Agent Query Policies: Stop the Griping!

>*applauds*

>I feel out of control: I may comment too often on this blog.

My opinion is that in this business both writers and agents NEED to vent occassionally. RACHELLE just did.

I actually agree with most all that Rachelle said: If myself or any of you writers think we are so GREAT a writer…then MAKE THINGS HAPPEN YOURSELF. If you acknowledge you may not be so great … then be patient with agents…or query all 1000 of them.

This all goes to prove how peaceful and wonderful it can be when you are writing FOR God, and trusting Him to use your work as He pleases. Of course, people like that are seeking Honor for God, rather than fame for self. I mention this so often because I assume many readers have such motives.

If you are writing FOR God, see my comment on NOV 24. It is just one example of MANY I've experienced where GOD PROVES He is fully aware of us and our endeavors.

Finally, probably everyone that reads this blog is living in luxury far beyond the vast majority of people that have ever lived on earth. I hope we are as fervently thankful to God for our free nation, and fancy way of life we enjoy…as we are fervently yapping all the time because some agent doesn't have the aptitude to understand that we are SO FANTASTIC.

I know; I need to ask for everyone's forgiveness for acting so all-knowing. Actually, I really do care about all of you. THANKS.

>And 'writers writers' should perhaps consider using their real names if what they have to say is so valid.

IMHO.

>Anonymous 1:19, please come back and tell us what dealings you've had with Rachelle Gardner that allows you to ascertain whether she has the chops to sniff out the "writers' writers" from the "writers". Many of her clients, publishing friends, and industry contacts read this blog and can tell lengthy, personal stories about her uncanny ability to get inside the heart, mind and soul of really great writers, take apart their books, and put them back together again. Have you been the recipient of her prowess with literature? Yes? No? Come back and tell us the basis by which you stand in judgment of her. I think that's only fair.

Sorry to vent, Rachelle. I know you don't want 100 comments of "great post"! But neither should you have to deal with anonymous mud-slinging. I am one long-time blog reader who would feel relieved if you'd turn off the anonymous function or even turn on comment moderation. Though you're a strong person, wise and resourceful, still these comments can worm their way into your spirit–they've sure wormed their way into mine, to the point that I cringe when I see "anonymous" here.

My two cents. Take care of yourself today.

>Maybe it would have made more sense if Anonymous 1:19 had called them brown-nosing writers instead of writers' writers.

But back to what I wanted to say: I get that agents are swamped. I get that agents are busy. I get that agents are frustrated by how authors complain. I understand that and that there may not be a quick solution, but the best solution isn't to just ignore the problem. Authors are complaining because they see a problem. Rather than responding with I wish people would stop complaining, it would be better to solve the problem. The problem itself is compounded by the fact that so many agents are small business owners and don't have the resources to go solve the problem and the organizations out there that should be solving the problem are looking the other way, but it seems to me that there ought to be a way to provide authors the feedback they need that doesn't increase the workload of agents. For that matter, a good solution would probably reduce the workload of agents. But instead of discussing the problem and finding a solution, we just sit around and complain.

>When society decided to teach children we are all 'stars', the concept of failure flew out the window. We can do no wrong. Everyone is right and no one in authority can tell us what to do. You are wrong, and I'm the best and that is that. It doesn't matter if a person looks like a fool on reality tv, in their minds they can sing, dance, and write better than anyone and you had better acknowledge it, now.

I thank you for the rant because it helps keep the business on a human level. I think we as writers tend to forget people with lives are on the other side of the send button.

>Hmmm….Rachelle, I love your blog and though I've never queried you and probably wouldn't (only because me style isn't what you represent) I dare to say that you are like *most* other agents that also blog. Busy, busy, busy. Back in the day, when I was 12 and wanted to be an author, well..agents were evil and inaccesible. Or at least to my little 12 yr old mind. :0) Now with the resources we have as aspiring authors…it's incredible that anyone complains. Maybe they didn't try to send their mid grade book to thirty different publishers at the age of 12. I have a wealth of knowledge from agents that take the time out of their query reading days to give us a few hints.

Nathan Bransford did a paragraph contest a few weeks ago…maybe even a whole month ago…at any rate, just reading the entries in the comments form was enough to make my eyes cross and my brain bleed. PROPS TO YOU AGENTS!!! You are appreciated. :0)

>Valid points, Rachelle, and understandable reactions. I recall taking my car to a garage (one I'd not used before) for a state inspection. I was next in line when a customer–apparently a long-time one–drove up. The owner took his car next. I voiced a mild complaint, to which he replied, "When you're a regular, I'll take you next." Fair? Maybe, maybe not. Within the system–his system? Yep.

And if anonymous comments make you as angry as they do me, take six cleansing breaths and remember how much good you do for so many people.

>Cam Snow,
Back in February, Jessica Faust tracked her statistics for a day. She read 62 queries, rejected 56 and requested proposals for 6. That is a rejection rate of about 90%, but keep in mind that looking at just one day is not a good sample. The rejection rate could still be as high as everyone thinks it is.

>I think why people get so frustrated about never hearing back is because if they did that at THEIR jobs…they would be fired. My husband is very frustrated with the "if you don't hear anything it is a no" (and I have to agree with that…is it that hard to hit a button to send a form letter?). But it frustrates him even more because if he didn't respond to every phone call/email/meeting that a parent wanted to make with him (he is a teacher) he would get in HUGE trouble….and he can't send form letters out, he actually has to respond to everything (and there are some days he gets 50 emails from parents in a day).

I see your point, but I also see his and think that agents need to remember this. It doesn't help that agents DO come off as a lot of things you mention in these blogs especially "I've read that we're high and mighty power-mongers who care nothing for the poor writers querying us, and that we laugh behind their backs."

You do not do this, but do you know how many agents do? They are incredibly rude towards writers on their blogs…past a reasonable point,

>Caitie: While it's true that non-communication wouldn't fly in many jobs, it's important to remember that it wouldn't fly with the customers or clients of those jobs. A teachers primary 'customers' are the parents (yes, the children, but it's the parents who make the decisions of how to educate their child), so it makes sense that he has to respond to them.

If Rachelle didn't return a phone call or e-mail from one of her clients, she could very well be fired as well. But those of us querying agents are not clients. We are prospective clients only, and there's thousands of us. Agents owe us nothing. It's a gift that we get as much out of them as we do.

>Rachelle, you can't be responsible for all agents, neither can you be responsible for everyone whose query was not answered as quickly as they would like. From what I've seen on your blog and heard from your clients, you are an excellent agent who goes above and beyond to reach out to people who write. I'm amazed at even the number of sci-fi writers that comment regularly on your blog, knowing you don't represent that genre. They're still gleaning some wisdom or they wouldn't keep coming back.

When you hear or read the complaints, just be thankful that's NOT someone you represent. They're just making it easier for you to narrow down the list.

>It is amazing that the natural human condition seems to be an inability to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. It's interesting that aspiring authors can't imagine how different their perspective will be once they are agented. Or imagine how much work it is to sustain clients and sales as an agent. And here I was thinking that imagination was a requirement for being a writer. And empathy really should be a requirement for being a human being.

Thanks for hanging in, Rachelle.

>Rachelle – Great post. I admire agents who sift through queries in their off hours. Whenever I'm fortunate enough to get an agent, I'd prefer one who makes clients their first priority.

>Thanks for the insightful post, Rachelle–I think that seeing your point of view on this was revealing and you expressed your views very fairly. That said–I can appreciate writers' frustration with the "no answer is no" policy. I think Caitie F hit the nail on the head–if I did that in my job, I would be failing as a productive employee. I used to work for a small company where I had to answer over a hundred emails a day–some were quick template emails, others were paragraphs of in-depth info. So I know–it's frustrating. And I also know it can be done. But here's the thing–it was a business, and those emails had to be answered to maintain and establish customer relationships. An agent doesn't gain a whole lot by sending rejection emails–at least not enough for them to judge the time well-spent. If they'd rather spend time building a relationship with an editor, or working with a client on his book, or something else that shows results, I get that. It still stings to recognize that, on the hierarchy of tasks, replying to me with a template "no" takes more time than some agents are willing to take. The "They're not that into you" moment. I think that's where a lot of the ranting on writers' parts is coming from–the recognition that not only did their piece not snag an agent's attention, it got so little notice that it's not even worth the time of hitting reply.

>Perhaps we need more agents. I wonder sometimes, when I read blogs written by agents who are clearly overwhelmed by the huge rise in the number of people who see themselves as potential authors, whether this is already happening, and if not, why not.

I can see that it can't be easy to break into the agenting world: you need to be in the right geographic location, have a thorough understanding of the market, be able to run your own small business, have the discernment to spot a really good prospect who not only writes well but has the stamina for more than one book AND the temperament to join in the marketing effort, have good contacts, be able to survive on air for the first year or two, be willing to sacrifice weekends and early nights… a daunting list, but I'm sure there's potential out there.

Do established agents extend a helping hand to wannabees, or do they see any newcomer as a potential rival/threat? How do you become an agent? Are there schools? I would love to know, Rachelle, so if you could ever see your way to writing a post or two on the subject I'd be grateful.

>Rachelle, after reading this, all that's coming to my mind is: Sorry!
Sorry for all that you agents endure and this just confirms why I submit so rarely and selectively.

Praying for compassion and politeness to come your way.

>Thanks for your post. Like many others, I don't "get" the writer's writer post, but then, it's still early in the morning.

To tell you the truth, I don't know how you have time to do your job AND maintain a blog of this caliber. I'm learning so much from you (some of it scares me to death, honestly) and I appreciate that you take the time to do this.

>Based on everything I've learned here and read about you, Rachelle, I think you're doing a fantastic job. I think most serious, humble writers who have been at this a long time get it. But…it is hard on this side, too (oops, was the a complaint?). I think the industry is changing and we're all in flux right now, trying to discern the future direction. We are in the middle of an upheaval, really. I think writers' complaints, and your honest need to rant (you are owed it) is indicative of a wider problem, which has been hinted at already. In the end, most of us are just doing our very best. I am thankful there is a place we can go to discuss such things. Thanks, Rachelle.

>Rowenna: As one commenter mentioned already, there is a distinct problem with the example you gave of "keeping customers happy." Querying writers are NOT the agent's customers. PUBLISHERS are our customers, and the writers we've chosen to represent are our clients. Querying writers are potential future clients, but in no way can they be compared to customers. A customer is someone who pays money for a service or product. That's the publisher. And you can bet I'm returning every publisher email or phone call promptly.

Jane Steen: No, we don't need more agents. There are not enough book deals available in publishing these days to support the ones who are already established. The reason every agent is so busy is the business model is changing. It takes far more work to close one book deal, and it generally pays less than it used to. We could not even make a typical part-time wage if we didn't take on as many clients as humanly possible and try to sell them. More agents would simply mean more clutter reaching the publishers; the number of books being published wouldn't go up.

Mira: Plenty of people have proposed changing the system. Not one person has ever come up with a workable solution.

I've got an idea: How about we make writers pay, say, $500 to submit to an agent? That might cut down the workload. Or how about we require a querying writer to have a masters degree in literature or creative writing before we review their query? Hmm.

Here's another. How about all agents just have their children read the slush pile? That would save a lot of time. My 10 and 12 year olds are pretty discriminating readers.

Mira, I'm not aiming this at you. I'm simply saying that "changing the system" sounds nice but isn't realistic. The "system" is the same for actors and singers and all different kinds of artists, and always has been. The artists struggle to be seen and heard. Those making decisions do their best to cull through the hopefuls to find what they're looking for. Any attempt to change the system ends up looking like some kind of elitism or roadblock that the "gatekeepers" are using to keep people away.

Bottom line, we know we might find talent anywhere, so we keep the pipeline open and let everyone in. The "system" works because it gives everyone equal access.

I wonder why I hear so many complaints about this "system" being broken, when it's this very system that is democratic, totally in favor of the aspiring writer, and gives every single person a shot a getting published?

>I'm weary of writers complaining all the time about the system. Yes, it's flawed but everything touched by humanity is–we just have to make the best of it. At least it's not like I have to have a masters or PhD in writing to query. It's the best system that's out there, and while it's frustrating, the agents shouldn't be made into the bad guys.

Anyway, I'm glad you posted this Rachelle. It just shows that agents have frustrations just like writers do too, even if it's a little different.

>I never blame my agent! …only my editor….

>Thanks for the post, Rachelle, and for your replies in the comments. Thanks also to commenters like CKHB, Anonymous 9:24 and others who clearly get it.

>I think anon was just commenting in order to stir up the commenting. Some folks have fun doing that sort of thing. Best to not fuel their fire.

I believe a lot of ranting about agents comes from frustrated writers who live in their very small writing world (not a bad thing per se) who just don't understand the complexities and difficulties of the industry. They don't understand that the workload of agents is huge, that culling the query pile is an enormous time sink, as is responding with anything more than a "thanks but no" email.

As for the rudeness of agents, I think it has more to do with not having the time, patience, or desire to deal with uninformed writers. It's not their job to teach or critque, though some like Rachelle here, kindly donate their time and effort in blogs like this to address this issue. Agents don't owe the writing masses anything really, but a great number of writers believe they are. This is a business as well as an art. Most of the information needed out there for writers is readily available. One just has to put in the effort to find it. While loving the art of writing and telling a story, agents must treat this as a business. They expect us writers to do the same. Writers tend to take much of how things happen to them in this industry personally. They can't. Well, they can, but the professionals in the industry are not the ones to turn to. They can't soothe battered egos, or correct every misinformed writer who comes across their path. It's nothing against them, they just don't have the time or energy to focus on such things. Writers need to stop expecting them to do that. They're overwhelmed and simply can't.

So, to all of the frustrated writers out there who want to turn on agents for response times, brief rejections, terse replies, or just plain not really liking your writing…suck it up. It's nothing personal. Just write, do it well, and if they like your writing and think they can sell it, they will certainly let you know. That, is their job.

On a side note, I've yet to speak to, read a blog, or otherwise communicate with an agent who I felt was rude or a moron. They are pretty much all (yes, there are always the few exceptions)smart, nice people, trying to do a very difficult job in a very difficult business, because they have a deep and passionate love for books and great story-telling, and love nothing more than to see them get on to the shelves.

>I write two monthly columns for UK Christian magazines, so get loads of review books sent to me – probably 3-5 a week. I just had a clear-out of my books, giving hundreds away. Some I recycle right away; some I toss aside without a second glance; some I think I should read; some I look at carefully; only a handful do I really want to read; only one or two in a blue moon stop me and make me put everything down.

And that's with published books – books that have been heavily invested in by authors/agents/ editors/marketers/sales people/distributors/ bookshops etc. I've worked as an editor so I've experienced the so-called slush pile. Even the proposals editors dearly love might get shot down in the committee meeting.

It's a tough business. Make your writing stellar and maybe you'll hear back from an agent. Maybe you will be the breakthrough author. But maybe not.

PS And yes, I'm a wannabe author too, but no, I'm holding my guns until I have more of a platform established.

>Rachelle, I look forward to the time when you quit allowing anonymous posts.

They usually have nothing to gain by sending and we readers usually have nothing to gain by reading their posts.

Those who are willing to be accounted for do send disagreeing and debating posts, but are not vicious like the one who can hide behind anonymous.

>@Skepic: I saw the same thing. I think those making the "STFU" type comments to Anonymous 1:19 need to step back and reevaluate just how "well read" they really are if they can't see the Man's Man parallel.

>I've never understood what complaining gains for anyone. It really just drags me down.

In this industry, there is waiting. Yes, for agents, writers, etc. That's just how it goes. But instead of complaining about it, we should use the wait time to improve our skills, market, work on that next book.

It's got to be frustrating to hear the constant complaining, huh? Hang in there, Rachelle–well, and all the writers/agents/editors out there too.

>Favorite line: "We are the ones who are on your side."

I've never queried an agent, but I have read other writer's work and provided feedback… just because they asked. I spend hours on a script, reading and providing my notes, just to have the writer upset in the end because I often suggest he/she keep trying.

Reading an author's work takes so much more time than someone would imagine… valuable time you and other agents are spending away from your families to do.

I enjoyed your rant thoroughly, Rachelle. Now stop ranting and get back to that slush pile or you'll have 50 more complaining emails in your inbox : )

>For the most part, griping about anything is a useless activity. And it's not like you can dump all agents into one pot. Some agents are VERY good about getting back to you.

I only submitted to one agent before I started making reworking my manuscript, but she requested a partial/synopsis within a day. And when she passed she let me know that too.

I say if it waiting bothers you that much, then focus on agents who typically have quicker response times.

There is info out there to tell you how agents typically respond…make use of it.

>Timothy, a centralized submission system is not a bad idea at all.

It could be structured in such a way to filter easily, so an agent wouldn't have to spend hours looking for something. They could have subscriptions that would mail submissions to them directly.

I don't know if agents would be willing to pay for something they get for free now, but you could figure something out about the money.

I'm saying this, of course, from the writer's perspective; I don't know the pros and cons from an agent point of view.

But at first glance, it sounds very interesting.

>LOL Maybe I should've said a specific post. I obviously couldn't remember the specific agent. *blushing*

Also, for the second anon, I hope I didn't sound rude to you. Didn't mean to at all, just wanted to let you know that there are agents who question themselves, and then there are those who don't.

>I'm an agented, published author of many books with several publishers and have been on staff at many writers conferences.

To find time to write an promote my word, I have given up many things. I watch maybe two hours of TV a week, I often wake up at five a.m. to write, and I make a lot less money writing than I did in my former career. I usually write seven days a week, on holidays, and often on vacation. I try not to complain about feeling overwhelmed, even though I often do.

And so when I read agents' twitters and blog posts complaining about how overwhelmed they are, yet also talking about the many TV shows they watch or the time off of work they take, it is hard to muster up much sympathy.

And frankly, at every conference I've been on faculty at, many of the agents and editors make fun of some of the writers and their work behind their backs.

I have friends who've had terrible experience with their agents. Some agents are terrific and some are horrible. I really like my agent, but she's made some dumb mistakes– forgetting to send out my manuscript, forwarding my private email to her to my editor without my permission, etc. No agents are perfect. Some agents ARE irresponsible, malicious, etc. Acting like all agents are perfect and all writers are wong to complain is silly. And it's ironic that you've ranted here against writers who rant.

And now I'll expect a bunch of posts from brown-nosing writers who dis me for writing an anonymous comment. It would be foolish to use my real name, and anyone who can't see that is a fool. I'm so tired of writers kissing agents' butts at the expense of other writers.

>Thank you, Rachelle, for so honestly summing up the reality of the query process.

In any other business we would just close the doors and say, "Thank you, we have enough applicants." Because we love books and love writers, however, we always believe that genius could be waiting in the throng outside the locked door.

It is crazy-making that we love this job so much and yet, to do a good job for the publishers and our clients, we end up alienating hundreds/ thousands of others. Positively painful.

As for the comment about blogging agents just trying to market their agencies. . . huh? We are the one industry that has no need to market. Those of us who started blogs saw it as way to help on a wider scale since we cannot comment individually to those querying.

Sheesh!

>Great post. I, for one, want the agent who loves my work as much as I do. I'm more than willing to wait for that perfect fit. The right place and right time will align one day. Power of positive thinking and all.

>Couldn't agree more with CKHB (but then, I agree with her a lot). Queries are cover letters and I guess I've never had a problem with sending professional correspondence to prospective employers introducing my work. (I know agents aren't writer's employers, but you know what I mean.)

I have no problem with this policy and I am glad that agents let give a window into what their workload is like for writers via blogs because it definitely helps us understand what's going on.

>I'm well aware of the irony of ranting about people who rant.

But if you notice, my post advocated ranting. I simply asked that perhaps not every rant should blame all the ills of publishing on agents.

>I think that writer's fail to understand just what the volume of email is that an agent or editor gets.

I have been closed to submissions for months, and I still get anywhere from 100-200 emails a day that ARE NOT QUERIES. These are emails from clients, publishers, my colleagues within the agency, foreign publishers, etc. These emails require a response.

When you add queries into the mix, the email volume can double.

And yes, I see querying an agent very much like applying for a job. You send out a million resumes and hope to hear back. And sometimes you get called in for an interview and you think it goes great, but you never hear back from them again. Heck, sometimes you get called back for four interviews and never hear back again.

Do you start writing blog posts badmouthing the company with whom you hope to eventually get a job? Uh, not if you want to ever get a job with them in the future.

Do you get on public bulletin boards and compare response times from the HR department? Again, I hope not. The HR department knows how to use Google just as well as I do.

I rejected a manuscript that I had been seriously considering last week because upon a cursory online search, I found a LiveJournal post by the author badmouthing me and several of my colleagues for what she thought were excessive response times. Well, that blog post cost her representation from at least one agent. (OH, and it was a LOCKED LibeJournal post. You do know that Google Reader doesn't respect locked posts, right? Well, you do now.)

Additionally, when I do reject something, I'm astonished at the number of people who write back asking for feedback as to why it was rejected. You're not owed critcal feedback from an agent. We read queries, partials and full manuscripts for free. If you want feedback, hire an editor and pay that editor to give you feedback. That's what an editor DOES get paid for.

>Amen, Colleen ! It is your free time, and we should realize that and be thankful when we do get something above and beyond.

>Anonymous 11:16,

Men love darkness because their deeds are evil.

>I never take it personally when I receive a form letter from a magazine for one of my stories. I haven't queried much for agents–way back when I first finished my novel, I queried 20-30 agents or so and received a few form letters, but I also received some well-thought out and nice personal letters -in fact, more of the personal letters than the form rejections letters. My ms wasn't ready then, so I stopped querying (by time I was ready to query again, I queried BB and signed with BB publishers).

Form rejections don't bother me. If I'm not right for that magazine or agent or whatever, then why do I need them to pat me and soothe me? It's nice to get a personal note, but I don't require it.

When I decide to query agents again, I expect to get form rejections along with nice notes (and maybe a Yes…who knows). It's just the nature of the business. Put on your big girl (or boy) panties!

>Wow, I must admit that I am totally confused. Everywhere I look I see vampire stuff – books, movies, music, TV, cereal, everything.

I just read this blog along with the many responses, and not one single person even mentioned blood, much less vampires. Come on, folks! Get with the program!

>I think it's just a numbers game … pure and simple. It's easier than ever to seek out agents who represent any kind of book. The Internet is a fabulous resource. So when it comes time to query a polished manuscript, writers should think nothing of sending out 30 or 40 or 50 queries to agents active in their genre.

But on the flip side, agents should think nothing of form-rejecting or ignoring 90 percent of queries, since it's likely the author is querying three dozen agents anyway.

And it would probably be good for everybody to lance this particular boil and drain all the emotion out of it. Just write the best book and play the numbers.

>Whiny writers give the rest of us a bad name. Boo.

>Rachelle,

I work for the state highway department. Every day, we're told that we are incompetent, waste money, don't listen to people, and are lazy bums who prefer leaning on shovels to doing work. Everyone from the state legislature to the newspapers on down has an opinion and is happy to lecture us on how to do our jobs. Not one person gets in a car, drives down the highway, and stops to think, "Wow…what a great road."

So: I feel your pain! Keep fighting the good fight!

>This is my first comment so I am not any of those who responded before as "Anonymous." In fact this is the first time I have ever posted anything here. I think everyone here has made valid points, even those who did so in an unpleasant fashion. But I think that there is a problem and complaining about or ignoring it doesn't help anyone. I have a friend who has submitted something to you (Rachel) a few months back and received no response and he was devastated. He knew the rules but it still hurt. He writes great stuff (in my and several other people's opinions) but never gets any feedback from the people who matter (agents, editors). It seems to me there needs to be a way to get feedback to writers that doesn't eat your time without compensation. What I would propose is something like submit for free if you do not want feedback, or add a $20 check and we will give a brief on page critique. this would help those who are close but need a little help, chase away those who aren't serious, and compensate those who take the extra time. Just a thought.

>Anonymous 3:02, please tell your friend he should resubmit. I've been responding to all queries, usually within 3 to 4 days. Either his email never reached me, or my email never reached him.

I had some email issues a few weeks ago and was afraid I'd lost some, and I announced several times on my blog and Twitter that I had responded to all queries so if anyone had sent one but hadn't received a response, they should resend it.

Hope he gets through this time. Tell him if he doesn't hear from me within a week of sending it, he should try sending from another email address or leaving me a message on my blog or twitter or something so we can figure out the problem. Sometimes email just doesn't play nice.

>Apparently, there are a huge number of people who think they are sufficiently talented enough to write a publishable novel.

This appears not to be the case since out of the hundreds if not thousands of queries agents receive, a miniscule amount get offers of representation.

Combine this factor with the ease of email submissions and you have the perfect storm: overburdened agents and a whole lot of folks pissed off cause they're not getting a response in a "timely" fashion.

>About one percent of high school football players ever feel the snap a college chin strap. 99% of those have gone from the headlines to the back of the line via an ejection seat from hometown ego to unimpressed open air. Roughly 50% of those get a chute – significant playing time. The rest free fall through mind bluring self-talk. Will I ever play? Do I love the Game or just the Fame? Who am I if I quit?

Some blame coaches, some their grandmother's frail genetics. Some go to the weight room and bust their chops. And some learn that they weren't cut out for it at this level. The ingrediants of speed, size and/or strength, and instinct have been measured and found lacking.

This system seems to be sifting my ingrediants – story selection, writing craft and platform, and unfortunately, finding weakness. If I want particular diagnosis (feed back), I'll probably have to find a fee-based professional. And that assures me of little to attract an agent. My risk, my call.

It would be nice if agents in this system were also coaches. Time won't allow that. My experience tells me that Real Estate Agents don't sell blue prints. They sell finished houses. Quality. Built. Finished.

So, to write better and Hang On . . . or simply push the keyboard and Move On? That's the question.

>I do not whine or rant about the publishing industry. It's everything else in my life. =)

>yarnbuck: You wrote, "It would be nice if agents in this system were also coaches." Many of us ARE coaches. I think if you interviewed 100 published authors with long term agent relationships, most would say their agent is like a coach.

But we can only be a coach for those who have already made the team, right? Agents-as-coaches can't help the aspiring unagented & unpubbed authors.

>I get the frustration writers have with agents. I didn't enjoy getting rejected by dozens of agents on my first novel. Unless it gets picked up on the first day by the first agent I submit to, I don't imagine I'll enjoy getting rejected when the second one goes out for submissions shortly.

On the other hand, I personally don't get how the anger directed at agents and publishers is productive for anyone. You want to change the system, there are plenty of options out there. E-books, podcasts, self-publishing, etc. If the book really is that good AND you are interested in promoting it (and nowadays if you're not then you're starting two strikes down) then it will sell. Otherwise, you're proving that you just want to complain without taking concrete steps that are available to you. Personally, I still want an agent, but I know I have other options if I truly decide my book is good enough and the system is broken enough.

Almost everything that matters to me in my life, I've "failed" at more than I've succeeded. And most people would consider me successful. At age forty, there are some things that have mattered greatly to me that simply didn't work out and will not in the future. I don't want writing to turn out the same way, but when it has setbacks, I've learned enough to know that blame gets me nowhere.

It's easy to complain. It's more difficult to actually to something productive about it.

>Everybody whines, it's the nature of (wo)man. We're all frustrated at one thing or another in our lives. We whine and kick the dog when we really want to kick some editor's butt.

I think you touched something important in your comment to Mira. That it's the "artistic" part of writing that gets in the way – just like it does with actors and singers and whatnot. Someone once said the publishing business is a big hobby disguised as business, or something such. It is. If writers just started seeing themselves as professionals, as business people, rather than "Le Grand Artiste", I think it would go a long way.

I suppose the dilemma is most won't get professional until they have a contract… =/ Such a shame. Great post though!

>First, I don't think I can make a statement any clearer than my friend Kathryn Magendie, but given the tone of a lot of these mini-rants, I wonder if we should be ranting at all. Agents or writers. Especially online.

I try to be very careful of my words online, because you can't hear my voice. I've been following agents and writers on Twitter and through their blogs, and I've discounted querying some agents, because I find their online personalities too strong or abrasive for me.

Colleen Lindsay made a very good case for people to be careful about what they post online, and she's absolutely correct. More than once, I've managed to slip into "locked/password protected" accounts through Google's backdoor. Say nothing online that you wouldn't shout-out in a roomful of strangers.

There are days when I feel the same frustration in my job that agents feel in theirs. There's a place for ranting amongst professionals — writers and agents — I just don't believe that place is online.

We always speak differently when we can look into one another's eyes while we're talking. We can't hear one another's voices or look into one another's eyes online, so I think we need to temper our words and rein in our rants. Agents and writers.

>Just one simple question that I have always had when agents (in general, not you specifically) say they don't have time for form letters.

Have you heard of these people who do work for free called interns? Agents can flag the emails they get as rejections and the intern could send out a form rejection letter. Not only could it solve an issue that writer/agents have, but it could help a young person who aspires to work in publishing learn more about the industry. I don't see how anyone loses in this case. They could also help out with other things too…and again they are free.

The industry is flawed because the point of it is profit. If publishers, writers, and agents didn't have to make money then the system could really change overnight. Since that isn't ever going to happen we will have to rely on the system changing slowly

>Such gripes — well, that's just rude. And from those who profess to be regenerate. Good grief!

>Caitie F: Um, yes, I think every single agent is aware of the existence of interns. Many of us started our careers in that position.

Many agencies use interns, many others do not. Our agency doesn't, but we have a paid assistant. There are many reasons we haven't been able to use interns yet. You may not realize that a good intern program is a huge investment of both time and money, even though interns are unpaid. Those of us who have small agencies and small physical office spaces may not have the resources to properly train and utilize interns. And those of us who are located outside of New York are less likely to find good interns who are serious about learning publishing. There are other reasons.

You're right, interns are a great idea. But I'm sure you must realize that training interns is of crucial importance; do you want just anyone off the street making slush pile decisions?

>"Write the best damn story you can. It's the only thing a writer has control over."

Let me ask this then: how does a writer know if he or she has been rejected because of the writing vs. something that's wrong with the query letter? I read many agents' blogs, and each agent has something different to say about how to send a query: what's good and what's bad. Someone could have the best damn book in the world, but a small "flaw" in a query letter could make that irrelevant.

An easy way to fix the system – forget the query letter process altogether. Send a brief synopsis and the BEST pages from your book (not the first, but the BEST). Agents can then accept or reject.

And on that topic, I honestly can't see how in this day and age hitting "reply" to an email, and then hitting "ctrl-v" to paste an already formatted rejection letter in and hitting "send" takes any more than five seconds of an agent's time – even if there's a hundred of them that's less than ten minutes out of your day – to give a writer who spent who knows how long working on their book and letter the courtesy of knowing that at least SOMEONE looked at their work.

Instead, agents can spend time on their blogs complaining about writers complaining about agents. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

And yes, I'm posting this anonymously. I don't need to become a pariah for speaking my mind.

>An easy way to fix the system – forget the query letter process altogether. Send a brief synopsis and the BEST pages from your book (not the first, but the BEST). Agents can then accept or reject.

But that wouldn't really fix the system at all. If your writing is uneven in the novel – and you're suggesting it is from your comment – sending in your BEST pages is only going to get you through the first step. What are you going to do when it's time for the agent to read your full novel? You won't have time to revise the whole thing between the synopsis step and the request for a full. And why should it make any difference whether you're sending your first pages or some other pages in terms of the quality of writing? These days, your whole novel pretty much has to be publishable, or close to it, in order to be considered. Yes, there are exceptions to this, but they are rare and on the way to becoming extinct.

>Anon 3:02-

I believe there is a misconception in this statement.

"He writes great stuff… but never gets any feedback from the people who matter (agents, editors)."

The people who matter are not agents, editors or publishers. The people who matter are the people who buy books. The people who matter are the readers.

The readers are the ones who determine the New York Times Bestseller List.

The readers are the ones who fail to buy the struggling midlist author's books, thus making it hard for them to sell another.

The readers are the reason that the books on the shelves are there in the first place, crap or not.

The whole publishing industry, good and bad, is based on selling. Agents try to find authors they think they can sell, publishers want books they think will sell well. But the people who are BUYING BOOKS are the ones with the power.

Now, it's true that readers can't always tell you why they put down a book, or what didn't work for them. That's why writers need other writers. That's why they need to study craft, read writing books written by people who have sold books, and why they need to keep practicing.

But I don't think your friend, or any of us, would be well-served by looking to agents and editors as the ones who matter. Because you can get a great agent, sell to a huge publisher, get all the marketing support you could ever want, and still not hook the reader.

The readers are the ones who matter.

>There are a number of reasons to post an anonymous comment and not all of those reasons are anchored in evil intent. To discount an opinion simply because someone chooses to be anonymous seems rather shortsighted to me. I do agree that anonymous "trolling" is a waste of space (and evidence of the commenter's immaturity). But I've also discovered some intelligent ideas and thought-provoking content in anonymous comments on this blog and others.

But then again, I'm posting this anonymously, so perhaps it's without merit.

>How can things improve or change if we don't complain? We all have a right to be treated with courtesy and respect on both sides of the desk. If writers can learn to write more efficiently to meet deadlines, then agents should be able to organize their time as well–or take a break from submissions.

FWIW I prefer Anon comments cuz to me they seem to be the most open and honest.

>@ Anon 10:35

I don't have a problem with your posting anonymously. Some of my best friends are anonymous, heh, heh…

I do have a problem with the assumption that people who compliment, support, and agree with an agent are simply attempting to curry favor, or, as you put it, "brown nosing." Please respect your fellow writers by recognizing that they, like you, are capable of independent thought; and may actually think differently about an agent, or an agent's remarks, than you do.

On that note: Rachelle, find yourself a fun book and a bottle of bubble bath and post a note on the bathroom door that says "If it isn't blood, DON'T YOU DARE KNOCK." I promise, you'll feel better. Hugs!

Lucy

>First, to all anonymous commentors that claim to be writers, you have no credibility. I don't buy the honesty issue. Writers put a name behind what they write, that's what honesty is. Invent a name if you don't want to use your own.

I follow a lot of agent blogs. Guess what? They all make a living being an agent. It puts food on their table. They make their own hours, and it's a very time consuming job. They bitch and gripe about it like everyone does about their job. I have no issue with this.

Rachelle, you are one of the nicer agents that blog, and I have always appreciated that and much of what you write in here. But you must never lose sight of the undeniable fact that the majority of your clients and the majority of published writers are unable to "do it for a living" and have to keep other jobs in order to write.

I don't have many issues with the process. One disturbing trend is when agents adopt a "no response means no" policy. This is rude. I do not have aspirations on being an agent, so agents get very little sympathy from me concerning how many queries they receive. All of you make an okay living at it, and you get to read books for free. The perks sound nice to me.

If you want to fix your workload and get away from receiving queries from writers that aren't really writers, then don't accept e-mail queries. Go back to the S.A.S.E., I liked that just fine. It seperated the serious writers from those who are not fortunate enough to have been told that the writing really isn't so great.

But please, Rachelle, you are above posts like this. Those of us pulling down less than twenty-five grand a year from the craft that we love, those of us who have to toil at other things and write when we have time, we don't find it to be fair. Teaching writers what agents do and look for and so on is very kind of you, but berating those writers who are frustrated makes all writers frustrated. I know there are a lot of jerk wanna-be writers out there, but believe me, there are a lot of jerk agents out there as well.

You aren't one. Please vent, by all means, but please don't vent at us, we have problems that most agents never hear about.

>Rachelle,

I think I understand your points, and much of what you say is well-taken. But I think I must disagree, at least in part, about the question of non-response to rejected queries.

My remarks will apply primarily to queries submitted by email, although I think there may be an analogous consideration for snail mail queries.

My day job is as a computer consultant, and much of how I make a living is by helping clients quickly perform common tasks – such as a rejection email.

Although I have never confronted this particular question professionally, and the details would depend on the particulars of the email client, I think it should be possible to configure a setup that would allow sending a form rejection with one or a very small number of clicks. Perhaps 15 seconds max, but probably much less. (My guesstimate sight unseen would be 5 seconds typical).

Given that I am correct, this means that for a very minimal time overhead, an agent could allow a writer to know that a query had been examined and found unsuitable. This could spare the writer weeks, perhaps even months, of uncertainty.

If I am correct in my technical judgment, the question is why would any agent reasonably choose to adopt a policy of silence. Such a policy would appear not only writer-unfriendly, but needlessly so. Such an agent puts a writer through an agonizing period of uncertainty for virtually no gain in their own throughput.

For snail mail, I suggest a policy of requiring SASE for guaranteed response, and then keeping a stack of preprinted rejection forms next to the slush pile. The load could be taken weekly to the PO.

I'm sorry, none of this is rocket science, so if an agent is not willing to make the small procedural adjustments necessary to expedite universal response to queries, I really have to question their judgment and/or good will.

-Steve

>Rachelle said,

"The "system" is the same for actors and singers and all different kinds of artists, and always has been. The artists struggle to be seen and heard."

Ironically, the system for musicians appears to have been changing radically over the past 5 years or so. The A & R representative has not entirely disappeared, but many alternatives to their function have emerged, including (to give a couple of extremes) radical DIY and the American Idol auditions.

If the writer->agent->publisher channel is not reformed internally, expect alternative workarounds to emerge from outside the "industry". The system will change because it must. That is clearly not optional in the long run.

-Steve

-Steve

>Good point about Colleen Lindsay, Steve. I think this is a very important aspect of the agent-writer relationship. Lindsay's clients do not work for her, she works for them, yet she would have them approach her as though applying for a job. If she could write, she would be a writer. She isn't.

And to make a business decision based on hacking a livejournal account, when considering representing what is ostensibly a well-written work, is downright stupid. I would never trust such an agent to make a rational business decision in my best interest. I would rather maintain a relationship with someone who can sell my books.

>As a writer I receive tons of requests to view manuscripts, endorse manuscripts, talk to a good friend who wants to be a writer, etc. I can't do that and make deadlines, so I try to really respond to those who I believe in, or to send them to other great sources like The Writers View where they can connect with other writers in the industry. I think an honest discussion of this is good, Rachelle. It clears up the confusion so that people do understand the pressure an agent faces, as well as what to do if their queries are hitting a brick wall. Great post!

>I have to agree with Steve. It's not that hard to send a form rejection – it literally takes five seconds to spare a writer agonizing weeks or months of waiting. No, the agent owes nothing to non-clients, but a little humanity goes a long way. Just think, Rachelle, of all the form rejections you could have sent out in the time it took you to post and read through this blog…

>So Colleen Lindsay (and I'm sure she's not alone in this) turns down potential clients because she doesn't think she'll get along with them. Big deal. Don't you *want* an agent who not only connects with your work but connects with you? I'm not saying you and your agent need to be best friends; in fact, it's probably better if you're not. But agents are your advocates when contacting editors and trying to get the best deal possible for your book(s). I want an agent who will go to bat for me with no hesitations. And with so many great writers out there looking for agents, and with publishers only looking for a limited number of books each year, agents have to say no for one reason or another to most of the people who query them. May as well be for personal reasons. I'm not saying the author who posted on LiveJournal is to blame either. I'm saying that an honest working relationship is the way to go. The author didn't respect CL and other non- or late-replying agents. So why would he/she want to work with her anyway?

In an ideal world, yes, all agents would respond to every query/partial/full. But they don't, and it's frustrating. What brings my blood pressure back down to reasonable level, however, is realizing that I write because I love writing–not because I love querying. So when I'm not getting the responses I want–or responses at all–I go back to writing. I don't feel like I'm being an ostrich about this, or that I'm being particularly zen either. But writing is something *I* can do. Getting an agent to respond to my query? That's out of my hands.

>David 11:39 pm, if you would email me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

>Well, I'm rather late to this party (a blown pickup engine at 1 AM Monday morning has a way of causing that), but think I will still comment.

I have no problem with the query system. As you said, this is democratic and is not broken. I think an auto-responder message to a query would be a good thing, something like: Your e-mail seems to be a query. I try to respond to as many queries as I can, but because of the large number I simply can't. If you don't here back from me within XX days, consider this as a 'not interested' response. You could change the number of days according to your backlog, current busyness, etc.

What bothers me about the publishing model is when solicited material–say from a conference interview–is ignored. My record with agents is 100 percent non-response to solicited materials. That's only two of two. In both cases I had to send multiple e-mails reminding the agent of the material. One agent even asked that I "badger" him with weekly e-mails until he responded. That felt rather demeaning and useless, but I did what he asked until he sent his response: Your writing is strong.

For what it's worth, my record with editors is the same: 100 percent non-response to solicited materials. Maybe it's just me.

>I'm surprised @ the writer who pities agents who work nights and weekends…isn't that when writers write as well? If 99% of queries are clearly so bad or off-base, why does it take so long to reply to the few gems in the slush? Then why does it take forever to get a response, if agents can tell within the first five pages if they want to read a ms.?

I've actually pulled mss. from an agent's consideration cuz they were taking too long to respond (6 months?!) and it felt damn good!
Who wants that kind of agent anyway, esp since they can't manage their time or clients after so many years in the biz? As a pro writer, I've had to learn to work smarter, not harder–why can't agents learn this too?

>I don't write what you represent, so there is no conflict of interest here.

I appreciate your stating up front a time period by which a writer can consider his/her work rejected in the absence of a reply. I get it that the submissions stack is overwhelming. Yours isn't the only field with circumstances like that. So on the query level, it's nice to have a definite back wall. When there isn't one, writers never know if their query was swallowed by a spam filter, or just rejected.

On the requested material stage, I think some sort of reply is necessary. Most agents give one, but at the same time, I'd guess most writers have had at least one requested submission disappear into the ether. Which can make it hard for the writer to know what to do if someone asks for an exclusive and you don't know what's up with the pages that are out with someone else. (There is a solution: write and withdraw exclusivity.)

The agents I most like to query are the ones with very clearly stated policies regarding expected response times, when to consider a submission dead, and under which circumstances, if any, an agent wants an exclusive. (The Bent Agency has a wonderfully clear policy about this, for example.)

>David said:
Good point about Colleen Lindsay, Steve. I think this is a very important aspect of the agent-writer relationship. Lindsay's clients do not work for her, she works for them, yet she would have them approach her as though applying for a job.

Mandy Hubbard already made some great points in response to this. I'm neither published nor agented, but I also know that there's a critical distinction between clients and prospective clients. Clients have already entered into a formal professional relationship with their agent. Prospective clients have not. To continue on with the job analogy, clients already have the job. Prospective clients do not.

As a prospective client I certainly feel all the same frustrations and desires as others who are in the same boat, but when I do land an agent you can bet the house I'll want her to prioritize me above the hundreds of prospective clients she hears from every week.

>Disclosure: I am a published and agented writer (although not with Rachelle).

Here's what I think.

YES, the system sucks in a lot of ways – but as I have said before and I have, apparently, to keep on saying – publication is a privilege, not a right. Nobody owes anybody anything at all, just because they've written a book. Yes, I agree that there should be responses. Yes, I agree they should be timely. Yes, I would love to have all my emails and letters and phonecalls answered instantly.

It ain't gonna happen. NOBODY does that. You call a plumber or an accountant and leave a message, they'll take a little while to get back to you. And THEY don't get 100+ calls a day.

Yes, "wait" is a four letter word in the publishing world. Yes. I'd love for my own agent to drop everything and respond to my every email by return of email, as it were, instantly. She doesn't, but she does respond – as soon as her circumstances allow her to. I am not her ONLY client.

Agents and writers do have an interesting relationship. It isn't strictly speaking an employer/employee thing, and it does change subtly when an agent signs up a writer, Until the moment that happens, the AGENT is the one making the selection. After it happens, the agent is working on the writer's behalf. So in some ways the agents are interviewing THEMSELVES for this job – they'll sign UP a writer, but they'll also sign ON to be that writer's voice and presence in the publishing arena and the signing up process is a prerequisite to them accepting a job offer from the author ("are you willing and able to represent me?") I should think it stands to reason that the agent would exercise due diligence in this.

Where does that leave the writer? For all the position of "power" in the relationship in that they are the "employer", the writer's livelihood and reputation depend on how good their agent is. So yes, the writer is employing the agent TECHNICALLY but the writer is dependent on that agent once he or she is hired. SOunds like a small difference, but it MATTERS.

Finding the right match between an agent and a writer can be harder than it appears. THe best writer in the world might be a bad match for a particular agent, if nothing else than personality-wise. Hence, the query letters. It allows the two parties to take the necessary time to size each other up.

YES IT TAKES TIME. Pick up your packet of patience at the door when you enter the writer's life. It comes with the job. If you can't wait, perhaps you should be doing something that has a more instant gratification to it.

Agents are there to ALLOW the writers to write. The rejected writers may think there's a conspiracy – there isn't. It's just that there are limited seats in the lifeboats, and they aren't going to take on people who just look like they want to go out on a SUnday sail. Are you serious about this writing lark? Then pay your dues. Wait.

>So stop the griping. Starts here.

>I would be proud just to have an agent like you. I love the fire. Great job. If more people attacked the source of the problem instead of the easiest one to blame the world wouldn't be in the shape that it's in.

>I don't mind if people think I am brown-nosing or not, I appreciate your blog and those like yours that give excellent advice and a peek into the publishing world that otherwise would be difficult to access. You don't HAVE to write this blog. It's a service you give to writers. May it help you in the end by landing more clients? Possibly, but you do it for us, the writers. From a very busy mother and part-time writer who currently can't keep up with EITHER of her blogs (if I actually want to write and be a parent), I appreciate your dedication to your clients and potential clients.

You have class and keep it kind, and your approach to further communications (in your follow-up post) is something we could ALL learn from.

Great rant.

>I think being disgruntled about the response time is normal for a writer–especially the ones who think being the next *fill in bestseller name* tomorrow.
However, normal or not, going online and bitching about it in public forums and TO the agents your trying to get to rep you is ridiculous. If you have a problem with it, bitch to your spouse or friend or dog. Then accept it's a part of the process and deal with it.

Honestly, I would NEVER want to be an agent–I know I couldn't handle the work they do. (Lovely rant, Rachelle. Sorry for all the asses.)

>Several people here have said that querying writers aren't an agents customer. I disagree. They may not be a direct client/customer, but if they buy books, especially if they buy one of the clients' books, then they are an agent's customer. I've had an agent be rude to me on her blog (not you, someone else). Her clients and their books have gone to the bottom of my list of potential new authors to check out. The agent represents the author, and in that case, I didn't like what I saw. There are plenty of books in the bookstore that I can buy and read instead. So, agented writers, take note: here is one reader who won't buy books represented by a snarky agent.

Something to think about…

>Followup on my previous comment: Rachelle took the time to email me to let me know she does respond to all requested material. I read the "no response to requested material" in the original post as meaning that she does this when in fact she was referring to "if this happens, not if _I_ do it to you".

I'm glad I mis-read her and appreciate her sending me the email. Non-response to queries may be the direction the industry's heading due to sheer volume, but non-response to requested material won't ever seem right to me. I'm pleased to know that's not the case here.

http://womens-fashiontrends.com
fashion post

You made some decent points there. I checked on the net to learn more about the issue and found most individuals will go along with your views on this website.