How to use this Page

I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do for exactly the reason you've said. It doesn't have to be something personal, but switching agents would be beneficial for both writer and agent in that situation.

I have read of at least one instance where an agent got a ms from an new author that was not her genre, but deserved representation. In that case, she passed the author on to a colleague within the agency that she felt could better represent that genre. Unusual, but it apparently it happens.

As an aspiring writer, I think it's great that agencies will work this way to keep and nurture talent. I would hate to feel like I have to leave an agency because I've written something my agent doesn't rep.

One other bonus that I can see in this case is that the two agents will be right there, for easy conferencing. The author's past history, quirks, foibles, style... it's all there for Agent 2 to find out, quickly and easily. Makes for a faster start to the new relationship.

Interesting that you allow authors to query other agents at the same agency. Do you not pass along manuscripts that you feel would be a better fit for someone else?

This article was very helpful, and it falls in line with what I have assumed to be true. Plus, I'd like to think that my work could help a new agent grow!

Still, it is difficult to obtain those newer agents' names and emails. Publisher's Marketplace often trails and many agencies have a lag time as well.

Do you have suggestions on where to find their names, blogs and information on what they are looking for in a manuscript and a prospective author? Perhaps what writer's conferences they plan to attend?

As always, thank you for your advice. There is something comforting about an agent who begins her day with thoughts for 'newbies'.

I love this advice. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much for this, Jessica! Awesome advice!!

Good question, whoever asked.

For what it's worth, Jessica was brand new when I first queried her. Looking back, I honestly wonder if she would sign me now if I were to query her that same letter, which was absolutely horrible! I really was clueless, but she must have seen something that caught her attention--or, because she was still building her client list, she was more willing to take a chance on an unknown. Point being, I took a chance, but so did the agent, and we were lucky enough that it worked. She hasn't resorted to blocking my emails, at any rate. Yet. :-)

Hi Jessica:

I've been following your blog for sometime and I appreciate the time and effort it takes.

I was glad to hear that new writers should not be afraid to submit to new agents.

For Meg E. Dobson, check out www.QueryTracker.net. This is a great website that lists agents and their websites. It's quite interactive. You can write notes after researching agents. There is also another website you might be interested in. It's www.agentquery.com.

And Jessica, your agency BookEnds,LLC is listed on Query Tracker as are you.

Thank you again,
Tracy Campbell

Everyone started off as 'new blood' and the only reason anyone has experience is because someone decided to give them a chance when they began. So it's also important to have a little faith in the newbies and give them a chance.

This is very great blog and the whole post is awesome. but its still difficult to obtain new agents and their emails.

Good post!!

From a writer's perspective (especially one who is querying their novel), this is a very interesting and useful, exercise. I think every agent website should have a list of authors/books each agent wishes s/he had represented.

Thanks!

ummmm...me! You just don't know it yet because I've not queried! ;) PLJ

The job not taken, the one never offered, the lover turned down, the one who didn’t stay, the unborn child. Sometimes we are given the choice and sometimes not. Chance not offered is a slush-pile of what-ifs.

I was discovered forty-years ago through no effort of my own. They said I was going to be famous. That I am still unknown tells the end of that sad tale. If I had a do-over, would I change anything? No I would not.

Ladies…if any of you had those writers in your stable you would not be doing what you are doing right now. You make right the path for all of us. That’s worth all the Allens, Rowlings, Stines and Collins of the writing world...ah...maybe not Rowling, I mean jeez she’s bigger than big. And the others...well...I’m about to slice me a piece a pie. It’s called humble, bitter with just a hint of sweet.

It is now my goal to be on that list. There's still time...just saying.

Hmm, IF I was an agent, I would have loved to discover Marguerite Duras and her novel, The Lover. I'm a sucker for her poetic prose.

Great post, thank you for sharing,

Rashad.

Oooh - what a fun game! I wish I'd discovered Brunonia Barry. Love her writing!

Would you really have liked to discover J.K. Rowling as your primary choice? I understand the fame and fortune aspect, but I couldn't see myself sitting down with her over a nice cocktail and talking about anything other than wizarding and quidditch! I want a soulful, deep writer with a rather strange history,

Best,

Rashad.

Thank you for this. Of course anything can be done, provided it's done well and carries the reader into the story rather making the journey of reading too much of a challenge.

Great advice. I think advice authors give to others often comes across too much like 'don't do this, ever' and ends up being far more discouraging than it's probably meant.

This is perfect! I agree with JeffO, no advice seems to be a blanket statement of do's and don'ts. The bottom line is, it has to be done well.

I honestly don't like writing in the present tense. In fact, I hate it because I feel too confined. But I have done it and the stories and books that were published in the present tense have always surprised me, with regard to good sales. I always wonder if other writers experience this. It "seems" that readers do like the present tense, which in this case makes it hard for an author to trust his or her own judgment sometimes.

I think you've nailed it--first person and present tense are harder to do well, possibly because they are easier to do without thinking much about it. I find both harder to get past--they distract me from the book unless they are REALLY done well, but if they are (for instance, Hunger Games) it can suck you right in.

The first book I wrote in present tense was my superlong Russian historical novel, which I started writing on 31 January 1993. I was inspired to use the present tense after reading Ida Vos's 'Hide and Seek.' It was like a revelation to me to discover a book could be written in the present tense. It made the action seem so much more gripping and immediate, as opposed to reading or writing in the past tense and knowing everything has already been resolved.

Another of my family sagas (contemporary historical fiction) is also written in present tense, probably for much the same reason. My Atlantic City books are still in the past tense, though. I began writing them in 1991, when I thought you HAD to use past tense. It just seems right, since I've always written them in past tense.

Good stuff. I do believe many things can be done that are the so-called "Taboo" of the industry. If this were not true, I think you would have many writers--great writers--creativity stifled; bearing all the charisma of an African Bullfrog. I spend my ten bucks because I like the story and it is clear and rings true in my head. Past or Present Tense.

I wrote my novel Friend of the Devil in first person present tense, because it was the best way for the protagonist to tell the story. IT was work. The readers I got liked it just fine. My agent liked it until my editor didn't, which meant I lost both. Subsequent agents and editors hated it. I had to self publish on Kindle. Most months the royalties take care of my Starbucks bill for about a week. I still wouldn't do it any other way. My current fiction project is more conventional, but only because it's that kind of story. I'm sure the agents and editors will hate it just as much

Amen to not listening to people regurgitate every last writing "rule" they've ever heard. Doing things differently (and doing them *well*) is how new doors get opened.

I just find it so much easier to write in present tense, but my writing group hates it! ha ha. I say just do what you think will work.

The trick is, of course, to do it well, and that applies to anything you write no matter what tense or POV.

If you do it well, you can break any "rule" you want.

If your writing skills are still developing, you might follow all the standards and still not produce a work people want to read. Well, that can happen even if you're a brilliant writer, too.

Bottom line, write what you want, the way you want. Whether it sells or not is out of your hands. Put in your best effort, finish it to the best of your ability, revise, and then move on to the next novel.

It's the only way to stay sane.

I write my hypnotic audio stories in present tense. I do this because I want my listeners to experience the action as I describe it. But for regular fiction, I write in past tense. It really is easier to read.

I read the first chapter of "The Hunger Games" and wondered, Is this in the first person present tense?? I found it fascinating to read phrases like, "Now I walk toward the woods.." or "I prop myself up on one elbow..."

A very interesting POV! Not sure if I could pull it off, but it appears many authors do it successfully!

Great post!

Best,
Ruth

I find it hard to get into a story that is happening as I read it because I don't get the sense that there is a story (which is really telling about something that has already happened) so much as a travelogue of actions happening now. It's hard to feel like there is any known meaning to something which hasn't been completed yet -- even though of course we all know that it is fiction. Perhaps it's my love of history that colors my view.

I think it's important to learn the "rules" and learn them well. Then, I think it's important to break them. Try anything, and if it works, great! If not, try something else.

I've been reading a lot of sci-fi/fantasy YA lately, and it seems like a lot of the most recently published books in this genre are first-person, present tense.

I gave up reading "The Hypnotist" after 3 pages because the 3rd person present tense writing drove me up the wall. Looking at the online reviews of this international best-seller, I see people were divided into two extreme camps, but I mostly found it annoying and gave up. Not sure if it was the translation's fault, or whether the writing would have suffered the same fate in its native Swedish.

One of my novels is written in present tense. That is how I heard the story and every time I tried to write it in past tense, I got stopped. I think some stories call for present tense, and as a writer you have to trust the process to write the best story you can.

I like present tense best when it's used as a framing device. Example: Patrick Rothfuss' THE NAME OF THE WIND, where the framing story is told in the present tense and the main story-within-the-story in past tense to differentiate them. It does lend a sense of immediacy to the framing story and a sense of history to the interior story that way. But I've certainly read enough present-tense novels to know it can be done well on its own, even if it would feel a bit unnatural for me to write one that way.

(I did write a second-person present-tense story in middle school, once. THAT was strange!)

I know this sounds stupid but I don't like reading present tense because it makes me nervous...I keep waiting for a tense-error.

Hum...tense-error, sounds like someone needs a massage.

Your advice is well received Jessica, thank you. I'm a new author in search of a great agent like yourself, to representation my completed unpublished fiction manuscript and happen to have come across your question. I believe “present tense in a novel,” is the question. My own personal opinion on the subject is that, to take a phase from a great novelist by the name of Colin Wilson-- if I may-- “Once upon a time…” This is the correct starting point for any novel. Mr. Wilson said for once the storyteller has induced this feeling in himself, he has induced it in the reader. The storyteller must now visualize his vision with such clarity that he/she develops a feeling of actually being present in whatever he/she is describing. The storyteller should actually put himself into the scene that is being shared, to the point of actually seeing, smelling and feeling each description.
I get the feeling that something you are reading is missing the proper, “time and space.” Whether the story is told in the past, present or future tense it should be reminiscent of that time. Your question suggests that, “Once upon time,” has been forgotten.

The Hunger Games is a perfect example of first person present tense well-written. The story calls for that immediacy, that tension that grabs the reader by the neck and puts her in the middle of that strange world. It's a fast paced story and one that is hard to put down. I don't think it could have been written any other way.
What Jesica said is right. Respect the story and the story will present to the author the one best way it should be told.

This is one of those things I was struggling with too. I originally wrote my book in first person, present tense then read how this was some horrible "no-no" that turned agents off. So I rewrote in first person, past tense.

After working with a freelance editor and seeing her comments at first past (and her telling me write with confidence), I rewrote the entire manuscript a third time. I believe the story is stronger in first person, present tense because the reader (hopefully) experiences the emotions as the character does. And (hopefully) the reader sees how the character's perspective and thinking shifts as story develops.

Brilliant –

Now I know why you didn’t want to invest in my swampland in Florida.

I could always change the title.

An agent being an investor has never occurred to me. It makes me raise the bar for my writing. Great pep talk, thanks!

I've never looked at the agent/author relationship quite this way. Thank you for the post!

http://lilliemcferrin.blogspot.com

This is a fantastic way to re-frame the role of an agent and, in turn, the agent query process. Certainly waves off the hint of neediness on to outright desperation many writers, including myself, get bogged down with as they look for representation. I'm all for creative people feeling empowered - gets us in the right mindset to keep the words flowing. Thanks, Jessica.

Nice analogy.

I really like the way you put that; had never considered it quite like that before. Thanks!

Word!

Interesting.

So why aren't agents starting their own eBook publishing firms with lower overhead than traditional publishing?

I ask because with Borders closing and hardback sales pretty much plunging like the DOW today, I wonder what the best investment is today. Do publishers have any clue how many books to print after Borders closed? Are their editors freezing acquisitions until they figure out their new supply chains?

If you used to print for two major bookstores and one goes away, then you still have all that overhead for printing twice the volume. And what happens to all those books that Borders has? Barnes and Noble and Amazon can't and probably don't want them all. And what's happening to returns in this quarter and the next quarter statements for authors?

So taking your post to the next logical step, what's a good investment in this new book economy?

Genius. Never thought of it that way but you are very right.

Thanks for this different POV. It makes so much sense.

And it's more empowering.

I don't always read other comments, but I have to say I agree with Hazel. It's time to raise the bar.

I never looked at it this way, but it makes sense.

Great analogy!

Jessica (on a slightly unrelated note) when an agent likes the query and wants to request a full or partial, how will they typically contact the author?
Thanks

I would never have thought of an author/agent relationship this way- great analogy.

I like the analogy that finding a literary agent is like finding a literary agent. I don't know that there's anything quite like it.

(The closest that comes to mind is finding a trainer for an olympic sport.)

Anyone can invest, authors need expertise.

It costs too much money to shop a new author, and there is no return and in most cases just big loss and wast of time. Agents who bad mouth other agents in order to get the better authors are the worst agents around and unfortunately there are too many con artists like Kristen Nelson and Janet Reid.

This applies well to the artist gallery relationship.

@anonymous it is hard to imagine Janet Reid as con artist, she seem bone honest to me and if I wrote what she represented I'd do flips to work with her

You should have acknowledged Natalie Whipple in this post. This is basically a rehash of a post she did yesterday which has been widely circulated on twitter by writers and agents.

Shame on you for blatant copying.

Thank you for the post. I agree; it does give a fresh way of looking at the querying activity.

Anon 3:54:

It's too bad you seem unwilling to identify yourself. Thank you for letting me know about Natalie's blog. In fact, I've never read her blog, but was pleased to see we had similar viewpoints. In order to share the wealth I thought I'd provide a link so all of my readers could see her insights as well http://betweenfactandfiction.blogspot.com/2011/09/agents-are-not-your-employees-you-are.html#comments

--jhf

Oooh, thank you, Jessica. What a sound analogy.

I'm going to keep this one front and center.

That's another interesting way of thinking about it.

It's funny, you put so much effort into your query letter to snag a literary agent. Yet you're actually the one who's hiring them, but they're the ones rejecting you.

Jessica, I was thinking hiring an agent is akin to hiring a lawyer, who may choose to take on a case or not.

Your agent-as-investor comparison was much better! I'd never thought about it in quite that way.

Brilliant post!

Very interesting perspective because I've always thought the job seeking analogy was a little off. Thanks for sharing.

Great analogy, and much better a correspondence to our reality than job-seeking. Thanks--I can tell this will be a useful one in the future!

This is such a great way to think about it. And i believe agents might want to look at it this way, too. A writer's career is not just a single book, so it's very sad when an agent gives up on an author if their book doesn't get a publishing contract within 6 months. That's never happened to me, but i know several writers who have had that experience. Very sad. :(

Great analogy.

Good observations, Jessica! I love "business of writing" blogs that are practical and down to earth.

This one was spot on.

-Ann C. Crispin
Chair, Writer Beware
www.writerbeware.com

A.C. Crispin
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Price of Freedom
Disney Editions

Excellent analogy. Bookmarked yours and the link you provided to share with those who contact me asking how to get an agent. Neither whiny neediness nor hostility impress possible investors (or in the old analogy, employers.)

Worth noting that a good business plan can impress an investor who doesn't choose your project to mention another investor he/she knows for whom it might be a better fit.

This was very insightful. I appreciate you taking the time to show us what you're most interested in! It's always great to see an agent take a few moments to share a tidbit about their current interests!

Have a fabulous week!

I write YA but read everything. I'd love to hear any titles for "very sexy Regencies and Victorians" that you've enjoyed and recommend (but no pressure, of course). Good luck building your list!

Jessica, this is very helpful.

I've read the submission info on BookEnds' site, but I wondered if in addition to the query you would also look at, say, the first ten pages of a manuscript in order to make your decision? I've noticed many agents asking for the first 10 or 20 pages of a novel to get a better feel for the writing and story.

— Mary

Very interesting, thank you for taking the time to share it with us. I have a question, actually. My critique partner, beta, and myself all feel like my novel is romantic suspense that would fall in the guidelines of Mira's romantic suspense books. But I've got a proofer/editor suggesting that it's really women's fiction, because we have a sense of who the bad guy is. She says editors are so inundated with romantic suspense queries that it's better to query as women's fic. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

" I may live to regret saying this, but it’s pretty darn hard to shock me with erotica. Graphic, kinky novels are welcome."

I feel a challenge here. :)

Darker erotica? I may have just found my dream agent.

That definitely sounds interesting and helpful. Most agents, I think, have a tendency to shy away from erotica (I could be wrong on this so if I am, feel free to correct me), which is why I've been concetrating on small to medium sized publishers with my work.

But now knowing this, it will definitely give me something to think about.

Thanks for sharing your interests, it's so important to know what each agent is seeking. This list makes me smile, such variety. I am all smiles today, my book trailer came out today for A Marked Past.
http://vimeo.com/28443440

Great post, I enjoyed ready reading it, Keep posting good stuff like this.

i like this article. great post.

Do you differentiate between erotica and erotic romance? Just curious; I've heard other agents and publishers distinguish between those terms before.

Insightful post, Jessica. Thank you. Not looking for an agent at the moment since I'm up to my ears, but in the future I shall know who to submit to.

Thanks for doing the sensible thing and letting us all out here know what suits you.

Great post, Keep posting!
You have a good post!

Hi Jessica,
That was a great blog, very informative. Thank you so much or letting us know what you are looking for.
Kind regards
Margaret

Interesting that you only list South East Asia. If you like to expand to China, my contemporary commercial (with erotica) fiction might capture your interest. It's improving every month. Best wishes in finding great books to represent.

Thanks for the info! :-)

There's some great advice in this post. I read everything I can get my hands on, from my genre to outside my genre. There are many books I don't enjoy, but I know that reading them will make me a better writer.

I agree genre is forever changing. In acquisitions often times I find myself excited over the premise that's been offered in the synopsis or query only to be let down with the actual ms. It's usually not the grammar or technical problems it's the voice, pacing and characters.As if the ideas are the writers greatest strength and the follow through just isn't there.

This a great post! Ah to be a fly on the wall at a meeting. I would love to see what is discussed.

It might help to take somewhat of a writer's approach as well and dissect books in the targeted genre that work well, as well as books that don't, and see if you can identify the elements that lead to success or failure. Once you can articulate them, they will be easier to recognize.

(And I totally agree with Martha. I would love to sit in on one of those meetings!

As the 'agenting' and 'publishing' culture is rapidly changing to meet the demands of the Cyber Age, it's a challenge for literary agents to be up-to-date and change their traditional 'behavior'!

"I really think that if it's a real struggle to understand a genre, it's probably just not the genre you should be focusing on."

I agree. I love bios and memoirs to the point where I devour them. Autobiographies, too, if they are honest and not too contrived.

Great insight to keep in mind.

Well said.

I'm reminded of a book I once read about Christmas tree farming in Wisconsin. I am not interested in Christmas, trees, or Wisconsin, but I couldn't put it down.

How very true, Jessica! I'd hazard to guess that most agents look for voice first, and if the voice fails them, they often then notice the dogs that they so terribly despise.

@tericarter - Good point. I often value books for when they teach me to appreciate the unexpected or unknown, broadening my horizons in some fascinating and inimitable manner.

I may be wrong, but I think you just validated how subjective it all is with this post. In other words, if a dog in a book doesn't work for you than you're obviously not going to be interested. Or, if chef in a book doesn't work for you...even though you love food books...you're not going to be interested. The same dog (or chef), however may work for another agent, which is the same with readers. It's also why we see so many one star and five star reviews for Jonathan Franzen's new book, FREEDOM. (In FREEDOM I don't think the Joey charater's business venture with the government worked, but many people did think it worked...subjectivity again.)

You almost had me on your corner with this one :) But, speaking from a subjective pov, even though the post works well, it doesn't make any sense at all with respect to the title of the post.

I use subjectivity to remind myself that I'll always have a chance at getting published. You never know when you might tap an agent at the right time or you've written something they'll totally fall in love with.

I also use it to try and figure out which agents might be the best fit. For example, I read a book that BookEnds helped put out there. While I, ah, was glad it was an ARC and that I hadn't bought it myself, it still helped me to get a taste of what works for you and what has publishing potential.

LOL, I'll try to keep that in mind as you have my ms with both a dog and a character named Sarah! :))

I get it. But how can you make that come across in a query? For example, an agent reads my query, and rejects it based on some subjective quality. How do you get it past query so the agent can see it's worth its salt?

Ah yeah. I think you're right, calling getting an agent "totally subjective" isn't necessarily true. When an author blames their query getting rejected on the subjectivity of all agents, it reminds me of a girl getting dumped and saying, "He said it wasn't me. It was him."

and I just kind of go, "Isn't that what your last bf said?"

"Yeah?"

"and...those 29 bfs before that?"

"Yeah, guys are just so fickle."

"...fickle yeah. It must be them."

Cause the truth is, while there may be hundreds of nuances and factors going into it, agents are still looking for talent and skill, and yes, when you query properly, to agents who represent your genre, I really do believe they react to talent and skill quite logically, and oftentimes, similarly.

"Doesn't work for me" is shorthand for a whole lot of things that are most likely not subjective at all.

And submitting a Tom-Clancy-like novel to an agent who doesn't represent that genre doesn't get you rejected because of "subjectivity." You were rejected because you didn't do your research.

Bam.

I have never been wild about Neil Gaiman's writing.

NOW, WAIT JUST A MINUTE WITH THOSE PITCHFORKS!

That doesn't mean I don't like his books, or that I can't see how well-written they are. It just means, for whatever reasons, the books don't resonate with me they way they do with his fans.

If I were an agent, and Neil Gaiman queried me, I'd be interested, but I truly wouldn't comprehend what a gold mine I was looking at.

And that means Neil Gaiman would do better to find another agent who did.

Subjectivity is the difference not only between getting an agent and not getting an agent, but between having a competent agent and having a zealous, battle-through-fire champion on your side.

I think your last sentence sums it up perfectly. It's about presentation. You can have the best idea in the world and mess it up with bad execution.

I think what is most difficult for the querying author is determining when it is truly a matter of subjectivity, or a matter of needing improvement. Phrases such as, "I encourage you to query widely." or such even in a personalized rejection can send an author into throes of rejectomancy. One is almost unsure of the need to submit elsewhere or fiddle based on the scraps of feedback. It can be a maddening process.

Thankfully, there are more regular readers than there are agents and editors...one day we'll be able to find an audience that, although as fickle, has more fish in the sea!

Do you have any recommendations for steampunk books to read?

Lynn

How about a paranormal romantic suspense?

Thanks, Jessica. One of the things I love about you is your varied interests.

I'm hopeful this is the year to submit one of my finished works.

And your blog is amazing. It's always on my short list of everyday must-reads.

(I just wish I could be awake when you run the #askagent on Twitter. A little early for us west coast folks!)

Ahhh, I'm being sucked into the steampunk world. There are some amazing Japanese Manga that are steampunk. I'm in the middle of a paranormal non-vampire novel, but the steampunk is calling me...

I love your enthusiasm! Good luck w/the hunt.

Ah! Gotta get my fantasy romance done then :)

There's nothing better than Indiana Jones references in the morning. Thank you! :)

I'm working on a new time travel set in medieval England/Scotland based on research I did for an earlier book and wondered what your views were on time travels? I LOVE time travels and can never read enough of them!

Steampunk is still hot? Interesting. I have a Japanese steampunk short story that's just begging to be turned into a novel...

Samurai fights on zeppelins, anyone?

-Anna

Lynn:

Gail Carriger is great. There are many others, but my mind went blank. Start with her though.

Jerri: Sure!

Kirk: TY

Terry: I used to love time travel, but haven't found anything that's wowed me lately. Kim might be better for this.

Anna: Still very hot.

--jhf

You know, some of these genres (i.e. steampunk) are genres I have never written in or read, or frankly heard much about. Until recently. I've been hearing it mentioned quite frequently lately, and I think I'll have to check it out and see whats what. Thanks for this post :)

Sarah Allen
(my creative writing blog)

If I sent a query a long time ago that was rejected, and have since revised the book in question (and the query, of course), is it all right to resubmit, especially if it's one of the mentioned genres?

I have a funny mystery that fits in the same category as Tori Carrington's Sofie Metroplis series. Would that be a good fit?

Violet

Oops, I hit the button before I checked for typos. It should say Sofie Metropolis.

Violet

To Lynn and Sarah, for some incredible YA steampunk, try Scott Westerfeld's "Leviathan". I read it in one sitting because you could not drag that book away from me.

I love steampunk and my agent has mine out on submission right now. That's great news that it's still hot, thought mine is also paranormal. It's not dystopian, but the alternate history story line has the world recovering from an apocalyptic disaster. The book dips its toes into a few areas that appear to be popular right now and I had no idea at the time I was writing it. Strange how that works.

I think some genre folks are surprised Steampunk is still hot because in the genre scene it's sort of hit its apex. I know this because I'm attending a con where one of the panels is "What's next after Steampunk?". But in the "normal" world, that is to say outside of the SF/Fantasy world, it's still a new idea. In fact the layman still has no idea what the term "steampunk" means. Once that happens, maybe it will have hit it's peak, but until then. . .

Anyway, I second the Steampunk literary suggestions already made, and would like to add another. Though the book isn't out until the spring, there's a YA Steampunk Romance anthology called CORSETS & CLOCKWORK (edited by Trisha Telep) that features some pretty awesome authors. It seems a little self serving to say so, as, um, I contributed to the anthology, but one of the first thoughts I had in being a part of it was "Woah, I'm with some pretty amazing authors here." (I'm talking the likes of Jaclyn Dolamore, Ann Aguirre and Michael Scott). I'm in awe of the company I'm keeping, is my point.

Anyway, check it out. I think it might be a nice way to get to experience many different voices in one genre. And see what authors are doing and how different the stories can be, despite a seeming narrow focus.

There's also the anthology "Steampunk" edited by Ann and Jeff Vandemeer which is a little older (published in 2008), and is for adults, but has some great stories and begins with some excellent essays about how the genre came to be.

Lynn - read The Iron Duke by Meljean Brook. Steampunk awesomeness.

Adrienne, i have the story collection "Steampunk" and it's awesome! The stories are so unique and very indicative of the genre. I highly recommend it.

Oh. I so wish I had what you're looking for.

Jessica, send I've joined this Blog, I've learned so much. Thank you.

I have a light-hearted time travel romance that takes place in present day and 1783 Charleston, S.C. I would love to send it to you since you’re on the hunt for something different. It has the big sweeping feel of historical romance with a modern perspective. Not to mention the accusations of witchcraft, dungeons, and of course a love that transcends time. I’ll email a query to you. Look for “A Matter of Time.” Thanks for posting.

It's like opening up the flood gates to dozens of amazing and enthusiastic ideas!

I love your blog and always look forward to the newest post.

Best Wishes to all,
Angela

http://sheerglow.blogspot.com/

YA Dystopian, I think I can finally query you when mine is finished. Yahoo!

You like big JR Ward worlds with something totally different...boy should I query you.

My friend, Selena Illyria is hosting Steampunk week on her website/blog, so this is great news for those authors too. http://selenaillyria.com/blog/

World building is my favorite thing. Everything I do now is world-based. I need to take one of my WIPs, finish it and send it to you. Thanks for the heads up re what you're looking for.

Comments duly noted.
Your taste coincides with mine.

That was far from a rant, just laying out the facts :)

And as someone who's been rejected (although not by you) I can proudly say that I simply believed the agent when they told me whatever they told me was the reason for rejection. And yes one of those was a 'frankly, you're heroine isn't likeable enough to be marketable'. I took that as valuable input and altered my character for the better :)

Whoa…back up the truck !

As a third party observer I see something very interesting going on here. Both author and agent have been poked with a pencil where it hurts.

Author…how dare you tell me my character is unlikable, she’s been rattling around in my head for months…well actually years. You narrow minded so and so…

Agent…how dare you tell me I don’t understand books, they are my life, I am a success you narrow minded so and so…

Both…don’t tell me how to do my job you narrow minded, blah, blah, blah…

Ms Trite says: Oft’ times when you poke people with a pencil the ‘point’ you’re trying to make breaks.

I don't disagree with you and I think that authors should take constructive criticism and use it to their advantage. I am finding though that the characters that get created are like people I know. Maybe even more so than people I know, because I know their inner most hopes and dreams. I can see in their minds and feel everything they feel. I love most of them and I can honestly say that I have created a antagonist that I loath. I guess what I am trying to say in too many words is, writers look at it like you’re cutting on our loved one. And putting the passion in the story and the characters is an integral part, but you have to be able to grow as a writer and not be so overly sensitive. Trust that the people that are the experts will lead you down the right path.

One of the first things I've had to tell anyone I critique or anyone in any critique group I've ever been in, or when I was working my way through school as a writing tutor, was "Do not defend your manuscript."

Unless you plan to stand over the shoulder of everyone reading your book and explain to them what you meant to write, you'd be better off just writing what you meant to write. I hate it when I tell someone "This isn't working" and she comes back with five minutes explaining to me why it should work, why I'm too stupid to understand the great art she was striving to achieve, and how unenlightened I must be (and, I'd note, everyone else).

In one of my writing classes in college, the professor imposed a "cone of silence" on the person whose story was being critiqued in order to prevent exactly this because while defending, we're not listening.

Rant away! It's absolutely true.

The "delete" button must be a very good friend of yours, Jessica.

Yes, they probably do think you just "don't get it", but that's because THEY don't get it. Sure, it's possible that this story just didn't work for you and could work for someone else. But the author's defensive response gives me the feeling they should take another look at their work. A professional would just move on, either tweaking their ms if they agreed or leaving it as is if they didn't.

Please continue to give opinions in your rejections when you think it's warranted, Jessica. They DO help. If someone doesn't want to accept your comments, that's their problem, not yours.

I'd give my left arm to hear an agent saying what doesn't work. At least I know she's looked at the writing and taken the time to form an opinion instead of just rejecting.

If a writer can't take that kind of constructive criticism, they're in the wrong business. This kind of response tells me they are not looking to write the best possible book. They're merely looking to be told how smart and fabulous they are. To which I say, "Yeah. Good luck with that."

I see this as a *learning curve* all aspiring authors go through in order to attain publication.

They're no more stupid or mean-spirited than a baby learning to walk who falls down and cries in frustration. Like that baby, the thing to do is

Try Again.

And again.

again.

again.

again.

Cry if you need to, but keep on *learning* the craft and *trying.*

As a published author and college English instructor, I internally laugh at anyone who gets their panties in a bunch over their writing.

As I tell my critique group and my students--if you have to sit next to the reader telling them that what you're writing is off-formula or why the unlikeable heroine really is likable--that means you haven't done a good job with your writing. Since the writer isn't sold along with the book, you better make sure your writing/thinking/reasoning is 100% apparent on the page.

-S.

Rules of Publishing: Mondays are for squishing ants. :-)

i agree with anne in that it is great to receive feedback. doesn't matter to me if it is good or bad as long as it's constructive.

you rejected by ms with a standard form rejection, okay the ms wasn't for you i could take it, but there was a tiny part of me that did want to know what it was that turned you off. after all how am i to improve my story and make it the best it can be if not for feedback? i hesitated to contact you and ask this question (honestly i did) as i appreciate how busy you are, but i really wanted to know. so i contacted you and i have to say you were very gracious and told me the ms was too convoluted. i appreciated it because i needed to hear it (and it went on to get me a great agent).

I think we're talking about two different subjects here. One is whether or not a given reader buys into a story (subjective). The second subject is whether or not a set of common-sense rules exists in publishing. I believe they exist and as a writer you have complete control over whether or not you break them. And you break them at your peril -- that is to say, if you want to earn a living as a novelist, you have to provide something publishers can sell and consumers want to read. That's the first rule. So if in the process of writing your book your characters take you into realms you never thought they would, where these unwritten rules start to snap, you'll probably have marketablity and/or credulity issues. Other examples: The likeable protagonist is a big one, especially if you want to start a franchise. Knowing who will buy your book and aiming in their direction, or better still crossing demographics to lure in more readers (Potter, Hunger Games, where YA crosses age borders). Subject matter or even word count stays within genre norms. Avoiding elements that a given readership won't relate to (Tom Clancy military detail in a supernatural romance, for example, even if a key character is in the military). Or maybe your story embraces too many potential "turn offs" (too violent, sexual, political, religious, etc), or not have enough of something a genre requires (supernatural elements, romance, forensic detail, whatever readers love about a genre). Chances are if you aren't mindful of these things, you won't sell your book because all of these so-called rules swing you back to the first subject -- subjectivity -- and agents and/or editors won't be seduced by your story because it won't ring the bell for what type of book they need in a given area. And we certainly know that virtually every book needs to fit in a given area. Of course this stuff is never fun to talk about. Creative fields in reality -- when you talk marketability and consumer-friendliness, etc -- lose their sexiness when you realize that you can't just let your creation go where it wants/needs to go because even if it's one hundred percent where it honestly needs to go as a narrative, you could lose the reader. Whereas if you adhere to certain rules, maybe you won't lose your reader and you'll sell your book. Art and commerce, always a lively debate!

You may both be right. You don't know the writer, the writer doesn't know you. You're both making assumptions and you're both being awfully protective of your credibility and authority in your separate parts of this business.

It's all subjective.

And that's why it's sometimes best to just send a form decline.

Every person who reads a manuscript that isn't theirs, is casting it through their own spyglass. Every reader, from beta readers to editors to agents, brings their own subjectivities. And in the case of editors and agents, they not only run the manuscript through their overt subjetivities of what they *like* to read, but also their covert subjectivities (disguised as objectivity) of what they think will sell, based upon their vast experience in the industry.

Sometimes writers really do need to improve their works. I think making a character likeable is running the most subjective route. Some readers need to like a character, some don't. But works can always be improved.

But I also think some editors and agents get in their own way, looking for the sure thing. They look so hard for the sure thing, that they miss the sure thing.

Lord of the Flies was declared “An absurd and uninteresting fantasy which was rubbish and dull” by an early reader. It was rejected by 20 publishers before selling 14.5 million copies

Anne Frank's diary was described by one editor thusly, "The girl doesn't, it seems to me, have a special perception or feeling which would lift that book above the 'curiosity' level." How's that for someone not liking the character. Of course it was also rejected by 15 other publishers.

JK Rowling's Philosopher's Stone was rejected by nearly a dozen publishers including Penguin and Harper Collins. No doubt, they feel justified in their rejections.

Certainly authors and editors/ agents have work to do on both sides of the table. So, I have two final comments.

1) If a writer believes in his or her book/ character, wait until someone can see what you see. You'll both be the better for it.

2)Agents, please offer constructive comments whenever possible. An author's "defense" is knee-jerk. But, if there really is a glaring problem to be pointed out, then the author will grow because you took the time to illuminate it.

Thanks.

This really does fall into the category of authors learning to deal with criticism...in a broad sense.

The worst criticism is often a good thing most authors don't recognize. In other words, there's nothing more boring than a book on amazon three star ratings all the way down the line (snooze). Usually, the books with a balance of one star and five stars that are the best.

Sorry if this sounds more author oriented than agent oriented, but criticism is something all authors need to learn how to deal with if they are going to maintain their sanity.

Do you really think I’m so narrow-minded as an agent that I don’t understand books unless they follow certain formulas or rules?

I don't think the complaint is that you're too narrow-minded to understand the book. I think the complaint is that you're too narrow-minded to take a chance that the book might be a hit despite the supposed flaw you've noticed.

For example, what I'm hearing in your post is that books with unlikable characters are never published, no matter how brilliant the book may be otherwise. I know that's an untrue generalization, but it points out the problem. Published books follow certain formulas. Agents are scared of books that step outside those rules, even if breaking a rule is necessary for the story the author wants to write. An author who wants to tell a story about how an unlikable protagonist redeems herself is facing an uphill battle against the preconceptions of agents who demand first and foremost that the main character must be likable.

And yes, I've tried to sell such a novel, although not to you. :)

As a reader, how many hours will I spend with a character I don't like? That would be zero. If an agent -- or any experienced, thoughtful, respectful reader that I trust -- tells me something's not working, I am damned well going to thicken up my skin think about it.

Anne,

I hope that you would not give your left arm for any such thing.

I used to think that if I could just get one book published by a major publisher I could die content. Now that I've had several, I know it's not that simple. There isn't any Arrival, there isn't any moment when you've achieved your goal as a writer. Ultimately writing itself is the goal, and sometimes you wonder if any of the sacrifices you've made for writing are really worth it.

Certainly a left arm wouldn't be.

I see this conversation: "Your character just didn't grab me: she's not likeable, etcetcetc" vs "I just don't write the typical etcetcetc" as a lack of communication, not a real argument that can become a productive learning experience.

The Agent has been hard-trained to be objective, and to develop a subjective response to what will be popular with a very clearly defined market.

The Agent is all about marketing to a broad enough readership that the Agent's cut will make the Agent a living.

The writer is all about stirring heart-strings that are in tune with the writer's own.

The Agent is saying "give me something popular" and the Writer is saying "Make THIS popular, not that."

The Agent knows where to find the market, and how to recognize what that market is already hungry to devour.

The Writer has no clue where to find a market. The writer feels (not thinks) that the things she reads from a particular market that she ALMOST likes mean that the market will welcome her work because it corrects the flaws in the market's taste.

The two aren't talking about the same thing, so they don't communicate.

I blog about writing craft (from a professional mass market writer's point of view) with practical step-by-step break-downs of how to imagine the story-idea and then shape and craft that idea to fit a market before ever setting a word down in electrons.

It's what the writer does before "having" the idea that causes this non-argument conversation over a completed manuscript.

I've taught writing for more than 20 years and had many successful students finally "get it" and take off.

My blog post last week was another in a long series on Worldbuilding, and Nov. 16, 2010 (I post on Tuesdays on a co-blog) will be step-wise instructions on what I call "Information Feed" (techniques to avoid the expository lump which is often the cause of the "didn't grab me" and "not likeable" reaction).

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/11/worldbuilding-with-fire-and-ice-part.html

Anonymous's comment on "learning curve" is just exactly true. Coordination is gained by practice! I try to supply something to hold onto while you practice creating a Mass Market product.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

There should be a warning with this post that reads: "If you're in a bad mood and you feel like having an agent for breakfast, please don't read this."

And I'm in a good mood today :)

That's the danger of email and instant insults. You can fire off a reply as quick as hitting "reply".

People who send out things like that are the reason so many agents don't even send rejections anymore. That way there's nothing to reply to.

And what planet is that guy on that he thinks "alpha hero / beta heroine" is the "norm". Go to the library and read a few recent books. They don't all follow that pattern.

@Remus Shepherd
I don't think the Agent-Response is about "unlikeable character" (even when that's what the Agent has to say) but about "likeability that isn't broadly appealing enough to suit the market I can reach."

As far as selling a book about a truly unlikeable character (who does or does not "redeem" him/herself), the writer must have a huge track-record of sales on other titles, a developed following the writer can count on to buy a book and finish reading it, because in other books the writer delivered the goods.

EXAMPLE: Marion Zimmer Bradley's TWO TO CONQUER about a rapist.

Books are one market, but film is expensive and so needs an even broader market. To learn how to present an unlikeable character in an appealing light, read Blake Snyder's SAVE THE CAT! series.

"Save The Cat" is the first action you see the character performing - an act that suggests the character's redeeming feature without nailing it on the head. Immediately, you relate to the character, then find out about the flaws. Snyder teaches exactly how to do this.

You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Likeability is all about SHOW DON'T TELL - or as I said in my previous post here, about INFORMATION FEED.

What you illustrate first, what you illustrate second, etc. -- the way you intro a character is what counts. Expository lumps, non-artistically chosen actions can make a loveable character icky.

And it's also about Worldbuilding - how you illustrate the world the character functions within, the contrast between internal and external worlds and how you choose point of view.

All these craft techniques have to be mastered and interwoven, orchestrated with ease of performance before you can tell the story of a really unlikeable character to a broad enough audience for an Agent to make a living off their cut.

But most beginning writers are actually telling the tale of a truly likeable character who seems unlikeable because of failure of technique and craft.

That's why they argue back "You just don't understand" -- the beginning writer doesn't understand that the words they have presented don't say what they imagine in their minds.

As Anonymous said, it's a baby learning to walk, clumsy and tumble-bump at first, then smoother.

Agents aren't in the business of teaching writing craft. Don't expect anything more than "the main character just isn't likeable" as a response.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Sorry, I forgot to click the box to get an email on subsequent comments. Now I'll listen to the convo!

For a rant, pretty pitiful.

When a writer gets comments, they need to shut up - except for a sincere "Thank you." no matter what is said.

Although I consider it to be a separate topic, I agree with 'wry writer' that agents (and I would add, editors) typically don't welcome or take criticism too well themselves (though it isn't my perception that they generally ask for it or want it).

Regarding 'subjectivity', helloooo. These opinions are subjective, but they aren't reckless or made without reason. In this corner, with a record of 78-10-15, with 35 knockouts, at a trim and taut 102 pounds, we have Experienced Professional. (Cue wild cheers, stamping feet. [Maybe not.]) And in this corner. with a record of 1-0-10, at a bloated-as-their-manuscript 250 pounds, we have Would-be Novelist. (Cue derisive laughter, jeers.)

Whoa! Stop the fight now! I think we can see how this ends.

Part of me wants to say, "Oh, for God's sake agents, PLEASE do stop your whining and grow the heck up." and the other part of me says, "Thanks for the insight, it's always good to know what/how agents are thinking or reacting to what we write, do, or say."

But honestly...

Writing a 'black-hat' hero, a bad guy readers wind up pulling for, is a tough thing to do. Study Terrence Lore Smith's books. He did it superbly.

As my grandmother would say: What a shit-storm! Jesus. Somebody just say "Uncle" already.

And we wonder why agents send form rejections.

Having been on the author end of criticism I didn't want to hear, I understand the heat. I think it best if an author responds with, "How can I improve this, in your opinion?" but that isn't always easy to say.

Jessica, you have the DUTY to spot the flaws. You also have the decency to point them out. It's unfortunate that you get razed for it. I don't blame you for being upset. At the same time, it's still subjective, and there's always the offer to the author to submit it to another agent if they don't care for your feelings about it. Someone else might love their abrasive character. Of course, from your end, THAT isn't easy to say in the heat of the moment either.

Yucky Monday! Hopefully the next thing you read and the next bit of correspondence is brighter.

It sounds like you are reacting to the type of writer who either 1) can't take or acknowledge criticism 2) lacks the self control to refrain from immediately blasting back a defensive response or 3) isn't able to shrug it off when she sees the agent clearly doesn't "get" the work. (If that's the case, that agent wouldn't be a good fit for the book anyway, hmm?)

It must be frustrating to deal with this kind of response, but on the other hand, I doubt there's anything you can say to change their minds and convince them your criticism isn't totally off base. They will believe what they want to believe.

I guess you could just reply with a link to this post going forward, though. :)

I've had a lot of people tell me that the reason I get rejected is because agents are just looking for formulaic crap or something that rips off whatever is popular at the time.

I actually get rather annoyed whenever I hear the sentiment. I tend to think that if I'm being rejected it's either because my work wasn't good enough or because it just isn't for someone, but when people try to comfort me about rejections I always get the same comments.

I think there are a lot of people out there who really believe that the majority of books published aren't any good and that their books is better because it's the one standout in a crowd of mediocre crap. Granted, they're kind of making the rest of us look bad, and that's irritating even if we're not the ones directly having to deal with it as you are.

Why reel yourself in? If you want to rant, what the heck, let loose with both barrels and have at it. You're entitled. Plus it's healthy to vent now and again. Especially, as you intimate, someone really ticked you off. Let it loose. Sometimes you just gotta get it off your chest. Actually, I found your rant rather restrained. What I'd really like to see is one unleashed and reel-free.

Maybe if enough writers tell you "You just don't get it." you will finally get it. Why, we're just trying to help - and offering our rightgeous, bitchin' manuscripts to help you land the monster deal. Honestly babe, we are growing weary of waiting for you to catch up. We're happy to give you a second chance, an opportunity to recognize the brilliance, but you've got to get serious or we might move on.

Likeable and unlikeable are both really, really subjective. There are people who love Bella and Nora. I hate them and think they're two-dimensional and in need of personality transplants. There are people who love Felicity Worthington. I don't. All that means is that I find them unlikeable, that doesn't mean that they ARE unlikeable because clearly people like them.

The same is true for you. You can find a character unlikeable. For you, they ARe unlikeable. But that doesn't mean everyone will feel that way.

so true.

This summer my critique group said my character was unlikeable. I wanted to say, "But she's damaged, and rebellious, and hardened by life." But none of that mattered if still no one wanted to spend their precious time with her.

I changed her. The plot is still the same. The story, however, is completely different.

I'd call that a mini-rant if anything. :) I understand why agents don't like to give feedback because it's a two-edged sword. Writers (myself included) say we want to know why you passed on us, but many can't handle the truth.

Anonymous:

"Likeable" is not subjective in the terminology used in commercial markets. It's a technical term, jargon or code.

They don't mean whether "everybody" or even "anybody" will like a character.

They mean whether enough diverse people would like that character to make the product commercially viable. It's not personal, it's business (yeah, real bad taste in the mouth).

An Editor or Agent is trained the hard way (punishment and reward shocks) to recognize what has the broad commercial profile to make enough money to make it profitable FOR THE AGENT -- calculated on effort-to-return ratio, or Return On Investment (ROI in investing).

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Oooh, it's awfully dark and gloomy up there.

There now, you see how wrong people can be? That there is what you might call the doorway to a place of enchantment...

Too many aspiring authors show the reader reason after reason not to read before they show any hint of a reason to read. Then they want to bully the reader up the chimney. It don't work that way.

I know I am guilty of being blind to my own flaws as a writer. I hope I never hassle an agent because of my own shortcomings.

My dearest wish (and there are probably writers/agents/editors who will agree) is that science will invent a Common Sense injection (though, not a vaccine--television already took care of that).

It's a pretty human reaction to want to blame others for your own failures. When a writer says, "You just don't get it," they're doing exactly that--trying to protect their ego by blaming someone else for the fact the writing didn't connect with the reader.

However, owning your failure is a necessary first step to improvement. You have to comprehend that something is not perfect before you become capable of making it better.

Learning hurts, but you'll never rise above the level you're at now unless you accept feedback. Take it on the chin, everyone.

Oh my, we’re all taking ourselves a bit to seriously today.
Here’s my ‘part two’ comment.

Once a writer figures out what the hell it is agents, publishers, editors, and readers want they have weathered many a rejection storm. For a writer to get pissed at an agent because ‘said’ agent doesn’t get the gist of the character, or whatever…that writer is either inexperienced or soooo… famous he or she feels they have a right to tell the agent to pound sand.
Really Jessica…you criticized someone’s work, does it really matter to you what they think? You are not in the business to make friends you are in the business to…what is it that you do…oh…represent and present.
That’s it babe.

To the writer…your inexperience is showing. You don’t like what someone says about your efforts…two words…move on.
I love Mondays.

I love it when you cause a ruckus.

Me, too!

As someone who is currently in the query process, let me add my two cents. I appreciate feedback and will not be ungrateful when an agent takes the time to clarify why they said no.

Two words: Lisbeth Salander

Ended up loving the crap out of that dysfunctional, mean & nasty little person...and she was obviously highly marketable.

Personally - be it from an agent's or author's viewpoint - I think it's all subjective.

Anonymous:

My point is that the Agent doesn't know -- and it isn't their job to know -- why they can't market a given property.

"The character isn't likeable" is a response that could mean "fix the point of view" -- but the Agent isn't required to know if that would work or what it would take you to make it work.

If the Agent gives you a clue, take it to a professional writer (not just a published writer, but someone who knows how to teach what they've learned) and find out what to do to fix that problem.

Chances are good you don't have to change the character, just the place where you start Chapter One.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

JJbene...
you are beyond correct..owning failure is the first step to success...it means we're paying attention to more then ourselves.

It's "above and beyond..." to give a meaningful explanation for a rejection, and reasonable people would be grateful. But then there aren't too many of them.
I hope you will be kind enough to continue to give your explanations, despite the unkindness of man's ingratitude.

I just thought I'd check back in to see what transpired during the day. Ha! So many panties in a wad, so little time! Thanks, Jessica, for stirring the Monday pot. :-)

Jessica,

I love your blogs. They're so entertaining and stimulating and educational. I love the way they get everybody riled up and thinking about the good, the bad, and the ugly.

You go girl!!

I wish ALL agents would give us feedback like that! It took TWO years of polite rejections until finally an editor hit the nail on the head. Now I know what's wrong and am revising like crazy. Telling a writer "I didn't fall in love" is a waste of time.

I hope to find an editor turned-agent--what a big help and time-saver. PLEASE keep telling it like it is--we're listening!

The only rule to remember in writing is that there are no rules.

If there were, I wouldn't be published, because I break just about all of them!

@ Saturday Writers

Quote: "I love it when you cause a ruckus."

The sad part is, she doesn't actually have to do anything. A blog post of five words that reads "I don't rep space monkeys," will instantly generate the following response:

5 people who agree that space monkeys don't actually constitute a genre in fiction.

14 people who agree that Jessica should rep whatever she wants, and if space monkeys aren't on the list, that's ok.

2 people who wish Jessica did rep space monkeys, as that's what they're writing.

1 person up in arms against Jessica's racist denigration of space monkeys.

3 people who are fed up with all the rules about space monkeys, but continue to visit the blog anyway.

1 person to explain that publishing these days is too narrow-minded to take a chance on space monkeys, and that's why there aren't any good books published.

1 person who skims the post and fires back in defense of NASA.

1 patient response from Jessica, reiterating that she really doesn't have anything against space monkeys, it's just a personal taste, and she can't sell what she doesn't love.

And....

1 snarky response from somebody who wishes the insanity would just stop (me).

There, did I miss anyone?

Memphis Knit Mafia Need holiday gifts? We are having a fundraiser and will make hats, neck warmers, cowls, muffs, and fingerless mitts for your holiday gift needs! Contact us for custom orders and photos to come!! Please tell us if you are interested
it is very interesting story

@ LUCY... LMAO!!

@ Anonymous... This quote "I wish ALL agents would give us feedback like that! It took TWO years of polite rejections until finally an editor hit the nail on the head. Now I know what's wrong and am revising like crazy. Telling a writer "I didn't fall in love" is a waste of time."
I second this motion!

Anonymous:

"Likeable" is not subjective in the terminology used in commercial markets. It's a technical term, jargon or code.

They don't mean whether "everybody" or even "anybody" will like a character.

They mean whether enough diverse people would like that character to make the product commercially viable. It's not personal, it's business (yeah, real bad taste in the mouth).

An Editor or Agent is trained the hard way (punishment and reward shocks) to recognize what has the broad commercial profile to make enough money to make it profitable FOR THE AGENT -- calculated on effort-to-return ratio, or Return On Investment (ROI in investing).

I've never read of an agent thinking or saying that they disliked a character, a book's plot, an author's world building or the entire concept of a book, but taking it on anyway because it was commercially viable and they had no plans to ask for revisions. I know some agents will take on something they feel needs work, but they ask the author to revise.

Likeable refers to the characters or other factors. Jessica said that a tough and damaged protagonist could just be unlikeable. She didn't say that there's no market for a tough and damaged protagonist. There is. I read a rave review about a book with one such protagonist not long ago. There are books with characters who are out-and-out barely-if-at-all sympathetic bitches, and some people love them while others don't. Likeable does not mean commercially viable. IT means likeable.

I once read on a literary agent's blog that she hated a particular well-known book. She told authors not to query her if their books were like this particular book. She said she didn't care how well it sold, she didn't like it and that was that. Given that books very similar to that one continue to sell extremely well and others are still finding representation, I think it's safe to say that when an agent says likeablie, they mean whether or not they, as human beings, like the work. Otherwise, that other agent would have been happy to take on clone books because they are clearly highly commercially viable. Some agents might use the two terms interchangeably, but that doesn't mean all do. It's not fair to make a general statement that all agents mean one thing. I know that not all do because I've seen them draw that line.

What makes something ommercially viable is also subjective. Books have been rejected because agents or editors thought they wouldn't sell or wouldn't sell well and then those same books have gone on to be megabestsellers. Books that seemed like sure things have flopped bigtime. I know this because I've seen agents and editors say as much.

Jessica and other agents have said that they've passed on something because they didn't connect with some aspect of it, but they are certain it will sell. Agents have said that they've passed for that reason, have been certain it would sell, and then seen the deal, thus proving that they were right. They've passed, bot based on commercial viability, but their own personal taste.

Even in this post, Jessica doesn't say another reading might think a tough and damaged character is commercially viable. She says another reader might like what she doesn't. Even if she meant commercial viability, she's saying herself that it's subjective.

Most of publishing is subjective. That includes likeability and commercial viability, which I see as two different things. You are, of course, free to see them as the same, but either way agents still make choices based on their own taste and how they think the ever-changing, difficult-to-predict market will swing, not based on something they know for an absolute fact because in the publishing world that's damn near impossible. That, in my opinion, makes them both subjective.

Anonymous:

Oh, you're totally correct that Agents choose to represent a title or an author on the basis of a gut-response. Editor's too.

And that response part is subjective, but trained by reward/punishment experience.

But because of those innate traits, Editors and Agents gravitate toward markets and serve readerships with similar emotional responses. You can trust the successful ones with your life.

As for vastly popular works about really repugnant characters -- as I said in previous notes on this thread, it isn't the innate quality of the fictional character that makes it marketable. It is the author's choice of techniques for presenting that character to a specific readership/viewership that creates the marketability.

Once you get it written, then you have to find the Agent who has to find the Editor who can reach the market the item will "hit" with.

It's a huge, complicated problem, and to date nobody has made a science out of it. Each step is an Art.

Commerciality is not subjective, but Art is. Art is entirely subjective.

This post reminds me of something I read in Kim Lavine's Mommy Millionaire. She was dealing with a graphic designer, but as a writer I found the situation highly relevant. She said that creative people see their work as an extension of themselves and being critical of their work is like being critical of them. Sounds like a liability--but perhaps it is the best way to write. Because if you don't risk anything, you don't gain anything.

From this post, it sounds like agents take the negative replies from the rejected authors to heart too, just in a different way.

For people on either side of the publishing divide, I don't think it ever gets easier. All you can do is work that much harder on finding something that works.

Jodi and her fiction blog.

But because of those innate traits, Editors and Agents gravitate toward markets and serve readerships with similar emotional responses. You can trust the successful ones with your life.

If something has to be trained, it's not innate. And I think saying you can trust them with your life is going really far.

You said it yourself. They only reach those with similiar interests. If Jodi Reamer is just publishing stuff exactly like Twilight, she's not going to be someone with whom I want to work because I hate Twilight. So she's not reaching me. But those who work with authors I like and represent books I like are.

Jodi thought, and was correct in thinking, that Twlight was commercial enough to sell well. It would be stupid to say that it didn't. But what about all the other agents who rejected it? Did they not see the commerciality of it? Were they wrong in thinking it wasn't commercial, if that was the basis for their rejection? Clearly. But that just proves my point that what people think will be commercial is subjective.

Reading something and deciding it's commercial is just not objective. At least, not totally. People bring their own thoughts and feelings toward everything they read, and that will influence their decisions. It can't not.

So I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. You think an individual deciding what is commercial is objective. I don't. And that's okay.

Anonymous:

Just to clarify, no I do not think that an "indiividual" deciding what is commercial is objective.

I'm trying to make the point that each Agent/Editor/Publisher/Book wholesaler/book retailer "channel" is serving a "market" - and that's a concept that maybe you and I don't have in common.

"Market" means people who want more of whatever. It's a "place" -- a group - a connected, contiguous thing like "Market Day" in a "Market Square" in a village.

Each week farmers bring produce to this Square in the city, and ranchers bring meat to that square, and weavers are over here and soap makers over there.

Today we have "supermarkets" - where all kinds of stuff is under one roof, and "flea markets" where individuals bring one-of-a-kind stuff to sell or recycle.

"Market" is a technical term these days, but it's a concept that has to be learned.

A natural born "marketer" has to be trained -- just because you have an innate talent doesn't mean you can do the job.

Likewise in Art - or acting or anything else people have talent for -- it takes both talent and training, and sometimes in addition to that it takes education (which is different from training).

If say, TWILIGHT, is rejected by one Agent because it's "hokey" it will be accepted by another because it's seminal YA.

A rejection means the Agent doesn't know how to reach the market for that product. The Agent feels that their market would regard this product as having say, an unlikeable character.

Why does the Agent feel that way? Because they've found that characters they like sell well to this market. (Most Agents can fee4 many distinct markets, but not all.)

If an Agent doesn't respond viscerally to a story, they very likely won't know a market where they can sell it.

That's what Agents do for a living -- they sort the avalanche of product we produce into streams flowing to specific markets, and they do that sort by gut-reaction.

But it's not random, or they don't stay in business long.

Once you find the market-channel for what you write, and get the training to fit your product into that market channel, you'll get what publishers call sell-through.

Even a casual comment from an Agent rejecting your work can clue you in to where your product belongs and how to fit it to market specifications -- or perhaps make you decide that your product needs to make a NEW market.

That's what's happening in the Indie publisher and E-book self-publishing marketplace right now. And it's happening fast.

Romance has been leading the pack, and it's something to behold!

New markets are opening up all around, gathering, agreeing to gather again, grow, become more voracious.

Blogger-reviewers and discussion groups are forging the way.

Find (or make) a Market, and write-write-write.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

"But it's not random, or they don't stay in business long."

This is a non sequitur. It's perfectly possible to stay in business making awful decisions, if the demand is organic and the supply is oligopolistic.

Considering the psychological need for narrative, publishing certainly qualifies on the former criterion, and considering how reliant on "networking" the biz tends to be, there is certainly an oligopolistic element to publishing supply.

The real test of professionalism in such an environment is not in whether an agent and his/her buddy list can stay in business by offering readers what they can't comfortably do without.

The only valid test is in the business fruits of one's decisions. When a book one pushes tanks, that means something. When a book one rejects (as Harry Potter was rejected, for example) goes on to succeed, that also means something. These are professional failures. As agents are quick to point out when writers complain about commercialism, this is a business and the metrics we use to judge success and failure should reflect that.

The idea that agents should react as consumers do, by selecting what they like rather than what they can rationally judge to key into consumer needs/demands, is a complete abdication of even the pretense of professionalism.

A professional chef would never get away with only making his/her own favorite dish, so why do agents think this sort of self-oriented behavior is professionalism? A professional agent seeks products other people will buy, not products they would buy.

And, if an agent can't get beyond his or her own preferences to accurately identify what others like but they dislike ... well, good luck buying holiday presents.

E. Martin: (I've got to break this comment into several parts)

Oh, yes, I agree! I've been represented by Agents and sold to Editors who have that "beyond personal taste" level of professionalism and learned how they do it from the inside.

I've rewritten to Editorial spec from people like that, and won awards because of it.

And as you point out, as the business climate shifts, those who can't make that leap beyond totally personal taste will leave the business.

The biz is all about who you know, who's friends with whom. Friendship happens because of subjective elements in common (or contrast.)

But from the beginning writer's point of view, not knowing "who knows who" and "who is friends with whom" just taking a shot in the dark and getting back "well, I can't represent this because the character is unlikeable" -- the beginning writer who isn't inside the social loop in Manhattan has no way to parse that problem or understand what to do next.

As Anonymous pointed out, it's a very complex and complicated and obscure and mysterious and confusing situation.

At some point, you can only explain it by saying "it's subjective."

But really, it's BOTH as you say.

MORE...

...more -- There are properties of the manuscript that are objective, and properties of the manuscript that are subjective, and properties of the Agent or Editor that are objective and properties of the Agent or Editor that are subjective.

And each of those 4 categories can be teased apart, broken down, analyzed and factored into dozens of separate processes.

Being successful in this biz is very much like driving a car or Dancing With The Stars, playing Championship golf, or perhaps winning a Martial Arts Tourney. It's small-muscle coordination run by the subconscious or autonomic nervous system -- it's what you do that you don't know that you're doing.

Success is all about coordinating all those disparate elements smoothly. The economy, the mood of the various audience fragments, the price of paper in China and the taxes on warehoused copies of a book (yes, books in warehouse are taxed).

But the beginning writer hearing "this character is not likeable" simply does not KNOW what that means.

I've had hundreds of experiences that have taught me what that means, and decades in the profession knowing professionals at every level. I try to break down these "buzz word" phrases that Agents and Editors emit into a form a writer with their head and emotions in a character's story can actually use to sell their product.

To that end, I've been blogging at aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com talking basically to Science Fiction Romance and Paranormal Romance writers, but really also to any writer with a story to tell about what to do inside your head with this information.

more...

...more
What to learn, where to learn it, how to practice using it, and why bother -- all to answer the ultimate question, "Why did my manuscript get rejected?" or worse, "Why did my published Mass Market Paperback not sell?" or "Why did I get rave reviews and still not sell well enough to get another contract?"

One big lesson that came to me was sitting on a big plane, in that huge center row, surrounded by professional writers, editors, and sitting next to an Agent who was reading a manuscript she'd whimsically accepted from an unpublished stranger at a convention we were returning from.

She read a few pages, flipped to the middle, sat forward and intensely flipped to the END - looked up glassy eyed, and went, "Wow, this is going to sell big time." She was right. (It was a vampire novel before they were popular - a genuine horror-genre item, not "good vampire," and right now I don't recall the title but the title got changed anyway.)

I asked, "May I see?" She handed me a few pages. I read. I didn't see it, I didn't like the character. She explained. (it was a 5 hour flight) The people around us agreed. Discussion was all about market.

I memorized that explanation and worked on it for years. I have come to understand. I am trying to show people what I learned.

One of those lessons is in my blog post this week, http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/11/information-feed-tricks-and-tips-for.html

It's a huge long post and part 1 of a series. It refers back to previous posts on information feed and worldbuilding.

All of these little craft techniques are ingredients in that final response "the character grabbed me" -- "the character is really hard-boiled, tough, seedy, gritty, disgusting but I loved him!"

Romance often uses the repellent guy as the Romantic Lead, and answers the question, "What does she see in him?" I tackled that here:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-does-she-see-in-him.html

One of my co-bloggers (this is a blog of 7 well published writers) wrote an entry on this topic:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/02/irredeemable-hero-material.html

So you see, this typical Agent comment, "the character isn't likeable" is the sum and substance of what I've been discussing for about 3 years, one post a week.

I can't even approach it in these little comments, and I'm sure the readers of this blog are tired of it by now.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

I'm trying to make the point that each Agent/Editor/Publisher/Book wholesaler/book retailer "channel" is serving a "market" - and that's a concept that maybe you and I don't have in common.

"Market" means people who want more of whatever. It's a "place" -- a group - a connected, contiguous thing like "Market Day" in a "Market Square" in a village.

Each week farmers bring produce to this Square in the city, and ranchers bring meat to that square, and weavers are over here and soap makers over there.

Today we have "supermarkets" - where all kinds of stuff is under one roof, and "flea markets" where individuals bring one-of-a-kind stuff to sell or recycle.

"Market" is a technical term these days, but it's a concept that has to be learned.

A natural born "marketer" has to be trained -- just because you have an innate talent doesn't mean you can do the job.

Likewise in Art - or acting or anything else people have talent for -- it takes both talent and training, and sometimes in addition to that it takes education (which is different from training).

If say, TWILIGHT, is rejected by one Agent because it's "hokey" it will be accepted by another because it's seminal YA.

A rejection means the Agent doesn't know how to reach the market for that product. The Agent feels that their market would regard this product as having say, an unlikeable character.

Why does the Agent feel that way? Because they've found that characters they like sell well to this market. (Most Agents can fee4 many distinct markets, but not all.)

If an Agent doesn't respond viscerally to a story, they very likely won't know a market where they can sell it.

That's what Agents do for a living -- they sort the avalanche of product we produce into streams flowing to specific markets, and they do that sort by gut-reaction.

I think we're talking about two different things. First, I don't think predicting what groups of people want to read is innately anything.

Second, no one, no matter the training or experience, can make a prediction about the market that is 100% foolproof. The way you defined markets came across condescending to me, as if I have no idea what you mean. My opinion hasn't changed regarding the subjectivity of likeability and the subjectivity of the opinion of what will reach the market.

Books have come out of nowhere to reach a particuliar market and then some. No one gets it right every time and no one can say that a character they don't like absolutely will not appeal to a target audience. All they can say is they don't THINK it will. Agents and editors alike say that themselves.

Agents, as a group, cannot objectively decide what is commercial or what will appeal to a given market because that is always, always changing. What people bought last year is no indicator of what they will be into next year. They can watch the trends, but all it takes is one success to change them in what can seem like an instant. Therefore, they have to go with their gut. And that's subjective.

Rejections don't always mean that an agent doesn't know how to reach particular market. Agents do not reject only because they don't know how to sell to certain people. They reject based on their personal feelings about the work as well. Probably more often than just because the market is not their market.

This debate is starting to feel circular and I don't think either of us is really getting what the other is trying to say. I am willing to say that you opinon is valid to you and anyone who agrees with you, but I don't agree with you and my opinion is just as valid. It seems pointless to me for the both of us to keep saying the same information in different ways if it&#

I just realized after reading your entry and googling the results of a search that my MS fits cross-genre fantasy romance better than what I have been trying to pawn it off as. Is there any site, book, or something for dumbies that you would recommend that gives straight definitions to genres?

Jessica - are you adding YA to your lists, too?

What do you mean by "steampunk" ya?

Hi Jessica,

Would you consider an adult cross-genre literary novel? I get the impression that Bookends mostly likes romance, so just wanted to check. Thanks!

So, when my cat gets me up at 3AM (central time) I need to check Twitter. Okay!

Ah, I know this is TMI but when my bladder awakens me around 4am I'll check Twitter, oh wait I don't Tweet or Twitt (although I am one, a twit I mean).
Aw shucks...I'm going back to bed.

I'm reading Zoe Archer's book, Scoundrel. I love her voice. She's a sophisticated writer who does great research, but doesn't beat the reader over the head with it. Her pacing and world building is fabulous.

You can see what we're looking for both here:
http://www.bookends-inc.com/submit.html
and here:
http://www.bookends-inc.com/about_us.html

and yes, YA is on the list.

I'm afraid there is no Dummies guide to definitions since genres have loose borders and definitions change and bend over time along with reader interests.

steampunk is a subgenre and I like both adult and ya steampunk.

BookEnds represents a variety of genres. as for literary cross-genre, I'd have to know about the book.

--jhf

Reading this post has got me all inspired to finish the revisions on my cross-genre fantasy romance and get that query to you asap. Thanks for letting us know what you are looking for!

THAT is why you are such a good agent. Look at the variety of things you recently enjoyed. I'm glad you're so open-minded.

Good advice. Thank you.

Jessica -- am in the middle of a steampunk YA. Any chance you'd be willing to read a proposal instead of a finished manuscript?

I have had agent representation. When agents say they don't love your writing as much as they would need to, then you do NOT want that agent. If that agent doesn't really love, really believe, really persevere after a few rejections, then your manuscript will flounder. It will not get sold. It will end up like mine, partially shopped and deader than if it had never been represented. If you are offered representation do not accept unless you are convinced that agent will go to all lengths to sell your baby.

I don't think most authors have any idea how hard it sucks to polish and promote a manuscript that you just don't like. And it has nothing to do with the quality of the writing, either. You could write the most brilliant, witty and insightful novel about professional football ever, and I'd still rather stick an icepick through my ear than read it even once.
Do you really want me to rep your pro football novel?

I'm still amazed the author wrote back to you to argue. I received one of those rejections earlier this week and it never occurred to me to write back and say, "but wait a minute..." Hell, I was just happy to get a response (that whole "no response means no" bugs me, though I do understand why they do it. But I'd rather know my query got there--but I digress).

Every agent blog I read, and many of the websites say the literary world is subjective. Expand your horizons in reading? Sure. But that doesn't mean you're going to like it after you read, either.

Erm...now I'm rambling. Sorry about that. Have a good day!

I had a recent rejection on a full that was basically a form reject, and it stung. Then I really thought about it: did I want that agent promoting my work if she wasn't excited about it? No way. She loved the voice and plot, but something just didn't grab her. Is that what she'd convey to publishers? I shudder to think so.

So she enjoyed the book (great!), but not enough to rep it (ok). There's the difference between reading and repping for me. And when I do get the RIGHT agent, I know she'll champion my work effectively. That's more important to me than anything else.

"if you are a mystery writer, would you want to write a paranormal romance just because I thought you should expand your horizons?"

Actually, I'm the kind of girl who would love that, BUT I wouldn't have the *time.*

And I imagine you don't either.

You either like peas or you don’t. Even if someone tells you how healthy they are, how tasty and cute little green balls can be, if they are not your favorite veggie then why would you mix them with your sweet little carrot disks.
Expand what?
Mix peas with Alfredo sauce, now that will expand more than your horizons.

A small portion of what you find in any miscellaneous hardware drawer will always be wingnuts. This writer is clearly one.

This sort of thing (including talking back to someone who said "no", but that's a different story) really shouldn't be that complicated. All a writer really needs to do is think about the last 50 books they've read and ask themselves, "Did you love it or like it?" If you just liked it, did you like it enough to want to live with it and the author for a year or more? And in the case of the author, for years and years?

I recently read an espionage novel by a very well known writer, the book was made into a film starring major stars, and I could barely finish the damned book. Yeah, it was probably a best seller, etc., but if I had been an agent and it had come across my desk, I just can't imagine wanting to rep him or that book, unless it was all about the money, which I suppose sometimes it is. Still...

Word verification: hypyr

I call BS on the author claiming six other agencies were reviewing his work. I can't see any reason why he would care to dicker with you unless you were his dream agent. Given that he doesn't understand what you represent, I find that hard to believe as well.

I was actually thankful when you rejected my partial several months back. (Okay, maybe thankful is the wrong word.) It made me realize that the idea was there, but I still needed to strengthen my voice quite a bit. Too bad some writers can't accept that not everyone loves everything.

Very true. But this has me wondering- have you ever accepted to represent something that wasn't your usual genre?

Mike M...in our house we call it a junk drawer. Lots of loose screws in mine.

Sounds like your rejection rattled a fragile ego. "It's not great unless everyone loved it!" If that's the case, I can understand the sentiment, but it's unfair and rather silly to project those issues on to you.

I am not amazed that the person wrote back to argue with you.

I am amazed that you had the exchange at all. That is to say, with over 300 queries, the blog, the clients e-mails, personal reading if you ever get time for it, reading you clients, selling your clients and ...

you took the time to have an exchange of e-mails with this person.

This tells me something about you beyond who you are as an agent :) There is the person who had to take those precious minutes to answer. How amazing is that?

Like Judge Judy says, paraphrased...If it doesn't all make sense, it's probably not all true.

Six agencies?

Wow, this is one author who has too much time on his hands. I'm lucky if I even make time to WRITE let alone badger agents about why they didn't think my work was fantastic.

If someone is being considered by that many agencies how do they find the time cast such judgment on how you run your operation. It would seem to me that they might have better things to do, but what do I know I am not working with anyone yet.

Wow. I'm kind of taken aback by that author's attitude. It sounds like you handled it well, though.

It's like any relationship, really. Do you want to be friends with someone who really cares for your company? Do you want to date/marry/be seriously involved with someone who doesn't really love you? OK, you might want those people, but in your heart of hearts you should know the relationship would be unbalanced and unhealthy, because the affection is one-way. It would accomplish nothing and likely end with stress and tears. Though an agent-writer relationship is a professional one, the same principle transfers. You should want to work with someone who loves what you offer.

I think the author is not telling the truth. If someone had six agents interested in their work, they wouldn't take the time or have the interest in having this unpleasant (somewhat spiteful) exchange...not to mention burning their bridges with you.

And if by some slight chance there really was six other agents considering his/her work, I bet those agents would love a "heads-up" on what a difficult client this author would be to work with...

Jessica, you are a gem.

Agree with last poster.

There are no six agents.

Don't waste your time with people like this.

The missing point, not being appreciated is the placment of genre before an agent. Apart from a very nice writing with brilliant structue and flow, without any syntax error, what matter is how comfortable an agent is with a particular genre. If he or she loves thriller, we cannot place romance and force her to read and then represent. Secondly, why should anyone challenge the professional prerogative of an agent. An agent, after all, has to live in this big, bald and bad world. No one does charity and why should anyone. Is any author willing to do charity? If not, why expect an agent, who makes a decent living through a sheer hardwork and dedication to the literary world? The author should ask this question before challenging an agent's wisdom, before anything else..

*sniffsniffsniff*

Smells like entitlement. You didn't say yes, therefore the author thinks you owe him an explanation. Once he gets one, he further thinks you owe him a policy change coupled with a change of mind. What arrogance; all you owed him was the initial reply.

Also, if I had six fulls out with agents, I'd be twelve shades of incoherent speaking to any of them, never mind having a peeved conversation with the agent who said no.

Unfortunately, writing is a community of people, but not necessarily professionals. I personally think "not sufficiently enthusiastic" beats the hell out of "Garbage" or "Wow, this is really terrible." :)

It works both ways. I've been turned off by authors who claim they rep mystery/suspense but all I see are romance titles. Do I really want a "romance" agent trying to push my thriller? Heck, no.

Agents have brands and specialize, just like authors--and are known by editors in those certain circles--so I'd think more than twice about approaching just any agent about promoting your baby. In romance terms: Do you really want to be seen with a goth geek if you're the homecoming queen at the prom?

Sorry--I meant AGENTS (it's late)

The analogy I like to make is this: would you really want to marry (heck, even date) someone who looked at you and said "well, yeah, you don't totally suck to be around."

Of course not.

You're not marrying your agent, but the same idea applies. That agent has to convince an editor/publisher that your book is worth buying over all the other choices - that requires more than "yeah, well, this didn't suck."

I want an agent to love my book as much as I do. More importantly, I need that if I'm going to succeed.

If my book takes an agent outside his or her "happy place" - it's not a good match and I'd rather (s)he pass.

I think it only makes sense that an agent would prefer novels that resonate with the way the agent already thinks.

If agents are demanding that they "fall in love" with a project before representing it, then that similarity would seem to be mandatory, at least in terms of the novel's core beliefs and approach to the world.

I think we all as readers are drawn to certain types of author voices. I read across several genres, but I still find myself drawn to authors who present things in a certain way. They might be writing about completely different topics, but something about how they put together a string of words draws me.

On the other hand, there are bestselling authors out there that I can read, and only say "Yep, it's pretty good, but it's missing something."

I would guess it's the same for agents.

Yes, yes, and yes, what was the question?
I know exactly what you mean.

I don't usually have a marathon reading opportunity but this weekend I started and finished a wonderful book. When I googled the author's agent the descriptions of what she handled sounded EXACTLY like how I would describe my novel.
I mean, totally.

Is my book exactly like the book I just finished, no, but the voice and the feel of the writing was enjoyably familier.
Could this agent be the one?

I'm rewriting my 'killer' query and hoping for a little serendipity.
I know, serendipity has nothing to do with it...it's the writing stupid. But a smile from the writing Gods wouldn't hurt.

Well Jessica, you have a voice in your writing. I can determine that from your Blog, so, it would make sense that you as an agent would have a voice also. Therefore it would be reasonable to say that all agents have a voice.

My memoir has a unique voice and now I'm wondering if that would translate into my finding an agent that has a similar voice? Or just one that enjoys mine?

The books I keep rereading are those with a voice which makes me want to sit down with the author and have a few beers.

I've read lots of books my agent represents, and I've definitely noticed a consistent kind of voice. You can also pick out a consistent voice preference at certain imprints.

My (now) best writing friend and I met because we'd just sold books to the same imprint- when we traded manuscripts to read, we were both nodding our heads, "Oh yeah, I can see why we're both here." :)

There's an irony not lost on me today that Christie Craig posted some photos of us singing karaoke at the same time you're wondering if we have a voice. Here's proof that we do...it just might not be pretty....

http://killerfictionwriters.blogspot.com/

Thats why we look at your list before we query. One thing always worries me...I see someone on your list that kind of matches what I write so I think you'll like my stuff too, but does this mean you already have a writer like me so you won't need another?
How many thriller writers do you have and would you consider another? Or are you full up?

I hadn't given it much thought, but it seems to me absolutely, positively, that agents have a 'voice'. It is that voice that an agent possesses that determines whether that particular agent 'gets' a particular writer. It is what determines a 'fit' or not. Their 'voices' speak to each other--not in Babel but in intimate conversation.

Kim--I was unable to upload video of you and Jessica singing so I gave my thumb drive with the video to Jessica. It was sort of like throwing it into the black hole...a mistake to hand over my only evidence? It appears so...

Kate:

Mwah ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaa...

This worries me. Our agents do encourage us to write a certain way, presumably the way they like.

A few days ago I bought a book for a child. After I got home I flipped through it and thought it seemed like a really unpleasant book. I took it back to the bookstore.

Then I found out that this book was, in fact, sold by my agent.

First, I'm laughing because I have a friend who is an agent and his voice...his speaking voice...is one of a kind.

Second, I do think all agents have voices. Their lists show it.

Yes, it seems many agents like to over-edit or encourage their clients to conform to a certain standard. Hence, the novels all start to sound alike, especially in romance and genre fiction. I think it's a problem when an agent tries too hard to control and dictate a project, forcing it to fit into a cookie-cutter mold in order to sell.

How will authors ever discover their voice if their agents are so heavy-handed? One more reason to go directly to editors.

It would seem reasonable that you only chose, consciously or subconsciously, work that has a voice you can relate to. I know I have that tendency as an editor, which is why we have several editors. So the journal doesn't all sound like something I would have written. :)

That's a very interesting question. 'Voice' is such an ambiguous thing to define to begin with it could probably have any answer, but it is still an interesting question. I think yes. You could probably even say that all reader have a 'voice' if you look at their bookshelves.

Perhaps, rather than a voice, you have an ear.

The whole bookshelf bit makes perfect sense to me. There are certainly books out there that speak to me more than others, and if I were an agent, I'd want them on my "shelf"/client list.

I definitely think agents have a voice.

It's how you present yourself and your clients. It's not genre specific, it's when part of yourself comes through in any form of communication, though it's easier to identify in the written word.

Reader, Bookseller, publicist, marketer, editor, agent, author:

Together, they must sing a chord!

But simply hitting the right "note" isn't enough.

Ever seen a "voice print?" Each voice is a complex and unique symphony of signals.

For "voices" to sing together in perfect harmony is art.

The Reader gets the thrill of a lifetime when joining such an ensemble chorus and finding that their own "voice" just flows right into the music.

I do love analogies!

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Anonymous 11:27 --

I think you're grossly underestimating authors. By the time they reach the point of an offer of representation, most authors have already found their voice. That's what makes them stand out from the rest of the pack.

Do we offer editorial suggestions to our clients? Sure. If those revisions feel right to the author, then they employ them. If they think the changes would somehow sacrifice their creative integrity, then they don't.

Certainly we do want to make our client's work as marketable as possible. That's our job. But we take our cues from the publishers and editors who in turn take their cues from the book-buying public. Editors are just as concerned about marketability as agents. More so. So I'm not sure I understand your argument for cutting the agent out of the equation.

I believe the agent has his or her own voice. That's why some rejection letters come in the form of "this is a subjective business, I am not the right fit."

I know Kim and Jessica have voices. I heard them sing. LOL.

Kim has made some suggestions on adding more to a scene or tweaking a scene, but I don't think her "voice" leaves an imprint on my writing. (She's not nearly crazy enough. LOL) I guess that could happen if someone had an agent that did a heavy critique. However, a good agent is like a good editor, they should know the importance of voice and any suggested changes needs to be line with the writer's voice or it can hurt the overall work.

I've heard agents comment that they must have the same "taste" as other agents because they often requests the same authors. I can see that happening. I think a writer can learn a lot by reading an agent's client list. However, it's wise to remember that agents can have complex taste. I know Kim likes dark as well as really light.

I would say that it probably pays to know the voice of the agent that you are querying for representation.

One of the reasons I queried my agent was because her client's books had a similar voice to mine. Agents are readers, too, so it makes total sense that they'd have certain preferences that show up in what they take on.

I think it's similar to asking if readers have a voice, and I'd posit that yes, everyone has a certain type of voice toward which they gravitate. This is one of the things we have to evaluate when we look at your lists to see if we have a chance at being a good fit!

Fascinating post! Yes, I'm sure agents have a voice, or at least a voice they're drawn to and relate best to - a voice they are passionate about and, therefore, are better able to sell. Sorry for the run-on, but yes, this makes so much sense!

Interesting comments, especially after the panel I was on with Jessica, and authors Angie Fox and Sally MacKenzie at RWA last week. We discussed the author/agent relationship, and the one thing we all agreed on is that an agent should only edit when the author wants it. Jessica hasn't read any of my Wolf Tales since the first one, but she offered a lot of help--at my request--on my DemonSlayers series, because it was a new genre for me. An agent works for the author, not the other way around.

Though I am not an agent, I know from personal experience in other types of sales that I have to really believe in something to be able to sell it at all.

I have a summer job at a hardware store. I'm very good at paint, and I can usually sell a higher grade of paint than the customer had intended. It's not because I'm trying to boost sales numbers, but is instead because the cheaper paints usually won't do what the customer wants.

When it comes to painting accessories and doo-dads, I usually talk them OUT of them because they're mostly worthless except on very specific types of jobs.

I won't sell something I wouldn't use myself, so it seems entirely rational to me that an agent would have a similar idea in mind.

Sure you have a voice. And it can transcend genre. For instance, look at your iPod. Probably you have all sorts of songs downloaded on it. If you thought about it, you could probably come up with at least one thing they all have in common. My current playlist has everything from Queen to Lady Gaga to Justin Beiber (yep, I said it out loud). Point is, they do all have something in common: I would LOVE to hear Jessica sing karaoke to Every. Single. One.

It's very strange that you posted this, because I was just thinking the same thing. I recently picked up a book that was repped by an agent I'm hoping to query. I didn't pick it up because of the agent, but because I thought I'd like it. But when I found out who repped it, I got all nervous, wondering about the sensibility of the agent, etc. etc. Turns out the prose is actually not that different from mine--in fact, almost eerily similar. One of his other clients is too. On the one hand, this freaks me out a little, but on the other it's sort of exciting, because I think there may be a such thing as shared sensibilities.

And I get what wry wryter said--there's a familiarity there, almost as if we're all from the same family, or at least the same shelf.

I am surprised to see this question. You write. You write a lot. Why would you think that you didn't have a voice?

As with a bunch of other comments, I am always late to the show, I find myself reading things that resonate with me. And I have been completely turned off by certain types of voices.

I have a book in my possession that, for some reason, I can't let go. It was the first book I have ever read that I absolutely hated.

The book was a NYT Bestseller, and I detested it. The story was ok, the characters were ok, but the voice, the almighty VOICE destroyed it for me. This was before I knew what voice was. Before I dared to dream that I too, could be on the NYT list.

You read, a lot. You write, a lot. How in the hell could you NOT have a voice?

Isn't voice your personality (or in the case of fiction, your characters) on the page?

OMG, I hope you get this.

I met with my agent at RWA Nationals, along with many of her other clients, and I couldn't believe the similarities between us. Freaky Teaky, baby!

So if my agent doesn't have a voice, she certainly has a particular pallet for them.

wow..that is a lot of cool books! I would love the chance to win one :)

I am not big on romance books but with a list of books like that and the brief words that followed I think I could get into romance books. That one that takes place in Tuscany sounds really interesting!!

Kate Douglas' Wolf Tales series really grabbed my attention. I would love to read one of those.

Ahhhh, Romance. Love everything about it.

On a serious note, I was thinking of the mail I've gotten over the past month about one of my Wolf Tales books in which the heroine deals with an abusive past--I think the "Happily Ever After" ending that's a requisite part of romance gives a lot of readers the closure in fiction that they don't always get in real life. My heroines--and sometimes my heroes as well--often come from lives of abuse, but they always overcome their issues and move on, stronger and more self-assured than ever. Romances, in many ways, give readers hope that things can and will get better.

Books and a contest! What a great day at BookEnds!

All those books sound great. Thanks for the contest.

Crystal816[at]hotmail[dot}com

A great contest! These books would keep me busy for a while!

[email protected]

Jessica and Kim,

Thanks again for letting us hijack your blog today. I love reading all of these insights into the romance novels of some of BookEnds' clients.

Faye

Wow! What a generous group, both with their ideas and offers of free books!

I love Christie's thoughts on how a man says one thing and means another. So true, and so entertaining to watch/read.

Kate Douglas, I've never forgotten your kind and helpful words on getting comp titles. You are a wonderfully encouraging author to "newbies". Thanks again!

Elizabeth, men and their loyalty to each other is always an interesting topic and your book sounds like it explores the concept with intrigue too :)

Gina, I am very fortunate to have a supportive (and handsome) man in my life...my hubby :)

Angie, love the idea of finding a heart of gold under a tough exterior.

Maureen, Your description makes me think of lovely (and sexy) meals with a lovely (and sexy) man!

Kim, I think the best stories come from characters who are real. Who wants to read about perfect people? I think that would be boring...give me flawed anyday.

Lisa, You had me with "true love hides in plain sight". So many stories put their characters in extreme situations and therefore are unbelievable. Give me a "girl/guy next door" storyline and you've got my interest.

Please enter me in the contest for these wonderful books.

Christi
christi_corbett(at)yahoo(dot)com

Nice collection of books! Thanks for including me in your contest. :)

Several of these sound like books I'd enjoy. It's interesting to see the variety of stories one agency represents.

Watching those creatures learn how to dance can be so much fun? Craig, how did you meet my boyfriend? A man will enchant you, you give up hope, then you have fun while you watch him learn to dance. Watching him learn how to dance is the best way to put that feeling. I'm in love with that sentence!

The books sound scrumptious (in true romance style). I must say however that while I understand the requisite HEA in romance books, I do wish we had more books where wounded heroes (and heroines) are left with just a little question about their futures in the end. That is -- some parallels to real-life I suppose is what I want. That said, it is a fantasy, as Kate Douglas said.

I'm beginning to understand that the only difference between horror and romance is the perspective :) Isn't crossover great? lol

I enjoyed reading the authors comments.
Teaching a cat to tapdance made
me laugh.
TLR33960 at hotmail dot com

Oh wow these are some great books, thanks for the chance to win. Please enter me! You just can't beat a good romance book!

lead[at]hotsheet[dot]com

I've skimmed romance novels, but never read through them. They always seem like something that only my mother would read (granted, she reads different genres now, but growing up all she read were romance novels). But, I think I'm ready to move past that, especially since these all seem fairly interesting (especially the paranormal romance since I read mostly urban fantasy).

Thanks for the giveaway!

renagrrl (at) gmail (dot) com

Great collection of books! I read Wolf Tales and love them! The other books sound wonderful also!

Huge Christie Craig fan here, though what a great group of authors! Thanks for the contest, ladies! :-)

Cool...I'm a big reader and love the romance genre.
Hope I could win one.

omg i would love to win one of them books.

Can't believe more people haven't entered this yet.

Awesome, so awesome.

Kim Lenox, I loved your comments on the imperfection of love. Sometimes it's easy to fantasize about that "perfect" guy, but I think the flawed ones are more fun anyway. :P

What a great chance to win several books [who can have too many of those?]! I've also found a great new blogsite! Thanks.

Lea Ellen {night owl in IL}

Very interesting post! ALL of those books sound like fantastic reads. Count me in! lucyjones38(at)hotmail (dot) com

These books all look smashing. I love the idea of learning to love like you're in a romance novel. Half the fun of reading is picturing yourself in some of the situations! That looks a must read to me!!

please enter me as well!

email: historicalromancejunkie[at]gmail[dot]com

I think it's really great the way romance has so many facets. People tend to see romance as very straight forward and about one thing and one thing only, but that is so not true! Just by looking at the books presented here, they're all very different, and that's what I love about this genre and this business. Hope you'll consider me for one of these awesome books!

Sammy

[email protected]

This is an amazing assortment of books and authors! I'd love to chance to win even one. My email is triskelliongirl at comcast dot net.

Damn, this internet contraption just makes me crave & buy more books! As if I needed the encouragement! But really, all those books sound great :)

Thanks for the chance!

Who would have thought there were 101 Ways to Love Like You’re in a Romance Novel. Even as a card carrying member of RWA and it's South Florida Chapter, I am still clueless. My favorites are Suspense Romance (i.e. Catherine Coulter.) Your book is wonderful fodder for my characters, who abide in the pages of Satire Romance, the anti-romance love affair to forget.

To wit I quote a character from one such romp:

"I love the hyperbole of romance language. The way they use all the words with "ly" and even make some up when necessary. Characters in romance novels never become just anything, they become extremely, wildly, incredibly and unbelievably something or other. Kisses are tenderly, madly, passionately and deeply felt. Tragedy is miserably, terribly, horribly brought to bear on the sincerely, innocently shy hero and heroine, though they are eventually, properly and finally vindicated."

I'd really enjoy a copy of your book and love that Jessica handed over the controls for today.

[email protected]

Ohhhh... I want, I want. All those books look awesome! Love the different perspectives.

Some how I haven't read any of these but oh they all sound wonderful.Thanks for a wonderful contest.

catslady5(at)aol.com

Christie Craig's comment about "how a man, especially those tall, dark and silent types, might say one thing, but mean another" really struck a chord with me. What I've learned from romance novels is that the kind of man that appeals to me on the pages of a book is not the same kind of man I want in real life.

When it comes to characters, I confess I go weak in the knees for the dark and silent types, the enigmatic, brooding hotties with so much mystery behind their eyes. I fall in love with every one of them, no matter their role in the story. I just can't seem to help it.

In real life, however, I prefer open and cheerful guys who make me laugh. The silent brooding that seems so sexy in books is in fact a highly unattractive behaviour in a relationship. And all that mysteriousness? Not fun at all when you want to know a man intimately. And if "dark" is a key word in a real man's personality description, my advice is to steer clear!

But oh, do those types make for gooood fiction. ;)

anni_mt at yahoo dot ca

Wow what a cool contest! And what a lot of wonderful books! Would love to get any one of those in my hands :)

Congrats Christie and Faye! May you have many, many sales!

Rashda

Great post! WWW looks wonderful, Christie and Faye. Thank you for including a giveaway of Dane. Hoping to send that boy to a good home.

Lots of great books on offer. I facebooked about this blog today and will Twitter.

Hi to Jessica!

Wow what a great group of authors! Please enter me in the contest!

dreabecraft520(@)aol.com

I love all of kate's boos and I know I have looked into other writer in the Romance. I know that my husband likes me to read these books. So I will try to wins some onw.

Put my name in the pile. I'd love to read any one of those.

I just love Kate Douglas' Wolf Tale Series. I will be so lost when the series ends. I am a 54 mother of two teen girls, married to the same guy 22 1/2 years and her books brought awaked most of my dormant cells. I'm hoping that the publisher let's her continue with the stories featuring the Chanku kids. Keeping my fingers crossed.
Would love a chance to read any of these other authors.

What a line up! Pick me, coach!

I think I've read most of the authors here today. And the few I haven't, I'll be going out and looking up your books.

I love reading romance books for fun of reading them. And the lessons about life that can be learned from them. And seeing relationships and love from someone else view point.

I learned a lot from Romance novels. Wolf Tales taught me all sorts of things that have my hubby smiling like a loon!

I would love to win some books. Thanks!

What a great list of TO BE Bought books!

Enter me in to win one... Except Angie's... I'm all caught up on the Demon Slayer series... unless you can sneak me the next book... (grin)

Lynn

All books sound fantastic! Huge romance fan :-)

Christi, thanks for your thoughtful comments. To me, loyalty and commitment are heroic, sexy qualities. I want them in fictional heroes and I think they are qualities to look for in the real men we let into our lives. My Lords of Satyr novels are dark and erotic, but they end in HEAs. I'm not sure that could happen without heroes who were inherently loyal and committed to their families and their women.

Connie, I think many feel that way. Kate's Wolf Tales series is going to an amazing 12 titles, but it's not enough! More, more!

Hi Kim, looking forward to meeting you at karaoke in Orlando.

Christie, I just started reading Divorced, Desperate, and Delicious last night (and loving it!) and then I saw an email about you giving away a book. I think it's fate. :)

I think the list of books you have all sound wonderful. Would love to read any of them.

that s quite an impressive and great sounding list of books! would love to read any of them!

I agree that there is a lot to learn from romance novels, and the variety of lessons that the authors talked about are awesome! I can't wait to pick up your book! I love the responses that Kate Douglas received, and I think one of her books will be on my next shopping list!

So exciting! I love to read and would love a chance to win a good book.

Perfect timing. I have a romance-reading friend with a September birthday. Now I have some books to check out. Thanks!

A big thank you to everyone who posted and entered the contest. Jessica has agreed to post the winners on tomorrow's blog. So make sure you check back on Thursday for the winners.

I hope anyone going to RWA nationals will make sure to come by and say hello.

Have a great week.

Christie Craig ~CC-- Who is pages from finishing her second YA and is jumping up and down.

One of the best things about romance novels is that they are predicated on the notion that women deserve and should expect a relationship where their happiness and satisfaction is just as important as a man's. Kudos to all of you for portraying that message so clearly!

I've only one. Dean Koontz. I want to ask him bodachs, and tell him I see them all the time.

I'd start with Jane Austen - a remarkable woman and writer. I wonder if she has any writing tips?

Then I would have to say, Shakespeare - I think discussing the poetry of his life over a cuppa would be entertaining.

Next, from my fav genre. Terry Goodkind. His writing skills amaze me with each read.

The last? Again, it must be my fav genre. I'm torn, but would have to say George RR Martin - Winter is coming ...

John Masters: favorite all-around novelist.

Louis L'Amour: great storyteller.

Maurice Walsh: beautiful voice.

Stephen Vincent Benet: favorite poet.

And also Fareed Zakaria: - amazingly clear and thoughtful. Wish he'd write a novel.

Charles Dodgson, for sure. Anyone else, eh. But definitely-absolutely-100% Charles Dodgson.

I'll play!

Lucy Maud Montgomery. Is there a Canadian girl alive who wouldn't want to meet the voice behind Anne of Green Gables?

Christopher Moore. I would undoubtedly be terrified, but oh, how I would love to glimpse that imagination in action.

the folks who write the Unofficial Guides to Disney, because I think they must have some fabulous stories AND some hints & secrets that they can't put into the books.

St. Paul. What an amazing life journey he had, and what an astonishing influence he continues to have.

1. J.K. Rowling. I have endless quibbles. She might end up braining me with the bubble-and-squeak. (Whatever that is.) Or perhaps not-- she seems a very patient lady.

2. Diana Wynne Jones. I've loved her books since I was a kid. I'd just bask.

3. Charles Dickens. Get him to tell me how he visualizes characters. (Am miffed by the current trend for calling him a racist. I've read all his books at least eight times. Take him as a product of his times, and he's a helluvalot less racist than his contemporaries. Particularly, compare his descriptions of African-Americans in the US with those written by other mid-nineteenth century Europeans.)

4. Terry Pratchett. Because he is so very funny and observant.

Huh. I seem to want to have lunch with Brits.

Kim, I want in on the Austen lunch. Number one choice.

Close second: Nora Ephron. We could talk about food and my movie deal.

Third: Tom Perrotta. Favorite guy writer ever.

Fourth: George Eliot. Just to get a glimpse into the brilliant mind that produced Middlemarch.

Gene Stratton Porter--great Indiana romance author of the early 20th century, she was also a naturalist and I'd love to have dinner at her house in the Limberlost..

Richard Russo--I want to see if he's really as quirky and funny in person as he is in his novels...

Maurice Sendak--how can you beat Where the Wild Things Are?

Mark Twain--just because...it's Mark Twain!

@Karen - I'll join you...

1) Terry Pratchett
2) Douglas Adams
3) Oscar Wilde
and one American
4) Mark Twain

Anyone who doesn't start the list with Oscar Wilde needs to get out more. That leads inevitably to G. Bernard Shaw. I'd probably finish it with Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein, just to watch them fight.

In order of importance (as in..if I could only dine with one author dead or alive it would be hands down Nietzsche!)

1. Nietzsche

2. Dostoevsky

3. Wilde

4. Cather (Willa)

Jane Austen - 'nuff said. Best. Author. Ever.

Charlotte Macleod - Her funny mysteries are brilliant in an understated way... sadly, she passed on a few years ago.

Joan Hess - The best author of funny cozy mysteries... a want to meet her!

Emily Bronte - I would love to learn what made her tick!

Anne Tyler

John Irving

Philip Roth

Anais Nin

C.S. Lewis

Lucy Maud Montgomery

Timothy Zahn

J.R.R. Tolkien

John D. MacDonald
Carl Hiaasen
Tony Hillerman
Rob Thomas (the writer, not the muscician)

Lloyd Alexander --great storyteller and repsonsible for most of my contemplaions on morality when I was younger

Robert Louis Stevenson --Blood and Thunder books rock and its amazing that he wrote so many books in such a short life

Ursula LeGuin --the woman is an amazing world builder and so respectful to life. I feel like she would have a lot to talk about over luch.

Ray Bradbury --another author who wrote an outstanding quantity of stories. He has such an exciting way of describing every day things and wonder for life.

Edgar Rice Burroughs, John Steinbeck, Cormac McCarthy, Elmore Leonard, J.K. Rowling

James Dashner: Just because he's so cool.
Brandon Sanderson: See above
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: To me, it'd be like lunch with Stephen King, only I won't be afraid when I leave.
Alexandre Dumas: His life was as classic as his novels.

Margaret Mitchell. I might be too awestruck by the creator of Scarlet O'Hara, Rhett Butler, and one of the greatest love stories of all time to make any lunchtime conversation, but I'd sure love to give it a try.

Barbara Kingsolver. After reading "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle," I started gardening on my porch. She loves food and cooking as much as I do (high praise!) and is committed to the grow locally/organic movement. Oh, and she was also nominated for a Pulitzer for that other little book of hers.

Elizabeth Gilbert. I went to see her in February and she is a tremendously talented public speaker. She's also funny, witty, and engaging.

Nelson Mandela. What an AMAZING human being.

I just had a crisis of conscience. Maybe I picked Nelson Mandela because of his amazing life's work and since his book "The Long Walk to Freedom" is his autobiography, maybe that's cheating.(Or maybe I'm a paranoid geek!)

So based solely on WRITING, my fourth author would be Lucy Maud Montgomery. "Anne of Green Gables" was one of the first books I read (over 25 years ago!) and I still love it.

Are we talking fiction writers here? Because my non-fiction list would be very different - Freud, Plato, Marx, Frankl.

Fiction:

Oscar Wilde - what a hoot of a lunch that would be.

Mark Twain - for exactly the same reason.

Shakespeare - who on earth was this guy that he could write works that would be relevant hundreds of years later?

JK Rowling - I want to learn from her ability to plot. Astounding.

Nora Roberts
Dick Francis
Georgette Heyer
Terry Pratchett

I only need to see these names on the cover to know that I would love the book, so I can't help but wonder if my favorite authors would have anything in common.

C.S. Lewis (I'd just like to pick his brain), Katherine Mansfield (I bet she was a little eccentric -- therefore an awesome lunch companion), Edith Wharton (master of realistic dialogue)... and can I have lunch with the Bronte sisters or is that cheating?

Amy

Roald Dahl! Childhood hero.

1) Hemingway - Not only was he just simply a master of his craft, I'd like to think we could talk him out of that shotgun idea...

2) Mark Z. Danielewski - He who writes "House of Leaves" has several questions to answer. The most thoroughly deceptive book ever written, and the tightest weave of any narrative. I have questions!

3) Virginia Woolf - again, master of her craft, and we could perhaps talk about not going for that last swim.

4) Bill Watterson - okay, maybe not a traditional author, but I loved Calvin & Hobbes. Loved. It.

1. Jane Austin because she's written books I can read over and over and it's always like I've just discovered something amazing.

2. Laura Ingalls Wilder because she's directly responsible or sparking my love of reading and I think she'd tell wonderful stories.

3. Suzanne Brockmann because she writes the books I love to read and I'd love to have her be my mentor.

4. J.K. Rowling because I'd love to shake her hand and tell her how amazing she is for imagining the entire Harry Potter world.

Ooh... one of my favorite topics. Fiction authors, in no particular order:

1) Astrid Lindgren. She wrote books which speak both to children and adults. Would love to know how she did that.

2) Octavia E. Butler. I've read her works both in English and in three other languages. Where did she get her ideas from and how she shaped her world(s)?

3) Ursula K. LeGuin. I'd love to talk with her about the process of writing. And mayby have a word or two about world-building...

4) Tove Jansson. Here I'd completly skip the Moomin books but chat about her "works for adults" - as well as how her other works (paintings, sculptures etc) affected her writing.

Very close would be Laura Ingals Wilder - not because of her writing, but I'd really like to know about all those things she left out of her books: like, did they really change the clothes only once in a week? Where did they build the outhouse? How did you handle menstruations? During the Hard Winter, did you take a bath even once? In other words, how was the life really was like!

Non-fiction: Marx, Platon, Kierkegaard and then a draw between Nietzsche and Lenin.

Interesting: I'm a male, and in fiction I only female authors...

/PT

William Shakespeare: C'mon, it's the Bard.

J.R.R. Tolkien: "The" man when it came to fantasy and world-building.

Mark Twain: No one could spin things around as seriously and humorously as him.

Raymond Chandler: Honestly, it's a tie between him and Hammett, but he was around for longer, and "The Simple Art of Murder" is awesome. I just need to talk to one of the premier hard-boiled guys.

Only four? But there are so many more! Curses, foiled again.

Jane Austen, Kurt Vonnegut, and Neil Gaiman, for starters. I adore all of their work and suspect they're all fabulous in person. I've been having some trouble picking a fourth, but I do think Oscar Wilde would be a good choice.

In coming up with my list, I realized my dream meal would be an intervention!

My picks are Ernest Hemingway, Sylvia Plath, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Harper Lee.

Always and forever ... J.D. Salinger because I dreamed of hearing the voice behind the "voice."
Agatha Christie; was no cozy and a tough old broad.
Virginia Woolf I am sure needs no explanation.
Elaine May so I could sit back, listen and learn.
A voice and a backbone, determination and comedy.

My lunch would be a little different.

Guests:
Stephen King, the master.

Dean Koontz, no one writes a better chase scene or should I say a better 'being chased' scene.

Joining us would be Alfred Hitchcock, Rod Serling and M. Night Shyamalan.

I'd serve blood orange screwdrivers.
Lunch... brought by Anthony Bourdain.
You're all invited, I'll take notes.

Toni Morrison. I'd give up a second choice to have lunch listening to her talk to Charlie Rose.

Alan Lightman. I assume he has the most intriguing mind.

You know what, I'm pretty sure all for all other authors, their books would suffice.

Good blog post!

Jodi Picoult - she didn't experience many of the tumultuous things she writes about, but she researched them and describes things beautifully.

Truman Capote - so unique and I think he'd be interesting to talk to.

Stephen King - the master of storytelling.

Kate Chopin - love her work and she writes about Louisiana where I'm from.

Great post and question today :)

Elaine

I can't list just four!!

Could I have lunch four times with Sue Grafton instead?

John Steinbach,
Charles Dickens,
Elsie Park Gowan,
Diana Gabaldon.

For me, it's Dan Brown, C.S. Lewis, Robert Kiyosaki and Johanna Lindsey.

Paul Maier: I've met the man, and he has a simply delightful sense of humor.

Romuald Spasowski: wrote the most moving memoir/history of modern Poland that I could ever have imagined.

Milt Bearden: expert on my research subject, and I want to hear the back-corridor stuff that never makes it into print.

Stanislav Levchenko: just to say "thank you for sharing your story."

Jane Austen: I would love to hear about her process of editing. I read she would cut, cut, cut. I want to learn to do that more readily.

Rainer Maria Rilke: The most amazing poet and thinker.

Stephen King: Has the most fascinating character interactions and understanding of human nature.

What? Only four? Hmm...let's see...

Charles Dickens - one of the first authors whose works inspired me during my years of schooling. The worlds he created and the characters who resided in them marvelled me.

William Shakespeare - I don't know that I'd understand all that he'd say to me during lunch, but just to be able to say "thank you" for stirring up my interest in screenwriting and playwriting would be an honor.

Gregory Maguire - Not since Mr. Dickens has anyone impressed me as much as Mr. Maguire has. His ability to take well-known fairytales/myths/general expectations and provide his readers with a different point of view...that's one incredibly talented man.

Kathleen McGowan - Her novels did what so few others were able to do; entertain and enlighten. As Gregory Maguire has been able to do so has Ms. McGowan. Kathleen's novels take accepted situations and beliefs then prompt readers to re-examine their own lives and the way in which they live them.

Naomi Novik: She's brilliant. End of story.

Chris d'Lacey: Also brilliant. And his novels are the definition of controlled chaos, to the point where I have to wonder what he's like in a conversation.

Timothy Zahn: Brilliant. Oh, and he's a physicist. Physics is awesome.

E.E. Knight: Because he wrote a series from the point of view of dragons and pulled it off brilliantly.

Tied between Anne McCaffrey and Christopher Paolini: Both have wonderful portrayals of dragons.

C. S. Lewis
Jane Austen
Douglas Adams
Ray Bradbury
backups: J. R. R. Tolkein, Victor Hugo, and Charles Dickens--and don't get me started on the backups' backups.

Getting this group together might make for an interesting conversation. I'd be especially interested in how C. S. Lewis and Douglas Adams got along. And I'd keep Jane Austen after to give me some advice on finding the right guy.

Oh... definitely
1.Robert B Parker. And he could bring Joan as well, as long as they promise not to only talk to each other. I've always LOVED his characters.

I would also enjoy:
2. Terry Pratchett
3. Douglas Adams
That could be really fun together.

Then for my all-time favorites as a kid:
4. Ellen Raskin
5. Madeline L'Engle

Bummer. Tagging onto this post. . . have you ever gone the extra step and sent the full to another agent or recommend an agent to the author when you reject it? Or do you simply send a generic 'not for me'?

I'm wondering about this because you DID ask for a full and, though I know many agents don't feel obligated to comment, the author is on excited pins and needles about the request and would appreciate some feedback.

But then again, you have had to deal with a variety of crazies that I haven't been exposed to.

Did you ever read the last page of a book first?

I absolutely appreciate the honesty you're showing in your answer. That you're a reader who wants to know more, of course, doesn't concern me if you ask for the full via email. However, if you really are sure you won't be representing it, you're asking for a large monetary commitment that has no ROI for the writer.

Most writers send requests by the higher-dollar Priority Mail so they can get the comfort of the delivery notification. Then there's the expense of an ink cartridge and a ream of paper. All totaled, these might run between $25 and $30.

In addition, some writers don't live anywhere close to a post office, so a special run to town to get a full in the mail as quickly as possible could tack on another $3 or $4 in gas, plus a couple of hours spent printing and packaging the ms, driving to the PO, standing in line, and driving home.

I do so hope when you're in the "curious" mood, you're asking for the ms via email or are at least carefully considering the financial, emotional and time commitments you're asking of the writer to satisfy that curiosity.

Now, I not only lose sleep over will 'my full' be accepted, I lose sleep over...well maybe she just wanted to see what happens.

When you are finished, please pull my nighty down and be there in the morning.

Anon-

Email costs nothing. Most agents/editors request MS by email attachment.

Personally, I only had 1 agent request a hard copy. The others were all done by email.

I've had several agents request full by postal mail and one by both email and snail mail. It's not that outdated.

Jessica - if you were curious enough to spend that kind of time, why didn't you issue a 'revise and resubmit'. There must have been something there that caught your attention.

I've had agents request partials by snail mail. (And knowing it would probably be a rejection without massive revision because of great feedback from Ms. Lionetti, and I didn't send it because of the cost).

I actually started writing and submitting shorts in the early 80's, but the cost of postage and paper/ink made me quit that, and complete dismiss the concept of writing a whole novel, until they could invent the web.

Yes, I'm kidding. Sort of. Well, not really. Rejection in the 80's didn't just hurt - it was bloody expensive! Especially for a college student/waitress.

I love the internets!

Anon 8:56 --

We request materials be sent electronically, so there's no cost to the author (except maybe time).

First off, I appreciate your honesty in this question. I have wondered the same thing often myself. However, as a currently querying author I found it extremely disheartening, much like wry wryter said. I try not to get too excited about a partial request, but if I get a full request from an agent who has read pages...well, sometimes I let my imagination run away and I get very hopeful. If, as an agent, you request a full knowing you won't offer representation then you're kind of like Santa Claus. Full of hopes, dreams, and candy, but once you find out the truth ultimately disappointing. A full rejection, to me, is extremely disappointing because I think to myself, "I was so close..."

With that said, I completely understand curiosity and if an agent said in an e-mail, "This story isn't currently for me or isn't a good fit for my house, but I'm intrigued to see how it ends. Would you be willing to send me the rest of the ms so I can read on without hope of representation?" I would send it off in a flash because it's someone else reading my work, and my story which is why I became a writer. That way I know why you want the full, and won't have to invest in so much wine and chocolate when the rejection comes back.

I can totally understand doing that. I've bought published books and by page 20 I just don't like the writing but something about the plot makes me need to know how it turns out.

"I don't think agents ever request a full if after reading the partial they know definitively they will be rejecting the book."

Okay. That makes it all better. :-) I can fully understand reading the rest of the pages that you already have in-hand. Requesting material you know is a no-go would raise everyone's hopes a bit too much.

Going to the Watchung Mountains today and I always think of you when I'm there. Wish you repped my genre...you're a delight.

Once upon a time, such an admission would have angered me no end.

But now I find it utterly flattering. To have anyone read your ms and like it, even if it isn't right for them.

I have gotten to the point where I often wonder if these agents and editors are even capable of being delighted by reading. It seems they must employ such an over-arching critical sense, that I wonder how anything can ever actually please them.

Nothing makes me happier than learning I am wrong.

"I don't think agents ever request a full if after reading the partial they know definitively they will be rejecting the book."

Speak for yourself -- I once had an agent admit to asking for a partial and then a full of my ms. In his rejection, he explained he just needed to read my ms because his own client had written a similar book (about to go on subs) and he wanted to asses the competition. I almost fell off my chair. Um, gee, thanks. *&#$#@

Thank you for being an agent and helping us writers get published. We need you. Thanks for reading manuscripts even though you know you will not be representing the work. Thank God for Readers!!

Hi all,

I was always, and still am, a firm believer that an agent's review of my material was always a good thing, no matter their answer. Yes, of course, when it's dismissive, as anon 1:57 said, it is crushing and leaves a writer understandably resentful, HOWEVER, in my twenty years of querying, I can tell you that the majority of agents I contacted truly did hope to find their gems and they did so courteously and respectfully.

I have always looked at it this way: Even if an agent ultimately rejects my material, there is a chance she will remember my work down the road. You never know where a partial or a full read will lead.

Thanks for the clarification, Jessica.

That really helps. I admit to sharing some of the initial responses - please, please don't get my hopes up if you're not interested. A full request!? That's like Christmas and a birthday rolled into one. Although, if the agent really does just want to read it, like Anon 10:38 said, and the agent asks upfront. that's cool. Then, it's flattering and validating.

But it's cool that you like to read books! There is a difference between a book an agent likes vs. a book an agent likes + thinks they can sell. So, all that makes sense.

Completely off topic question, but I'm curious: Has there ever been an author who has been represented by more than one agent at a time? I write in genres that are completely opposite from each other, so I wonder if those authors who write under more than one penname have more than one agent.

I'm an intern at a literary agency and I just requested the full of something that I'm not sure will work out...the idea seems overused, but the characters were so appealing that I wanted to see where the rest of the book went with it. After all, queries only tell you so much. I wanted to give the manuscript a chance to speak for itself, even though I'm a little pessimistic. And of course, I want to see how it ends.

I’VE BEEN READING THIS BLOG FOR A LONG TIME AND AFTER TODAYS POST I’M WONDERING WHY. WE ARE LIKE BEGGERS SCRAMBLING FOR THE CRUMBS THE AGENT GODS THROW US. IT’S SAD REALLY.
I’VE LEARNED A LOT HERE AND FOR THAT I AM GREATFUL BUT TODAY I LEARNED THAT THE HOPES AND DREAMS I HAVE FOR MY CURRENT NOVEL, EVEN IF AN AGENT WANTS TO READ IT, AND ESPECIALLY IF AN AGENT WANTS TO READ IT, MEANS LITTLE.
IT’S BEEN NICE GUYS, THANKS FOR YOUR IMPUT.

It's good that agents are readers too! I suppose you wanting to know what happens next is a good thing, but not wanting it after that . . . does that mean something is wrong with the execution?

If an agent is honest and says, "Not for me, put could you send the full ms so I could read it anyway?" then they'd be no problem. I'd even be flattered.

But please don't get our hopes up just because you are curious.

Jessica, thanks for the additional clarification of your original post.

I like your blog !!Thank you. They are really great .
do not miss my goods , they are very beautiful !!
Fashion watches
Discount watches
Antique pocket watches

Is it such a waste of time to finally read the end part and decide it's a rejection after all?

I absolutely love your honesty and when the time comes for me to query, you are on the top of my list!!!

Thank you Jessica. Always invaluable information.

I think that was a good question and a good answer. Guidelines are there for a reason and I don't think it was a Dr. Evil agent alone in their office- plotting ways of making it harder for us to query. Well...in most cases anyway. I just figured if agents ask for things specifically it's because they've had trouble with certain aspects of querries in the past.

It makes me think of the writing classes I teach, the instructions I expect them to follow and the fluctuations in following those instructions. I make the instructions knowing that there are some students who are going to completely misunderstand them.

Of course, if too many students misunderstand the directions, I need to consider that the directions themselves may be confusing. But if only one or two students misunderstand, then I have a useful tool--I know which students to evaluate as weaker in their reading comprehension.

So it's true that if a system existed that ensured 100% of queries were guideline-perfect, like a system that ensured 100% of my students wrote essays perfect documentation, spelling and grammar, we'd lose some ability to evaluate. But (un)fortunately enough, when you build a better idiot-proof, the world builds a better idiot. There will always be some who are careless with directions, and that gives us a better sense of who we want to work with.

They tell me what they want, and how they want it, and I still don't get it right.

It's a little like a guy with a comb-over. We like hair but not that way.

This is an interesting question. It adds to my general question of query writing vs. novel writing, and which is easier. The more rules there are for a query, the easier it should become to get one right, even if the manuscript behind it is awful.

I have an experiment running over at The Public Query Slushpile. I provided a prompt, and have asked writers to submit a query and up to five sample pages based on that prompt.

It will be interesting to see if anyone can put together a slam-dunk query that has no real novel to back it up, jumping through all of the proper "hoops."

It will also be interesting to see how widely the queries and stories will vary. The prompt is fairly specific, but it's still vague enough to fit into multiple genres. Many people are sensitive about other writers stealing their ideas, the sample pages should illustrate the important of voice and execution.

An industry standard would be wonderful! Sometimes I actually wonder if some of the agents I've submitted to know what they are actually looking for (in terms of guidelines).

Some say the query is the synopsis, others say the query is different from the synopsis. Some suggest that the synopsis is 3 pages, others 10, etc. Then some say they want an outline, but if you do an outline, it turns out they really wanted a synopsis. I find that I'm in the wrong line of work. That writing shouldn't be what I pursued, but that of ESP. Because I'm basically having to read Agent's minds anyway.

When I find that my ESP has let me down, and I truly cant' read the Agent's mind, I turn to research, research, research to learn what I can. However, when I research the agents I just come across more conflicting information. In an interview with Joe Blow, the Agent may ask author's to submit their queries to their personal e-mail with five pages, but when you look at their website, it doesn't say anything about that. The website may be very specific and tell the author to submit to a communal e-mail address with nothing besides the query letter. Urrgghhh! So which guidelines do you follow, their interview with Joe Blow, or their website. I feel like I'm danged if I do. I research the agent, but when you conflicting information their really is no point.

Then if nobody gives you a guideline on how long they want their queries, synopsis, etc, you attempt to use other agents guidelines as a norm. That's the wrong thing to do! Even though these agents do not tell you the specific guidelines they want, they still have guidelines they expect to see. So if we followed Jessica's guidelines and submitted a 1-3 page synopsis (or whatever we had on hand) to Miss Super Agent and that's not what she expected to see, then we might as well not hold our breath waiting to hear back.

Why can't all Agents, just give us a break in this one area? Go ahead and deny us if you don't like the work, but not because our format/guidelines are not what you expected. It's hard enough to submit your material to a stranger, and place yourself in a vulnerable situation, but to then be denied because our query was a paragraph to long, or our synopsis was a page short is difficult. Especially because most times I doubt the agent is going to tell you they denied you because you didn't follow guidelines.

Now, I'm not saying I'm constantly denied. What I'm saying is that I've refused to submit to a few Agents because they were so confusing, I had no clue what they actually wanted. I've submitted thus far to 11 Agents, and I've had one rejection (and she didn't say why), one request for three chapters and synopsis, and one request for additional pages. Now, I just have to wait and see if the other 8 Agents are going to deny me because they hate my work, or because I put my address at the top of my e-mail instead of the bottom. Geez, who would have thought trying to tell the world a story would be so dang difficult.

So I say again; Yes, Yes, Yes Jessica! An industry standard would be wonderful. I'm sorry if it takes away the Agents ability to immediately send something to the slush pile. But I have to admit, as many times as Agents are using the "HandForeheadSlap" because they are frustrated with queries, I have my own red marks due to frustrations with guidelines. So yea Jessica! I think you should get your idea out there.

I too would like to speak to query writing vs story writing. For me, entire novels are easier to write than query letters. I liken the query to taking a test. You've studied, researched, you know your stuff, then - you get to the exam room and freeze. I don't know why it's like that for me but it is.

I have had the wonderful fortune to have had a portion of my novel critiqued by a multi award winning science fiction writer while he was "writer in res" for a few months in the city in which I live. He told me that I needed to stop waiting and publish. (ah, if only it were that easy). He said that out of the 20 people he had seen thus far, I was 1 with only 2 others who worte extremely well. The other word he liked to use was "clean". He said I wrote amazingly clean and that I would be an editors dream because it would make their job that much easier.

So, to my point, in his opinion I am ready for publication but I can't get anyone to read what I've written. I have revised my query so many times I can't see straight anymore. Maybe I need to try and approach it as though no one will ever see it - I don't know if I can fool myslef into doing that but I have tried everything else.

Are agents ever afraid that they are missing out on a really good and saleable novel because they might not have liked the query? Maybe agents should take one of those queries - once a week - once a month - I don't know, and see if they might be pleasantly surprised. If you find you are rejecting a large number of partials you've requested, perhaps the reverse could be true!

LOL; well this is what I get for reading blogs while at work. After posting, I finally noticed the first part of Jessica's blog was in italics. That was a readers comment, not Jessica's. So I will change my cheering sections, and say Yea Reader!

Missed amy's post while I was typing my comment earlier. GO AMY I feel ya!

The more agents I research, the more confused I get. What is whipped cream and cherries to one, is a slap in the face to another. No wonder the query letter makes us break out into a flop sweat!!!

"The one who has lost is the author." What? The agent who doesn't go that extra mile and only skims queries instead of actually reading them is going to miss out on some future bestselling authors. Agents aren't in competition with authors. They are in competition with each other. And those who work longer and harder, read more carefully and dig deeper, are going to more successful.

Good post, much appreciated.

I think I appreciate most the fact that you admit to skimming queries, where I feel most agents rehearse the mantra that they do in fact read every single query (dubious!).

As for "hoops" -- as a writer seeking representation, I don't see these (most of the time) as hoops but rather as professional guidelines. Agents are professionals; not all writers are (or are ready to be. or know HOW to be). And if you want to be a professional writer, you need to act professionally. In most cases agent guidelines simply force you to be formal in an instance when you definitely should be.

I think unfortunately there are a lot of unspoken "guidelines" which are, in fact, hoops -- and not just hoops to test how far and high you're willing to jump, necessarily, but hoops which, if you miss them, land you in a deep dark hole. There are all sorts of "rules" about queries that you only learn when you see an agent #rant about it on Twitter (or wherever)... these hoops, I feel, are adjunct to the reasoning behind professional guidelines and can inhibit the potential of the query as well as the integrity of the agent.

When I started out as an agent, another agent - one who has been in the business for more than 25 years - gave me a great piece of advice. She said "Colleen, the writing never gets any better than what's in the query." and she was right. I've seen good queries with bad pages, but I've yet to see a great first ten pages attached to a muddled or confusing or badly-written query letter. So, yes, the query letter really does matter to me.

Why not adopt a universal standard when it comes to query format? That way, writers can't screw it up and agents no longer have to explain it.

A standard would be wonderful if writers would follow it. I've found over the years that no matter how many guidelines I write there are at least 50% who unaware or refuse to follow them. I believe there's always a new wave of writers coming into the profession and that most of them believe if you throw a certain amount of stuff against the wall, some of it will stick and a contract will be forthcoming. So this says that not only do agents need standard guidelines but writers need guidelines as to how to find the standard and I cannot see that ever happening in this lifetime.

This is an interesting question (and answer). In my day job, I study the U.S. courts. We talk a lot about how the Supreme Court gets through the mother of all slush piles: the cert petitions (requests for review). They get over 8000 petitions and grant about 100. In the political science world, we speculate that the court has to rely on heuristics -- cognitive shortcuts -- to rule out a lot of the cases. It's not a question of laziness, but of necessity. You've only got so much alertness to use up in a day, and so how much can you spend on separating wheat from chaff? Not that much.

It may seem arbitrary to rely on query guidelines to "disqualify" some submissions, but you have to use something. I'd rather it be "ability to follow directions" than "heroine's name". :)

I am new reader of your site but one thing i realize one thing that the way you plot the matter in your post that is amazing i am appreciating that. Add me a feedback reader.
Keep it up.
post free classified ads

That's why I write!

Hope you don't mind if I share agent Mollie Glick's thoughts on falling in love with a manuscript...

http://whatwomenwritetx.blogspot.com/2010/05/welcome-guest-blogger-mollie-glick.html

I don't think I would want someone to pitch my book if she didn't love it. Why hire someone to convince other people to pay for it if they don't believe in what they're selling?

I recently attended a writer's conference where one of the agents said he didn't agree with the "fall in love" aspect so many other agents talk about. Plenty of conversations in the hallway about that one. While I understand his point, I suspect were I an agent, I'd be in the head-over-heels required camp. I think I'd want to feel that passionate in the event it took a while to sell--because otherwise, I'd wonder if my commitment would possibly wane, and then be serving my client with less than my all. That's not fair to the client at all--why should I rob him or her of the opportunity to have an advocate who will continue to do everything within her power to sell the manuscript? Better (for me) to pass, to let that writer find his/her best representation. Not to say that agent was wrong; clearly he knew his stuff. But for the vast majority of agents, and with so much out there to sell, falling in love seems to make sense.

Joan Mora - thanks for the link! :D

Falling in love takes time...

Here's the thing -- how do agents know they're going to love the NEXT book the writer produces?

Because most authors (unless they are creating a genre brand of cozy mysteries, for instance) DON'T write the same type of book over and over again.

I had an agent a year ago. She loved one book (the book she signed me for) sent it out, and it didn't sell it. I could tell she didn't like my next book, she kept putting off sending it out. When she finally did sent it (to only four places) it got amazing rejections, tons of praise, far more than my first book, and a couple of close calls. But after those four subs she gave up and wouldn't send it out anymore.

THAT is what has made me really wary about agents and "love." Because at some point, doesn't professionalism have to win out over "love?" Professonally speaking, she really should've given that second book a chance, since it had far better responses than the first one. After I left, I realized it was going to be really hard to get another agent to take on that second book, and give it the subs it should have had, because it had already been "shopped" to four places. Honestly, that agent's "love" and subsequent "hate" probably set me back a year.

Love is great. I'd rather have professionalism.

Trust me on this, the difference between an agent who is merely doing his job, and one who genuinely loves your work, is like the light difference between midnight and noon.

This made me smile. In the midst of an agent search where the general refrain seems to be, "liked it, good writing, didn't fall in love."

And I needed to hear this. Thanks.

Anon 9:20

I'm sorry to hear your story, but I just set down a proposal from a client of mine. I think it's the fifth time I've read this proposal. She's published seven books and I can tell you I love everything I read every time I read it. Even when I send it back for revisions, rewrites and a gutting.

Want to know what love is? Love is getting swept up in the voice no matter how much work the book or proposal need. Love is feeling like crying when you put it down because it's just that good. Love is emailing the author with changes and honestly telling her you love her because the book was just that good.

The problem with love is that sometimes, sadly, it ends. No relationship is perfect and while we might love someone, we might learn later that we don't love them enough.

There are no guarantees when it comes to love and publishing. And sadly, sometimes we just have to pick up the pieces of our broken heart and move on.

See how profound I can feel. All because of love.

--jhf

I want an agent who loves my book as much as I do. If the agent feels passionate about the book that excitement will show when they pitch it to editors and it will have a much better chance to sell.

Maybe agents could change it up a little? Like, "It's not your book. It's just me." Or "Let's just be friends?" Or maybe "Do I HAVE to get a restraining order?"

While I understand that everyone's different, and that the "I didn't fall in love" response creates frustration in some people, I don't understand the bile and anger over the issue that I've been seeing lately. Personally, I very much agree with what Emily Casey said a few comments above. I don't want an agent who doesn't feel passionately about my book. I can't expect even the most professionally competent agents to be as devoted to something they don't love as something they do.

You said "in a perfect world". But, the thing is, it's not one.

Great topic. I love my job. But I can say that I don't love every aspect of my job. For example, I'm not too crazy about negotiating features contracts or overseeing my department budget but I do it because it's part of my job. I want an agent to love my work. Just like I'm sure my reporters want me to love their work. Most times I do and when I don't, it's usually because it needs work. And, as their editor,it's my job to help them. A agent can't possibly love everything a person writes, but he or she still has a job to do and should work with their clients to do the best work of their lives. (This is for the person whose agent gave up on the second manuscript after a few tries.) The problem is for those who are trying to land an agent. I, too, have heard over and over the love statement. I get that. I really do. I want to fall in love, too. Love is a wonderful, terrific, all-consuming thing. But the best kind of love comes when two people (an agent and writer) make a connection and that bud of a relationship, of hope for the future, blooms into something that lasts and carries them through even when there seems to be more rain than sunshine. Am I making any sense at all?

But very few people *get* to do only the jobs they love. Most of us have jobs doing what we need to do to survive.

But the main reason this is frustrating has nothing to do with the agent. An author who wants to be published is willing to learn what is required of him. When an agent says only that the work just isn't right or they don't love it, that's an indication that there is nothing wrong technically, no obvious flaw in writing skill. The only blemish is in the ideas the author brings to the table -- and an author cannot learn his way out of that. Saying that you just don't love a work is the most personal kind of rejection possible, because you are not rejecting the writing, you are rejecting him.

That's why it's frustrating. But, again, it's just how the game is played. We endure. We have to keep hoping that somewhere, there's an agent who will love us for the things we cannot change.

As a writer and reader, I rarely fall in love with a book--but I often buy it cuz it sounds interesting. How can you expect to be in love every time? Wouldn't that severely limit the amount of books we buy?

Yes, I want an agent to really like and champion my novel, but LOVE seems a bit over the top.

Sometimes it's so frustrating to get that "didn't fall in love," answer. And as simple as your post here was - it offered some insight. I read it and I thought, no, the world isn't perfect, but we all try to do what we can to make as close to as possible. So yeah, I get it. Sure in my perfect world, that response wouldn't exist (because, who wouldn't love my work?), but I can deal.

This actually makes me feel better. People don't 'fall in love' every day. So we shouldn't expect agents to either. cue 'somewhere out there...'

Remus, in my opinion, an agent who rejects a book is always rejecting the writing, never the writer. "The writing" can mean a lot of different things. The idea. The plot. One or more characters. A book can be 90% of the way there and still be rejected. Never take it personally.

The "fall in love" thing makes perfect sense to me. It isn't that an agent can't sell a book she doesn't love, although it tends to make most agents truly impassioned advocates (which helps an editor "fall in love" as well.) It's that the numbers just aren't on the writer's side. Agents are getting pitched thousands of books, and seriously considering hundreds. And an agent working on and trying to sell hundreds of books is going to have less time and energy to sell each individual one. An agent trying to sell 20 books a year is going to have a much better chance of selling each one and be better able to serve her clients. Given that, "love" just means the difference between "it's one of the 200 best books I've been pitched this year" and "it's one of the 20 best, and I want to represent it."

As tough as it can be to hear that response sometimes, I think that it can also be reassuring. Sure, it would seem easier if agents only had to like a manuscript - but in the long run, couldn't it then turn around to be the exact opposite? Just like we wouldn't want to go through life simply loving the one we're with instead of finding our perfect match, it would also be a disservice (to both sides!) to do the same with this. It's too special a journey to go on with someone who doesn't approach the ride with that same whole-hearted love for the project. Yes, the initial "just didn't fall in love with it" hurts, but I'd like to think that will only make that perfect match, so to speak, all the more exciting.

Ah, falling in love is a whole other ball game and oh so..."subjective" (which is another famous agenty word. I would be way more interested in knowing why "intriguing" isn't sufficiently enthusiastic and why "sounds like an interesting project" isn't enough to warrant a few pages. Personally, I think it's a matter of hitting the right agent on the right day in the right mood. It's enough to make your head explode. This is just one of the many reasons I started my own blog for unpublished writers - even if it is just a place where I can talk to myself and try to make sense of it all so my head doesn't explode! :)

Let's face it- we are passionate about writing, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Those who are equally passionate about reading understand the importance of "falling in love" with something we've read. Readers must be thrilled about what they're reading enough to spread the word. If your agent, who knows what will sell and what won't, doesn't get this thrill, it's probably reflective of how readers will receive it.

To me, you have two choices: keep querying, but also continue to try and improve your writing. As for me, I choose both of these courses of action.

Marissa

I think it would be pretty tough to sell something you aren't as invested in. If you have a real connection to the ms and fall in love with it, selling it is probably going to be somewhat easier.

I have to say that I'm of several minds about this. I have a 'day job'. I don't love it. Yet, I do it and I'm paid for it. My boss doesn't care if I'm in love with the work I do.

On the other hand, I also edit for a literary journal. We get pieces in that I do NOT love, but someone else on staff does. It's all very subjective. I wouldn't want to have to take a hands-on editor role with those pieces, and I don't.

However, I'm perfectly capable of proofing them, 'type-setting' them and anything else that needs to be done. But hands-on editor? No.

Many literary agents and hands-on agents. Which means they spend a lot of time with the manuscript helping the author fine-tune it for shopping to publishers. I have a feeling that those are the agents who need to feel love. No casual, one-night stand shopping for them - they need to feel involved.

Excellent point. An agent-writer relationship is kind of like a marriage. Most Marriages without love don't work out.

I completely understand. I am one of the writers whose story you didn't fall in love with ages ago, and I actually respect an agent who won't represent a product they don't feel passionately about. How can someone do their job well if it isn't in their heart? And though we'd like to believe that money makes the world go 'round, it's actually love that does. Love for whatever it is you're doing.

Publishing is also a business and agents don't always have to love something to market it well. They have to know they can sell it, and believe it's marketable. If they love a certain project, that makes it all the more worth while. But not all agents "love" everything they rep, and I thought I'd point this out to the dear readers of this blog who are looking for solid publishing advice.

And, there are many (too many) times agents love projects they know they can't sell, which doesn't make the job easy.

Had an agent who took me because I had an offer. She didn't love me or my writing. The relationship didn't last because she couldn't feel passionate about being my advocate.

Now? Baby, I'm lookin' for love. I want to rock some agent's world, and I won't settle for less. I hope the agents on my query list won't settle for less, either.

It's a good thing my boss just walked by and I had four seconds to reconsider what I was going to post. My god, are you spoiled.

Beautifully put.

I just signed with an agent who loves my writing so much that every conversation is a dream come true.

I can't imagine settling for someone who was just confident she could sell me.

:)

Another thought:

Imagine you're an agent. You have two books to sell. The first is something you enjoyed and you know an editor who will be interested.

The second book is Harry Potter, and you're the first to get queried by JKR.

Which book are you going to sell enthusiastically, with all confidence, and feel brilliant when it does well?

THAT is loving your job.

It's a tough question. Of course I want my agent to "love" my work, but love means different things to different agents. The agents I've had for nonfiction "loved" particular projects because (they thought) they were saleable. The agents I've had for fiction "loved" my voice, my style. Of course, I am not saying this is true of all (or even most) nonfiction and fiction agents, that's just my experience. But I do think different agents "fall in love" in different ways.

Great point. I think I would want an agent who LOVES my book, as opposed to an agent who just thinks there's a niche for it but doesn't have the sort of personal motivation to sell it. And it always is important to keep in mind that an agent doesn't mean it personally. There could be things she loved about the book and things she didn't like, but because taste is so subjective, there may be someone out there who loves my book enough to want to sell it. Appreciate the insight!

Love makes the word go round.

Anon. 1:55 thank you, I needed to read that.

I love my book, the characters, the story and to think it came out of my head...how amazing this all is...but I feel like I gave birth to a child that no one loves and that lack of love is based on one page which isn't even in the book but about the book.

I didn't love my husband when someone told me about him(query)...I didn't love him when I first met him(synopsis)...he was hot though(first three chapters)...I fell in like(about half way through)...and in love, really in love when...okay enough of this, he's asleep on the couch I think I'm going to go wake him up(love scene)...and that's all folks.

If you are under contract with an agent for your first novel, and the contract only specifies the first novel and makes no mention of future work, is it permissable to query another agent for your second completed novel?

Maybe as an unagented, "pre-published author", I'm looking to high, but I don't just want an agent. I want the perfect agent. And the perfect agent - for me - has to love what I'm giving them, otherwise I just don't think it will work. Thanks for the post, I'm glad to hear agents are looking for love too.

@ Anon 11:48

Regardless of your contract language, it's not appropriate to query another agent without talking to your current agent and explaining that you have chosen to terminate the relationship.

Most agents will not even consider representing you unless the divorce is final, so to speak.

Fantastic blog. Keep on rockin, Radu Prisacaru – UK Internet Marketer & Web Developer

I totally agree. It's not about finding ANY match, it's about finding the right match. There are many agents that I like and respect, but aren't right for what I do. That doesn't mean I like or respect them less, just that we're not a good match at this point.

I want someone who is as passionate about bringing my work to an audience as I am about writing it. And someone who's enthusiastic about the fact that I write many things (and I sell many things, there's no day job), and doesn't try to put me in a box, because it's an easy 10-15%.

Jessica,
A few years ago at a writers conference there was a panel of agents introducing themselves. Several of them mentioned needing to love a project before offering representation. One agent had a different opinion. He said he doesn't ask himself, "do I love this?" but rather "can I sell this?"

So for those writers that prefer a dispassionate approach from agents, there is at least one agent who operates in that manner.

He does not happen to be on my list of agents I wish to query.

When you do find an agent and it takes over a year to sell your book, then the next book doesn't sell after a year of trying, and the third book does sell, but only after two rounds of submission in a very tough market -- you will get the love thing. You'll understand why an agent who loved your work enough to send it through three rounds of editors, with no guarantee of any financial return, is so much better than one who kind of liked it but gives up on you after round one and a few months of trying. You will get it when your agent is willing to read your ms. or proposal several times to get it just right, so that it is competitive in a publishing economy that recently imploded and where you are competing with talented, multi-published authors whose options weren't accepted. Who would do that unless they loved it? How many books do you read several times, and in the space of a few months? Seriously, when it happens to you, you will get it.

As for those saying we don't get to do what we love in the real world. So true. I'm a published writer with a day job that I like some days. On the days I like it, I tend to beat my boss's expectations. On the days it's just a paycheck and I daydream of being a full-time writer, it's hard not to put in a half-assed performance. I bet you've had days like that. It's required of the real world, but when you've beaten the crazy odds and finally found an agent, I promise you won't want half-assed.

Lucy,

Thank you for your input. I asked because this topic reminded me of my own agent. She phoned me to tell me that she "loved" my book and wanted to represent me. So I signed with her last August. FIve months later she retired and "gave" me to one of her underlings.

I felt like a bride left at the altar and stuck with the "best man."

Again, thank you. If anyone else has an opinion on this situation, I would be glad to hear it.

Anon 3:26 -- I had an agent that "loved" my ms too and signed me. She then didn't follow up on subs, didn't want to do a second round of subs, and failed to read my next ms though she had it for over six months. When I complained about the lack of attention, dumped me off on another agent at the agency, who also sold nothing, and with one particular ms, sent it to just a few editors, so it was shopped just enough that I couldn't query another agent for it when I left.

This was an A-list agent, and an A- list agency. Her famous and best-selling clients got her attention, I got nothing. THAT'S why I say "love" isn't what you are looking for. Professionalism is. To one agent "love" means doing their best. But to another it means, I think I can make a fast buck off of this, and if I don't, I'll cut the author loose.

Stuck in your own head is a great point. That's why having another writer, who's been through the query process, read yours is so important. Automatically, they pick out the holes. Not saying the holes are an easy fix, but at least the writer knows and can work on it. ";-)

Whoops – so my screenplay, based on my children’s book which is similar to Potter but unlike Twilight - and even though I am a world renown author of Lithuanian text books – is a no go - aw shucks.

This sounds like a job for a prominent link to the Query Shark!

"the story didn’t feel different or special enough"

This is a case of 'damned if you do and damned if you don't.' Too different or special and an agent won't bite, because it's not a sure-sell. How's an author supposed to figure out the happy medium? Writing an 80,000 word novel takes months and months. It's not like whipping out a few cookies and asking, "Here, taste this? And this one? How about this?"

"author is too much in her own head"

I *think* we all have this problem. The cure is a *critique group.* It's painful at first, but you get used to it. My favorite is

www.critiquecircle.com

Very interesting insight. Thanks for sharing. I'm surprised by how many people do not do their research before querying an agent. But even if you, there is so much about the process that is subjective. I'd rather have an agent reject my work than represent it if they just aren't that in to it, however.

You're so right about living in our own heads. When I first posted a query in a critique group, the response I got was "But what happens in the story?"

Ah--I'd described the book but left out the plot. :-D I guess I'm not the only one.

the author left in only her favorite lines and they don’t necessarily match or make sense.


Sounds like everything I've ever written, Jessica.

I find it helpful to read agent blogs and also get constant feedback from critique groups. Growth happens fast when you surround yourself with those who have/are doing it.

Earlier this year, I queried my first completed manuscript and sent out less then 30 query letters. Of those, I've had a number of requests, which I am waiting to hear back on. This is a win for me and not bad for a first time out.

It truly pays to do your homework. As a matter of fact, I'll admit to having a request from Bookends at the moment, and I'm thrilled. However it turns out I did enough homework to get this far.

The nice thing is, if you do it right everyday you grow.

Great post, Jessica.

The biggest problem I had when I first started crafting a query letter was understanding it's okay to let go of some of the mystery.

When you first start, you feel that if you lay the ultimate dilemma out in your query, than you've taken all the thrill out of the story. Hence the reason first draft queries, almost always sound ridiculously vague.

It's so important for the writer to do their homework. It's not good to send something that you don't represent, wasting your time and theirs.

Sometimes I wonder whether it's comforting or not when an agent doesn't want to see your book because the query just didn't interest them. One could view it as not meaning the book was bad, just not this one agent's cup of tea. Or one could view it as "your book is not interesting," which has to be discouraging as all get-out.

Amen to what everyone is saying about getting stuck in your own head. I think it's inevitable for this to happen after you work on a project for months, and you have to consciously avoid it. It's so easy to forget that readers can't see between the lines to all the backstory or logical connectors that you know exist but didn't make it onto the paper. Critique groups can help. So can just walking away for a long time, then coming back to re-evaluate the project or query letter with fresh eyes and a not-so-fresh memory for the details.

Thanks for the insight into some of the reasons queries are rejected. Knowing your own story so well that you can't see where you may lose or confuse someone receiving it is no easy task. If you share it with those in your critique group for feedback, you run that same risk because they also know the story. Perhaps, it is better to have someone review your query who has never read your manuscript. Thanks again!

I agree with Sheri; no matter how much you've learned or how many years you've been doing this, always ask at least one experienced writer whom you respect to read your query.

"It’s either that or the query has been edited so much that the author left in only her favorite lines and they don’t necessarily match or make sense."

I've seen this before.

Or, it could be the person querying just doesn't know how to communicate well, which means they probably shouldn't be writing in the first place. Or, at least learning how to write before they start querying.

It's frustrating when a well-written query doesn't interest me. This is a really big problem because I have to sit back and scratch my head sometimes, and ask myself: "Why the heck didn't I like this? The story is captivating, the query was fascinating and brief... what is going on?"

What I think is most important is that the author truly understands and appreciates her own work. It's tough. Writers get mired in this whole publishing thing - sending out hundreds of queries, researching, worrying. To make matters worse, there's an emotional wall between writers and agents. Writers see agents in this really high, unreachable tower and get an unhealthy sense that agents ONLY want to sell, sell, sell. Yeah, agents need to make money, but they're also in the business because they want to see writers make it. They want writers who are proud of their work. They want writers who work hard to make something truly enjoyable. They want writers who enjoy writing. Queries can get so gimmicky that, even if they are well-written, they do not ring with a note of truth, humor, enjoyment, or the sheer joy of sharing the story. A writer's pride and love should be evident in her query. If she loves and understands her own work, it will be much easier for the agent to also love and understand her work.

After all, talking to an agent about your piece is like talking to someone else about your baby. The amount of love you show your baby reflects in that baby's development, and also in how he or she is received by others. - Sell, but don't sell yourself short!

"It's frustrating when a well-written query doesn't interest me."

Here, here, on my last novel, I wrote the query and thought, "Ahhh, perfection." And then, immediately, "Booooooring." I rewrote it. The result was less perfect, but definitely more interesting, I think. But, it really is so hard to find that happy medium ground, even with a lot of help.

I believe I have written a terrific book; but who am I, I am only the author. The few people who have read it tell me it is perfect for a book club. (My first readers were not friends and family but readers, writers, and an editor.)
It is a wonderful story about a young woman's bravery, change and love.
To think that a year of work, on and off, must be presented as a one page yea or nay to a stranger who has no clue what the story is about other than a log line and a paragraph is heartbreaking.
After reading this post I want to quit, why try, if I can't even get past one damn page.
I have wasted too much time.
I'm even posting this a day late, go figure.
Maybe I should take up tennis...what a racket.
C

I believe I have written a terrific book; but who am I, I am only the author. The few people who have read it tell me it is perfect for a book club. (My first readers were not friends and family but readers, writers, and an editor.)
It is a wonderful story about a young woman's bravery, change and love.
To think that a year of work, on and off, must be presented as a one page yea or nay to a stranger who has no clue what the story is about other than a log line and a paragraph is heartbreaking.
After reading this post I want to quit, why try, if I can't even get past one damn page.
I have wasted too much time.
I'm even posting this a day late, go figure.
Maybe I should take up tennis...what a racket.
C

So what kind of books are you looking for in terms of nonfiction?

Always interesting to see the trends in why queries get turned down. The point I take away from this post is to do your research. Not just looking for the e-mail address to send your query to. But research how to write one, research what agents represent so you can find the best fit, etc, etc, etc. Research is the operative word of the day.

Tracy, you said:
"it's okay to let go of some of the mystery."

I am nowhere near ready to query yet, but soaking up all I can about the process. As a newbie I want to explain the BrandNew OriginalIdea that would make my work different than AllThoseOtherOnes - but not sink it because it Doesn'tQuiteFit Anywhere...or give away enough that someone else doesn't run off with my idea !!
Hmmm....what to do? Will keep lurking!

Absolutely on the "stuck in your own head" thing. ...And with the editing/reducing-to-her-favorite-lines. :D This post is funny in the "because I'm guilty of that" way.

Makes cents to me ;-)

This is a "no duh" kinda thing for me. Are you supposed to take on my project just because I'm charming and oh-so deserving? hahaha.

I actually find that a comforting thought. A rejection doesn't mean "This has no artistic merit" and "You have no talent" but rather "We don't feel we can make a ton of money off this."

Making Money = People Wanted To Read the Book

If the public wouldn't want to read the book what is the sense in killing another tree to make it? Blaming agents for wanting to make money is just a cover (no pun intended)

This made me laugh so hard. I love you Jessica. "That's called a job" FTW!

I continue to be amazed by the number of writers who (supposedly) want to get published, yet fail to view their writing as a business endeavour.

If you want to make money off of something, then you have to see it as a business. If you're not interested in making money, just write for your own sake (and the near and dear) and don't put yourself through the hassle of seeking publication. Piece of cake!

As Stephen King once wrote in an essay, "Some of you are calling me crass and money-fixated. And some of you are calling me bad things."

Bravo!

And on the flip side, any writer who thinks he/she is in it just for the artistic satisfaction, shouldn't be subbing to agents imho.

I make a little money soliciting and submitting to men (and women) I don't even know. Yes..I try to sell myself over the internet,(the street corner) for writers, awe hell, call me a writing whore, I love it. I just wish I could make more money at it.
Maybe I should go on a diet and wear more revealing clothes or as Lawrence Block said, "make every word count", and as they all say, show don't tell. Were we really taking about writing.
nn

Ahh, you made me laugh. Of course you want to represent books that will make money. (And if you didn't no author should want you as their agent.)

Are you serious? Someone complained that you were only willing to take on a project if it would make money? Complained?

Thank you, Jessica, for only being willing to take one the project that will make money.

I love to write, but I really only want to write things that will make money. I can write for other reasons after I pay off my house, my car, my credit cards, etc.

Gee - I thought all agents were in it to make money.

If a writer looking to be published isn't in it for the money, they should self-publish.

Yes. As everyone has said, it is a bit of a no-brainer.

I ask myself 'why do people want to get published if they don't care if their book sells to people (ie, makes money)?

The only reason I can think of (aside from fluffing their ego and social status) is they think their book is useful/appealing to a small niche market and want to get it to them - even though it won't appeal to enough people to 'make money'.

The good news is for these people, that with today's technology it's easier than ever for them to access this niche themselves. Put together a simple website or blog (and because the niche would be so targeted there's a good chance they'll be findable in search engines) - and provide a digital version for free.

Problem solved.

So be thankful you live today rather than 20 years ago, get creative, and leave the poor agents alone.

Strangely, I only want someone to agent my book if she wants to make money on it. I don't make money if she doesn't.

Works for me. It's not much of a career if it doesn't make money. If you didn't, I wouldn't and I might have to go out and get a REAL job...you know, the kind with a normal, forty-hour work week where I DIDN'T work seven days a week, 12-15 hours a day!

Well said.

@ Mark Terry, LOL. And it's very easy to self-publish in the e-book format these days, so any author who's not concerned about the money can go that route.

I'm actually interested in books that will make ME money, agent or no agent.

Right on Jessica!

Word UP.

AMEN!

Leslie, I definitely agree. A few decades ago, there *was* no real way to write "just for the fun [or art] of it" - you could keep a journal, but there was no way to systematically share your work with others unless you went through the system.

Now there are plenty of options: ebooks, vanity presses and POD technology, ezines, blogs, heck even Twitter allows you to broadcast your creativity to the masses.

Authors who look down on making money should restrict themselves to the venues where nobody else has to make money from their work, either.

Love this! A good reminder to everyone who ever claimed to be writing "just for the love of it."

I love it too, but I'm pretty sure my agent would not be impressed if I called her up today and said, "you know that advance check we're getting? Send it back, please. I think it soils the purity of what I'm trying to do here."

Hmmm...maybe I'll try that.

Tawna

If you don't want to make money, what do you need an agent FOR?

(Isn't that what self-publishing is for?)

Whoa, hold up.

I'm not writing for money, but I still want to be published. I want my work to reach a wide audience.

There are other reasons why a writer might like to be published.

That doesn't mean, though, that I won't still express deep frustration about the 10/90 split. That has more to do with a system that feels unfair to me.

However, all that said:

Bravo, Jessica! Hear, hear!

The publishing industry should want to make money - that's what keeps it viable. In fact, if anything, I find it baffling that it doesn't seem to want to. The topic from yesterday, for example. Why on earth wouldn't publishers send their books widely out to reviewers. Don't they want to make any money????

But in terms of those who critisize the money making thing, I think they are worried that their work will be blocked from publication, because it's not commercial.

I think when publishing switched from sponsorship to business, some people felt that non-commercial books would be blocked.

But switching to commercial was the best thing that ever happened to writers. Over time, it's opened the gates to all writers, and made getting published a much more democratic process.

And technology has played a role so that the gate-keeping function of publishing is now defunct. Publishers can not stop a book from publishing like they could in the past. Anyone who wants to publish, can.

So, for those who write more literary work, I say let commercial publishing become as strong and finacially viable as possible - it will build readership and strengthen the writing process. That's all to the good.

And if your work isn't commercial, per se, you can look for industry folks who want to sponsor - there are still a few of them - or publish yourself and use the web to reach a wide audience.

Win-win.

My goodness. I had alot to say here. :) Thanks for the post, Jessica.

I am so glad that my agent only takes projects to make money! Likewise, it pleases me that my work will help make money for other people.

Flattery and love are nice. But pay me for my work.

I'm always kind of baffled when people don't grasp the concept that printing/editing/distributing books costs, you know, money. And that the people who are in this industry actually want a return and hopefully a profit on that investment.

This mindset genuinely makes no sense to me. I *assume* if an author is looking for an agent, it means they'd actually like their book to SELL, and they'd like to be PAID. Either in money or recognition.

Jessica - you go girl! Whoever says they love their job so much they'd do it for free has got to be tripping.

Makes sense to me!

I've always wrestled with the sales side of things. And now seeking publication I've wondered about having to "sell". It helps, for me, to stop looking at it as sales for a dollar's sake, but rather to look at it as sales=readers and if I'm not writing for an audience and I'm not trying to reach people, why am I doing this in the first place? Isn't writing about COMMUNICATION?

Oh and I deinitely agree - why would you want to hire and agent that *doesn't* want to make a lot of money off you? If an agent works off standard commission it stands to reason the better they profit the better you do! (or the more people you reach, if you still feel dirty talking about it in terms of money.)

I wonder how many of these authors that criticize agents for wanting to make money would turn down a large advance for their own work. Heck, if wanting to make money is so bad, shouldn't they be willing to let the publishers release their works for free?

Yes, agents should love the books they take on, and writers do want to share their words with the world, but at the end of the day we all want to be paid for our work.

Just thought you'd like to know that open-publisher Lulu.com has made a huge leap towards creating the world's biggest bookstore today by adding traditionally published books to their global marketplace. You can see the announcement from Lulu CEO Bob Young here: http://lulublog.com/2010/04/12/message-from-bob/

Kristen, I thought of that too. I also think the same analogy applies when writers complain that few mega-stars are getting huge advances while others get skimpy ones. My thought is, okay, you go first. You tell your publisher not to send the check for a million dollars - you'd rather it go to several other writers.

....crickets....

I give labor to my church for free. My employer has to pay me.

I worked some years as a real estate agent. If the house didn't sell I didn't get paid a cent. In fact listing a house that didn't sell cost me big in advertising dollars as well as time and trouble. You can bet I only took on houses I thought would sell, and when I did I tried really hard to sell them.

Works the same in publishing. If you want someone to work hard for you let their paycheck depend only on results.

ROFL! Work for money? How could you? For that matter, I only want you to represent my work if you can make money for us *both*. LOL!

To take an opposite tack, I believe it does (has) happen that an agent or editor will know a book is never going to be a real money maker, but push it for its artistic merit.
But I would never expect to be in that class, nor are there many who will be.

Interesting. I mean, I can think of lots of reasons to rant at agents and editors, but because they want to make money???

I want them to make money -- I want them to do it with my book so that I can get read!

I'm surprised this is even an issue. Publishing is a business. What agents do is part of that business. A business that doesn't make money quickly disappears from the landscape.

Wouldn't a writer who is that anxious to see an unprofitable book published be better to self-publish?

This is all wonderful and perfectly understandable.

The disheartening part is knowing that agents can't take any risks these days. They have to go for the sure-fire sale. This leaves little chance for writers like me to achieve paying publication.

I've tried and tried to write commercial fiction, and I just can't.

All my stories turn out like Aragorn battling Klingons with a lightsaber.

Too wierd.

But, anything different would bore me.

(((sigh)))

Aaa-OOO-gah! Incoming snark:

There are three reasons why a person seeks publication:

1) They are a megalomaniac displeased with the level of adulation they receive from the public, and so they have written a novel to rectify this strange oversight.

2) Their self-esteem is lower than the underside of a doormat and they desperately want a stranger to say, "Yes, you are good at this," to rectify the situation.

3) They want to make money.

Writing for enjoyment, or for self-expression, or for the sake of creating a potent work of art does not require publication. Seeking publication means you either want attention or you want money.

The second impulse is the more healthy one.

Reminds me of the artists who don't want to sell out to the establishment, just produce their meaningful work... and then price it ridiculously high. If you don't care about the money, then why are your stick figures tagged at $3000? And why is no one buying?

It's not shameful to want to make a living from your creative talent or your ability to sell creative talent.

There are NO absolutes...starting...now!

:)

Completely right, Jessica. Every publisher I know publishes unknown authors, because the "unknown" of today are the bestsellers and prize-winners of tomorrow. Last year, my company published six first novels. This year, it'll be eleven.

It's difficult for unknown authors of ANY genre.

I think you're right, Jessica. This agent simply misspoke. Perhaps a more accurate, more professional, thing to say would have been, "Sorry, I'm not currently interested in unpublished authors." I've seen that in agents' guidelines, and it is not insulting at all. It's understandable.

Take heart! One of my writing buddies--an unknown author--made a three-book deal with Berkley Crime.

My guess is that particular agent has never had success with selling an unknown author in those genres, but there are other agents out there that have.

All I have to say is "Before they were known, they were unknown".

I suspect many agents tend to become too hyper-aware of what they themselves can and cannot sell. And if a book is something they do not think they can sell, then they bestow on it the mantle of unsellability. This is why you should listen to everything agents and editors tell you with a big dose of salt. If three or four or ten agents or editors tell you the same thing, well that's something else.

Yes, I've heard of a few agents who won't accept these genres cuz they're not the current trend. But who's to say mystery/suspense won't be hot in a year or two? Aren't people sick of vampires and werewolves by now? (I am, but I've never been a big fan.)

As for historical mysteries, the movie "Sherlock Holmes" puts a fresh, action-packed spin on an old favorite so let's hope this helps revive the historical mystery genre (my personal fave)!

Hi Jessica,

You said: 'You are writing in a genre (mystery, thriller, or historical) that’s especially challenging for writers these days'

My question is: What if any of the above three, or a combination of any two also fit into the genre "Young Adult"? Would the book still be as challenging to sell?

Not sure if this agent's website was recently updated or if the quote was truncated, but the agent's page now reads:

"Fiction by unknown authors is almost impossible to sell these days but if the novel is truly brilliant, it will sell if its agent is dedicated."

Thank goodness that there are no absolutes in this business, or after three decades of trying, I'd STILL be unpublished.

Thank you for this post. It can be easy to feel discouraged by absolute statements. Your perspective helps me maintain perspective.

Great post. Thank you for this optimism, or at least this anti-pessimism. You're right, there are no absolutes, and I'm going to believe that. :)

I'm very grateful to have received query responses from agents with a positive attitude. They have all been very uplifting. I guess sometimes books and agents aren't a right fit, but it shouldn't ever be articulated as an absolute.

Great post!

When I get a rejection like that, I always assume it's a kind of brush off. Yeah, it's hard to sell this or that, but what they're really saying is that they weren't excited enough about the book (or query) to overcome the inertia of not accepting it.

Recently, I've received emails from Publishers Lunch which detail book deals for "unknown" authors.

Obviously, every author is unknown until they're known. Common sense.

Isn't that why so many authors lately, kick start their public career by self publishing their first born? ...There by taking some of the pressure off the new and over worked agent.

Thank you for this post, Jessica.

It sounds like this agent has taken on these genres by unknown authors in the past and has failed to sell them. That's probably not an agent you want anyway, so I think this agent is doing both themselves and unknown authors a favour.

It seems many commenters know who this agent is, but I don't. I am about to query for my finally completed first mystery /suspense novel. i would appreciate knowing who this agent is.

Agents are especially good at overlooking high concept thrillers. Look at Daniel Suarez' DAEMON! Best-selling series now, originally self-published.

Query the agents who handle your genre, but don't rely on them. There's a lot of roads into the city. If you're inventive enough to write a thriller/mysery, you should be inventive enough to figure out how to get it to the poeple who want to read it. It's actually easier than ever these days. Amazon is the new gatekeepr when it comes right down to it. make it available, then make sure the right people know it's there--readers, movers-and-shakers in the real-life subject area of the book, reviewers, etc. Agents are only 1 small aspect of the publishing game. to fixate on them alone is like playing chess and limiting yourself to only using one piece for the opening 30 moves.

Jason -- that is the most adorable picture ever.

Just sayin'.

Genius, plus luck, plus time, plus opportunity, plus lots of hard work... still dreaming.

Just today I got The Call from my agent telling me that a major mystery publisher has made an offer for a three-book deal. I'm a first-time, unknown author writing in the cozy mystery genre.

congrats, texas!

At www.HistoricalNovels.info I've reviewed quite a few recent historical novels published by major presses that are debut novels: The Wet Nurse's Tale by Erica Eisdorfer, The Jewel Trader of Pegu by Jeffrey Hantover, Company of Liars by Karen Maitland, As Meat Loves Salt by Maria McCann, The Physick Book of Deliverance Dane by Katherine Howe (this one was on the NYT bestseller list last year), The Gargoyle by Andrew Davidson, Daughter of Kura by Debra Austin, Mistress of the Revolution by Catherine Delors . . . the list goes on. Several of these appeared on my "best books I read" list.

I've seen that in agents' guidelines, and it is not insulting at all. It's understandable.

Work From Home

I think people really need to stop being hard on the people that leave their comments as "Anonymous".

I know I have seen a few stories about agents searching for someone that made it past their first round. The agent saw that the person had complained about being treated badly about an agent (which, I'm sorry, happens. Sometimes writers are rude and sometimes agents are rude too) and the agent rejected them without reading their pages. And this story came from an agent's point of view in a couple cases.

With stories like that...people are scared to voice an opinion, so they post something that is critical "Anonymous" because they don't want to hurt their chances. I bet some use fake names also. There are so many writers who just say "oh you are so right" just to suck up.

I just don't think that someone should be punished for giving an opinion or be afraid to give their opinion.

Interesting perspective... so I guess that means as an agent you have to be a Randy, Simon or Paula!

I actually think of reality differently -- to me it's a story that has only characters determined at the outset. The plot is (almost) entirely unscripted. What makes the story interesting is how the characters choose to behave.

Why do you keep disparaging anonymous bloggers? I really don't get that. Most of those "names" aren't even real, I'll bet, and even the real ones are rarely a full name.
If you dislike it so much, why allow it? (I, of course, would quit reading your blog if you stopped allowing anonymous bloggers. I almost never read Janet Reid's for that reason.)
And P.S., I really enjoy cooking and fashion and the Amer Idol type shows (which I've never really thought of as reality shows) but absolutely loathe things like that Kate and what's-his-name, etc.
It would be quite interesting, I agree, to hear public views of books before they're published. We do have to listen to them as reader comments on Amazon afterwards, however, and sometimes I wish we didn't.

If American television produced a show like Idol for writers (So you think you can write?), they would pick the most sensational books, not the best written. A well-paced historical thriller (just to pick a genre) would not stand a chance against a novella about cannibal hookers – not in this sick society.

I think all of us aspiring writers that read agent blogs are beginning to understand how the publishing business works. We’re becoming aware! (gasp)The agents aren’t the bad guys. I’m sure there really are a hundred crappy manuscripts to every gem. It’s very much like the music business. The best musicians and songwriters will eventually become successful but they’ll always be a place for the one-hit wonder.

Indecently, would you be open to representing a book about a starving dancer that’s forced to work the corner and eats her johns to get by? What if it was written by a Kardashian? :)

Hmmm, when I have time for television, which is extremely rare, the only reality shows I watched are the historical recreations, like 1940's House and Frontier House. I'd rather get lost in another world than in real world competition.

I can see how the competitive shows would be inspiring to agents and editors, however.

What is the difference btw anonymous and someone named PenelopeWrites with a picture of a cat? (I made that up-sorry if it's someone's real blogger name.) I guess that presumably Penelope has a blog so that you can go there and respond to her if needed. But what about non-bloggers who read blogs and want to comment? Does it really help if I am forced to make a google account, which I don't want, and then pick a picture and a name? I still won't have a blog, so you'll click and...nothing. Do you want the conversation here to only be for bloggers? If so, that should be made clear somewhere. But I would think that anyone hosting a blog would be happy if they expanded their audience beyond blogger, which can be a little incestuous. And by that I just mean the same few people commenting on each other's blogs. Isn't the idea to reach more people?

My real thought when watching these shows is what if we really were able to produce an American Idol for books?

Would likely be poetry slams, though, since there is an element of performance.

Oooh wait: Screenwriters Idol. Actors cold perform the dialogue (just like the models on Project Runway) and bits of the action.

Jessica, I see a greenlight for you for this one! Better get that treatment registered... :-)

Is it my breath:

Isn't the idea to reach more people?

Keyword: People.

Anonymous is not people.

Do you take a lot of anonymous phone calls where people tell you they don't like your shoes? Or do you receive a lot of anonymous snailmail where someone makes a list of things that are wrong with you?

How about someone wearing a ski mask droppng by your house and telling you you've chosen the wrong lamps for your living room?

Just say thanks and close the door after they leave? Or would you perchance ask the mask-wearer who they are. Even if they make up a name, you have a identity -- a concept of person -- which allows for human discourse.

Anonymous is a hit-and-run and you didn't catch the license plate number.

I have to admit that I'm scratching my head at some of the comments today. I didn't read Jessica's post as a tirade against anonymous commenters. If we were so much against anonymous commenters, then certainly we just wouldn't allow them.

I believe that this blog was built to create a dialogue. Just as the anonymous and non-anonymous commenters are given an opportunity to air their frustrations with agents and the publishing industry, Jessica has the right to respond to them. Most of the more angry comments are written by "Anonymous" -- that's not prejudice, that's statistics. I don't really get why the mere mention of that is seen as a condemnation of Anonymous responses as a whole.

I think Jessica and BookEnds encourages an open, frank discussion of the publishing process and writers' concerns from all readers, whether they wish to be identified or not.

I remember participating in the first couple years of the "Project Greenlight" competition, where writers submitted screenplays online for peer review and rating. The best-reviewed screenplay was made into a movie (and the making of the movie was a TV show, but that's not the relevant bit).

The script that emerged as the "best", I didn't like. The peer reviews I received on my submission were useless.

"Letting America choose" or "giving America what they want" is never a good idea, because there is no monolithic "America" where we all like the same things. Everyone's taste is different. What we enjoy is always subjective.

I'm sure there are mean and capricious agents out there just the same as there are mean and capricious postal workers, customer service reps, HR managers, and electricians, but most of the agents I know are doing the best they can.

Ghost, so you feel better if, at the hit and run, they give you some random name?

I dont' take a lot of anonymous phone calls where people insult my shoes. But if I posted my shoes on the internet and invited comments, I guess I wouldn't care if someone didn't like them and said so. And I don't think I'd feel better or worse if they were anonymous or had a fake, non-name name.

Would I be more of a person to you if I typed in a name where it says name, or do I need the avatar and non-name name, too?

It would be interesting. As with movies, it's not always (usually) the ones the critics like that end up being the mega-hits. I've always wondered if it's the same with books.

In general I think there's a big difference between the tastes of the elites and the tastes of the typical American.

Jessica, I've often wondered about a show called Top Scribe or American Novelist.

Think of the crazy challenges: Quick-Writes that force you to improvise a story on the spot, or having to write on parchment with a quill pen, or ghost writing for the celebrity guest--oh, the possibilities.

Sign me up!

Isn't that what Authonomy is? How is that working out? Are a lot of books published through it?

The magazine RT BOOKCLUB ran the romance novel equivalent of AMERICAN IDOL for a number of years. The final one was this year. The winner was usually published by Dorchester.

Several authors have started midlist careers that way.

Well, two topics today. Reality T.V. and anonymous posters. I'm going to do separate posts. :)

In terms of anonymous, I think Kim has a really good point, and so do the anonymous posters. What I've noticed is there are two different types of anonymous posters.

There are the really mean and attacking ones. And there are the ones want to avoid backlash. They tend to be sincere and honets.

In terms of the mean ones, if I had a blog, and read those comments, it would feel awful, so I totally understand why Jessica is expressing her feelings.

But I also think that Bookends wants to foster an honest discussion, so they allow anonymity. Which is to their credit. But I also understand why Jessica might need to occasionally vent about it!

A contest would be fun to watch but no way would I want to be publicly rejected! I cringe when I watch those reality shows and see the ones that are voted off.

BTW: I use my full, real name and a picture of myself. I don't have a problem taking credit for anything I say. What is the point of being a writer if you aren't willing to be responsible for your words?

Anon 8:52, I agree, I like when reality shows are unscripted, just like real life.

Not all anonymous posters are out to pick a fight. I'm anonymous simply because I'm a private person. I don't twitter. I'm not on facebook. I don't have a blogger name. However, I do like to post an occasional question and the anonymous option makes that easy for me. I read this blog because it is one of the most informative blogs for writers trying to learn more about writing and the writing industry. I come here to learn...not to read negative, bickering comments.

I for one agree with Kim. I didn't take any offence to Jessica's post. Let's get back on track and stick to what she was really commenting about.

My book was rejected by Kim Lionetti but instead of complaining about it I went back to MY work to see why instead of blaming the agent. If you have two or three or even more agents and/or publishers rejecting your work then YOU NEED TO LOOK AT YOUR WORK. They can't all be wrong.

Sorry had to get that off my chest.

As far as a contest like American Idol for writers. NOT A GOOD IDEA. I wouldn't want two or tree judges telling the whole world that my work sucks.

I do, however, feel that Candi Wall has the right idea bringing agents and writers together in her Agent Shop at MuseTracks (I am sure I spelled that wrong)at least we know the agents are legit and people have a chance to comment on the queries that were accepted but don't have the ability to choose who should win.

Shows like American Idol cannot be completely fair because of the ability for people to call in and vote for thier favorites and those are the ones chosen. Some of those people should never have made it through and some great ones will never get a chance because they don't have a whole community just waiting to vote for them.

As far as signing anonymously well I don't fear offending anyone. If they didn't like my book before I posted something they won't like it after so it really doesn't matter to me. If my book is rejected I find out why, fix it, and move on. I value good an bad criticism it makes me a better person and a better writer.

Gloria Bryant (Pen: Jovanna Francesco)

Wasn't that the idea behind Gather's First Chapters contest. Let the public read through all the first chapters and the highest rated ones went on to the next round. I think they ended up publishing more than just one book from that contest. Although they did have judges--they didn't totally let the public decide.

The idea isn't really that farfetched. Long Tale Press is essentially doing just this: http://www.longtalepress.com/

Amazon does try to do a contest like American Idol for writers called the "Amazon Break Through Novel Award" where you submit, the entries are whittled to about 2,000 and then people vote and write reviews and then three people are flown to seattle for a representation and one person gets a cash prize and writing contract.

I would totally watch that show! :) Maybe the authors could read aloud in order to make it more tv-friendly ;). Then they get buzzed when a judge would stop reading.

As far as the "Anonymous" stuff goes, I think Jessica is just saying that she doesn't appreciate it when people use that tool as a means to be unprofessional :). This is a business, and agents as well as other writers, don't really want to work with people who represent themselves poorly in public. If you have to be anonymous to pick a fight, maybe you shouldn't be picking a fight in the first place.

As for all of the other anonymous commenters, I appreciate you guys! :) Everyone should have the chance to comment in a way they feel comfortable. There are ways to disagree that are still respectful, and I think a lot of commenters here, anonymous or otherwise, do a great job of that. Kudos!

Great post, Jessica - I've always watched Reality TV from a 'wannabe' perspective. Had a supper conversation just the other night about the 'under the microscope' viewpoint that takes place in most industries (music, literary, artistic) and how reality tv is just bringing it to the publics' attention.

Canada, eh, has a reality tv novel writing show. Here's the link Book Television's 3 Day Novel Writing Contest. (I hope that works).

Cheers!

Agents are gatekeepers in the same way that job interviewers are. Both block you from the career you want to have. But for some reason, agents get the crap end of the stick. You never hear someone leave an interview and blast the person because it went badly. You never hear, "he was only looking for the next Steve Jobs." Because it sounds petty, and everyone knows that you didn't get the job because something was not quite perfect.

I had a hard time understanding the rold of agents before I really started delving into the publishing industry via bloggers and web information. Now, I have a deep respect for what they do and hope to find one and know that when I do, I will be better off for it!

P.S. Any particular reason you've avoided reading Twilight?

Laura - actually, I respectfully disagree - I've heard lots of people blasting employers for not hiring them. Up to and including law suits. I hire people, and I've had several calls from people I didn't hire that were very hostile and threatening. Sometimes very sad, too. Those are hard. I just think disappointment is hard to deal with.

So, changing focus alittle, I would love to see a reality show for writers. I'd love to be ON a reality show for writers. :)

One issue here is the industry image of itself.

I believe publishers used to be thought of as 'tastemakers.' Publishers were supposed to make sure that only the best books were published. (Of course, given the times, they also made sure that only books written by white men of a certain background were published, but that's a different topic. :)

Well, whether you agree with the concept of taste-making or not, it's moot nowadays. Books used to be the only source of entertainment. Not any more. Now, if people don't want to read a book, they'll just go watch a DVD.

We have a free market economy, and the only role that makes sense for a publisher is that of a competitor that produces a desired product. Otherwise, the industry won't make money, and won't stay viable.

Sometimes I see people giving agents a hard time for picking for the market. I also hear the concept of 'gatekeeper.' Neither stance is appropriate to a free market economy, I believe.

Books should make money. People will insist on making their own tastes. But I firmly believe that if something is truly great, it will find it's own way to the top.

Okay, now that I've written all this, I certainly hope it's related to the topic. I think it is......I hope it is. :)

I've been known to say that if you want to sit in an agent or editor's chair, then judge a few writing contests, back-to-back. There is gold amongst the dreck, but sometimes you get tired of looking at the dreck. And other times all you can do is wish the writer the best, because you know you couldn't represent the book to the best of your abilities.

Kristin Nelson (PUB RANTS)has never been shy about writing on her blog about projects that she let get away.

Janet Reid is forever lamanting about how Barbara Poole has stolen (in a teasing manner--I know they are buds) a potential client and made a sweet deal for her.

It happens. You, and virtually every agent out there, want a book you can stand behind with the contacts that you have. If you happen to hit with a gazillion dollar seller then more power to you, you deserve it.

You know, I think about that all the time--a reality contest for authors. And then I realize that the only people crazy enough to find that interesting would be other writerly types.

Unless ... What if we mix writing with physical challenges--like a Word Nerd/Author Wannabe contest meets Real World/Road Rules challenge? That could work, right?

:)

DeadlyAccurate:

I think so! Agent Kristin Nelson even blogged on Authonomy today (among other things) and how it should be an effective way for editors to identify better writers.

Books used to be the only source of entertainment.

Music, theater, dancing, games (board games, dice, card games, social games like charades), have all been around for centuries. Plenty of people in past centuries who could read still didn't enjoy it.

Being anonymous is a way to be nasty or honest. I write for a living and would never post in a forum like this under my real name, because there's nothing in it for me. I would be wasting my brand to use it here. I also wouldn't be as honest. What benefit would there be to me to take on an agent in a public forum?

One of the reasons for not availing myself of the "self publishing" options, is I want to be sure someone other than my friends and family think my novel is good.

Thats like reality TV, right? People in the business tell you if your dream is b-she or not and the public gets to vote on the judges opinion.

One of Nathan Bransfords "You Tell Me" posts (http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2009/10/you-tell-me-how-can-you-tell-if-you.html) asks the question: how do you know if you have talent as a writer? Basically, if someone you respect told you to stop writing, you have no talent, would you?

The problem, as reported by many Agent blogs (this one included), is that writing is so subjective. As is all "talent" in my view. The reason you put yourself through that humiliation is to have someone "in the business" make a diffenitive proclamation about your marketability. And then, it is your option whether or not you take the advice.

But even if you don't agree with the "experts" of the day, you can still learn something from the response.

I paid a substantial sum for a recommended editor to review my novel a few years back - long before I knew Agents didn't charge to read/edit your novel - and I really didn't like the feedback he provided. Yet; I learned something from his critique, and I was able to overcome my anger at his opinion enough to weed out the constructive criticism from the personal opinion. I believe my novel was better for his POV because he knew about the craft of writing, even if some of his opinions were hurtful to my ego.

I'm guessing people on thses reality shows also garner some benifit from the feedback - constructive or not - they recieve on their particular talents.

I don't believe Agents are evil gatekeepers of publication; rather, I think they just have insider opinions on what they can reasonably sell, based not only on the writers ability and content, but their own marketing strategies.

Doesn't make the "rejection" any easier to swallow, but doesn't mean the end of the Dream either.

...........dhole

I was LOL at this post because I've wondered the same thing. Man, that would make for some seriously entertaining TV, eh? Umm, not!

FWIW, my name really IS Kate Douglas and that's a picture of me that my husband took a few months ago for my avatar. Now that I've got THAT off my chest...Marilynn Byerly is right. Romantic Times magazine ran what was essentially a popularity contest for romance writers who had to get votes on their story excerpts each month to remain in the competition, and the winner got a contract. And, for a few of those winners, that first contract has expanded into more books, so it did work, though not in a tv format, obviously.

Not sure how that would work, as I've never watched a reality show, and I think I might be the only person in America who hasn't!

Oh, I hadn't read the other comments before posting my own; but I really didn't think this was about "annonymous" comments. I thought it was about "expert opinion vs public opinion."

I will comment on the annonymous issue though.

Uhm, have to agree with Ghostfolk here; not that I think people who post "annonymous" have evil intent, but if they at least signed their posts with an initial or made up a consistent name, it would be easier to respond to them as "people" instead of Anon at 5:32.

Because I certainly see the need sometimes in not posting who you really are. If Jessica, Janet, or Nathan posted as themselves on an unpublished writer's blog, no matter how good the content, that would be biased endorcement and could foster resentment. Likewise any other industry professional. So yes; being a professional in the field, or an publicized critic, wouldn't want their name associated with a specific blog/site that is contrary to their public image. Really, no big deal.

We all get paid by someone, and sometimes our professional and personal opinions are in conflict.

But, if any of the said agents posted to their own clients as themselves, well, that's ok because they already endorse the bloggers writing through representing them. Acceptable publicity all around.

No, I'm not against Annon commentors; I just wish it would be easier to tie a series of comments together to form a coherent conversation.

If you see my "Donna Hole said" profile on several comments, you can respond to each opinon as stated. If I see seven different annonymous posts, I don't know one commentor from another, so must assume all Annonymous is the same person. If you post under annon, but have the same signature at the end of each post, I still don't know your true identity, but I can at least direct my reponses to you personally.

I mean, if you went to a bar, or any other social meeting place, and introduced yourself as Annonymous, would you want several other Annonymous people who looked exactly like you to hijack your conversation? To say things you never would? Especially if you wanted to convince that person, who introduced themselves as so and so, and you really wanted to make a connection with them, that your opinion is exactly the same as everyone else introducing themselves as Annonymous?

I agree that anyone can create a google blogger account that says nothing about them personally. Yet, the fact that I have a name to fit a voice/opinion is enough for me.

Think about it: would you go on a date with someone who sat in a dark room with 10 other people and promised that he/she wasn't the one that just outrageously offended you using voice disguising equipment?

We tell our children not to believe that "Mr Bo Jangels" is not a 40 year old pedophile; yet annonymous bloggers who won't even leave so much as an initial to distinguish them from every other Annon want us to believe all their intents are benevolent.

No, I'm not against annonymous posts, but if you want me not to lump your comments with all the others that I find offensive, or disagree with, then you need to distinguish yourself in some way.


..............dhole

Not only do I post Anon so I can be frank and open, but also as a writer/editor I don't want to revise or edit myself to death. When you've got your by-line over your ms./post, you want it to be the best it can be. Often I'm in a hurry and too busy/lazy to proof my posts. That's the truth!

Ghost, so you feel better if, at the hit and run, they give you some random name?

Yes! I can be pretty stupid.

Heck, I'd even go for Anonymous followed by a number.

See, you're making up random names for each post, and I feel like I can respond. It's not just stupid of me, it's real stupid of me -- in that, your posts feel like "real" discourse and part ofan open discussion rather than grafitti.

Not, apparently, my breath

Would I be more of a person to you if I typed in a name where it says name, or do I need the avatar and non-name name, too?

LOL. Thanks for being fun and clever! Much appreciated.

Directed at all who keep voicing objections to anon posters: I feel like I'm back in junior high. If Jessica had said she LIKED anon posters, you'd all be sucking up to her in that way. Grow up, get a life, write something.

Ghost,

Happy Holidays, whichever you celebrate.

:)

Hint: Some people may not have noticed that on top of anonymous posts on this forum is the word ANONYMOUS. If anonymous posters bother you, you simply don't have to read after you see the word ANONYMOUS. Glad to help out.

As Aisha said, Amazon does have a very American Idol-esque contest now:

http://www.amazon.com/abna

There are very mixed reviews from within the writing community (writers, agents, editors, etc.) about ABNA, but as someone who watched the first year and then participated the second year (which was last year), I can say that I think it's a decent opportunity, and as fair as any Idol-esque contest can be. (It's also young and evolving -- they added a YA category this year.) There IS good writing to be found in there. There is also bad writing. Such is life.

So I do suggest any aspiring writers check it out -- a number of entrants get published afterwards, even if they don't win or even make finalist, because they get valuable feedback from other entrants and/or the reviewers -- BUT there is definitely also some negativity and backlash, as with any contest.