Fiction Editor--the waiting game

[the debster]

I have something I need a little help with.

I've been on the quest to acquire an agent since I completed my manuscript October 2004. Although it seems I've perfected my query, as a great majority of agents request materials based upon the initial info, no one has offered me representation.

February 1st, on a lark, I cold-queried an editor at a MAJOR NY publishing house regarding my completed thriller--a market I discovered she was interested in acquiring product for. Low and behold, she fired off a note requesting the first 5 chapters and 2-page synopsis. Post haste, I printed, assembled, kissed and mailed it off that same day.

I know I'll need representation when it comes time to sign any agreement--assuming this editor wishes to proceed. I've continued sending out queries and with a few who request full disclosure as to who else is considering the same materials, I have mentioned that a NY editor is considering the first 5 chaps (by the way, this doesn't seem to make any difference to any of these agents).

So, how long do I wait to re-contact this editor asking if she would like to read the full manuscript?

I certainly don't want to seem pushy. A collegue of mine has waited 6 months to hear about her manuscript which was submitted by her NY agent.

Are there any veterans out there, or even better, editors who could give their kind advice?

[Lauri B]

I don't suppose there is any notice on their site or in their guidelines about their usual response time? If not, I would give her a couple of months and check in via email. Don't call. An email will jog her memory, only take a couple of seconds to read (and answer), and you'll know what's up with your manuscript.
Good luck!

[dragonjax]

I completely agree with Nomad. Be patient, and keep querying agents. (And yes, having an editor's interest is not necessarily a carrot. Believe me, I know -- I'm there myself!) Best of luck!

[the debster]

Thanks dragonjax

I think I've scared off a couple potential agents, so I have decided to delete the info regarding an editor reviewing the chapters in my latest queries. I figure If/when they request materials, then I'll divulge.

I'm still racking up the rejections (45) and have 9 queries/chapter samples out there now.

I had a 12 reply e-mail discussion with one agent at a large agency which started with her simply stating: "Though your concept is interesting, we just don't feel it's right for us."

I wrote back with a simple: "Thank you for your time."

She fired right back: "It's not anything that you did wrong . . ."

Back and forth we went.

Finally I asked: "Could you give me any input that could have swayed your decision."

About 20 mins. later she wrote: "I sign l/4 of 1 percent of what comes across my desk. It's all just a numbers game. You will find representation eventually."

So take it as you will. I'm sure her honesty is something 90+% of the agents will not speak out loud, but I'm also sure it's the same with most reps.

Mine is not a standard thriller (no espionage and law enforcement is only a small element) so, It's not a slap-shot concept. I just think agents don't want to work for a sale--not for first timers anyway.

So many agents have expressed interest in the piece and find the work more than adequate, they just don't want to work so hard or risk their stellar reputation with the editors they have a relationship with.

I DO think that if these agents would take a chance, there wouldn't be so much crap out there for the public that are forced to shell out their dollars for something hack and regurgitated.

Tried and true isn't always best.

What do you all think??

DJLedford

[dragonjax]

I DO think that if these agents would take a chance, there wouldn't be so much crap out there for the public that are forced to shell out their dollars for something hack and regurgitated.

Tried and true isn't always best.

What do you all think??

DJLedford
Actually, I don't think it's the agents. I think it's the publishers. And good agents keep abreast of the industry, and they know what publishers will and will not take a risk on. A celebrity author with a crappy book is a better chance for publishers than an unknown with a groundbreaking book. :Shrug:

That's not to say that publishers (and agents) won't take that chance. But it probably will be a tougher sale.

[Torgo]

If it's been more than a couple of months, write to the editor again and ask if they're still considering your manuscript. The fact that your manuscript is being considered won't mean much to an agent. If the editor eventually makes an offer, you will have no problem getting an agent to come in and conduct negotiations. It's free money for them.

[the debster]

Thanks, Torgo.

I think I will get back in touch with the editor next week. I suppose in the back of my mind I don't want to know as it has the potential to be a major rejection.

I'm at 42 rejects from agents at this point. I can't begin to tell you how many have taken interest--find the story and characters interesting, well-written...--the same story I've read on threads such as this one.

It will be interesting how I will make my decision on who to re-approach if and when this editor comes through. Perhaps I'll try to find and up-and-comer.

I'll contact you again when I hear of any decisions.

Thanks again.
DJLedford

[the debster]

I misscounted. I'm up to 46 rejections.

DJL

[Torgo]

Stick at it, Debster, and don't stop writing in the meantime. It's a very rare author whose first work is published.

[Lauri B]

Hi Debster,
So far I've published 9 books, and I STILL get rejections every day of the week. I used to save them but ran out of room. Keep writing, submit new stuff, and keep at it. Something will hit sometimes.
Lauri

[the debster]

Thanks for your support, Nomad and Torgo.

I am definately still writing, but not a new novel.

I've had some success writing short stories lately. I'll be published in Red Coyote Press' anthology of shorts later this summer. Several other publications are viewing other shorts.

Although I write thriller novels and screenplays, it seems literary is my genre for the short pieces. Who knows that the future holds. Maybe it's the literary gods telling me I should switch genres.

While I busy myself in creative mode composing the shorts, the rejections don't sting quite so much.

There's a conference coming up and I hope to have some face time with a couple of agents who plan to attend. Maybe this is what it takes.

Anyway, I'll keep plugging along querying the novel I've already written. I know it's not a given that even though a writer is signed with an agent they will receive success. Two writers from my small fiction writer's group are NY agented for years now--still no offers, not even hints of interest for their work.

What type books do the two of you write?

Again, thanks for your interest and support-
DJLedford

[Lauri B]

All my published books are nonfiction. I'm a remarkably unsuccessful children's author, but my kids like them so I keep writing them. I have a pretty successful parenting series, a coaching series I ghostwrote for some fairly well-known coaches, contributed to a scholarly work on Stephen King, and did a couple of books on gardening. Like many people on this forum (and lots of other writers) I write what someone needs me to write on whatever subject they happen to need at any given moment: do the research, write it up, send it out.

[Tiaga]

I am in a similar situation. I have a detective thriller out. Its been professionally edited and I have good feedback from trusted readers but agents just don't want to push when it comes to a first time author, it may effect their relationship with editors or publishers. I have had good feedback from smaller publishers but I wanted to hold out to see what may come.

As mentioned on some other threads I have found that agents even those that state on their websites that they publish thrillers, now claim that they are not considering this genre at present. Part of the trouble is the sites state "thriller" but there are so many sub-categoies that it takes weeks of communication sometimes just to find out it means chick thrillers or medical or legal etc.

Good luck.

[Cathy C]

but agents just don't want to push when it comes to a first time author Hmm, I don't know that I agree with this, Tiaga. A lot depends on the project. Remember that agents are actually much more difficult to obtain than editors -- and it's for a very good reason. An agent is making their living from YOUR book, and the books of others. That means their salary, their office rent, staff, equipment leases, etc., need to be paid EVERY MONTH with checks that only arrive a couple times a year. There had better be a LOT of those checks to stuff in the account, or they'd better be BIG. So if the book isn't a GUARANTEED winner, with an almost immediate sale, they're going to have to think long and hard about whether they want to take it on.

But that doesn't mean that they don't recognize raw talent and are willing to work for a new author, even if the book needs a lot of work. I WAS a first time author (along with my co-author). We sold the book FIRST to an e-publisher, and found the agent by accident. She convinced us to get out of the contract we were in so she could make us some REAL money. She worked very hard to get us a stellar deal, and we've worked like dogs to prove she was right.

Don't give up. Keep in mind too, the debster, that if you've gotten 42 rejections since October of last year, you're obviously a hard worker. And if you DO happen to find the publisher first, I'll bet dollars to donuts that one of the 42 who rejected you would be more than happy to change their mind when you've actually got an offer (see "guaranteed money" above!) They'll try to make the most money for you possible, and the NEXT book they will work even harder on.

Your goal, after all, is to be a cash cow that others want to get fat off of! :D

Good luck!

[Jamesaritchie]

Agents do not say no because they don't want to do hard work. The hard work is not in selling a novel, but in what comes after a publisher makes an offer. Agents say no purely and simply because their experience tells them it's very unlikely that any editor will buy the novel.

Now a novel that one agent can't sell may still be a novel that another agent can sell, simply because the two agents will have different contacts, different specialties, different enthusiasms, etc. But when agent after agent after agent says no, the problem is with the novel.

The problem is most often that the novel is poorly written in some way, or is simply, to the agent, boring.

Publishers also do not say no simply because they're afraid to take a chance. Publishers say no purely and simply because their experience tells them the reading public will not buy the novel. This, too, is nearly always because the novel is poorly written in some way.

Most are.

There is not a lot of crap being published, and if you believe there is, odds are you'll have a terrible time getting published because your taste and the taste of the reading public differ greatly. The taste of the reading public, overall, is correct.

Publishers tale chances all the time, and nearly always get rebuked for doing so. The publisher's job is to know what the public wants to read, and by and large, publishers are very good at this job. And by and large, what the public asks for and gets isn't crap, but quality.

When agent after agent after agent, or editor after editor after editor says no, the problem is not that agents don't want to work hard, or that publishers don't want to take a chance. The problem is with the novel. There's something about it, poor writing, poor storytelling, poor characterization, poor dialogue, or a combination of all these things, that's simply not good enough to make the agent or editor say yes.

There are always very rare exceptions, but when people keep saying no, the problem is with the novel, not with those who say no. Forget about agents not wanting to work hard. There's very little hard work until after an editor makes an offer. Forget about publishers not wanting to take chances. Publishers take chances all the time.

Forget about them and fix the novel, or write a second one. Then a third, then a fourth, and then a fifth. There's no reason to think a first novel is any good, and very little reason to think a second novel is much better.

[aruna]

Publishers tale chances all the time, and nearly always get rebuked for doing so. The publisher's job is to know what the public wants to read, and by and large, publishers are very good at this job. And by and large, what the public asks for and gets isn't crap, but quality.


I don't agree with this. There IS a lot of crap being published; novels that simply fit into a mould that publishers think "saleable", and which the undiscriminating public likes. The public "liking" a book is not a sign that the book is quality. I recently read a genre novel which was so badly written it read like a first draft; all the most inexcusable errors any would-be author learns to avoid from the very start; and not only I thought so but very many amazon reviewers. It was so bad, it was embarassing; yet this book had won a six-figure advance from a major publisher. The deciding factor was not the quality of the book but that it was a) in a formula the publishers thought the public would (and DID) buy and b) the author was young female, very pretty, and the daughter of someone famous.


On the other hand, I can give many examples of real quality fiction (e.g. Truro and the Balloonist, by Debbie Lee Wesselman) which never made it with the reading public; and thus the author is considered a failure. Many superbly written books never catch on with the reading public.

Saleability and quality are not interchangeable terms. I regret this development; but it's a reality I've come to terms with, and I've found a way of handling it.

When agent after agent after agent, or editor after editor after editor says no, the problem is not that agents don't want to work hard, or that publishers don't want to take a chance. The problem is with the novel. There's something about it, poor writing, poor storytelling, poor characterization, poor dialogue, or a combination of all these things, that's simply not good enough to make the agent or editor say yes.


Or poor saleability! And "poor saleability" can mean something as banal as being set in the wrong country; which of course is ridiculous, when everything else about the book is fine.

The thing is that these days nobody wants to take risks. Agents and editors go for the safe options, which means, books of a type that they know have sold before. The result being often that many truly original works are overlooked. Our choice as writers is either to play the game and give them what they want, or write what we want, put our very best into it, and hope that someone, somewhere, feels it.

[Richard]

I review sci-fi and fantasy books as part of my day job, and I'd rather eat my own foot than have endured most of the ones I get on my pile. Half the time, the question's not 'Am I enjoying this?' but 'How the freaking hell can ANYONE enjoy this rubbish?' Boring AND poorly written - just need a papercut to make the full unholy trinity.

[aruna]

I review sci-fi and fantasy books as part of my day job, and I'd rather eat my own foot than have endured most of the ones I get on my pile. Half the time, the question's not 'Am I enjoying this?' but 'How the freaking hell can ANYONE enjoy this rubbish?' Boring AND poorly written - just need a papercut to make the full unholy trinity.

That's what I mean. The reading public does consume a lot of trash, and publishers are prepared to give it to them. Publishing decisions are made not by editors but by accountants - the aquisitions team. I've had this right from the horse's mouth. Quality of writing has nothing to do with it. You can write a technically perfect piece of work and still get rejected. And multiple rejections are no sign that your work is bad, or that the public won't like it. there are so many stories of authors who were rejected multiple times, finally got published, and became bestsellers. Publishers don't really know what's going to catch on and what not; they make calculated guesses, and very often get it wrong.

That's the simple reality. Today's writer has two choices: go with the flow, and give the aquisitions teams exactly what they want; or trust your instincts, write to your best ability, and hope that some day publishers will want what you have to offer.


Or, of course, self-publish.

[Torgo]

Publishing decisions are made not by editors but by accountants - the aquisitions team. I've had this right from the horse's mouth.

Well, not entirely true in my experience. The editors are choosing the things to bring along in the first place; the people who are making the publishing decision are usually editorial directors and the top salespeople. To say 'accountants' implies something false about how publishing works (how would people who have no sense of books be able to pick a bestseller?)

Of course a book has to make a profit, so nobody is going to publish something planning to lose money. A lot of books do lose money and are subsidised by the bestsellers. In fact, just to slightly contradict myself, I've edited a couple of books which we had a strong feeling that nobody was going to buy, but we went ahead and published anyway because they were good; it's not all about bestsellers. (In the end, they just about broke even.) We've even published things purely for prestige - to say, we've got such-and-such on our list.

Quality of writing has nothing to do with it. You can write a technically perfect piece of work and still get rejected.

True, I suppose, but it probably means you've written a dull or obscure story in that perfect prose, or that you sent it to the wrong people. Your chances of being published are much improved if you write really well.

There are so many stories of authors who were rejected multiple times, finally got published, and became bestsellers

Sometimes because they are terrible writers who rarely got through the first read. Look, I'd have probably tossed 'The Da Vinci Code' out. The person who picked up that book had a keen editorial eye for a best-selling trashy airport novel. Also, these authors you speak of might have sent the book to the wrong people, sent too early a book, etc etc. There are always good reasons to reject things, not that authors always get to hear them.

There IS a lot of crap being published; novels that simply fit into a mould that publishers think "saleable", and which the undiscriminating public likes.

Remember, 'the public' isn't one big mass. The people who buy Jonathan Franzen novels aren't the same people who lap up Star Wars novels. Equally, there's no one mould of what saleable is. Go into a book shop and look at the sheer variety of books available. Sure, you'll find some crap available, but remember Sturgeon's Law...

"poor saleability" can mean something as banal as being set in the wrong country; which of course is ridiculous, when everything else about the book is fine.

This can't possibly be true. What do you think are the factors making up 'saleability'?

The thing is that these days nobody wants to take risks. Agents and editors go for the safe options, which means, books of a type that they know have sold before. The result being often that many truly original works are overlooked.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. What I want to find in the slush pile more than anything else is something original. It's just the case that most times I find something original, it's been really badly written (or it's an original BAD idea.) 'Truly original' is not always good.

Of course you can always go off and commission something that's a knock-off of something that's done really well, and if people want to make a quick buck they will do that. However, the Next Big Thing - the thing that REALLY sells in truckloads - almost always has an original twist to it.

[aruna]

Well, not entirely true in my experience. The editors are choosing the things to bring along in the first place; the people who are making the publishing decision are usually editorial directors and the top salespeople. To say 'accountants' implies something false about how publishing works (how would people who have no sense of books be able to pick a bestseller?) .

My own exerience: While it's true that the editor chosses the books they like in the first place, even a top notch editor who loves a particular author can't get a book aquisitioned if the salespeople think it's not maketable.




Remember, 'the public' isn't one big mass. The people who buy Jonathan Franzen novels aren't the same people who lap up Star Wars novels. Equally, there's no one mould of what saleable is. Go into a book shop and look at the sheer variety of books available. Sure, you'll find some crap available, but remember Sturgeon's Law....

I know; the reason for my post is James's belief that what the public wants is quality. I believe that this is far from true. Of course there are excellent books out there; but the mass market is lead by the kind of shallow novels that everyone forgets the moment they have read them - pulp fiction, the equivalent of junk food. Quality is the wrong word.


This can't possibly be true. What do you think are the factors making up 'saleability'?

It's absolutely true. My agent told me point blank that novels set in Africa, South America etc etc etc can't be sold. New York, London, India on the other hand are sexy. I happen to write about South America, because that's where i grew up. I was given strict instructions to write about India instead.

As for "saleability" - it's whatever people in publishing think it is; or not. They didn't think Harry Potter was saleable; JKR had to shop around for a long time. And look what happened there!



What I want to find in the slush pile more than anything else is something original. It's just the case that most times I find something original, it's been really badly written (or it's an original BAD idea.) 'Truly original' is not always good. .

The possibility exists though: an original book, really well written. Every editor's dream!

[Torgo]

even a top notch editor who loves a particular author can't get a book aquisitioned if the salespeople think it's not maketable.

Marketability only needs to mean that the book can make a gross profit of 50% or so. That is to say, that if you add up the royalties, print and freight costs, the publisher needs to sell enough copies of the book to make back 150%. (Out of that 50% come the costs for staff, etc etc.) This means that you may only have to sell, say, 2000 copies in hardback and 5000 in paperback. If a book isn't going to do that, then yes, it is unlikely to be acquired. What does that say about the book?

They didn't think Harry Potter was saleable; JKR had to shop around for a long time. And look what happened there!

An incredibly rare and exceptional case, Harry Potter. I don't believe anyone, even Bloomsbury, believed that it would be such a phenomenal success. Probably it was bought as a solid bit of the mid-list, or at best a speculation.

My agent told me point blank that novels set in Africa, South America etc etc etc can't be sold. New York, London, India on the other hand are sexy. I happen to write about South America, because that's where i grew up. I was given strict instructions to write about India instead.

Hmm. We recently published a first novel set in South America; it won an award for a best first novel the same year, and has been a good and steady seller. I suggest telling your agent to submit it anyway. (I'm getting a lot of manuscripts from India, in fact, haven't been interested in anything so far.)

I know; the reason for my post is James's belief that what the public wants is quality. I believe that this is far from true. Of course there are excellent books out there; but the mass market is lead by the kind of shallow novels that everyone forgets the moment they have read them - pulp fiction, the equivalent of junk food. Quality is the wrong word.

Yes, absolutely, quality is the wrong word. There are all sorts of qualities. The public, as I say, is not homogenous; they're all after different kinds of novels. Even individual people will select books for different occasions - a zippy thriller for a red-eye flight, a comfortable read for the beach, a bit of literary fiction for evenings at home. The mass market is not the only market. And if you can write a deep novel that stays with people the rest of their lives, no editor is going to turn it down.

Agents and editors go for the safe options, which means, books of a type that they know have sold before.

This is true of many acquisitions, but not all. To some extent it's the same thing as what happens in the bookshops - the buyers both in-store and among the public go for things they're familiar with, but now and then they will take a flyer on something new, as long as they're reasonably confident.

[aruna]

Marketability only needs to mean that the book can make a gross profit of 50% or so. That is to say, that if you add up the royalties, print and freight costs, the publisher needs to sell enough copies of the book to make back 150%. (Out of that 50% come the costs for staff, etc etc.) This means that you may only have to sell, say, 2000 copies in hardback and 5000 in paperback. If a book isn't going to do that, then yes, it is unlikely to be acquired. What does that say about the book? .


Torgo, I have to admit that I am talking only from my own experience; thank you for putting it into a more general perspective. For each of my three novels with a big publisher I got five figure advances; that is five figures in pounds, sterling; double that for dollars. To make a profit I'd have had to sell tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of books; you must know how difficult that is, in such a tough market. I don't believe that the lack of profit says anything at all about the books; though I'm the first to admit that the second two were not as good as the first. They threw a lot of money at me which failed to come back; the strategy being that I would write what they wanted for several books. Unfortunately, I was unable to write the kind of books they wanted (that's why books two and three were so mediocre - I was being guided) - I can only write the kind of books, well, the kind of books I write.


I turned down a fourth contract for that very reason; and decided to drop both publisher and agent and start from scratch, writing what I know I do best. Wish me luck!

They were going for runaway bestsellers. I turned out to be a mid-list author.

[aruna]

Another thing, torgo - I'm not blaming my editor at all; she and I got on fine, and respect each other. She'd have been more than willing to work with me and build me as an author; but her hands were tied because of the aquisitions team.

In fact, it's she who told me in the end that I'd be better off with another publisher.

In the Uk we now have the phenomenon of several books which were rejected by the major publishers being published by smaller companies - and winning major prizes.

Here's a very good article by an agent, which describes wel the predicatemnt the UK publishing finds itself in - and the downside for authors.

http://www.thebookseller.com/?did=12680&srq=THE%20DEAD%20HAND%20OF%20SAFE%20BETS%20&sbr=1&dr=2005,06,17-1999,10,01&atl=

[Torgo]

Certainly it's tough; it's even tougher when you are dealing with a huge publishing company. You're right to say that they are ruled very much by the bottom line. I just think that you might have a better experience with a smaller company. Oddly, the less money there is washing around, the more freedom editors have.
The article you link to is interesting; I have to say I don't recognise that picture in relation to where I work, but it may be the case that it's becoming increasingly like that.

[Lauri B]

They were going for runaway bestsellers. I turned out to be a mid-list author.

Hi Aruna,
I think that's the Catch 22 for big houses--they need the bestsellers to make up for the advances and marketing funds they spend, and to fund the duds and the midlist authors that they don't necessarily promote, but have on their lists as books that they like or view as good books that deserve to be pubished but aren't necessarily going to be top sellers (or in many cases, make back the author advance). For small publishers like us, both the goals and and business model are different by necessity. It's no secret that we give out small advances, because we can't afford to tie up huge chunks of money before a book is out (or after, for that matter). But we have never bought a book with the idea that "oh, this will be a bestseller so let's go for it." We publish all of our books with our backlist in mind. I would love to have a bestseller, but what I need and always look for are books that will sell predictably year after year and will have few returns. So all of our authors are what big houses would call "midlist" authors, but in my opinion, those are the best kind.

[Tiaga]

I seemed to have started something on this thread.

I am in a similar situation. I have a detective thriller out. Its been professionally edited and I have good feedback from trusted readers but agents just don't want to push when it comes to a first time author, it may effect their relationship with editors or publishers. I have had good feedback from smaller publishers but I wanted to hold out to see what may come.

As mentioned on some other threads I have found that agents even those that state on their websites that they publish thrillers, now claim that they are not considering this genre at present. Part of the trouble is the sites state "thriller" but there are so many sub-categoies that it takes weeks of communication sometimes just to find out it means chick thrillers or medical or legal etc.

The responses I referred to where based on a limited Query as to their acceptance of a terrorist thriller. They have not read my work but rather have answered that at present this was a tough market and that first time authors seldom crack it. Asked if they would would like to see a synopsis most have stated that thrillers of this sort are not on their target lists at present.

It was these remarks that led me to post my original thread.

[aruna]

Hi Aruna,
I think that's the Catch 22 for big houses--they need the bestsellers to make up for the advances and marketing funds they spend, and to fund the duds and the midlist authors that they don't necessarily promote, but have on their lists as books that they like or view as good books that deserve to be pubished but aren't necessarily going to be top sellers (or in many cases, make back the author advance). For small publishers like us, both the goals and and business model are different by necessity. It's no secret that we give out small advances, because we can't afford to tie up huge chunks of money before a book is out (or after, for that matter). But we have never bought a book with the idea that "oh, this will be a bestseller so let's go for it." We publish all of our books with our backlist in mind. I would love to have a bestseller, but what I need and always look for are books that will sell predictably year after year and will have few returns. So all of our authors are what big houses would call "midlist" authors, but in my opinion, those are the best kind.

To be quite honest, I much prefer the idea of going with a smaller, more personal publishing house; in fact, when I told my agent I wanted to leave HarperCollins, I said I wanted an smaller, independent publisher. I like the idea of receiving a small advance and working my way up through sales, which could easily have happened if I hadn't been carried away by the offer of the advance - as just about any author would be. When they wave the big bucks at you it's hard to resist, especially if you have problems of a financial nature, and who doesn't.

My books sold in a couple of European countries and the French translation did extremely well; I only got about 4000 Euros advance for that book, but I have been able to live from the royalties for a couple of years now.

My agent said that these days as an author you are either huge or a nobody. She is not interested in submitting to smaller publishing houses. Anyway, I dropped her and am looking for a new one; one has expressed interest in my full ms and I'm sending it in. This time I am extremely wary!

[brinkett]

We publish all of our books with our backlist in mind.
Nomad, probably a dumb question, but what do you mean by "backlist"? And by "midlist author", do you mean an author who hasn't written a bestseller but sells steadily year to year and has a fan base? I've seen so many definitions of this term.

aruna - thanks for sharing your experience with us. I've been following your story across several threads.

[aruna]

aruna - thanks for sharing your experience with us. I've been following your story across several threads.

Thanks - hopefully, the plot will thicken ;)

[the debster]

I apologize for not keeping you updated. Flipping through the thread I noticed over 700 views. Since I began the thread, I thought I should post a little info.

All of you have contributed some great feedback and I'm sure everyone appreciates it--I know I do.

As of today: 54 rejections

That's okay--don't feel bad for me--or dejected because you may have as many or more.

I did attend the writer's conference and at first felt it was a total bust. When I sent in my 20 pages for the agent to review before our face-to-face I assumed she was looking for thrillers. Well it turns out she actually missrepresented herself. When I asked her why she listed her desire to represent thrillers, she stated: "Well, I like thrilling fiction." She actually said this to me. So totally, not even nearly the same thing in any way at all. Once I explained to her what a thriller was, I suggested she change her "desires". Quite embarassed, she agreed that she probably should.

Anyway, the very last speaker of the 4 day experience was a wonderful gentleman who represented Latino Literary. I enjoyed him so much that I decided why not send him my query? All he can do is say no, right? So I did and although he was impressed with my query, he does not represent thrillers. The upside is that he enjoyed what I proposed so much that he gave me the name of an editor (A+ publishing house) and encouraged me to contact her and be sure to mention his name and that he approved the introduction.

Under the Subject line in the e-mail I included the info: REFERED BY: and this gents name. I believe by doing so it gave her the confidence to open the e-mail. Then intrigued by details in the query itself she replied: I'd be happy to look at your manuscript.

Not chapters, mind you. The complete manuscript.

When I picked myself off the floor I immediately began my final polish. I expect to have it in the mail by Tuesday afternoon as I promised to have it in her hands next week.

So there is hope out there fellow writers. If you believe in what you have to offer, have heard supportive comments from other writers/experienced readers, and are not afraid to receive harsh criticism from critique groups (which you much join in my opinion), keep at it.

This by no means mine is a success story just yet. I will be awaiting what this editor thinks sitting on pins and needles. But, I believe in celebrating every single success along the way. There are a lot of baby steps and if we don't enjoy each one the end cannot be appreciated completely. There's too much dissapointment not to revel in each nod of approval.

There you have it. I'll keep you posted. Thanks for your interest.
the debster