Some time ago I posted the question “how much do agents get involved in the editing of a manuscript.” Today I received another R from an agent. I queried this particular one on the basis of her impressive record, handles my genre and the claim that she’s a hands on editor.
She replied with the following (edited): Thank you very much for your patience during the reviewing process for XXX. Although X and I were impressed with the intricacies of a plot well researched, we have, unfortunately, decided to pass on the opportunity represent your manuscript. In the end, the sheer barrage of plot points so near the beginning, which is arguably the most important part of a successful book, tipped the balance for us in favor of this decision.
Be encouraged: you have a great voice and skill with creating life-like settings and vivid, even cinematic, scenes--both key to this genre. And as stated before, the book's plot is intriguing and timely.
So, I wrote back and asked for clarification, what exactly was the “barrage of plot points they didn’t like.”
Here’s the reply: Two things, in the main:
· The first "reveal" beginning on page 10, in which Mike asks Clint how they ended up in Libya, goes on for nearly 1 1/2 pgs and feels both overwhelming and a bit contrived in its placement and execution.
· Then, as we get into Chapter 2, we're soon inundated with Isaac Myers' life history, something that might be better told in snippets at appropriate moments in the story. NOTE. This paragraph is ¾ of a page long.
So, I wrote again, saying that those parts are easy to be fixed. Se replied to do it and resubmit.
Now, here’s my question. Wouldn’t an agent just as easily take a red pen and cut a few lines. Isn’t the agent supposed to be the first line of editorial change? If two people at the agency read it and both liked the plot, voice, POV, shouldn’t they spend some time on helping trim the overflow?
I hear about all these agents who work with the author on rewrites. Where are they?
It’s my bad luck that I run into agents who expect a manuscript ready for submission.
Am I making a mistake by querying only top of the line agents?
She replied with the following (edited): Thank you very much for your patience during the reviewing process for XXX. Although X and I were impressed with the intricacies of a plot well researched, we have, unfortunately, decided to pass on the opportunity represent your manuscript. In the end, the sheer barrage of plot points so near the beginning, which is arguably the most important part of a successful book, tipped the balance for us in favor of this decision.
Be encouraged: you have a great voice and skill with creating life-like settings and vivid, even cinematic, scenes--both key to this genre. And as stated before, the book's plot is intriguing and timely.
So, I wrote back and asked for clarification, what exactly was the “barrage of plot points they didn’t like.”
Here’s the reply: Two things, in the main:
· The first "reveal" beginning on page 10, in which Mike asks Clint how they ended up in Libya, goes on for nearly 1 1/2 pgs and feels both overwhelming and a bit contrived in its placement and execution.
· Then, as we get into Chapter 2, we're soon inundated with Isaac Myers' life history, something that might be better told in snippets at appropriate moments in the story. NOTE. This paragraph is ¾ of a page long.
So, I wrote again, saying that those parts are easy to be fixed. Se replied to do it and resubmit.
Now, here’s my question. Wouldn’t an agent just as easily take a red pen and cut a few lines. Isn’t the agent supposed to be the first line of editorial change? If two people at the agency read it and both liked the plot, voice, POV, shouldn’t they spend some time on helping trim the overflow?
I hear about all these agents who work with the author on rewrites. Where are they?
It’s my bad luck that I run into agents who expect a manuscript ready for submission.
Am I making a mistake by querying only top of the line agents?
