Literary agencies whose agents by their own admission are drowning in queries (aren't they all?), whose websites have on-line submission forms. Why offer the wannabees yet another way to contribute to the overload? Do these agencies really think they're going to find the next (insert name of your favorite best-selling author here) by throwing themselves open to the unwashed masses?
S. doesn't get it
- Thread starter SylviaDiamandez
- Start date
- Status
The only way agents are going to find their next new sale is by reading queries. They may be indundated, but that's part of the business.
What Chaos said. You're never going to catch a fish if you don't toss a line into the giant ocean.
Plus, adding a submission form means you'll get uniform submissions, which are probably easier to sift through.
Plus, adding a submission form means you'll get uniform submissions, which are probably easier to sift through.
Why is someone who uses an online submission form any more likely to be a "wannabe" or "unwashed"? Even the worst writers can still afford stamps.
It seems to me it would save the agent extra work by allowing email queries. That way, they'd cut down on the number of unsolicited manuscript sumissions. Many agents allow email queries incl. synopsis. That way they can read a short blurb and decide whether or not to proceed any further. If they cut down this way on the number of manuscripts they receive, they will be able to focus on the ones they are truly interested in.
Are you for real?
I love the idea of online submission (me being a wannabee, though, could possibly hinder the effectiveness of this post). I don't think it enables more wannabee writers to submit, but just makes it easier on the writer & the agent to get through the process. The writer is more likely than not looking up the agent online anyway, so they get to skip a step while querying, making it cheaper & convenient for them. The agent gets uniform submissions (mostly. Nobody's stopping the writer from adding unwanted things to those fields or misunderstanding what they're asking for), & can peruse them quickly, & doesn't have to worry about whether a SASE was included & sending back (or tossing) a ms., especially since they won't have one unless they solicit it at that point. More queries, less slush.
What I don't understand are the ones that have fields asking to submit different things than what they request for a written query letter. One I saw had three different questions regarding experience & a spot for a query-letter-type summary, but if you mailed the submission, they wanted the query letter, synopsis, and a few pages of the ms.
What I don't understand are the ones that have fields asking to submit different things than what they request for a written query letter. One I saw had three different questions regarding experience & a spot for a query-letter-type summary, but if you mailed the submission, they wanted the query letter, synopsis, and a few pages of the ms.
SylviaDiamandez said:
This from a person who refers to themselves in the third person all the time.
Just where do you think all those best-selling authors came from? Think about that for a moment. (Clue: it's not the best-selling authors r us t!tty bar.)
SylviaDiamandez said:
I wash! I also don't care for e-mail queries, but that's just my preference.
But I agree with the others, if you don't read queries, you won't find the next (insert name of next best-selling author here). It's just the downside of the game.
I'm a wannabee (why else would I be a member of this site?), but I object to being called 'unwashed'. You don't know me yet you feel free to insult me.
I like e-mail queries, and I'll submit partials or fulls by email if given the opportunity. It's fast and easy. It also saves trees.
I like e-mail queries, and I'll submit partials or fulls by email if given the opportunity. It's fast and easy. It also saves trees.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,661
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
SylviaDiamandez said:
I didn't realize that using snail mail was so highbrow that the unwashed masses hadn't figured out how to use it yet.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 21,856
- Reaction score
- 10,453
I think there's a distinction to be made here between non-wannabee and don't-wannabee....Tish Davidson said:
The problem I see with e-mail submissions is that it is so easy to submit that many aspiring authors submit scattershot rather than researching the agent, publisher or magazine and finding the right one for their work. As any editor or agent will tell you, they get tons and tons of submissions that are totally inappropriate because they are not in a genre they represent. This does tend to fill up the e-mailbox. I think e-submissions are generally a good thing, but if you have to pay postage and photocopying costs, it is a sure bet you will be more selective in targeting queries.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 7,676
- Reaction score
- 5,784
- Location
- A Little South of Sanity
- Website
- www.ginikoch.com
Who Is S...?
...and why are we letting her work us up in this way?
I read a paragraph written to get everyone's knickers in a twist. I also note that S has not reappeared at all. Perhaps S only gets online once a day for 5 minutes and we'll hear from her tomorrow at the same Bat-time on this same Bat-channel and she'll either say she didn't mean it as it came off or she will post another paragraph destined to create consternation.
Or perhaps her work here is done, and she has signed off, happy in the knowledge that there are a lot of folks spending their valuable time trying to make some sense of her post.
Perhaps I shall never know...
...and why are we letting her work us up in this way?
I read a paragraph written to get everyone's knickers in a twist. I also note that S has not reappeared at all. Perhaps S only gets online once a day for 5 minutes and we'll hear from her tomorrow at the same Bat-time on this same Bat-channel and she'll either say she didn't mean it as it came off or she will post another paragraph destined to create consternation.
Or perhaps her work here is done, and she has signed off, happy in the knowledge that there are a lot of folks spending their valuable time trying to make some sense of her post.
Perhaps I shall never know...
The non-wannabes are the alreadyhaves or alreadytheres. (Like you.)Tish Davidson said:
The don't-wannabes are the dontwannaevengotheres, beingstephenkingdoesntexcitemes or poets.
Neither are to be confused with the neverweres, hasbeens or almostmadeits.
Edited: Bah, grumble, aka_eraser, always picking on me, not fair, etc. etc.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 21,856
- Reaction score
- 10,453
(eta: while I was writing this post, Euan clarified it perfectly.
Except for the "poets" bit -- what's going on there?)
Non-wannabee -- someone who's already a "bee" : that's how I interpreted your original response, Tish. I read it to mean you weren't a wannabee, because you're actually a writer.
Don't-wannabee -- someone who's not even interested.
Carmy said,
So, to accommodate both your comment and Carmy's, I drew a distinction between those who are looking to get into the game, and those who are already in it.
I hope I've brought the subtle distinction into sharper relief.
Except for the "poets" bit -- what's going on there?)
Here's how I saw it:Tish Davidson said:
Non-wannabee -- someone who's already a "bee" : that's how I interpreted your original response, Tish. I read it to mean you weren't a wannabee, because you're actually a writer.
Don't-wannabee -- someone who's not even interested.
Carmy said,
As I read that comment, the point was that members of this site are people who want to write. If they didn't, they wouldn't be here, right?
So, to accommodate both your comment and Carmy's, I drew a distinction between those who are looking to get into the game, and those who are already in it.
I hope I've brought the subtle distinction into sharper relief.
Last edited:
As an editor who took both e-mail and snail mail submissions, I can tell you for sure that the snail mailers were the far weirder bunch. I got the most inappropriate submissions by mail... (stuff like "Please publish my manuscript about how I see images of Abraham Lincoln in my cottage cheese and we will both make millions of dollars"). Don't get me wrong-- I got them by e-mail, too, but the ratio was a lot more in favor of weirdoes by post.
JennaGlatzer said:
Hmm. I would have guessed it the other way around. But I don't eat cottage cheese. I did grow a cucumber last summer that looked just like Newt Gingrich, though.
caw.
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 12,862
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Location
- A Small Town in Germany
- Website
- www.sharonmaas.co.uk
blacbird said:
I would have, too.
And I do think a "Who's Who in Politics and World Terror, as Depicted in Foodstuffs" coffee table book would be a big hit. Don't you?
- Status