usually I take all your advice to heart, but an author friend of mine - I won't name names, but she is an award-winning children's author - told me that offering exclusives to literary agents is actually a good thing to do. She strongly advised that in my query letter I make it clear that I am offering my manuscript to the agent on an exclusive basis.
So my question is, how do aspiring authors like me know who is right? There are so many books and websites about what agents do/don't like, yet many of them seem to contradict each other. How are authors ever supposed to craft a successful query when they are being told so many different things by so many different people?
Ok, here is a little quiz to help you make those decisions:
1. Who is reading the query?
A. Your award-winning children's author friend
B. Me
2. Who has written a query in the last month?
A. Your award-winning children's author friend
B. Me
3. Who has written a query in the last year?
A. Your award-winning children's author friend
B. Me
4. Who would presume to offer advice on a topic she knows little about?
A. Your award-winning children's author friend
B. Me
From this quiz (correct answers: BBB/A&B) you may extrapolate the following: give more weight to the advice from people who are actually DOING the task you are trying to learn.
Thus: if an agent talks about how to send work to an agent, and particularly to her own agency, you follow that advice rather than any advice from someone who is not an agent.
If you're trying to figure out how to add plot to a novel you're better off talking to writers who have plot driven novels rather than agents, no matter how brilliant they are about query letters.
This rule applies to almost every aspect of life. A million people have opinions on how to do things. Some of them are well-intentioned. Even fewer are actually right.
Specifically to your situation: your award-winning childrens author probably hasn't queried in a dozen years or more. Even if she has, it's been with an award-winning backlist. Her situation is not yours and her advice is outdated at best.
You're smart enough to recognize that. Apply that caution to all the other advice you're reading, EVEN WHAT YOU READ HERE. I've waxed on about topics that other people know more about (self-publishing, writing, being pleasant on social media) and you should bear that in mind when you think about your own strategy.
I was at a writers' group meeting last night. A number of published writers insisted that even if an agent loves a writer's debut novel and sends it to an editor who also loves it, it will still get shot down in acquisitions by the publisher if the writer doesn't have a sufficient online platform. Is this true? To what extent does a writers' online platform matter to a publisher when deciding whether to acquire a debut novel?
These published writers work for publishing companies do they? That's how they know what goes on in acquisition meetings?
I thought not.
Writers, published or not, know only what they're told about their own work, or hear from other writers.
Often this information applies to their situation alone; you can't extrapolate from it.
This is one of those cases.
You do not need any platform at all for a novel, particularly for a debut novel.
One thing we know for sure now: Facebook friends, Twitter followers etc does NOT equate to book buyers.
Social media is now established enough that we have data to support, or disprove, theories, about whether online presence sells books.
We know it doesn't.
What we know is that online presence is a great way to connect to readers you already have, or that come to you from book sales.
We still know the best way to get someone to read a book is have it recommended to them. Word of mouth is still the number one way people choose books.
We KNOW THIS.
Your job as a writer is to write a book that people will want to talk about.
On the Absolute Write discussion board, I just read a post by a writer who wants to self-publish, but also wants to make sure the manuscript is as good as possible first. The writer said one way to do this was to "pursue a traditional publishing contract, but reject it & self-publish".
The writer added "If I do decide to do something like this, I will be offering the agent his/her stated commission irrespective of whether I trade publish or self-publish."
This sounded both inconsiderate and unethical, and I felt sure agency contracts took this sort of trick into consideration, but I wanted to check with someone who could clarify whether or not they do.
Actually, my author agency agreement doesn't cover this.
It never dawned on me that an author would behave this abominably.
It's one thing to reject a contract offer that is unsatisfactory. Sadly, I have experience doing that. It's never an easy choice, and when it happens, the clients and I spend quite some time discussing the matter before reaching a decision together.
To have a client reject a contract offer and say s/he is going to self-publish, but will "offer the stated commission" is quite a different matter.
For starters, contract offers that I bring to clients usually involve an advance, so that the author and I both get paid before the book is offered for sale.
Self-publishing is much more of a crapshoot on getting paid.
And let's all remember the dirty little secret that people forget to tell you when they tout the many benefits of self-publishing. Most traditionally published books don't earn out. If you self-publish and sell to EVERY SINGLE PERSON who would buy the book from a publisher, you're probably not going to make as much money as you would with an advance.
Yes you might earn more money. Most people find they don't.
But the deeper problem is that this writer thinks that an agent's time and expertise are available to him at no cost. If the book doesn't sell, he feels he has no obligation to pay the agent at all, even having turned down a contract that would have paid them both.
This is the kind of statement from people who tout self-publishing that makes everyone reach for their light sabers.
I will tell you that if this happened to me, I would fire the client, but only after I consulted my attorney about what civil recourse was available to me.
Even after answering this question, I don't think I'm going to change my author agency agreement. I prefer to approach potential clients with the belief they are people with honorable intentions, not nefarious scalawags out to fleece me.
I'll be attending RWA in July and intend to pitch agents. I've been told more than once not to pitch unless I have a ms polished and ready for sale, but I have a dilemma with that. Here's the situation.
I have a book releasing with a small publisher in June, and two more books completed and in the hopper with the same publisher, scheduled to release at the end of 2015 and early 2016. Since I can point to these three novels with regard to how I've been spending my time, will agents be okay with the fact that the book I'm pitching (contemporary romance, 95-100,000 w) will be incomplete with only a synopsis and five chapters written? (2)
It seems ridiculous to attend RWA and pass up the opportunity to pitch just because of timing. If the conference were in November instead of July, the ms would be complete. I have a track record to prove that I finish what I start. Will that be good enough for most agents, or will the lack of a completed and polished ms be a deterrent? (3)
If a deterrent, can I still schedule to pitch but use the time to ask for feedback on my query letter? (4)
Would that be considered bad form? (I don't want to waste anyone's time.) (1)
Let's take these questions in numerical order.
(1) YOU ARE NOT WASTING MY TIME TALKING TO ME ABOUT YOUR WORK or your query. Like every agent worth having, I make my living from the work you trust me to sell. Even if your query needs work; even if your book does not fit my list, it is NEVER a waste to time to talk to a writer who is serious about his/her career, and may be a potential client (ie REVENUE SOURCE.) And clearly you are in that category (for starters, you're reading this blog)
DO NOT EVER let me hear you talking about wasting my or any agent's time again, or I will get on my broom and fly to your house and bring you a Woodland Creatures Cake....and I'll leave the cake server at HOME.
*rant over*
(2&3) Given your publication history, I think agents will be confident you can finish the book. They can probably tell you if this new one fits in a category they want to consider. They'll probably want you to finish the book but you're right, an unfinished ms in your case is not the same as an unfinished ms from an unpubbed writer. You'll want to have a reasonable estimate of when you'll be finished with the novel (which you do seem to have now.)
(4) Yes.
RWA is in New York this year so a lot of editors and agents will be there. You'd be crazy not to take advantage of this opportunity. Bring your query, bring a list of your published books, and get as much info as you can during your meeting times.
And bring your parasol. It's going to be hot and muggy.
I've read your blog with interest, and have a question that I don't think is addressed. It's regarding expectations writers can have of their agents. Is it reasonable to assume that an agent will write a pitch that reflects the tone of the book, correctly identify the genre, and pitch to editors who are a good fit for the book?
I ask because while my agent acknowledges that the pitch he sent was misleading and the genre was not correctly identified, he says that had the editors truly liked the book they would have referred him to another editor in the house. I've always assumed that busy editors like busy agents simply do not have time to do this. And a blurb that doesn't match the book and mis-identified genre are the first reasons to reject a book. Am I wrong?
What?
WHAT?
WHAT???
Ok, I've applied a cool cloth to my fevered brow, taken a quick sip of a (medicinal purposes only) libation, and am now ready to respond.
WHAT THE EVER LIVING FUCK IS THIS??
Your agent just told you in no uncertain terms that he is an idiot.
NO, you do not ever assume that an editor will pass things on to another editor. An agent's job is to get the right editor the first time. I've spent untold hours now working on my info sheets for editors. I spend time talking to them on the phone, over lunch, on Twitter, and in other odd places (like conferences) to find out what they like to read, what books they wish they'd edited, and generally what gets them enthused. I read the books they acquire. We talk about the books they DON'T acquire (very illuminating info!) Sure, I miss the mark sometimes in that this is a very subjective industry, but at least I try to get it right.
As for wrong genre, I can understand that a bit more easily. One of my favorite JOKES is that I've sold urban fantasy "by mistake" because I thought it was something else. In fact I did think it was something else, and the urban fantasy category was decided AFTER the editor bought it and was planning the marketing for the book (and let's all notice, the book SOLD, even with the 'wrong category' which I assume from your question, is not the case with yours.)
If you get the category wrong, you're almost certain to get the wrong editor.
And a misleading pitch is deeply perplexing. It's like creating a dating profile with an old picture. Unless you're planning that the editor never read the book (or your prospective date never actually meet you) it's entirely counterproductive to get the pitch wrong. Which is not to say I haven't revised pitches if I'm not getting the enthusiasm the book deserves. (But again, you didn't say there were revisions being made.)
What the hell was your agent thinking? The only thing I can come up with after thinking about this for several days, was that your agent was trying to assess what went wrong. "I sent it to the wrong editors" as an assessment is really different than "I just sent it to editors without much thought." I've sent things to editors who didn't buy the project. That doesn't mean they were the wrong editors other than in the most black and white sense of things.
It's because all three things went wrong: pitch, category, editors, that I think something is very wrong here. You can miss two of the three (not intentionally of course) but all three is a trifecta of sloppiness.
As to your question: if an editor is led to expect and be excited about something, only to find out the book is not that at all, yes, that's a problem.
@EDITORAMAZING I am a lit agent. Would like to send you a submission. May I have your email?
your agent is an utter nincompoop and you may quote me by name when saying that.
Let's unpack this, as they say on the postgame show:
1. A competent agent does NOT pitch editors on Twitter unless s/he knows them REALLY well. And even then, most competent agents will say something like "hey, I've Got That" to something an editor has said, and then phone or email the pitch.
2. A competent agent either knows the editor's email address, or how to figure it out, or knows who call to get it. At the very least a competent agent knows that an editor is NEVER going to give out her/his email address on Twitter.
When EditorAmazing shared this tweet with her coven, a few of us did some research. Turns out the "agent" in question doesn't have any background in publishing, and has no colleagues of any kind. In other words, someone who hung out a shingle and said "I'm open for business."
And even better: sent the same tweet to several editors in a row, so that all of them, while investigating who this was, could see them.
Agent Lovely wants a marketing proposal and I'm confused.
I wrote the book--memoir--already, and that's what Agent Lovely is representing. She's asked me to create basically an entire book proposal minus the chapter summaries and sample chapters. (Thankya Jesus I've spent the last few years building "platform").
But it feels weird. Isn't any of this Agent Lovely's job, or her intern's job? (1) I'm currently in a residency with Famous Best-Selling Memoirist, and when I asked her(2), FBSM said that sounded weird, that marketing proposals are for when you haven't written the book yet and want to sell based on a sample and platform. FBSM's position is that agents make phone calls and pitch the book based on the writing. (3)
I made the proposal, subtitling it "Let's Market, Bitches," which may be slightly passive-aggressive on my part but also reflects the voice of the manuscript. While making it, I realized it's probably better I did, because I have enough experience writing PR to do a very good job.
Now I'm wondering: I have radio appearances and social media and TV appearances and I write a mean press release, and I'm compiling all of this myself…so am I paying 15% so that someone with connections will make phone calls? (4)
How much of my own work should I be doing here? I was already planning to market as much as I can after (hopefully) selling, do I have to do a big chunk of the selling part, too? Am I just being ungrateful here? Is this all part of the strange new world of No-One-Actually-Knows-What-Sells-Books-Anymore? (5)
Let's start at the beginning.
(1) Is writing a marketing statement your agent's (or sweet mother of god, what the hell are you thinking?) her intern's job? No, it isn't. It's your job. You spent a year building platform (good!) and you know which people know about you and how to reach them.. You as much as said so in the next sentence. Your publisher will know how to reach general book buyers, but if you've got niche interest readers for your book, you'll be the one to know about this.
Your agent's job is to sell the book. Your job is to write it. Marketing plans are an essential part of the non-fiction pitch even though memoir is sold like a novel (ie finished when pitched)
(2) There are few things that drive me crazier than people asking for advice from folks who are not suited to offer it by virtue of their experience being limited or out of date. Famous Best Selling Memoirist doesn't need a marketing plan because she is 1. Famous 2. Bestselling. And if her first book was sold more than five years ago, her experience doesn't apply to you.
Nothing has changed more in the last ten years than how books are sold to the general public. Thank you Amazon, thank you meta data, thank you social media. FINDING your reader is an enormous challenge. Famous Best Selling has already found her readers.
And the fact that she didn't tell you to talk to your agent chaps my fin. But then we all love to be asked for advice it's true.
(3) Famous is an idiot if she thinks that's what agents do. Maybe that's what her agent does. If that's true, she has a bad agent. A competent agent is going to do a lot more than make phone calls to sell your work. And that's just the start of things. Negotiate the contract, make sure the editor gets an editorial letter to you on time, monitor the production schedule so you're not looking at the cover six days AFTER it went to the printer. Audit the royalty statements. Explain the royalty statements to you. And that's just the stuff I did Friday.
The fact that often times we DO write the proposal, or pieces of it, does not mean it's our job. It means we're willing to help you do yours.
(4) You're not paying anything yet. Let's all remember that your agent doesn't see a dime until you do. If you honestly feel like your agent isn't going to be worth the money, do yourself a favor and split now. There is nothing worse than a client who does not value the service provided. It's like dating someone who thinks going out with you is marginally better than staying home alone and watching Friends on NetFlix.
(5) Yes you are. And you should knock it off.
Let's review:
1. Your agent will be working with you for your entire career, or the very least the sale and publication of your book. Generally you are NOT going to pay her for the value of her time. You're going to get a bargain by giving her a percentage of what you earn, and only AFTER you see money too.
2. Don't ask for advice or take advice from people who have outdated experience, or a wildly different experience on how things "should be going."
3. Talk to your agent. If you seriously think she should be writing your book proposal tell her so. If you think you can save money by pitching directly, go right ahead. If one of my clients had written this question, I'd fire them on the spot. I can't stand working with people who don't value the service I provide, and life is too short to do that any longer than it takes to write a termination letter. There are a LOT of people out there with terrific projects. If you don't think I'm worth it, they sure as hell do.
In a recent post, you offered as an aside that a writer whose platform involved speaking out on the issues of the day might not be a good fit for you. Can you expand on why a polemicist or controversialist, however well known, might not be right for you, and why such a platform might be counterproductive in the realm of fiction writing.
I make my living selling books to publishers and then helping authors have successful careers. By and large this means selling Many Many copies of this book, then the next book, and so on. Rinse, remainder, repeat.
An author who is busy writing blog posts on why Felix Buttonweezer is a scamp are 1. alienating all Felix Buttonweezer fans; and 2. getting known as a Felix-basher, not novel writer.
I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying do it in moderation. A blog that's all Felix, all the time isn't a blog that general readers are going to follow, or check in with to find out there's a new book coming.
What many writers realize only after the book is published is the author persona is an entity that may not be a clone of the writer.
Most of my blog readers are willing to let me do this because I don't do it often, and I'm generally not going to delete their comments if they disagree with me.
This blog is known for dispensing information, advice and rants to writers. That's my goal. The other blog posts are just cause I get riled up sometimes as we all do.
When you're planning your social media, ask yourself what your goal is. Is it to make friends who will buy your book and support your career? Is it to convert people to your political agenda, or show them the error of their ways in thinking differently than you do?
Those are mutually exclusive goals, and if you don't know it, I do.
Today's blog post brought to you by The Tao and The Bard by Phillip dePoy.
The
Tao Te Ching or Book of the Way of Virtue is a touchstone of Eastern
philosophy and mysticism. It has been called the wisest book ever
written, and its author, Lao Tzu, is known as the Great Archivist. Shakespeare, the Bard, was the West’s greatest writer and even invented human nature, according to some. The
Tao and the Bard is the delightful conversation between these two
unlikely spokesmen, who take part in a free exchange of views in its
pages.
