TABOO: Questions in a Query?

I've read that questions are cliched in queries and should be avoided in 99% of cases. However, perhaps someone more experienced could correct me if I am wrong.

If you follow the on-line interviews and blogs of many of the better-known lit agents, you will see a pervasive distaste for rhetorical questions in queries.

While there was a time in the past when rhetorical questions were considered the Clever Way To Go when querying, that was a trend that wore out its welcome a while ago.

Using them won't upset the agents. It will probably just provoke eye-rolling and sarcastic mental answers to the questions. But that's not what you're after either, is it?

I recommend avoiding rhetorical questions.

I would just get into QLH and read a bunch of queries, and go to some of the query critique sites like Miss Snark, Query Shark, BookEnds LLC, etc.

You'll get a sense fairly quickly for why agents tend to find questions gimmicky (they are), but also when that rule could effectively be broken.

Just assume you're the rule and not the exception. And since you're over 50 posts, you could post your query in QLH to see how people feel about your question. I've found as a query critiquer, I'm much more likely to find a question gimmicky at the beginning than at the end.

I'm going to echo everyone else, and say that I've read a lot of agent interviews/blogs that indicate they don't like rhetorical/open questions in queries.

Belld said:

I've read in books that starting a query with an open ended question as a hook is ok. You might want to check the dates on those books, cause while opening with a question was popular and acceptable five or ten years ago, agents are finding them annoying now. But I am wondering is it "ok" to have two questions in the body of your query? I'm not sure it's "ok" to even have one.

As suggested above read some updated sites like Queryshark, where Janet Reid rants about how much she (and other agents) hate the rhetorical questions. At one time they might have seem new and fresh, but everyone started doing them, and most people can't do them well.

What about ending the query with a question? Depends on the question.

What is everyone opinions. I like the sound of my query ending with a question but the last thing I want to do is upset agents.

Click to expand...

IMH(Not an Agent)O, vague, open-ended, rheotrical and cliched questions should be avoided. Agents probably get hundreds, if not thousands, of open-ended, vague questions that probably seem clever and interesting to the agents, but really are eye-roll-inducing.

BUT, if you have a specific question that relates directly to your book, and it compels the agent to read more then that's "ok."

If you are unsure if your "question" works, post your query in QLH and let the critters have a go at it.

The thing is, it's much easier to pose questions in a query than it is to write a query that shows what the story is about. Agents see right through that. The questions don't pique their interest in your story; they just give agents the idea that you can't write a proper query.

Take my opinion for what its worth, but it's not something I'd worry too much about. Having a rhetorical question or two in a query isn't an auto rejection. And even if an agent does reject it because of a rhetorical question then I'd be happy that i didn't have to work with someone so damn anal. JMO.

Ditto what others have said. Typically, there's better ways to phrase things. If you're not sure if you're a typical case, post in SYW. Just be aware that people there have seen a lot of questions in queries before. Also consider if it needs to be a question. For example:

"What would you do if you found out your dog is an alien?"
Vs.
"Ten-year-old Bobby Boberson just found out his dog is an alien."

Not only does the second line give me more info, it doesn't prompt me to snarky answers like, "That might be an interesting question if I actually had a dog."

kangolNcurlz said:

Take my opinion for what its worth, but it's not something I'd worry too much about. Having a rhetorical question or two in a query isn't an auto rejection. And even if an agent does reject it because of a rhetorical question then I'd be happy that i didn't have to work with someone so damn anal. JMO.

Click to expand...

When you start out from a neutral position and have mere seconds to make a positive impression, I personally wouldn't doing something that risks making a negative impression. There might not be quite enough positive left to overcome that deficit. Blithely ignoring common advice presented widely by the very people you want to think well of your work seems pretty counterproductive -- kind of like wearing jeans to a job interview where folks are expected to be wearing suits.

As others have suggested, run your query letter through QLH to get an idea of whether your question is a brilliant exception to the rule (it might well be) or if it's the same bloody thing that's been turning agents off for years.

Terie said:

When you start out from a neutral position and have mere seconds to make a positive impression, I personally wouldn't doing something that risks making a negative impression. There might not be quite enough positive left to overcome that deficit. Blithely ignoring common advice presented widely by the very people you want to think well of your work seems pretty counterproductive -- [...].

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't see it as this life and death situation that people are making it out to be and it's not something I'd personally stress over. An otherwise great query isn't going to be rejected by a sensible agent simply because of a 'cliched' rhetorical question or two. Agents don't expect perfect queries, and there's no such thing as a perfect query anyway since different agents prefer different things. I think all the stress writers go through when writing a query is compounded by agents and their special preferences that have no affect on whether the query is rejected or not... Because adding your bio at the top of the query instead of the bottom isn't going to get you rejected. Or because you said in your bio that you like walking your dog every Sat. when an agent said they hate any personal details that's not related to your book isn't going to get you rejected. Adding a cliche question or two isn't going to get you rejected. Sure, they might role their eyes, but I'd bet they're going to request sample pages if your query does what it's supposed to do - entice the agent to request pages.

Personally, I'm so over being afraid of agents and seeing them as God-like creatures who expect only perfection; they are human after all. I"m so over being unnecessarily stressed about having a 'perfect' query. I'm quite fine with having an enticing query, though. My perspective on queries has changed over the years and the more I've learned about them over the 3+ years I've been studying them the more I'm cutting out the stress and focusing on what really matters, and that doesn't include small nuances that have no bearing on whether it gets rejected or not.

kangolNcurlz said:

I'm afraid I don't see it as this life and death situation that people are making it out to be and it's not something I'd personally stress over.

Click to expand...

No stress; simply find another way to reword. We're writers. It's what we do.

An otherwise great query isn't going to be rejected by a sensible agent simply because of a 'cliched' rhetorical question or two.

Click to expand...

It might. Why take the chance? A Q is our way of showing an agent we write well. Don't we want to put our best foot forward?

Personally, I'm so over being afraid of agents and seeing them as God-like creatures who expect only perfection; they are human after all. I"m so over being unnecessarily stressed about having a 'perfect' query.

Click to expand...

No, Qs don't need to be perfect, but they need to be as good as we can make them. This is what we want to do, isn't it? Write and write well?

And agents--no one sees them as god-like, I don't think. They're professionals who only have so many hours in a day and they're going to pick the best of the best. Write as well as you can, with as few mistakes as you can, and that's it.

@heyjude,

Well sure. Write the best query you can. But for me, it's not coming at the sake of unwanted, and unnecessary, stress; and some writers do stress over these minor details. I'll take the risk of weeding out agents I wouldn't want to work with anyway.

And whether or not I can write well has nothing to do with whether I have a rhetorical question or two in my query or whether I have some other minor agent pet peeve in my query. I think most literary agents realize that.

kangolNcurlz said:

@heyjude,

Well sure. Write the best query you can. But for me, it's not coming at the sake of unwanted, and unnecessary, stress; and some writers do stress over these minor details. I'll take the risk of weeding out agents I wouldn't want to work with anyway.

And whether or not I can write well has nothing to do with whether I have a rhetorical question or two in my query or whether I have some other minor agent pet peeve in my query. I think most literary agents realize that.

Click to expand...

\
no, they may not. They are going through a ton of queries, looking for reasons to reject before they start reading sample pages. Rhetorical questions come off gimmicky, and become a red flag. By contrast, I've yet to see an agent say anything beneficial about them.

As for those being folks you "wouldn't want anyway" that's a stand you're certainly free to take, but I've seen a number of big names say things about rhetorical questions, and again, none kind. Is the question more important than the agent?

kangolNcurlz said:

My perspective on queries has changed over the years and the more I've learned about them over the 3+ years I've been studying them the more I'm cutting out the stress and focusing on what really matters, and that doesn't include small nuances that have no bearing on whether it gets rejected or not.

Click to expand...

when agents say a rhetorical question or other cliche IS often reason for a rejection, I'm not entirely sure how much more a person needs.......

I guess I don't understand the stress part. What stress? Simply rephrase the question as a statement, as Katrina so aptly pointed out upthread.

Not that you have to, of course. It just seems to be good business sense, given the number of agents who hate questions in queries.

quicklime said:

\
no, they may not. They are going through a ton of queries, looking for reasons to reject before they start reading sample pages. Rhetorical questions come off gimmicky, and become a red flag. By contrast, I've yet to see an agent say anything beneficial about them.

As for those being folks you "wouldn't want anyway" that's a stand you're certainly free to take, but I've seen a number of big names say things about rhetorical questions, and again, none kind. Is the question more important than the agent?

Click to expand...

hmm. Well, this is were we disagree. No, this goes beyond the question; if you're being anal over something this minor then what other minor things are you going to be anal over? I've also seen many agents not care whether a writer has a rhetorical question in his/her query. Again, they don't expect perfection. They're most likely going to get queries where the writer hits on a minor pet peeve of theirs. And, I don't agree with you that they're looking for reasons to reject, they're looking for reasons to want to read pages. It's easy to find a reason to reject something since they probably get so few "perfect" queries.

when agents say a rhetorical question or other cliche IS often reason for a rejection, I'm not entirely sure how much more a person needs.......

Click to expand...

And...those very few agents speak for ALL of them? Like most people here, i've read more than my fair share of agent twitter feeds, facebook pages, blogs, interviews, etc. and i've never seen one agent say this, though if I did, s/he would be the last person I'd query.

kangolNcurlz said:

hmm. Well, this is were we disagree. No, this goes beyond the question; if you're being anal over something this minor then what other minor things are you going to be anal over? I guess I'd take my chances; other than GWS, I haven't heard many compelling arguments AGAINST an anal agent.....

I've also seen many agents not care whether a writer has a rhetorical question in his/her query. I'm not sure I've seen ANY say they don't care or welcome them. Again, they don't expect perfection. They're most likely going to get queries with things they don't like. And, I don't agree with you that they're looking for reasons to reject, they're looking for reasons to want to read pages. It's easy to find a reason to reject something since they probably get so few "perfect" queries. kango, I spoke to a girl here who was interning, and she said on slow days the interns get like 20 queries. In addition to other duties. So yes, their process is a triage process. I've also seen agents say as much. You can choose not to believe them, decide perhaps these aren't real agents, they're pod-peopel spreading a gospel of anal anality in totality, or however you're processing this, but the bottom line is agents have NOT been shy about saying they dislike them. So other than pissing rights, I'm not sure why one would insist they leave them in. Then again, a query is a bit like a resume or a business pitch; I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone, other than maybe a couple slackers in bad comedies smoking weed in their mother's basement, say "man, its just a recume; you do what you can, but don't stress, man..."



where exactly in the bigger world is it considered practical advice to not try to give the interviewer what they want? Competition is fierce; if you decide you're not going to listen there's at least twenty people right alongside you who will.....so how this is a "winning strategy" eludes me, but hey, everyone is free to make their own decisions. Besides, at one point, I may be querying against you, and I do intend to listen to the agents....so by all means....tell 'em you're pulling a Sinatra and doing it your way.


And...those very few agents speak for ALL of them? Like most people here, i've read more than my fair share of agent twitter feeds, facebook pages, blogs, interviews, etc. and i've never seen one agent say this, though if I did, s/he would be the last person I'd query.

Click to expand...

I've seen quite a few...Reid is the one who comes to ming off the top of my head, but she wasn't alone.

kangolNcurlz said:

And...those very few agents speak for ALL of them? Like most people here, i've read more than my fair share of agent twitter feeds, facebook pages, blogs, interviews, etc. and i've never seen one agent say this, though if I did, s/he would be the last person I'd query.

Click to expand...

I will take this approach too. But only when I've had several books published and made the NYT bestseller list.

But since I've only just finished my first novel, I'd prefer to keep my head down, right the best query I can and take the advice of the many AW'ers who are much more experienced at this than I.

But that's just me.

I guess I'd take my chances; other than GWS, I haven't heard many compelling arguments AGAINST an anal agent.....

Click to expand...

Feel free to go by your own criteria for what you want in an agent. I know what I want and anal isn't one of them. It'll pose more problems than I'm willing to deal with.

I'm not sure I've seen ANY say they don't care or welcome them.

Click to expand...

I have come across agents who aren't bothered by them to the point of giving an auto rejection. And I don't need to see an agent say this, lots of times it's evident from the query letters where she/he asks for more pages. It's not about crafting a perfect query that has none of their pet peeves. It's about crafting a query that entices them to want to read pages.

kango, I spoke to a girl here who was interning...

Click to expand...

... So, again, very few people speak for the whole? I have no doubt that many agents dislike them. But will they auto reject you because of it? I don't think most will. Sure, there might be a couple, but they don't represent all of their peers. There are very few agents, in my research, who are publicly active in social media. I think some writers take the advice and pet peeves of one agent and attribute his/her feelings to all of them and then attach this kind of thinking that because it's a pet peeve it's an auto reject.

I'm not advocating for them in every query, but if you think it'll be a great asset to your query to have a rhetorical question then it's not something that's so bad that it'll get you rejected by most agents. Just like including publishing credits that aren't really publishing credits isn't going to get you rejected, and that's a pet peeve of a few agents, too.

GailD said:

But that's just me.

Click to expand...

You're right. And not every writer feels that way.

Let us know how your approach works, kangol. I mean that sincerely. I too have seen agents not mentioned here advise against it, but I don't think you want to hear that.

And, I'll let you know how I get on. Though, if my query gets rejected, it's not going to be because I asked a rhetorical question in it.

heyjude said:

Let us know how your approach works, kangol. I mean that sincerely. I too have seen agents not mentioned here advise against it, but I don't think you want to hear that.

Click to expand...

i guess that's the bottom line.....give it a whirl. One of three things will happen:


1. You will be the exception and go on to things every bit as great as you could have with a non-rhetorical query

2. You will change your mind after the first couple dozen form rejections

3. You'll slink out


let us know which it is, after you've taken your shot.