How to use this Page

# of queries read this week: 174
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 0
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: N/A
queries in queue to be read: 400+
oldest query in queue: 8/20/09


"It rarely takes more than a page to recognize that you're in the presence of someone who can write, but it only takes a sentence to know you're dealing with someone who can't."

-Josh Olson, screenwriter A History of Violence. From an article in the Village Voice about how he will not read your effing script.

Guess he would find our first five pages allowance for queries far too generous. Some people would agree. Some people say it's not enough. There's at least a few who reply to my responses every week to explain that I can't possibly make a decision without reading their book, usually in its entirety. Too ironically, they are often the people who didn't take advantage of the opportunity to include those pages as per our guidelines to begin with. It's even worse when they mention getting contact information at agentquery.com or our website where those materials are explicitly requested. I never quite understand how they manage that.

What do you think? How many pages does it take to decide if you want to read more? Not to decide that it's perfect or the most life-changing story you've ever read.... But just to know whether there's enough there for you to think you - or others - might want to read it....

And, while we're at it, what do you think of the rest of the article?

Other out-takes:

"...not only is it cruel to encourage the hopeless, but you cannot discourage a writer. If someone can talk you out of being a writer, you're not a writer."

"You are not owed a read from a professional, even if you think you have an in, and even if you think it's not a huge imposition. It's not your choice to make."

Happy weekend!

# of queries read this week: 244
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 2
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: SF thriller (1), fantasy (1)


This week for some reason there seemed to be a large number of queries wherein the author had not yet finished writing their novel. I also received a couple pre-query emails asking whether the author actually needed to finish the book before starting to query. The closest to casualty was the query in which the unfinished debut novel was accompanied by an explanation of why, due to the economy, the author would be unable to finish the book unless I advanced them at least four figures. Um. I'm not even sure where to begin in answering that one.

In any case, the answer is yes. If you are a debut novelist, the publisher will want to see a full manuscript. Ergo, you should finish it before you begin to query. Agent Janet advises that you should write a second one before querying the first one.

Why do you need to finish (and polish and revise)? To some extent because a new author is an unknown quantity. Can they finish a manuscript? No one knows yet, but as those of you in the writing trenches know, it can be a challenge. For some reason the number of people who finish a novel is somewhat less than the number of those who start them. The other reason is plain ol' simple supply and demand rules. As anyone who reads agent blogs knows, there is a seemingly endless supply of new novels. Heck, a new novelist is probably born every day. Makes it darn hard to run out of queries to consider.

Of course, everyone has heard of at least one exception where some publisher paid a six-figure advance for a debut novel based on a two-page pitch. If I knew what was in the Koolaid they were drinking.....

Note: This only applies to fiction. In non-fiction, I understand it is quite a bit more common to sell on proposal, particularly if the author has a good platform. For more info on that see this entry on the BookEnds blog.

# of queries read this week: 242
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 1
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: thriller

Still 500+ queries to go...

Let's talk referrals. Right now there are a number of agents, who for various reasons, have had to close queries, and probably some more agents who are considering same. But even if they decide to do so, they usually make a statement that they are still open to referrals. So, they must consider those to be something special, right?

For agents still accepting all comers, does a referral get you a closer look? A faster look? Sometimes a combination of those two? In all likelihood, yes. But only if it's an actual referral.

What do I consider to be an actual referral? When someone known to me has read something and said point blank that the material should be sent to me and that their name may be used in connection with that submission.

If the person has read the book but not suggested specific submissions, but offered a statement to be used in queries, that's not a referral. Even though it can be used as a way to strengthen the pitch. Advance praise and blurbs are definitely notable.

If they have not read the book but suggested a submission to one or more people, IMO, that's not a referral of the work, but still a helpful thing for them to do to assist in getting it (hopefully) to the right people. On the other hand, I've heard stories where people (authors mostly) have been badgered so much by someone that they've given them a list just to get a few moments of peace. That's sad.

Don't fake a referral. In my case, my clients will mention to me if I should be expecting someone to name-drop. And if I'm not convinced, I can always ask about it. The same goes for other agents of my acquaintance. Or editors. Or even authors and writing instructors I've met at conferences.

If I've never heard of the person that gave you the referral, how much weight do you think that will have?

If the person giving the referral was paid to edit the book, what might that indicate about their bias in the situation?

If I discover that the referral is a deception, what effect do you think that will have?

Referrals are a gift. Not a right -or- a privilege. They are a vote of confidence. The person giving the referral is using their reputation on your behalf. That's why they have any meaning at all.

# of queries read this week: 271 (a new record since I started tracking them)
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 3
genres of partials/manuscripts requested: fantasy, women's fiction, SF thriller (the SF thriller was an upgrade from a requested partial to a full)

# of queries left to read: around 600

This week's interesting (or perhaps confounding) tidbit: I'm past amazed at the number of queries arriving with either the title or the paranormal race in the book being called "Guardians." Seriously. What's up with this?

This week's query wars casualty: The person who sent the code for an embedded YouTube link as their query. Not only does this not work on my email program, but oddly enough, I'm not going to go look it up either.


Dear Authors:

As many of those reading this blog know, our submission guidelines ask for a query letter, a synopsis, and the first five pages of your novel. They also specifically state that we do not open unsolicited attachments. Of course, not everyone reads the submission guidelines (as I can very easily see every week from the number of queries that arrive for types of books that we say we specifically do NOT represent). So, every week, there are a few queries that show up with attachments and some snailmail ones that show up with much more than five pages, or sometimes even the entire manuscript. I'm not a rules lawyer type, so if it's seven instead of five because that's the end of a scene, I'm not going to have some sort of breakdown and need comfort food to make myself feel better about the whole thing. (mmmm.... comfort food....)

However, when it becomes obvious that the first chapter is thirty pages long and/or the author points out somewhat smugly in their query that it doesn't cost any extra to send a somewhat longer email than the guidelines indicate, I have to admit it doesn't make me more pleasantly inclined towards the work in question. Why? Because somehow it feels like they're taking advantage of something. And, given the constraints of time, it suggests they feel their query should get more of it than someone else's. In my view, they are disrespecting the other authors submitting.

And when a person replies and says: "If only you would read my book (not just the five pages), you would see what a great work it is. After all what do you have to waste but a few hours of your precious time?" -- well.... I'm not denying the fact that there is a possibility they are correct (though I honestly don't feel it's much of a probability). And I understand where their frustration is coming from. However. They are making an assumption that there is a pile of free time sitting here not being used. And what's more, if there were, I wouldn't want to "waste" it (their word, not mine).

And then there's the question of what's fair and what's right in terms of trying to evaluate the rising tide of submissions. Based on today's numbers, how many "precious hours" would it take to just read 270 or so books, rather than try to make the fairest assessment I can on each one based on what I know represents only a soundbite version? Let's say it takes 3 hours to read and assess a full manuscript (that's just an average -- naturally some read faster than others). That would be over 800 hours of reading for this week's queries alone. And there's only 168 hours in a week (counting the ones where a person is supposed to do things other than reading). So, um, well, the math there just doesn't work. Particularly since my clients would probably have me committed over it.

Despite what some may think, the query system wasn't devised to keep the agents and editors from reading great books. Instead, it is intended to maximize their exposure to same. Unfortunately, the laws of the solar system and the spinning of the Earth as well as various physiological limits have conspired against everyone in this case. If I had more hours to read, I'd take 'em. Definitely. I am, after all, an addict.

If you had three hours of "extra time" granted to you this week (like roll-over minutes, I guess, from some other week where you magically didn't use them all up), what would you spend them doing?

# of queries read this week: 33
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 0
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: N/A

This is what happens when you go to 3 conferences in 5 weeks.

Which should be the end of this one, as brevity is the soul of wit.

But....

Brevity isn't always what it's cracked up to be. There are query letters that are, believe it or not, too brief. Only a line or two such as "enclosed herewith is my synopsis and the first five pages." Here's the thing: the synopsis is a tool; one that tells me the bones of the story. The first five pages (which I've come to find invaluable) give me a hint as to the hook of the story and the style of the writer. So, perhaps one might think the query brings little to the party. Not so.

The letter itself can convey a variety of interesting -- and helpful -- details. It can tell how the writer perceives their own work. Their attitude about both writing and publishing (often separate considerations). It can show their attention to detail and their level of professionalism. It can reveal whether the writer has done their research. Perhaps it contributes the author's credentials, their passion, or some combination thereof.

Remember the query is the appetizer that tempts us to sample the rest of the menu. And whetting the appetite can be a crucial part of the experience.

# of queries read last week: 77
# of partials/manuscripts requested last week: 1
genre of partials/manuscripts requested last week: fantasy


# of queries unread prior to Worldcon: 448
# of queries now pending post-Worldcon: 603
# of client manuscripts received via email during Worldcon: 4
Seeing Elizabeth Bear's expression when she won the Hugo for "Shoggoths in Bloom" in the novelette category? Priceless.

# of queries read this week: 176
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 1
genre of partials/manuscripts reqested: SF thriller

Note: Have now read all query letters pre-July. If your query was sent either via email or snailmail prior to July 1st and you have not received a reply, either your query didn't reach me or my reply did not reach you. Please check your spam filters. This message brought to you by the letters "p" and "q".


Today's missives from the front:

* Still not reading unsolicited attachments. (Also still not king.) If I didn't specifically and personally ask for you to send it, it's unsolicited.

* If you query several times via email over the course of a few months for the same project with identical query letter and pages, and each time the response from me is to decline (until I finally succumb after you reach double digits and block your email address because really this is so unfair to eveyone else), sending the same query via post will garner the same reply (or none if you didn't include an SASE).

* Because of that infamous spam querier who has sent the same query multiple times from multiple email addresses, a legit query was almost deleted yesterday as the author's name showed in the from field as the same as one of the psuedonyms frequently used. If you know someone who is employing these kinds of tactics, please say something to them. The query you save may be your own.

# of queries read this week: 226
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 1
genre of partials/manuscript requested: science fiction


Dear Authors:

It can be far too easy to play the statistics game. Especially when someone is conveniently posting their stats every week. Sometime in the last couple weeks someone commented on a query wars post and asked if I thought my numbers were typical. Not only are they typical -- many agents I know say they reject about 99% of materials they receive -- but the odd thing, to me anyway, is that they haven't changed in that respect.

Back in the day, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and before e-queries were invented, there were a handful of much-touted guides (e.g. Jeff Herman's book and the Writer's Digest one) that had agent listings.* One of the questions in those guides was usually about rejection rate, and the very first time I ever filled one out for the agency, I was told to list our rejection rate as 99% (if you can find an old edition in a library somewhere, you can prove me right). Back then, we had to carry our submission piles of manuscripts around on those luggage totes with the bungee straps (no convenient e-readers) so everything we requested was directly contributing to the eventual cracking of our spines. But we didn't let that interfere. Our goal was to find and sign great stories that we could sell to publishers -- some things just don't change. But I digress.

In those times, the agency received about 40 queries per week total. (Can you imagine?) I could generally review and respond to them all within a day or two. And often I requested 1 or 2 partials or fulls per week with the occasional week where nothing was requested. Now, as you can see from the numbers above, I receive hundreds of queries per week (at the moment there are still about 450 in my query folder), and those are just mine. The other agents I work with have their own as well. However, despite the fact that the queries have increased hundreds of times over, the request rate has remained roughly the same.

Here's some of the reasons I think this might be the case:

--> The number of people who casually query is higher. It's so much easier to send an email than to trudge to the post office with packages and buy stamps in the correct amount.

--> The proliferation of personal computers has given people the opportunity to be more casual about writing the novel in the first place. No typewriters. No correction ribbon. No labor-intensive retyping for revisions.

--> The number of people who inappropriately or prematurely query is much higher. I'm basing this on personal experience. The percentage of queries that are for types of materials we don't represent at all is higher. The percentage of queries from debut novelists who haven't finished their books (or in some cases, even begun them) is higher. The percentage from writers who just haven't learned enough about their craft yet is higher.

--> The availability of data about publishing has grown by leaps and bounds and is a less arcane pursuit, therefore more people with more access to information are finding what they need in order to pursue publication.

All of this makes the statistics rather skewed when you take a step back. My gut instinct says that the queries that garner requests now have to stand out against a bigger sea than they did before, but that they have the same qualities as those that stood out when the pond was smaller.


What do you think? And what other theories would you propose that might contribute to this?


*These books still exist and we are still listed in them but I wonder how much they are being used with something like agentquery.com out there as a resource. It's been a long time since someone mentioned one of the print books in a query as their source for information on the agency.

# of queries read last week: 159
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 1
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: YA


Dedication: This one goes out to dawnmaria (based on last week's comment).

Acknowledgments: In my pursuit of reviewing queries and reading sample pages included therewith, I am thankful to all those who take the time to research guidelines and follow same. Without you, assessing and finding projects would be so much more difficult. Thank you to every one who understands that my time is finite. Your professionalism and dedication to your craft are a credit to you.


Dear Authors:

It is regrettable that there are those who, whether through ignorance, arrogance or some other misstep, make things more challenging for both agents and other authors by not following guidelines. And, in some cases, clearly not even being aware that such guidelines exist. It may be even more of a cause for dismay that the queries that fall into this category are fodder for entries on agent blogs and that discussion of them seems to sometimes cause misunderstandings or even just some kind of "query exhaustion" for either agents or writers.

On more than one agent blog and from more than one commenter, it's been mentioned that those who follow guidelines and do research are frustrated with being lumped in with those who do not.

I admit, it is sometimes challenging when looking at the folder full of queries as a whole (usually these days numbering in the hundreds at a time). It can feel daunting. It can feel overwhelming to consider spending hours combing through them. Hours that are so often stolen outside of the office. Even when one hopes to find a jewel in the haystack, it can still feel like a pretty big pile of hay. And sometimes, as evidenced by the query wars posts and those on other agent blogs, there can be those who just aren't ready, who try to take advantage, who react in damaging and destructive ways, those who don't think the "rules" apply to them. They make it that much harder for everyone else. And it can be a stumbling block to an agent's resources, taking time away from others who may be more prepared to pursue publication.

However, taken individually, the queries that are professionally crafted; that indicate research and personalization; that demonstrate the writer's dedication to seeking publication -- these really stand out. I cannot speak to other agents and how they approach queries, but I certainly do not lump those in with the others. In fact, they are the queries that encourage me to keep taking submissions and to keep reviewing each letter, synopsis and those first five pages. I know from experience that there may be a jewel to find. Be ye not dismayed. Your efforts are worth it.

# of queries read last week: 163
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 0
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: n/a


Dear Authors:

Someone wrote me back recently in response to my email declining to read their material. They were, shall we say, put out that I listed myself as "actively looking" on a website and then did not agree to read their manuscript. Am I to infer from their response that one cannot be both particular in what one chooses to request and also actively looking? Is a person that goes into a bookstore and only buys one book not actively looking for something to read? This writer was not the first to make this implication, though they did so in a manner that I deemed to be on the unpolite and unprofessional side, which is why it caught my attention. But not in a good way, of course. (I don't encourage going this route. Or using language that might make a biker's mother blush.)

And let me not mention that the person in question was submitting something that my website and the DMLA website and agentquery.com all list as something that I do not represent. Nor shall we dwell on the fact that the website they mention that lists me is not one that I have heard of or that wrote and confirmed any details whatsoever. (Why are there so many random sites like this? And why do so many people believe everything they read on the internet? And why don't more people fact check? But, I digress.)

My suspicion is that the person in question was not familiar with the daunting statistics of authors writing versus available agents and publishers to supply them with the opportunity to have their book represented and sold to the general public. (As an aside, someone recently posted on the subject of "landing an agent" and how they found the phrase problematic -- it was a writer not an agent who said it, but I got where they were going. One cannot acquire an agent in much the same manner as one obtains a gallon of milk. Nor, they argued, is an agent a possession -- a position with which I heartily agree, of course.)

I find it ironic that I'm writing this during a week when I requested no submissions. Regardless, I do not feel that I am less actively looking for new books that will excite me with plots or characters or settings that I can get caught up with, or ideas that will make editors fall all over themselves in making an offer. Suffice to say that I would hardly be reading hundreds of queries a week and thousands of queries a year unless I was actively looking.

# of queries read this week: 192
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 2
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: fantasy (1), young adult (1)

This week's fun fact:
Angel queries significantly outnumber vampire queries in this week's paranormal and/or urban fantasy pitches.

Dear Authors:

It's often recommended to personalize a query and one of the most frequent methods is to mention a book from the agent's list that you have read and liked, which may lead a person to believe that there's enough similarity in taste for a connection. Or, even more specifically, a book on the agent's list that is close enough in style and type to the novel that is the subject of the query that it would be a good match.

It can be interesting to see what books get chosen. Naturally, the more popular and best-selling the client, the more their name seems to appear. I certainly appreciate hearing that someone has enjoyed one of the books by my clients.

I advise a person to research carefully --

* Be sure the book/author actually is represented by the agent, or there could be egg on your face.

* If the book hasn't been published yet, it might not be a good choice to cite it as there is a reasonable doubt that there has been an opportunity to read it. This has already happened to me this year and made me feel that the person just went to my website and picked the first thing they saw rather than it being a genuine comment. If you do have the opportunity to read something early, for example as an ARC, perhaps a phrase indicating the source of admiration for the book might help.

* If you're comparing the novel in the query to a novel on the agent's list, at least be sure they have something in common. Sometimes these comparisons come across as quite a stretch of the imagination.

# of queries read this week: 241
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 1
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: women's fiction


Dear Authors:

A note from the trenches....

Despite the fact that some of the basics can feel repetitive to me, I was encouraged last week to occasionally revisit them either for new entrants to the query wars or even as reminders.

So, wordcount....

This year's record submission stands at 475,000 words, which would be 1900 pages at the 250 words/page standard. It was the first volume of a series. I think that might be a wee bit on the long side.... This week's record came in at a mere 215,000 words.

Ideally a person would write the story in however many words it takes to tell the story. But with economic considerations which require the art to fit the business, consider lengths from 80,000-120,000 for single title romance (leaving aside category romance which has very specific wordcounts), women's fiction, thrillers, suspense, non-cosy mystery, some YA (upper ranges, not middle grade), settling towards the 100,000 mark if at all possible. Cosy mysteries tend to be shorter with some even as tight as 60,000 words. There's a little room to maneuver here and certainly in science fiction and fantasy lengths may tend to sometimes run longer, but even there 150,000 seems to be the upper range considered comfortable, with indications that 125,000 is really more reasonable, and 100,000 still more ideal. [Special note: more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. YMMV to some degree.]

Now, often when this topic is raised, someone brings up exceptions. But, as they say, the exception proves the rule. (Hey, I read Anathem last summer and plan to read The Historian this summer, so I know they're out there.) And this will also be something that is unlikely to apply to certain break-out bestsellers or well-established authors that can afford some wiggle room. Evenso, I had a client this year asked to reduce a novel by a significant amount due to the economic necessities of casting off the book (glossary: "casting off" - when the publisher uses arcane equations to determine how many pages the book will be and what cover price they will need to have). Debut authors may find this an even more substantial issue as they have no trackrecord to use as leverage. Longer and longer manuscripts will continue to raise the physical price of the book until price resistance may be too high to attract a sufficient number of buyers. Therefore, in a very competitive market, this could actually come into play in the determination of buying a book.

The other potential issue in a book of great length is the need to keep the attention of your readers and have them return for the next book and the next and the next... It might be suggested that lengths of this sort could indicate the possibility of a narrative that is too padded with scenes that don't adequately develop the story, or, if that's not the case and the author can't find anywhere to tighten the pace up, perhaps something that needs to be split into multiple volumes. (Though in the case of the 475,000 word opus, which would more comfortably be divided into 4 books, one wonders if the sequel is equally hefty and how many books are planned.) Also, consider whether the story begins at the right time -- so many submissions that come through have a sort of "warming up" section while the story finds its way. While establishing certain plot, character, or setting details may be necessary, keep in mind when to start telling the story.

If your work is exceptional, of course, none of these rules will apply. As for me, I would still read the query and the first five pages before I respond as the brilliant story may still snare me, and revisions may be possible. But it might still prove a challenge to many.... So, just something to keep in mind as you type "The End."

# of queries read this week: 205
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 3
genre(s) of partials/manuscripts requested: urban fantasy (1), historical fantasy (1), mystery (1)


I've spent this week celebrating my years as an agent -- as an advocate for my clients -- by giving away books.

Many, many, many of those clients came to me via the initial contact of a query letter. That letter was where my journey with these authors began. Not everyone can afford to go to conferences and meet agents face-to-face. Few can obtain the rare referral. In that respect, queries level the playing field. They present an opportunity.

The query wars belie their name by attempting to clarify, to assist, to improve, to demystify the process. If they are to continue to attempt that pursuit, in what ways have they been most helpful in the past? What kinds of entries are the most illuminating? What new ground could they cover?

# of queries read this week: 57
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 0
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: N/A


No, that's not an error. I really did only manage to read that many queries this week. Not counting the week I was away for the London Book Fair (during which I read no queries at all), this week is now this year's lowest for the number of queries read and responded to. And the incoming pace didn't slow in the slightest (it might even have gone up again over the last couple weeks, I think). I had been gaining on response times but this week wiped that out.

This incredibly busy week also means I haven't had much time to think about an idea for a query wars entry. But, after last week's post about the first five pages and Agent Kristin's post last night about "the number one thing" opening pages lacked at the workshop she did at the Backspace conference (preceding BEA), I wanted to say this:

What do I think is the purpose of the first five pages?

To get me to want to read page six (and hopefully 7, 8, 9, etc.).

They don't need to be perfect. In fact, watch out for over-editing because that can make them seem stale. They do need to be exceptional.

These pages don't need to have bombs going off or start with a big action scene. Though starting in media res can be helpful -- watch out for backstory that can bog down your opening. Someone recently repeated to me this advice: "Start the story as late as you can."

Obviously, the whole story is greater than the sum of its parts. I'm not expecting to know everything about the book in just five pages. That's not why I'm reading them. I'm looking for a sense of things. The writer's style or voice, perhaps. A compelling character. A strong plot hook or concept. A taste that makes me want more.

All they have to do is get me to turn the page (or hit page-down in my email) and want more when there isn't any more.

Pick up the nearest novel you have at hand and read the first page. What makes you want to keep reading? Or what makes you want to skip it for something else?

# of queries read this week: 158
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 0
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: n/a


It seems like every week someone responds to a rejection by arguing that if I only read their book, I would see I was making the wrong decision. Frequently, it seems this person has not taken advantage of the fact that our submission guidelines allow for the first five pages to be sent with the query (note: pasted into the email, no attachments). But on the occasion that they have, their contention seems to fall into either "five pages isn't enough" or "those aren't the best five pages."

I'm a reader. I was a reader long before I was an agent. So please believe me when I say that it's one of my favorite aspects of being an agent. However, there are only so many hours in the day and, though it pains me greatly, many of them are taken up by other unavoidable tasks. This year I've already responded to over 3200 queries. Naturally, I couldn't ask for a submission on each and every one. I'd have to read around 35 books per business day, and not just casually but with a critical eye. And that doesn't even include manuscripts from clients I already have. How many books do you read a day? A week? I'm sure some of you will make me envious if you answer that question....

It might not actually feel like five pages are enough to make an assessment. But isn't that the same thing that happens with readers/consumers? They walk into the bookstore, pick up the book and read the back-cover which has a pitch (like a query has) and then flip it open and read the first couple pages to decide if they want to take it home.

As for the five pages... A couple things go through my mind when I get a query that doesn't include the five pages. First, that the submitter didn't take even a few minutes to see if they could find out anything more about me or the agency. Both our official site and my own site mention the query letter, synopsis and first five pages guideline. I find it particularly peculiar when they mention reading the website (or this blog), but still don't include the five pages. Then I wonder if possibly they just aren't that confident about the five pages and think it will be a detriment to getting a request. Of course, since I would end up reading those first five pages if that were the case, that theory doesn't seem to hold water. I'm stumped. Since so many writers seem to be campaigning to be able to submit more materials to hook the agents, I just can't figure out why someone wouldn't take advantage of it. What do you think?

Happy long weekend. May you read something good!

# of queries read this week: 202
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 1
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: fantasy

Earlier this week, Neil Gaiman responded on his blog to a question from someone concerning the long-delayed books in George R. R. Martin's fantasy series A Song of Ice and Fire. The question involved wondering whether the reader was unrealistic to feel that the author (GRRM) was letting him down by not getting to the next book in the series. Neil pretty much said that it was unrealistic and went on to explain:

"You're complaining about George doing other things than writing the books you want to read as if your buying the first book in the series was a contract with him: that you would pay over your ten dollars, and George for his part would spend every waking hour until the series was done, writing the rest of the books for you."

And he ended with:

"George R. R. Martin is not working for you."

You can read Neil's whole response here.

What does this have to do with queries? Well, also earlier this week, I was reading comments on another agent's blog. I don't currently remember which one and I'm paraphrasing the comment, but it essentially said that the author felt they had a right to feedback - at the query stage - simply because they had done research on agents, selected appropriate ones to query, and done the work of writing the book and the query, and sending it out. I've seen variations on this before and that sentiment seems to be not uncommon these days.

This is why Neil's comment about GRRM resonated and sent my thoughts in this direction:

Fact: The author desires feedback.
Fiction: The author is entitled to feedback.

And that's where I felt like the query dynamic ran a bit in parallel to what Neil was pointing out about the difference between what a person wants and what a person is owed.

Now, I can agree that without writers, agents would be looking for another calling, and that all the clients we currently represent had to come from somewhere (either queries, referrals, or meetings at conventions, pretty much). So, this can be a motivating factor for paying it forward, as it were. I can also agree that it's perfectly fine for a writer to want feedback on a query (just as the reader in Neil's post clearly wants to read the next book in the series sooner rather than later). Where the situation goes south is when a person projects the frustration of not getting what they want onto some external target and starts generating unreasonable expectations and demands.

Until an agent offers representation, the writer has no contract with them and therefore no claim on what they choose to offer. The agent works for their clients. Writers who are querying are, by definition, not yet clients. Which means those agents who personalize rejections, who are choosing to offer commentary to potential clients, who blog and discuss the industry, are going to extra effort beyond just selling books for the authors they have already agreed to represent. All that advice is free -- and it's not in their job description, and they don't get paid for it. It's R&D, and they have to decide how much they can afford to spend on it, both in time and resources.

Long story short (too late), at the query stage, an agent isn't working for the writer... yet... Read the rest of this post

# of queries read this week: 159
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 1
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: fantasy

still have about 350 queries in the queue waiting to be reviewed.....


Dear Authors:

I struggle with the concept of re-queries sometimes. On the one hand, people have been known to query prematurely to the detriment of their submission. People I currently represent originally sent me queries that I rejected, and therefore I have to believe that having an opportunity to make another connection isn't necessarily a bad thing (whether it's through a re-query or a meeting at a conference or whatever). Either a new query or a revised manuscript may be exactly what's needed and as an agent looking for the next new story to fall in love with, it's counter-intuitive to count that out.

However, with the advent of email queries (until just a few years ago, no one took queries by email, you know), it's become so easy to abuse the process. Some people re-query you in a few days. Some wait exactly a month to the day. Some appear to have not kept close enough track and are surprised when you tell them they queried that project before (actually happened last month). Of course, that presumes that I recognize it as a re-query (which given the numbers I may not) and/or the author identifies it as such. Some, of course, don't do any research at all and query for things their agent has listed on the website under "does not represent." Given the volume of queries (and the tide seems to have markedly risen this year), these types of things can really slow down response time. But I'm at a loss as to how to address it in any new and more efficient way.

Some questions for you....

How many times do you think it's okay to re-query an agent? (reference: Jessica Faust Please stop (As I said on Jessica's blog, I've now gotten this query from 4 different email addresses, and I think I'm up to about a dozen times, and it's been going on since October of last year.)

Do you think it's acceptable for an agent to blacklist an email address, and if so, at what point does that become a fair and reasonable response?

Under what circumstances would you re-query an agent (for the same project)?

Given that an agent gets hundreds of queries per week, do you think a re-query should get the same weight as a new query?

Any other thoughts on this that anyone wants to offer?

From the week of 4/13 - 4/17

# of queries read: 162
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 6
genres of partials/manuscripts requested: fantasy (3), suspense (3)


Dear Authors:

As noted above, these stats are for the week ending on Friday the 17th. This was also the week I left for the aforementioned London Book Fair, so these were all read prior to my departure. While I was MIA and behind enemy lines, I did not have the opportunity to read any queries at all so I have no additional stats to post for this week (and a little over 300 queries in the queue).

Of those requested submissions above:
* One of the fantasy submissions is a revised full manuscript. The author spent approximately 4 1/2 months on revisions before contacting me to see if I would take another look.
* The other two fantasy submissions are partials that I requested based on the query (both of which followed the guidelines and included the first five sample pages). Both are for debut novels.
* The 3 suspense requests are all from the same author, who contacted me based on a referral from another agent. This author is previously published.

Assuming you had nothing else already in the queue from either clients or potential clients (ha!), based on that information alone, which one would you put first in triage? Or, what additional information would you need to make a decision?

# of queries read this week: 216
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 0
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: N/A


Dear Authors:

Let me be really, really, really, exceptionally blunt: Many of the queries I receive are either (1) entirely wrong for me (e.g. despite posting on our website and agentquery.com and the like that I don't represent poetry, I get queries for poetry every week), (2) just aren't well-written enough, or (3) are sent before the author is really ready to begin querying. With respect to the 3rd reason, this is something I think is really tough for a writer, particularly if they don't have a critique group/partner or someone a little more objective than their dearly beloveds to give them feedback.

Over the years, talking to writers at conferences, online, etc., one of the things that I find most inspiring is the flush of the cheek, the gleam in the eye, the tremor of the voice as they excitedly announce they have finished their manuscript. It's a rush. Writing "the end" and knowing that feeling of accomplishment. And I often find myself just amazed at the determination and imagination that must fuel that. Any writer who has come that far deserves to feel proud.

However. (You knew that was coming, right?)

I have noticed more and more in the queries I get that writers are not pausing at that point to assess the next steps carefully. And while it's understandable to want to move forward and share your story with the world, and get caught up in the thrill and the passion, it seems like it's become all too easy to careen out of control with sending queries out before doing research or making sure a writer has the sharpest possible query and pages ready for submission. It seems to me that just about every week I get someone writing to ask if they can substitute a new query for the one they sent just a couple days ago. Or asking to resubmit because they've realized something important that needs to be revised in those opening pages.

Please consider this: There are thousands of writers a year sending out queries. Everyone talks on and on about how long the odds are. Doesn't every writer owe it to themselves to take every advantage that they can get? Remember that while writing can be full of emotion and inspiration that it's counterpart, publication, is a business. After a writer types "the end", it is time to realize that is only the beginning of the next part of the journey. Take some time, even if it feels like pins and needles. So much effort and so much of a writer's self goes into creating the story in the first place. Don't sell it short by not letting its first steps into the world be strong ones.

I do my best to be flexible on this count, but I'm sure mileage must vary from agent to agent. Sometimes I suspect that querying in haste may mean that the writer is wasting that all-important first-impression effect of (1) something I'm desperately looking for (whether I know it or not), (2) that's well-written and carefully proofed and sets a strong hook, and (3) reveals a writer that is ready to go to the next level. Queries like that really can make a person sit up and take notice. I love getting swept away too.

# of queries read this week: 219
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 2
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: YA fantasy (1), paranormal romance (1)

Note: As of end of business today (that's 5pm EST), the oldest query I have on hand is dated 3/13/09. If you sent your query prior to that date, I either did not receive it or my reply did not reach you. This still leaves me with quite a stack dating back over the last couple of weeks -- your patience is appreciated.

Please be sure to check the guidelines on our website at http://www.maassagency.com/submissions.html (long story short: send by email to info [at] maassagency.com or by snailmail with SASE and include your query letter, the first five pages of your manuscript, and a synopsis).


Dear Authors:

Now about this queryfail/agentfail conflict.... I didn't participate in queryfail (I didn't even read any of it) and I'm not going to make any value judgement about its worth or injury. Suffice to say that people have argued both sides. But I will admit that I didn't make it through all the comments on agentfail. (If you haven't seen agentfail yet, it's a thread where Agent Jessica courageously opened up the Bookends blog to hear writer complaints.) I'm not going to read any more of the thread at this point but the portions I did read left me feeling by turns both enormously sympathetic with writer-kind, and ridiculously defensive on behalf of agent-kind.

A friend of mine pointed out to me that the opposite of queryfail isn't agentfail -- it's rejectionfail. And I think that focused for me one of the things that took this off the rails for me. It's the process that's flawed. And pointing fingers at either the writers or the agents just seems to raise more ruckus and animosity than awareness. Or at least that's how it looks from here. The difficulty is that the query-process feels adverserial. Since the supply of writers so much outweighs the supply of agents, it's simply impossible for everyone to be satisfied. As Nathan said in comments on his post about the topic, you can't win. If an agent answers too quickly, the agent didn't give the query enough consideration; if the agent is too slow then other criticisms come in to play. This is not to say that some of the points raised on both sides aren't valid, but that they need to be weighed in the balance of the big picture. Agents must do the best they can with the resources they have.

I'm happy to see that Jessica is having an AuthorPass and AgentPass Day today because I think what we need to remember here is that even if the query system is flawed and uses charged words like rejection and generates bad feelings on both sides as everyone struggles to make their writing or agenting dreams reality -- well, what we need to remember is that agents and authors are on the same side. And we shouldn't let the fact that agents advocate for authors get lost.

I think agentfail allowed for a lot of venting. Some of it was constructive. Some of it not so much. And though it took me nearly all day to work my head around to it, I'm determined to walk away from it with a positive outlook. I hope you will too. Let's remember that respect is a two-way street, but earned and not an inalienable right. Let's all re-commit to focusing on the positive aspects of agents getting the chance to work with talented and creative writers and writers getting the chance to bring their stories to readers, even if the road is sometimes long and the shortest distance isn't always a line between two points. Most of all, let's remember the readers. I'm glad they want more stories. May their appetites never be completely satisfied.

# of queries read this week: 209
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 1
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: fantasy

Also, responded to a previously requested partial and asked for the full manuscript -- it's a southern gothic novel. Had to send the request by snailmail because the email bounced -- this is an important reason to include other contact information in your query, whether it's electronic or snailmail.

Meanwhile, there are two, shall we say, industrious individuals contesting for this week's casualty -- or possibly casualty of the year.

Casualty #1: The author has sent me 8 queries in the last 6 months for the same novel, 3 of those queries have been in the last month. They did change the title at least once. They've also used 3 different email addresses (after I, admittedly, blocked the first one because I had begun to feel harassed). The body of the query, however, is essentially identical.

Casualty #2: The author has also sent me 8 queries, albeit over the course of 9 months, and only twice so far this month. Six of these queries were for the same novel. Recently, they gave me a bit of a stalker impression by suggesting that if we could only meet in person they were sure I would change my mind.

In each case, I have responded politely to the first couple rounds of queries in my usual fashion declining interest. Since that didn't seem to be having any effect, I then sent my 2nd tier response which thanks them for the opportunity to reconsider their work and indicates that I am still not interested and kindly suggests they should seek representation elsewhere. Apparently, in these two cases, this is not having any success either as I continue to receive the queries over and over. I have now ceased to respond because I fear that no matter what I say, they simply won't believe these projects aren't of interest to me. And, sadly, with one of them changing their email address in a chameleon-like way, I cannot simply consign them to the killfile.

And, to be honest, I feel uncomfortable with the notion of sending queries to the killfile based on any sort of filter - they are only as good as the computer thinks they are. However, as I said above, I have gone past feeling spammed and have now made the transition to feeling harassed. People like these are why agents don't want to get re-queried.

I find myself flummoxed by these. I simply cannot conceive of what these authors hope to accomplish at this point. Can someone please explain it to me?

Meanwhile, I can't quite seem to craft something that is a more stern and unequivocal rejection that will nonetheless pass professional muster. So, do tell me in comments how you'd suggest I convince these two authors to move on to another victim target agent. Or, share with me the worst rejection you've ever received (please do leave out any identifying names, etc.) for comparison's sake.

And have a happy weekend.

# of queries read this week: 123
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 0
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: N/A

This week's casualty -- the author sending a query to my personal email that read "Dear Sir: Attached please find a file of my novel."


Dear Authors:

I was just trying to come up with something to write about this week that didn't sound like the same old list of things not to do in your query*, and while doing that I decided to just read a few more and see if something jumped out at me.... In an odd twist of inspiration, I read an email that wasn't exactly a query. It was a request for advice, and I realized that I had seen several similar emails over the course of the week. These are people writing to say they don't know how publishing works and asking for me to tell them how to get published. Of course, this blog and many other agent blogs, as well as writer blogs and other sites around the internet already offer more advice for free than any person could read in a year if they did nothing else with their time. So, I thought my post today would be about this, and then saw Justine's response to Maureen's rant in which they both explain the usefulness of guidelines, and this dovetailed quite well with my feeling that people need to do their own homework. But of course, I am preaching to the choir probably; the people who read this blog are already doing their homework and researching guidelines and agents and figuring out how the system works. So, this is me appreciating you for doing your own homework and presenting the appearance of patience while you wait for a response to your query.


*And since I seem to be suffering from a lack of inspiration otherwise, I would welcome suggestions for topics of future letters from the query wars. Or comments on which kinds of query wars letters are helpful.

# of queries read this week: 131
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 0
genres of partials/manuscript requested: N/A

[Note: currently there are nearly 300 queries waiting to be read. The oldest one is dated the 10th of February.]


Dear Authors:

Though this has happened on and off over the years, there is a characteristic in query letters that seems to have picked up lately. Or perhaps I am just noticing it more. In any case, there seem to be a number of queries wherein the author states the reason as to why they believe I'll reject them. Often in the first paragraph before I've even had a chance to read the idea and make up my mind for myself. This week I read one in which the author said in the very first line that they didn't believe their book was right for me, but perhaps I could recommend a few agents -- this struck me as an odd way to open a query letter, I must admit. Some of the other reasons I've been given recently include:

* the fact that the author is young
* the fact that the author is old
* the author did not graduate high school
* the author is not an American citizen
* that the author is currently in prison (but innocent!)
* this is a particularly unusual story
* the author is not photogenic
* the book is approximately 363,000 words long

Even better than the reasons that the authors state about themselves, or their work, are the ones where they presume to suggest a characteristic about me that will mean I am likely to reject them. Often I wonder how they come up with these, since many of the reasons they suggest are, shall we say, inaccurate, and few, if any, of these people have ever met me, so what data they are using to draw these conclusions escapes me.

And finally I am left to wonder why an author would begin a query by setting up the rejection. What's that supposed to accomplish? Why are they giving the agent an excuse right from the get-go? It just doesn't make sense to me.

# of queries read this week: 189
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 1
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: fantasy


Dear Authors:

I write you from these trenches where the sound of cannon-fire has grown remarkably repetitive. I feel as if these letters must also begin to sound far too similar after a while. I have a fear in all this. That the repetition and frequency will cause so much haze that those gems in the rough waiting to catch my attention -- or any other agent's -- will be harder to spot. That might just be a flaw of the system, though. I struggle to come up with new things to say. Am I the only one who feels that way? Things like:


* Don't send attachments. (I don't care what format they are or if you scanned them for a virus first. I will not be risking this hard drive. It's where I keep my (virtual) stuff.)

* Do proofread. Be sure that your mail merge hasn't decided that I work for a different agency (which you are, no doubt, also querying). Be sure that if you are using the same letter for snailmail and email queries that you don't mention an SASE in the latter. (I don't count it against you but I won't promise that my colleagues have the same opinion. Plus, even I have to admit it feels sloppy.)

* Don't use some unfortunate circumstance of your life (or in your immediate family) to try and garner sympathy and get your book read. Those letters make me feel sad, for certain. But I'm still only going to ask for books that I am intrigued to read and think have a possibility of selling. Besides, this makes me feel like you are using your defenseless family member for leverage. (And, don't you know, these kinds of things don't work on heartless gate-keepers because agents have to give up all these sappy feelings when we first sign up for the job?)

* Don't write back and argue with me about the rejection. (It is what it is and that's all it is.)

* Don't immediately re-query after a rejection. In most cases, don't re-query at all unless you are absolutely sure that your revised query and revised manuscript have a 150% better chance than the previous time. (And, if I happen to turn down your book 3 times in 3 months, maybe that is some kind of hint or something.)

* If you are a debut author (and not a celebrity or someone with a platform), please finish the book before you start sending out queries. (This is for fiction; non-fiction is a whole different ball game.)

* Don't CC a bunch of agents.

* Don't use fonts of unusual size (I don't believe they exist). Don't send things in colored print or on colored paper. Please avoid gimmicks altogether.

* Please get my name right. (I mean, I understand why people get stumped by Agent Nathan's. After all, Brandford Brenford Bransford is such a challenge to spell correctly. However, I think I've had more first names this week than my parents probably originally had on their list when they were first picking it out.)


All the examples above happened at least once this week. I will not be surprised if they happen again in the approximately 200 more queries (currently) left in the queue.... But I wish they wouldn't. Over and out.

# of queries read this week: 122
# of partials/manuscripts requested: 1
genre of partials/manuscripts requested: mystery


Dear Authors:

I imagine many of the readers of Agent Rachelle's blog were dismayed to learn of the change in guidelines at her agency. Due to the volume of queries they are getting, they are no longer giving a guarantee of a response unless they are interested. Luckily, they list a 60-day period as a limit for when you can expect to hear from them. She's pretty unhappy about this decision, but resigned to the necessity.

I can empathize with her position. The queries seem to come in faster than I have time to read and respond to them these days, and I have to admit that the amount of time I get to spend on them seems as if it's becoming less rather than more. Based on my weekly stats, so far this year, I have read an average of 33 queries per business day. Let's suppose for a moment that reading, assessing and responding to each one only took 3 minutes per query (some take more while others, such as those mentioned in the next paragraph, take less probably). So, a little more than 1 1/2 hours per day. That's almost 20% of (so-called) regular business hours. And they are unpaid business hours -- unless one of those queries yields a sale, and those statistics can be grueling as readers of this blog well know, so most of those queries will not generate commissions. Looking at those statistics and knowing I don't have that kind of time in a business day (who does now-a-days? and who only works 40 hours a week anyway?), it becomes rather obvious why every week many agents seem to fall a little bit further behind on response-times.

Plus it doesn't help when people send queries without doing even a moment of research. For example, this week I got a query for representation for a coloring book! And there are many queries that I get each week that fall into categories that are completely wrong for me -- business books seem to be the latest craze and given the economy I can see why. But one can hardly expect an author to understand the economy when they won't even take a few minutes to do research on the agents to whom they are submitting. It can feel so exasperating sometimes. I mean, in theory a person is sending you a query because they want to work with you on getting their book published, and yet so many seem to be so careless of your time (and, by extension, your clients' time).

More than one person has suggested to me that I consider closing submissions for a period of time, or only having them open for a set period. Which I suspect would end up meaning that I would continue to get business books (or the like) regardless. It's a suggestion I am resisting. I don't think it will get me what I want -- which is great novels by either new writers or those already published that I can feel passionate about representing, and can sell. I can't find them if I'm not looking.