What's the point of (digital) partials?

SS,

I have no explanation, except perhaps it's just easier for them to request a partial to see if they want to read more. I'm just happy if they ask for a sample, or even three or four pages.

Ask to sample a wine at any restaurant. They bring you just that, a sample and not a whole glass full. If you like the sample, then you request a whole glass. If not, the restaurant has not wasted a whole glass of wine.

At the restuarnt, you are the customer. The restaurant wants to sell you the whole glass but is glad to offer a sample to first to make sure you are happy with the product.

In the case of agents, you are the restaurant and you have please the agent/customer with a sample of your wine...

I've assumed it helps manages the writer's expectations - a partial is less of a commitment, less hope-inducing than a full, less of a hit when they pass without comments (which they do, obviously, fairly often), etc.

Think about how much more we writers tend to whine when we get a form R on a full. With a partial, the agent can read 50 pages or so, and if they aren't interested in more, they can just pass. It's less of an issue.

And maybe it's even a check on them - ie, if they finish the partial, and if they aren't eager to get the rest now, it's a sign they're not that into it. Maybe.

~suki

I'm with Suki here. And, it's helpful for the writers to be able to judge their manuscript based on how far it goes.

sleepsheep said:

I realize that I don't understand a lot about what goes on in the offices (and minds) of agents, and this is just one of those things. Why do agents request partials (and here, I mean, digital documents sent over email)? Why not save on the back-and-forth and just ask for the full manuscript? If you don't like it after three chapters, just stop reading - no rule that says you must read the full manuscript just because you have it.

Click to expand...

Because a full manuscript is a waste of both the agent and writers' time and money for something I might not read past the first three sentences of.

gothicangel said:

Because a full manuscript is a waste of both the agent and writers' time and money for something I might not read past the first three sentences of.

Click to expand...

We're talking about digital partials here, though; there's zero difference between attaching a full MS or a partial MS.

While for some agents it's a matter of storage space, like you said, most agents who've been asked about this say it's to manage writer expectations.

I also imagine that for a few, it's a leftover from ye olde days.

I think it probably is to do with reader expectations.

There are two editors I can name who invited partials at first contact, but now allow me to send the full. One said yesterday, "Don't bother with the first three chapters stuff; I only ask for that in case I get bored early in the book but with your stuff I doubt that'll happen."

So it seems to me that if an editor likes your work, they'll likely accept fulls in future, but initially it's a partial to stop you getting your hopes up and possibly going psycho on them if/when they say no.

You were complaining about sending paper and then complain about sending a partial (even digitally)?

It's greener to send a partial than a full. Less energy to move at 4 or 5 megawatts per megabyte.

Or go with the above reason, because storage of your manuscript also consumes energy, eats up storage space, and downloading 100 full manuscripts can take time, even if you have super fast Internet.

Honestly, I love people here and I love helping where I can, but the past two questions feels like just complaints rather than actual questions and in no way helps anyone.

Partials get you quicker replies, usually. If you send an editor a full, you know it'll take longer for them to get through, you're liable to get impatient, maybe nudge them a little too early...

With partials, there's less chance of a newbie author getting impatient and the editor knows they'll be able to reply quickly, either a 'no' because you can tell pretty much immediately if this book is good enough, or a 'yes, send more' to reassure a jittery writer.

If you send the full straight away, you're liable to sit there for weeks panicking, "Do they like it? Do they? I wonder if they like it. I wonder if they'll buy it. Should I email them?"

With three chapters, most of the time you get a response in a week or two.

Requesting partials may be to manage the writer's expectations, or it may be to manage the agent's expectations. In any case, of the fourteen requests for material on the book I'm now subbing, twelve were fulls and two were partials. All were email as I haven't sent out any snail mail queries yet. So, in my experience, most agents seem to have abandoned the partial stage, at least those who have gone electronic.

I've assumed it helps manages the writer's expectations - a partial is less of a commitment, less hope-inducing than a full, less of a hit when they pass without comments (which they do, obviously, fairly often), etc.

Click to expand...

This makes the most sense to me.

Also, from what I'm seeing, the agents who request partials (at least for me) seem to be the ones who don't request pages with the query. I think they request partials because they like your premise, but they want to make sure you can write before they "commit" to requesting a full.

Corinne Duyvis said:

I also imagine that for a few, it's a leftover from ye olde days.

Click to expand...

Yep, I think so, too, like double-spaces between sentences, a remnant from when we all typed our manuscripts; and people still insisting on underlining book titles, from when we couldn't italicize on a typewriter.

Methinks it's a leftover.

I did have one agent request a full and I was like okay, and she was well it makes more sense, doesn't it? If I don't like it, I can just delete the whole thing. If I do like it, I can read on.

My agent does asks for partials as attachments for new writers, and there's a couple of good reasons for it. The partial must come with a synopsis/outline, and this makes all the difference. If the first three chapters or fifty pages are interesting, the synopsis/outline then comes into play. This tells her whether the rest of the book has a plot/story/ending that's also interesting, and does so without the need to read an entire novel.

This partial with synopsis/outline is also a package she can show to editors who also need to know whether the novel is interesting enough to read all the way through before actually having to read the whole thing.

And if the editor does ask for the entire novel, and wants to buy it, he may well show this same package to the acquisition board. Acquisition boards often make a decision without ever reading the novel itself. They read a partial, or sometimes just the synopsis/outline, the editor puts in his opinion, marketing throws out some numbers, and the editor gets a yes or a no.

The point being that the writer, the agent, and the editor often needs a partial synopsis package even if the novel sells, and it simply works better to have it up front. It saves time for everyone.

Sleepsheep--I thought it was a valid question. I've seen it asked before on agent blogs.

jaksen said:

Yep, I think so, too, like double-spaces between sentences, a remnant from when we all typed our manuscripts; and people still insisting on underlining book titles, from when we couldn't italicize on a typewriter.

Methinks it's a leftover.

I did have one agent request a full and I was like okay, and she was well it makes more sense, doesn't it? If I don't like it, I can just delete the whole thing. If I do like it, I can read on.

Click to expand...

You could always italicize on a typewriter, at least since I was a lad. But it was a bad idea then, and it's a worse idea now. I don't think anything is ever done because it's a holdover from typewriter days. Everything I know about in publishing, including partials, is done for very good reason.

Jamesaritchie-I've never really found an answer as to why italics must be underlined. Can you help me?

Jamesaritchie said:

You could always italicize on a typewriter, at least since I was a lad.

Click to expand...

Really? I thought you were older than the IBM Selectric?

An agent asked me to send my full manuscript (after reading 50 pages requested, pasted in an e-mail) and indicated I could send either digital or hard copy. Although most likely all of us are now writing on a computer, is sending a hard copy to an agent a better idea? I guess this is the same kind of argument I hear about e-readers vs 'real' books. A lot of people say that reading on a screen is just not the same experience. Might an agent feel the same way even though they may not say so? Does sending a digital copy have any other impact on the agent, either real or subconscious? Like, will the agent think I'm being cheap sending my manuscript as an attachment? I'm not really very concerned, but this thread started me thinking about an agents potential reaction to reading on a screen vs hard copy.

The idea an agent would want to trick you or test you in making you choose which to send your MS as is a little silly. Agents are busy people who pretty much say it like it is. If this agent is giving you a choice, it is to make YOUR life easier, they are being nice. They aren't trying to be evil and test you and see if you make the correct decision on whether they would rather read your MS on screen or not (and just because it's sent digitally doesn't mean they'll read it on screen).

My point is, send it however you like. Clearly the agent doesn't have a preference, so the decision is up to you.

Corinne Duyvis said:

I also imagine that for a few, it's a leftover from ye olde days.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with this.

As JAR pointed out, everything we do has a reason.

Jamesaritchie said:

You could always italicize on a typewriter, at least since I was a lad. But it was a bad idea then, and it's a worse idea now. I don't think anything is ever done because it's a holdover from typewriter days. Everything I know about in publishing, including partials, is done for very good reason.

Click to expand...

I don't like to disagree with you, I really don't. My Royal couldn't italicize, circa 1950. (Hand-me-down.)

My Canon electric, circa 1966 didn't either.

My office model Olivetti didn't either. The keys were fixed, Courier font.

My Sears model I bought around 1980 DID italicize. It came with circular discs with diff fonts on them.

Perhaps I am so much older than you that I can remember and owned these older models. I do not have any of them anymore, except the Royal. It's in my mother's cellar.

I was born in 1976, and have never been able to italicise on a typewriter.

The only way you could on a word processor is by changing the daisywheel, which I never bothered to do. I just underlined that which I wanted to italicise.