Agents that don't respond to email queries

One very nice agent explained that she responds personally to all SASE snail mail queries but doesn't really care for email even though she accepts them. But she is inundated with them and can't respond to them all. Agents probably get more email queries than snail mail queries, that's why they can't always respond unless they are interested.

I've read interviews with agents where they say that writers are more likely to respond to email rejections and attempt to dialogue with the agent via email instead of just taking no for an answer. Some writers probably do this by snail mail too, but I'd imagine it's more frequent when they can just click "Reply" in a post-rejection frenzy.

I like to hear back (even if it is negative) so I only equery when they specifically say it's what they prefer.

GeneBrighton said:

What is it with agents that demand you query only them, accept email submissions, but feel it is okay not to respond.

Click to expand...

I've never heard of an agent wanting an exclusive query.
And in my opinion, if they ask for an exclusive partial or full, they should respond yes or no - even if it's an e-submission - within a reasonable amount of time. That's why it's better, if you grant an exclusive, to state the time - say, six weeks. So if you don't get an answer within that time, you can move on to submitting to other agents even without notifiying said agent.

But an exclusive QUERY? Nevr do that!!!

This is a trend that's catching on, and it irritates me. Now I'm seeing it in the publishers. I've emailed queries, partials and fulls to about 17 small presses. Two answered back that they received the subs. No one else has given me any communication and it's been over four months. I still have some time in the sand dial, and I guess it is holiday season approaching.

Agents don't want to reject in email in detail or short abstract because this leaves the chance open for a rebuttle (sp?) email back, which sometimes leads to heated or disparaging comments, extra time, and general frustration. It seems that many are beginning to adopt this "No news is bad news" way of rejection.

The majority have been fine with me. But in the last two years, the numbers are climbing for ghost agents. It seems that the delete button is getting just to easy to hit nowadays.

Tri

i understand not wanting to get involved in a discussion, which some writers in email lala land will try to do, but i also wish they could just send me a "no thanks, not for us" form email rejection, just so that I know it's been rejected, and not lost, deleted accidently, or whatever happens to equeries.

Then I know I can move on, with that agent scratched off of my list.

Right now, because of the financial situation I'm in, equeries are all I can go with. I'm hopeful that in the new year all this will be over with, and then I can query the snail mail agents on my list...but it's just so frustrating to not know what happened with those other queries. (I eventually just assumed rejection on them).

Personally, I wouldn't send it return receipt requested because a) it might aggravate the agent, and b) the recipient has the option of saying "no" when prompted about a response receipt.

(Wow, that's the most alliteration of the letter "r" I've ever written).

Unless you get an e-mail bounce message, you can pretty much assume the message got through. Whether it was actually read before being deleted, that's anybody's guess

I only use e-mail for queries if that's all they will take. The darn things may or may not go through, they are too easy to dismiss (delete unread), the formatting you send may not be what they see when they open it in whatever program they're using, and I don't think they carry the same weight with agents/editors (with exceptions, of course) as a proper paper-and-ink letter with an SASE. Just my thoughts.

Oh, and I would never set the return receipt thingie. I find them annoying myself, so I assume agents and editors would too.