Tag Archives: queries

Why they say “no”

Posted on by

POD-dy Mouth sheds a bit more insight into the agent rejection thing — specifically why an agent would love your novel but still decide he/she wouldn’t be able to sell it:

What you, aspiring writer, are forgetting, is that while an agent may sell (as an example) mysteries and yours is a stellar one, he/she may know that his/her editorial contacts will not go for your particular mystery for some offhand reason. Agents, to varying degrees, sell to the same editors over and over. Examples: Jenny Bent (Trident) sells regularly to Denise Roy (S&S), Dorian Karchmar (William Morris) sells regularly to Claire Wachtel (William Morrow), Elaine Koster sells regularly to Carrie Feron (William Morrow), and so forth. The point is these agents know what these editors want . . . specifically. So if your novel’s protagonist happens to be a coke addict and Agent A’s contacts aren’t much for characters with substance abuse issues, you’re out of luck, no matter how deftly written your novel may be.

Interesting. So to some degree, agents act as scouts for particular editors . . . you learn something new every day.

Another lit agent blogging: Rachel Vater

Posted on by

OK, this is so cool. Bernita at An Innocent A-Blog has posted about some blogs she reads regularly, including one kept by literary agent Rachel Vater of Lowenstein-Yost Associates.

Another agency to add to my blogroll :-)

But it gets better. I queried that agency in July (got a “no” back the next day) and it turns out, Rachel blogs about queries she reads and her response to them. So by scrolling back to July 10 I found her note about mine:

4. An adult novel about discovering little fairies. It’s really the tone of this novel that makes me think it’s not right for me. It seems sweet, light, and romantic. Maybe perfect for someone else, but I tend to like very funny, or else very kick ass, or darker, edgier paranormal novels. Sweet isn’t quite for me.

This really points out how fraught with peril is the querying process. My first version of my query read too dark (Kristin Nelson passed on it for that reason!) so I lightened it. Then maybe midway through the querying process, I decided I’d gotten it too sweet and modified it again.

I don’t know if the book is right for Vater (and since I’ve received multiple requests for fulls at this point I’m not going to lose any sleep over it) but I think I missed my chance with her because of my query, not because of the book itself.

Incidentally, the interface for submitting to this agency isn’t an email address — it’s an online form. As a result, I wasn’t able to include 5 sample pages, which I typically do as per the divine Miss Snark’s regularly repeated advice.

The sample pages would be plenty to show that the novel’s tone isn’t exactly “sweet and light,” although it has its comic and romantic moments.

Coincidentally, Miss Snark touched on the inherent inadequecy of query letters again this weekend:

You can write the world’s worst query letter and if you have good writing attached to it, I’m not going to pass. It’s not the query letter that keeps you from “yes”: it’s the writing. I’ve said it before, here it is again: most query letters suck. Good writing trumps all.

Two of my requests for fulls came from the query plus first five pages. It’s the five pages that dunnit. I so owe Miss Snark.

OK, now I get the “no attachments” thing

Posted on by

I’ve always assumed the reason agents automatically reject e-queries that arrive with attachments is the threat of viruses.

But look at what writers send to Wylie-Merrick.

Writers send us e-mail attachments with nothing else in the body of the e-mail message.

Writers send us e-mail attachments with a note in the body of the message telling us that the query is in the attachment. We have never quite understood this one.

Writers send us e-mail attachments that include pictures of themselves, their children, their pets, and sometimes their illustrations.

Here’s the thing. Any agent who’s any good has no shortage of prospective writers he/she could sign. Why bother with people who can’t even send an email without creating unnecessary work for the agent?

Let alone emailing photos of the kids.

I’d delete them unread, too.

From my blogroll: Language Log, again

Posted on by

Had too much fun reading this morning to write a blog post myself.

Over at Pubrants, agent Kristin Nelson has posted a query from one of her writers, Lisa Shearin, along with comments about what it was about the query that worked. Nice contrast to Evil Editor, whose material is drawn from queries that don’t work quite so well.

I’ve also been looking through the archives at Language Log, a blog I added to my blogroll yesterday after my eggcorn post. What a pleasure. I love the ‘net!

UPDATE: Mark Liberman has collaborated with Geoffrey K. Pullum to publish a “best of” Language Log as a book, Far from the Madding Gerund :)

Beginning a new book

Posted on by

It’s the balm, they say, that soothes the query-monitoring itch.

I’m excited about it–the new book–but it’s scary too, vertigo-like to start to peer into the widening crack that’s now opened into yet another world and realize I have no choice, if I’m going to capture it for the telling, but to squeeze through the opening, close my eyes, and let go . . .

E-queries and a prediction (you read it here first!!!!)

Posted on by

Of the 20-odd agents I’ve queried so far for my current novel, I’ve done only one by mail.

All the rest have been email queries.

I have to believe I’m not the only writer who’s inclined to favor e-querying. It’s cheaper and less trouble than printing and packaging a snail mail query. And you also get answers faster. Granted, most of them will be “no thanks” kind of answers but even they feel good in a weird kind of way. At least you have evidence that things are moving.

But here’s the thing. Many agents — many very good agents — still prefer traditional paper queries.

So I hereby predict that writers who take the time to craft and mail traditional queries will, at some point, have a slight advantage in the agent-hunting game. Because at some point the majority of the great unpubbed will be dashing off e-queries. Which means anyone willing to put in a bit of extra effort and expense will be rewarded with a slightly less-crowded playing field.

I predict you’ll soon be reading writer-advice articles that recommend you seek agents who only accept snail mail queries as a way of boosting your agent-hunting odds.

You read it here, first.

:-)

Got a nibble

Posted on by

I have a draft of my new novel done, I’ve started querying, and I’ve gotten my first nibble: request for partial came in late yesterday, emailed it out today.

Nothing in the world is more fun than this. Even though I know what a long shot it is . . . how hard it is to fall short. It’s still about the most fun of anything I can imagine.