Manuscripts and Submitting

My experience is that for fiction, you need a complete manuscript -- unless you're well established.

For nonfiction, a sale is often made from a proposal, particularly if you have specific credentials for writing the nonfiction book you're proposing.

A good agent can get your manuscript read by editors you wouldn't be able to approach yourself.

As Teriann said, it's unlikely that an editor or agent would take on a new author if their fiction manuscript is incomplete. The fear would be that, without a previous history of published books, the author might not be able to deliver on a final, publish-ready manuscript.

Yup. Despite the rare stories and lore, the fairly clear and accepted is that whether you are querying agents or editors, if it's fiction, and you are an unknown, then you need a complete and polished manuscript.

Nonfiction is another thing, and I've heard non-fiction often gets interest if not sales from proposal and sample chapters.

But if it's fiction, finish and polish before querying anyone.

~suki

If you're a well-published writer, or if you've just sold one book that did well to a particular publisher, you generally sell the next book before you write it, sometimes on the basis of a short outline, sometimes on the basis of sample chapters.

If you are not a well-published writer,you have to write the whole damn book.

Nonfiction works both ways. Sometimes all you need is a proposal, sometimes you still need to write the book. It depends on who you are, how much the publisher wants the book, the type of nonfiction it is, and a host of other things.

Editors need complete manuscripts before offering a contract for the same reason agents need a complete manuscript before taking on a writer. Until after you've written a great book, no agent, no editor, and no writer, has a clue whether the writer can even finish a book, let alone write a great one worth the thousands of dollars it will cost just to publish it.

I definitely recommend going the agent route first, because an agent can get your work read faster and taken more seriously. Also, once you send to an editor, often after s/he's read it, it's a done deal and you can't resubmit. An agent should have experience revising and editing his client's works and can help you have the best possible MS to send to editors.

ElizaL said:

I definitely recommend going the agent route first, because an agent can get your work read faster and taken more seriously. Also, once you send to an editor, often after s/he's read it, it's a done deal and you can't resubmit. An agent should have experience revising and editing his client's works and can help you have the best possible MS to send to editors.

Click to expand...

No agent should ever be allowed to revise or edit a writer's work. Editors do a far, far better job of this, and are every bit as willing to go through this as any agent. More so, since it's actually the editor's job.

An good editor gives a novel more than one chance, if it's remotely publishable, and if it isn't, no agent can help.

Riddle-me-this: if it takes you a decade to not even finish a book, how on Earth are you going to cope if you send a partial to an agent who then expects you to finish the entire novel, like, yesterday?

Jamesaritchie said:

No agent should ever be allowed to revise or edit a writer's work. Editors do a far, far better job of this, and are every bit as willing to go through this as any agent. More so, since it's actually the editor's job.

An good editor gives a novel more than one chance, if it's remotely publishable, and if it isn't, no agent can help.

Click to expand...

That might have been the case a few years ago, James, but now it's just not true.

I know several agents who edit their clients' books before submissions; I know a couple of editors who became agents in order to have more editorial contact with the writers they work with. So long as the agents know what they're doing then it has to help a book's chances of selling.

scarletpeaches said:

Riddle-me-this: if it takes you a decade to not even finish a book, how on Earth are you going to cope if you send a partial to an agent who then expects you to finish the entire novel, like, yesterday?

Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing myself.

The way I see it, if you don't have the manuscript completed, there are two possible outcomes:

One, you're honest about it and you put in your query that the novel isn't complete. The agent/editor sees that and says, "Oh, well, it had promise" and tosses it in the circular file.

Two, you're dishonest and don't mention the lack of completion. The agent/editor requests a full and you say "Uh, well, it's not ready yet." And it goes in the circular file. Either way, you lose.

Finish first, then query.

Old Hack said:

That might have been the case a few years ago, James, but now it's just not true.

I know several agents who edit their clients' books before submissions; I know a couple of editors who became agents in order to have more editorial contact with the writers they work with. So long as the agents know what they're doing then it has to help a book's chances of selling.

Click to expand...

You just stated the biggest myth in publishing. It certainly, absolutely is true today. Any writer who still sells books will tell you that editors still edit, still ask for rewrites and revisions, still have a hands on relationship with writers.

And no matter what is or isn't true about editors, only a damned fool allows an agent to revise or edit a manuscript. I know writers who do this, as well, and they're just screwing themselves. At best, this is a sure and certain road to being a mid-list writer. At worst, it means complete destruction of a promising career. Agents are not writers, and agents are not editors, no matter their background, and it's insane to allow them to attempt to be either.

Jamesaritchie said:

And no matter what is or isn't true about editors, only a damned fool allows an agent to revise or edit a manuscript. I know writers who do this, as well, and they're just screwing themselves. At best, this is a sure and certain road to being a mid-list writer. At worst, it means complete destruction of a promising career. Agents are not writers, and agents are not editors, no matter their background, and it's insane to allow them to attempt to be either.

Click to expand...

Really, James? Really?

When are you going to stop posting in absolutes without backing any of your Golden Words with cold, hard facts?

Please, please, please stop dispensing your dubious pearls of wisdom to people who come hear to learn the facts, not the Publishing World according to Jamesaritchie.

Fed up.

Jamesaritchie said:

You just stated the biggest myth in publishing. It certainly, absolutely is true today. Any writer who still sells books will tell you that editors still edit, still ask for rewrites and revisions, still have a hands on relationship with writers.

Click to expand...

James, I didn't suggest that editors no longer edited: you've extrapolated that one all on your own. But many do have less time for editing now than they might have had twenty years ago.

And no matter what is or isn't true about editors, only a damned fool allows an agent to revise or edit a manuscript. I know writers who do this, as well, and they're just screwing themselves. At best, this is a sure and certain road to being a mid-list writer. At worst, it means complete destruction of a promising career.

Click to expand...

And yet I have a couple of friends whose new agents edit their books before they go to their publishers, and both of them went from respectable advances to mind-bogglingly big advances when they moved to their new agents. You're making assertions which just aren't true.

Agents are not writers, and agents are not editors, no matter their background, and it's insane to allow them to attempt to be either.

Click to expand...

What about big-hitting agents who started off as editors, like Piers Blofeld? What about agents who have written best-selling books, like Carole Blake? Would you say that their clients were insane to allow either of them to edit their books when it's common knowledge that they both make huge deals for their clients?

James, I know you have some very good advice for writers: but you also have some very fixed ideas which aren't necessarily in line with how things work now.

Well, one of my dear friends is a damn fool, then. She revised her manuscript at her agent's suggestion--major revisions--for almost a year, and now it's a lead title with a major publisher, multiple international sales, a film option, and lots of buzz before the book even comes out.

It all depends on your relationship with your agent, and what you think of their suggestions.

I'll take Damn Fool over Still Waiting any day.


ETA: By "Still Waiting" I meant me. If given a choice between taking what I think are good revision suggestions from an agent, or waiting for just the right editor to love it warts-and-all, I would do the revisions. This based on what I've seen happen for my friends over the last few years, and the kind of agent I would personally want.

James, would you just stop with this? You are wrong.

I revised both of my now SOLD novels with my agent. The one that's already been published was nominated for a Strand Cr1tic's Award (you can look that up if you'd like), is going into a 50K paperback release, was optioned for a film and an audio book. I have more international news that I still can't share, much as I'd like to.

And I'm not Clovia's friend she talks about above. I haven't had that level of success, but I've done pretty damn well, and I owe a lot of my success to the editorial wisdom of my agent.

So seriously? Cut it out.

Jamesaritchie said:

And no matter what is or isn't true about editors, only a damned fool allows an agent to revise or edit a manuscript. I know writers who do this, as well, and they're just screwing themselves. At best, this is a sure and certain road to being a mid-list writer. At worst, it means complete destruction of a promising career. Agents are not writers, and agents are not editors, no matter their background, and it's insane to allow them to attempt to be either.

Click to expand...

James,

I'll totally agree that editors still edit - and I wish people would stop saying otherwise.

But I'll also say so do many agents - and I wish you would stop saying otherwise

I think no one will argue with you if you posted that you will never allow an agent to edit your manuscripts because you do not believe any agent you have met or worked with has the experience and expertise to offer you effective suggestions. Then that would clearly be your experiences. And no one would argue with you.

And I don't think anyone would argue if you said you have seen some writers ruin their manuscripts by listening to an ineffective agent's editorial advice. I think we've all seen that a time or two, as well.

Where we have issues is when you state as fact absolutes that are simply untrue. You can not prove, with facts, that no single writer has ever bettered their manuscript or their career path by taking editorial advice from an agent.

More importantly, you can't disprove that many writers have improved both their manuscripts and their career paths by taking editorial advice from effective agents.

Crap like the bolded bit above, that is offensive and entirely 100% untrue. Some very, very, very, very well-know, effective and successful writers allow their agents to critique and offer editorial advise on their manuscripts. Every writer I know, in fact. And of the many writers I personally know who have sold books in the last 24 months, every single one of them has an editorial agent. Every single one.

So, you can say that you don't believe in allowing an agent to offer you editorial advice. And you can say you know people who have listened to ineffective agents to their own detriment.

But please, please, please stop saying crap like the bolded bits when many people have the facts and experiences to disprove them.

Maybe none of the agents you have worked with or came in contact with, or who worked with or came in contact with your friends, had the skills and experience to provide sound editorial advice, but many, many, many agents do. And they do so with good results for the client.

~suki

So much for respecting your fellow writer.

ZapAdRem said:

I've been working on the same story for the past ten years. It's gone through five whole revisions

Click to expand...

I know we all work at different speeds, but this still strikes me as worrying. I imagine agents and editors will be glad to know you're obviously invested in your book, but I don't think they'll be thrilled with the ten year issue.

Jamesaritchie said:

And no matter what is or isn't true about editors, only a damned fool allows an agent to revise or edit a manuscript. I know writers who do this, as well, and they're just screwing themselves. At best, this is a sure and certain road to being a mid-list writer. At worst, it means complete destruction of a promising career. Agents are not writers, and agents are not editors, no matter their background, and it's insane to allow them to attempt to be either.

Click to expand...

James,

How you come to such sweeping conclusions for everyone, especially when they have no basis in fact, is truly amazing. Please, speak for yourself,and it would be helpful to give some examples, if they exist.

Jamesaritchie said:

You just stated the biggest myth in publishing. It certainly, absolutely is true today. Any writer who still sells books will tell you that editors still edit, still ask for rewrites and revisions, still have a hands on relationship with writers.

Click to expand...

This is what I understand to be true. When I attended an agent's panel at a writer's conference last October, the agents all said they do not edit or revise and leave the edits and rewriting to the editor and the writer.

So, some of you are saying this is not the norm?

Jamesaritchie said:

only a damned fool allows an agent to revise or edit a manuscript.

Click to expand...

So I'm a damned fool? Thanks.

The agent I have an R&R with made some spot-on observations about my novel, and her editorial suggestions have made it 100% better than it was. She made an amazing connection to the novel, and if she offers me representation, I will leap at the chance to work with someone who so obviously got my novel. I wouldn't say that's a damned foolish thing for me to do.

Susan Littlefield said:

This is what I understand to be true. When I attended an agent's panel at a writer's conference last October, the agents all said they do not edit or revise and leave the edits and rewriting to the editor and the writer.

So, some of you are saying this is not the norm?

Click to expand...

In my experience, no it's not. My agent, along with my friends' agents all edit. I can speak, beyond a doubt, my agent's suggestions are SPOT ON and have made my story SO MUCH BETTER!

Susan Littlefield said:

This is what I understand to be true. When I attended an agent's panel at a writer's conference last October, the agents all said they do not edit or revise and leave the edits and rewriting to the editor and the writer.

So, some of you are saying this is not the norm?

Click to expand...

I'd be interested in knowing which agents were on the panel, because of all the agents I've communicated with, met and heard at various conferences, and researched in my own agent search, every single one was editorial to some extent.

So...it could be a genre distinction, I suppose, but I'd be surprised if an entire panel agreed they do not offer revision notes. Would you mind sharing their names - either on list or through PM?

I'm honestly curious - as I often answer questions for other writers who are researching agents, and would love to be able to provide some names of non-editorial agents - because I currently know of only a few non-editorial agents, and none who represent MG/YA writers and are recommended.

~suki

My agent used to be an editor, and one of the reasons I love her so much is because her suggestions ALWAYS make sense and ALWAYS make my manuscript 1000x better. If that makes me a fool, then so be it.