Interesting. First conclusion I think can be drawn from this is that someone screens Sara Megibow's queries. The reason I think this is a safe conclusion is there are no wrong genre (a big chunk of easy rejects for agents is sending the wrong genre/wrong agent -- since there are none here, I think it's safe to assume that someone screens out the real trash). Also not included are the grossly bad -- ones where you wonder if English is a language even used by the writer.
Based upon what we see in QLH, people at AW will avoid the gross rejection process and will actually make it to the agent.
So if you make it to the agent, you've got something in your query that attracts a minimum of attention. And then a whopping 50% are rejected because of simple editing failures (queries number 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10). Notice how it isn't one single error that sinks the query, but multiple errors. Basically you've got to master the basics of grammar and spelling. This error isn't too common on QLH, probably because we scare the crap out of people for that level of sloppy work.
Number 1 is commonly seen in memoirs and memoir-type fiction, although I've seen it in other genres. QLH has quite a few of this error. It seems to be caused by writers focusing on themselves and not the reader.
Number 2 is seen occasionally in QLH and just doesn't work. It's basic psychology. Until I'm really interested in something, I don't go looking for it. Yet people are convinced that they are that interesting that people will look.
Numbers 3 & 6 are the interesting ones. A decent query, possibly would get you an A in a class, but just not quite good enough. At 20%, this is a big group, and would represent an even larger group in QLH. And there's a possibility that 3 & 6 would be accepted by another agent. The almost there query (as well as the almost there manuscript) are the hardest to improve.
Number 4 probably got rejected by quite a few agents. It's clear it has a few problems. But it's good enough (which is actually a fairly high standard in this case). It's not perfect.
And if it is eventually posted someone, people will say it's not perfect and how come my imperfect doesn't work as well. And the answer is real simple. This one was good enough and yours isn't. There's a line between good enough and not quite there, but that line is definitely there.
It's always dangerous looking at a small sample size. But out of the queries that make it to the agents (I'm assuming most agents use someone to get rid of the gross errors), I think these percentages are probably pretty accurate. But these type rejections, providing the story has the legs to make it work, are the ones most likely to be improved by a process of good editing, beta readers, and places like QLH.
Yet each of these queries that were rejected were probably viewed by the writer as 'good enough,' if not pretty near perfect. And I'd bet at least 6 of the people who got rejected would not easily accept that there query isn't good enough and that the agent is wrong. People hate the idea of change.
Best of luck,
Jim Clark-Dawe
