If I could expound on an earlier question about form rejection letters, I guess my main gist was: wouldn't it save time for both agents and aspiring authors if the letters at least gave reasons for the rejection? If a teacher consistently rejected (failed) 98% of her students based on the first one or two questions on a test, there would be demands to change the system. Yet most agents base their decisions on a paragraph, or worse, a one or two sentence "hook", and aspiring authors accept the "not for us" form letter as evidence that their book needs work. I know agents are very busy, but wouldn't everyone benefit if they could be just a tad more informative? Most people sending in queries have already had writing classes, had their work critiqued, and read volumes on how to write a query letter. With few exceptions, the feedback we get from agents just isn't helping.
UK Agents?
- Thread starter ukwriter
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,745
- Reaction score
- 3,096
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Website
- www.adriennekress.com
Sorry, I know this thread is for Jennifer to answer, but I had to make a comment about this statement. This is actually so not true. Most people sending in queries these days have absolutely no clue about the industry. I'm not saying that you don't, or that many people out there don't do their homework (otherwise I'd be dissing myself as well), but I mean this is in a more comforting way. From the information I gather from agents it appears that upwards of 95% of the stuff agents get is from individuals who have no clue, who send in queries on sparkly scented paper, who don't even write a query but say, "Read my book!". I had an agent tell me that she gets overly sexual queries sent to her that have nothing to do with writing but everything to do with the person sending the query getting off on the fact that she is a female agent. Most queries agents get have poor spelling, atrocious grammar, and no concept of how to craft a story.
And this I think is oddly positive for authors such as ourselves. It means if you do do all those things that you assume every author is doing, you are in the top 5% of submissions. It means the odds are so much greater in your favour.
It also means however that agents are terrified in engaging in any dialogue with a rejected author for fear that author is just plain nuts. You may then suggest, "Well only reply to the ones who are obviously sane", but I've read far too many blogs by agents where the agent has attempted just that only to have the author reply venomously. There is no guarantee how someone will react to negative feedback, and as you know, an agent's first job is to her clients, not the people querying. Would you really want your agent engaged in a back and forth with some person who's just plain crazy? Wouldn't you rather she work on selling your book?
Anyway, sorry to answer that question, I'm sure Jennifer will as well, but I just had to say something.
Like Toothpaste, I think this needs to be responded to both by Jennifer and by the other side -- writers. I hang out in Query Letter Hell (Query Letters & Synopses) and have done so for over two years now. Having seen no where near the number of queries that an agent sees, I've still seen a lot.
Consistently, in QLH we see queries that show writing skill but show a complete lack of:
- Understanding why word count matters and genre expectations of word counts
- Understanding what their central plot is
- Unable to describe characters effeciently
- Understanding what a bio should and should not contain
- Understand why a query needs to work quickly
It's not an agent's job to help you write an effective query. There are several places (with varying degrees of skill) where you can get help with a query.
As Toothpaste says, go out and learn about the industry. Writing is a business and no one is going to hand you the keys to it on a silver platter (but I don't know any business that does).
Best of luck,
Jim Clark-Dawe
ask jennifer laughlan
Sorry, guys, but I'm still not convinced. I'm sure that agents receive a lot of dreck, and that lots of query writers don't have a clue. But even the Navy Seals don't reject such a high percentage of their applicants. We've all heard the story of how Tom Clancy got so fed up with years of rejection from agents that he finally went to the Navy to get published. When the agents saw that the public actually liked his books, then they took notice. And we've all heard that Mario Puzo spent five years trying to convince agents that The Godfather was worthwhile. Are we to believe that agents are always right, and that these authors simply needed to polish their query writing skills? I'm not saying that agents should carry on a personal correspondence with every query writer, but these "not for us" form letters are a complete waste of time. For the most part, the current system is a Catch 22, where the big publishers won't look at anyone who doesn't have an agent, and the established agents won't look at anyone who hasn't been published. As Jennifer told me earlier, even being e-published carries no weight. I seem to be alone in feeling that there is currently too much power in the hands of too few people, but I still appreciate this forum letting me express my views.
Sorry, guys, but I'm still not convinced. I'm sure that agents receive a lot of dreck, and that lots of query writers don't have a clue. But even the Navy Seals don't reject such a high percentage of their applicants. We've all heard the story of how Tom Clancy got so fed up with years of rejection from agents that he finally went to the Navy to get published. When the agents saw that the public actually liked his books, then they took notice. And we've all heard that Mario Puzo spent five years trying to convince agents that The Godfather was worthwhile. Are we to believe that agents are always right, and that these authors simply needed to polish their query writing skills? I'm not saying that agents should carry on a personal correspondence with every query writer, but these "not for us" form letters are a complete waste of time. For the most part, the current system is a Catch 22, where the big publishers won't look at anyone who doesn't have an agent, and the established agents won't look at anyone who hasn't been published. As Jennifer told me earlier, even being e-published carries no weight. I seem to be alone in feeling that there is currently too much power in the hands of too few people, but I still appreciate this forum letting me express my views.
So you look for the newly established agents - those who have just been promoted from assistant or used to be editors.
(btw I don't agree with your assertion)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,745
- Reaction score
- 3,096
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Website
- www.adriennekress.com
Unfortunately while you don't think we are telling you the truth, ironically it is you who are way off. Every single author friend I know got an agent through the slush pile. Not a single one of them was published before nor had any connections in the industry. Yes, even established agents take on unpublished authors. I was one such author with one such agency.
Your comparison to Navy Seals is also fallacious. I doubt the Navy Seals gets the same number of submissions as agents do. What's more it is known that to enter the Seals you must be in pretty darn good shape, the Seals have a reputation of being a hard work place. These days because everyone owns a computer, everyone thinks they are an author. Everyone you talk to talks of "writing a book someday". Back when you had to write your book longhand, type it up on a typewriter, put in physical effort, yes your comparison would have held much more water. But these days everyone and their dog (literally) thinks they can write. What's more because of blogs and self publishing and all that making it uber easy for people to get their voices out there and making celebrities of some, people think they deserve to be published. These sorts of people are the majority, 95%, of what agents have to put up with. Believe it or not, but just because it seems so crazy to you, doesn't make it not true.
No one is saying agents are gods. They are people, they are fallible. They often pass on books that go on to be bestsellers. But look at it this way. Do you love every book you pick up in a book store? No. How do you judge if you will like a book? Chances are you look at the cover and the title. If that intrigues you, you read the back cover. If that gets your attention you read a few pages. And if that does it for you, you buy the book. That is the exact same process an agent goes through. Agents don't have to like every book that comes their way. If I was an agent I would have rejected Twilight from the query letter, it so does not interest me. I am sure some agents did. But someone eventually liked it, and it sold like hotcakes. Does that make those agents who rejected it stupid? No. It makes them people with different tastes. To say agents are obligated in representing books that they hate but know will make money, is just so cold. If that was the case then all we would probably get are blockbuster novels. Thanks goodness agents DO pass up on those novels and find other ones that might not sell as well, but that they feel passionately about.
As to the "not for us" form letters being a waste of time, uh, no they aren't. What other business do you expect a long drawn out explanation as to why you didnt' get to the next stage? When you send resumes for work, do you expect them to call you and explain to you why you didn't get an interview? These people don't owe you anything. They owe their clients. No means no. What's so terrible about that?
And honestly, you can't do the math? If your query is being rejected only, you are getting no requests for partials and fulls, then that can just mean that your query sucks. Get people to look at it. If you get rejections on partials and fulls, yes I think at that stage it would be nice to get some feedback, and usually you do, but even if you don't, them's the breaks. It's time to take a good hard honest look at your work and see if there is room for improvement.
But what boggles my mind mostly is that you are in the UK and you don't need to worry about being judged only on your query letter. In the UK you get the luxury of submitting a cover letter, one page synopsis and first three chapters right off the bat. So what exactly are you complaining about there?
In business people don't owe you anything until they are your partner. Agents don't owe you explanations, as much as it would be nice to get one. Trust me, like I said before, when you get an agent, you don't want them spending all their time answering queries and not focusing on your work. Agents work upwards of 12 hour days, for, shock, not that much pay. They do it because they are passionate about books. They will give books a shot that might be a little off the norm, they will edit your work with you even though technically they are doing it for free. They will give you pep talks when you're down, and fight in your corner when the publisher does something you don't like. If you think they can do all that, for multiple clients (as well as negotiate contracts of foreign and domestic rights etc, and, you know, have somewhat of a life), AND critique query letters, well that's just crazy. And unbelievably unfair.
It ain't perfect. But my word, it's not as evil as some people are making it out to be. We are all human, all fallible. And I have yet to meet an agent who didn't truly care about books. Nor a published author who didn't get there by wading through the slush pile.
Your comparison to Navy Seals is also fallacious. I doubt the Navy Seals gets the same number of submissions as agents do. What's more it is known that to enter the Seals you must be in pretty darn good shape, the Seals have a reputation of being a hard work place. These days because everyone owns a computer, everyone thinks they are an author. Everyone you talk to talks of "writing a book someday". Back when you had to write your book longhand, type it up on a typewriter, put in physical effort, yes your comparison would have held much more water. But these days everyone and their dog (literally) thinks they can write. What's more because of blogs and self publishing and all that making it uber easy for people to get their voices out there and making celebrities of some, people think they deserve to be published. These sorts of people are the majority, 95%, of what agents have to put up with. Believe it or not, but just because it seems so crazy to you, doesn't make it not true.
No one is saying agents are gods. They are people, they are fallible. They often pass on books that go on to be bestsellers. But look at it this way. Do you love every book you pick up in a book store? No. How do you judge if you will like a book? Chances are you look at the cover and the title. If that intrigues you, you read the back cover. If that gets your attention you read a few pages. And if that does it for you, you buy the book. That is the exact same process an agent goes through. Agents don't have to like every book that comes their way. If I was an agent I would have rejected Twilight from the query letter, it so does not interest me. I am sure some agents did. But someone eventually liked it, and it sold like hotcakes. Does that make those agents who rejected it stupid? No. It makes them people with different tastes. To say agents are obligated in representing books that they hate but know will make money, is just so cold. If that was the case then all we would probably get are blockbuster novels. Thanks goodness agents DO pass up on those novels and find other ones that might not sell as well, but that they feel passionately about.
As to the "not for us" form letters being a waste of time, uh, no they aren't. What other business do you expect a long drawn out explanation as to why you didnt' get to the next stage? When you send resumes for work, do you expect them to call you and explain to you why you didn't get an interview? These people don't owe you anything. They owe their clients. No means no. What's so terrible about that?
And honestly, you can't do the math? If your query is being rejected only, you are getting no requests for partials and fulls, then that can just mean that your query sucks. Get people to look at it. If you get rejections on partials and fulls, yes I think at that stage it would be nice to get some feedback, and usually you do, but even if you don't, them's the breaks. It's time to take a good hard honest look at your work and see if there is room for improvement.
But what boggles my mind mostly is that you are in the UK and you don't need to worry about being judged only on your query letter. In the UK you get the luxury of submitting a cover letter, one page synopsis and first three chapters right off the bat. So what exactly are you complaining about there?
In business people don't owe you anything until they are your partner. Agents don't owe you explanations, as much as it would be nice to get one. Trust me, like I said before, when you get an agent, you don't want them spending all their time answering queries and not focusing on your work. Agents work upwards of 12 hour days, for, shock, not that much pay. They do it because they are passionate about books. They will give books a shot that might be a little off the norm, they will edit your work with you even though technically they are doing it for free. They will give you pep talks when you're down, and fight in your corner when the publisher does something you don't like. If you think they can do all that, for multiple clients (as well as negotiate contracts of foreign and domestic rights etc, and, you know, have somewhat of a life), AND critique query letters, well that's just crazy. And unbelievably unfair.
It ain't perfect. But my word, it's not as evil as some people are making it out to be. We are all human, all fallible. And I have yet to meet an agent who didn't truly care about books. Nor a published author who didn't get there by wading through the slush pile.
Last edited:
You're not alone in your beliefs. That's why vanity presses and Publish America exist.
Now I guess when I went looking for an agent I was a published author. I had a nonfiction book that had been published and has now sold through. In other words, EQUINE LIABILITY made the publisher and me money (the point of this whole game). Unfortunately, I blew what connections that might have gained me (I don't think they were much of a connection) trying to sell a piece of crap.
So as a published author, I did what everybody needs to do. I worked to produce a good story, coupled with a good query, and worked like hell to sell it. Still haven't sold it to a publisher, because there's still a lot of work to make that happen. Toothpaste, I believe, didn't have any publishing credits before she found an agent and a publisher. But I believe she did the same thing I did -- good story, good query, and worked like hell.
And I know a bunch of other authors who started the same way.
Mario Puzo when he wrote THE GODFATHER already had two published books and a career in the publishing industry. Tom Clancy approached numerous publishers before approaching a smaller, specialty press . That's how it happens sometimes. Both of them expanded a lot of hard work to get where they are, but very few writers haven't had to do the same thing.
Reality is that there is a limit to how many books can be published in one year. The exact number is hard to calculate, but is basically the number of readers times how much they are willing to spend in one year. Putting extra books on the market results in even more books selling less than 500 editions (a loser for any publisher).
Each year a certain number of writers leave the industry, due to death, changed interests, retirement, poor sales, and a host of other reasons. Each year the industry needs to replace those writers with new writers, all of them debut. I forget the percentage of books that are debut novels, but there are a fair amount of openings. Problem is there are a lot more people trying to fill the openings than can fit.
And rather than looking at the Navy Seals, look at the National Football League. Look at how many high school boys play football. I think there are 34 teams in the NFL, with approximately 50 players per team, or approximately 1700 professional players. Think about 98% of the high school players have been dropped?
Study the industry. Go to places like query letter hell and work on your query. The more you know, the better off you are.
Best of luck,
Jim Clark-Dawe
Now I guess when I went looking for an agent I was a published author. I had a nonfiction book that had been published and has now sold through. In other words, EQUINE LIABILITY made the publisher and me money (the point of this whole game). Unfortunately, I blew what connections that might have gained me (I don't think they were much of a connection) trying to sell a piece of crap.
So as a published author, I did what everybody needs to do. I worked to produce a good story, coupled with a good query, and worked like hell to sell it. Still haven't sold it to a publisher, because there's still a lot of work to make that happen. Toothpaste, I believe, didn't have any publishing credits before she found an agent and a publisher. But I believe she did the same thing I did -- good story, good query, and worked like hell.
And I know a bunch of other authors who started the same way.
Mario Puzo when he wrote THE GODFATHER already had two published books and a career in the publishing industry. Tom Clancy approached numerous publishers before approaching a smaller, specialty press . That's how it happens sometimes. Both of them expanded a lot of hard work to get where they are, but very few writers haven't had to do the same thing.
Reality is that there is a limit to how many books can be published in one year. The exact number is hard to calculate, but is basically the number of readers times how much they are willing to spend in one year. Putting extra books on the market results in even more books selling less than 500 editions (a loser for any publisher).
Each year a certain number of writers leave the industry, due to death, changed interests, retirement, poor sales, and a host of other reasons. Each year the industry needs to replace those writers with new writers, all of them debut. I forget the percentage of books that are debut novels, but there are a fair amount of openings. Problem is there are a lot more people trying to fill the openings than can fit.
And rather than looking at the Navy Seals, look at the National Football League. Look at how many high school boys play football. I think there are 34 teams in the NFL, with approximately 50 players per team, or approximately 1700 professional players. Think about 98% of the high school players have been dropped?
Study the industry. Go to places like query letter hell and work on your query. The more you know, the better off you are.
Best of luck,
Jim Clark-Dawe
ask jennifer laughlan
Toothpaste, the Navy Seal comparison was a bit of satire. But am I the only aspiring author on this thread? I can't believe that anyone who has been through this system long enough is so adamant to defend it. Sure, we can try new agents, but if they're too new, how much are the publishers going to pay attention to them? And if you know people who have had no trouble finding agents, more power to them. To me, any system that spends years rejecting authors such as Clancy or Puzo needs a bit of tweaking. Would it really hurt agents to at least give us a clue, such as saying the characters need development, or the plot is a bit slow? Seems like it would save trouble for all involved. "Not for us" or "the market is tight" tells us nothing. As for asking "Do I like everything I read?" the answer is no. But unlike most agents, I do give a book more than a sentence or two's chance before deciding I don't like it. If you choose to believe that the current publisher/agent connection isn't a Catch 22, fine. I shall continue to believe otherwise.
Toothpaste, the Navy Seal comparison was a bit of satire. But am I the only aspiring author on this thread? I can't believe that anyone who has been through this system long enough is so adamant to defend it. Sure, we can try new agents, but if they're too new, how much are the publishers going to pay attention to them? And if you know people who have had no trouble finding agents, more power to them. To me, any system that spends years rejecting authors such as Clancy or Puzo needs a bit of tweaking. Would it really hurt agents to at least give us a clue, such as saying the characters need development, or the plot is a bit slow? Seems like it would save trouble for all involved. "Not for us" or "the market is tight" tells us nothing. As for asking "Do I like everything I read?" the answer is no. But unlike most agents, I do give a book more than a sentence or two's chance before deciding I don't like it. If you choose to believe that the current publisher/agent connection isn't a Catch 22, fine. I shall continue to believe otherwise.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,745
- Reaction score
- 3,096
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Website
- www.adriennekress.com
I don't believe it. I know it. And isn't it saying something that people who have been through this system, are defending it? Doesn't that suggest that maybe it isn't as wretched as you are making it out to be? (btw that isn't saying I think it's perfect, but your assertions, for the most part, are quite simply wrong)
I have a singing lesson to go to, but when I return I shall go in search of a recent agent blog post that explained why it is difficult for agents just to offer simple comments such as "the characters need development" etc. It was a good one, and considering she's actually an agent, and I'm an author and so don't know all the little details in being an agent, she's far better suited to quote. Give me a couple hours.
I have a singing lesson to go to, but when I return I shall go in search of a recent agent blog post that explained why it is difficult for agents just to offer simple comments such as "the characters need development" etc. It was a good one, and considering she's actually an agent, and I'm an author and so don't know all the little details in being an agent, she's far better suited to quote. Give me a couple hours.
ask jennifer laughlan
Just one more thing. I've read everything imaginable about writing query letters, and one time I conducted an experiment. I took a sample letter from a book on writing query letters (several agents had raved about how brilliant it was) put my name on it, and sent it off to several big agencies. Guess what? Form rejections with no requests for material. Yeah, it was cheating, but it told me something about the system I was dealing with.
Just one more thing. I've read everything imaginable about writing query letters, and one time I conducted an experiment. I took a sample letter from a book on writing query letters (several agents had raved about how brilliant it was) put my name on it, and sent it off to several big agencies. Guess what? Form rejections with no requests for material. Yeah, it was cheating, but it told me something about the system I was dealing with.
You know what - when you're close agents do give you the encouragement you're looking for, UK agents certainly do. Trust me on this. I have a UK agent; it took 5 and a half years but an number of agents and editors encouraged me along the way.
If you're not getting that encouragement then you're not close. So what are you going to do? You can whine about it or you can take a long look at your writing and set about improving it.
If you're not getting that encouragement then you're not close. So what are you going to do? You can whine about it or you can take a long look at your writing and set about improving it.
Actually, you do the same thing an agent does. You reject based upon title, cover, genre, and blurb. Consistently.
Let's say you walk into a very small bookstore. There's only one thousand books in the store. Let's say you want a mystery, and the book store only has one hundred mysteries. You've already rejected 90% of the books without even trying.
So out of those hundred books, you're going to give each author a real shot at getting your interest. You're going to read the first ten pages (approximately 2,500 words). Will ignore picking up and putting back books and say you can read at 500 words per minute (which is rather high). This gives you five minutes for each book.
Five minutes per book times one hundred books is five hundred minutes or over eight hours. Do you do that, or do you look at covers and blurbs to discard at least ninety of those books? An agent gives queries on average thirty seconds. For a hundred books this works out to about an hour.
Did you reject those 90 books in less than an hour? I bet you did. My guess is you've now rejected 990 books in less than ten minutes (by the way, this puts you at actually looking at less than 1% of the books).
My guess is the reality is you reject books just as fast, if not faster, then an agent does.
By the way, my intent here is not to say that either you or agents are wrong. This is just the way reality works.
Best of luck,
Jim Clark-Dawe
You're not the only aspiring writer here, but you are mired in misinformation.
That's why you look for a new agent at an established agency - one who has put in the time as an assistant to know how the system works. They have the strength and connections of not just their name, but their agency behind them.
An easy assumption to make if you're a fan of either or both. Many people aren't, and many people don't rep. their genres. No one comes out of the gate being a "star" of the literary world. They had to get a break like everyone else. Once people got to read their writing, it became clear that an agent had made a wise decision to sign them, but their books could have just as easily tanked.
Writing a detailed analysis of the 95% of submissions that are unprintable garbage, or expecting people to understand that when the guidelines say "no response = NO" then they've gotten their answer...
The fact is, it's not easier on anyone. It's not easier on the agent who has to put into writing how atrocious most of their submissions are, and it's certianly not easier on the writer who thinks their MS is a masterwork, but has written something awful.
Read a few agent blogs, or blog posts. I'm thinking of one by Ginger Clark from Curtis Brown in particular. She used to give a simple, and professional, form rejection. After a month, she stopped because instead of moving on, too many of those she rejected hit the "auto reply" and sent back highly inappropriate (or physically impossible) repsonses.
Look at the contestants on American Idol (or Pop Idol); most of them don't take honest critique well. They puff out their chests and get their hackles up and belittle the informed opinions of the men and women they came to impress. One opinion, two minutes, and suddenly the expert whose words were gold has been reduced to the status of an ignorant (Jealous!!!) plebian who doesn't have the sense to know greatness when it's ten feet in front of them.
It tells you plenty. It tells you that you submitted to someone who either doesn't rep your genre or doesn't mesh with your style. It also tells you, in the opinion of someone who has information you don't, that the market can't currently bear another book of a certain type.
You also don't have thousands upon thousands of people mailing, emailing, calling, messaging, twittering, facebooking, myspacing ... whatever every piece of dreck that falls out of their pen and/or word processor to every known contact address for you, then phoning to make sure you got it. You don't have an established client list that you have to work with. You don't have pending contracts that you are required to handle.
Answering queries is a very small part of an agent's job, as it should be. Their primary concern isn't the "next" client; it's the current one they don't want to lose by being inattentive.
And you shall continue to come off as a whiner who doesn't want the rules to apply to them. Everyone, unless they have connections from their pre-writing life, has to go through the same process. And it involves the same steps. Those without agents, seek agents so that the agents can utilize contacts a writer doesn't have access to, OR you look for publishers that allow unagented submissions. Either way, you're going to have to make a stellar presentation and cut loose the sense of entitlement that will get you out of the slush pile - but straight into the shredder.
If you're this difficult to please now, no agent is going to want to handle you.
Okay, people. I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Providing that they handle material in the suspense/thriller genre, kindly give me the names of these agents who are so friendly to new writers and I'll give them a try. And just so you know that I'm not one of the masses who can't even write a query letter, let alone a novel, I'll relate one more experience which has shaped my opinions. I sent a query to Darley Anderson, the biggest agency in London, and received a reply that they loved it and wanted to see some sample chapters. I got another reply saying they loved the sample and wanted the manuscript. Believing I was near representation, I called them to inform them of one small detail. I'd been visiting my daughter in London and had mailed my material from her address. I actually was from Ipswich. The voice on the phone went from enthusiasm to sounding as if I'd informed them of a death in the family. I ended up getting a rambling excuse stating that while the novel was brilliant, they couldn't be sure it would sell enough copies. It could have been true, but I can't believe the quality of my writing suddenly went downhill after the first few chapters that they liked so well. Just FYI, and I'll await those agents names.
While you're waiting this may be worth looking at
http://www.writersconference.co.uk/
There is an extensive programme of one-to-one meetings with writers and agents and booking opens soon.
http://www.writersconference.co.uk/
There is an extensive programme of one-to-one meetings with writers and agents and booking opens soon.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,745
- Reaction score
- 3,096
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Website
- www.adriennekress.com
lol, I'm sorry ukwriter, but if you are implying that the reason Darley Anderson rejected your MS was because you didn't live in London, I'm afraid, there again you are wrong.
I am represented by Darley Anderson. I live in Toronto, Canada.
(not to mention Lee Child, Tana French and John Connolly are in Ireland, and many others are from all over the UK)
Don't you think maybe it's possible that actually, yes, your writing might not have held up in the latter part of your work? Not saying it's true, but it's not like that hasn't happened many times before to other authors, otherwise all positive partials would result in offers of representation.
(I still confess to being slightly confused about your query issue. You did also send them a one page synopsis and first three chapters right from the off right? It's stated right there on their website that that's what they like. Very few UK agents only take query letters.)
Anyway, Jennifer answered the whole why agents don't need to say anything else on their rejections, but I did what I promised and found that blog entry as well which you may wish to check out by agent Jessica Faust (her blog is rather good, you may wish to just read other entries as well. You will also find many a kindred spirit in her recent blog entry last week where she allowed people to complain in the comments section about what they didn't like about agents). Anyway, here is that link I mentioned: http://bookendslitagency.blogspot.com/2009/01/dissecting-form-rejection-letter.html
I am represented by Darley Anderson. I live in Toronto, Canada.
(not to mention Lee Child, Tana French and John Connolly are in Ireland, and many others are from all over the UK)
Don't you think maybe it's possible that actually, yes, your writing might not have held up in the latter part of your work? Not saying it's true, but it's not like that hasn't happened many times before to other authors, otherwise all positive partials would result in offers of representation.
(I still confess to being slightly confused about your query issue. You did also send them a one page synopsis and first three chapters right from the off right? It's stated right there on their website that that's what they like. Very few UK agents only take query letters.)
Anyway, Jennifer answered the whole why agents don't need to say anything else on their rejections, but I did what I promised and found that blog entry as well which you may wish to check out by agent Jessica Faust (her blog is rather good, you may wish to just read other entries as well. You will also find many a kindred spirit in her recent blog entry last week where she allowed people to complain in the comments section about what they didn't like about agents). Anyway, here is that link I mentioned: http://bookendslitagency.blogspot.com/2009/01/dissecting-form-rejection-letter.html
Last edited:
ask jennifer laughlan
T.P., of course you think all is rosy, since you got the representation. And I was unaware that Darley asks for three chapters up front when I first sent the query. And if my first chapters were that good, you really think I became a bad writer half-way through the book? As I said, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt. You keep implying that there is no Catch 22 and the fault is all mine. Okay, put your money where your mouth is and give me the names of all these friendly agents you know about; the ones that all your successful author friends were able to find. To paraphrase what you keep saying in your defense of agents, my opinions aren't wrong. It's all in one's own perspective.
T.P., of course you think all is rosy, since you got the representation. And I was unaware that Darley asks for three chapters up front when I first sent the query. And if my first chapters were that good, you really think I became a bad writer half-way through the book? As I said, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt. You keep implying that there is no Catch 22 and the fault is all mine. Okay, put your money where your mouth is and give me the names of all these friendly agents you know about; the ones that all your successful author friends were able to find. To paraphrase what you keep saying in your defense of agents, my opinions aren't wrong. It's all in one's own perspective.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,745
- Reaction score
- 3,096
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Website
- www.adriennekress.com
You see ukwriter, you claim that you do all this research and work really hard, and that you deserve more than just a form rejection and yet you were unaware that Darley Anderson's website states under the heading "submissions" that they accept a one page synposis and first three chapters with a cover letter. You don't seem to be aware either, that that is the norm in the UK. Which leads me to wonder what else exactly you haven't researched or know little about.
And you're darn tooting I don't think there's a Catch 22, because if there was I wouldn't have representation. None of my friends would have representation. And actually no, I don't think I will give you their agents' contact information because it seems to me more and more that you aren't as well researched as you claim, nor as well studied either, and I'd rather not send such an author to these agents at present. To state that you can't imagine how an author could go bad halfway through a book just points to your ignorance. Some authors are awesome at beginnings, some are awesome at endings, some give great middle. But not all authors are good at all three. Why do you think an agent wants to read an entire manuscript before signing someone? Because often the very promising manuscript that was all brilliance, just utterly falls apart 100 pages in. Writing a complete novel that's good from beginning to end is darn hard.
(and if you did even a little of research you might learn who my friends are who are with these awesome agents, and then once you knew their names would be able to google who their agents are, but I have a funny feeling, considering how you feel about form rejections, that you like other people to do all the work for you)
And you're darn tooting I don't think there's a Catch 22, because if there was I wouldn't have representation. None of my friends would have representation. And actually no, I don't think I will give you their agents' contact information because it seems to me more and more that you aren't as well researched as you claim, nor as well studied either, and I'd rather not send such an author to these agents at present. To state that you can't imagine how an author could go bad halfway through a book just points to your ignorance. Some authors are awesome at beginnings, some are awesome at endings, some give great middle. But not all authors are good at all three. Why do you think an agent wants to read an entire manuscript before signing someone? Because often the very promising manuscript that was all brilliance, just utterly falls apart 100 pages in. Writing a complete novel that's good from beginning to end is darn hard.
(and if you did even a little of research you might learn who my friends are who are with these awesome agents, and then once you knew their names would be able to google who their agents are, but I have a funny feeling, considering how you feel about form rejections, that you like other people to do all the work for you)
Last edited:
A website listing just about all the worthwhile UK agents
http://www.writersservices.com/agent/uk09/index.htm
A literary agency well-known for handling thrillers
http://www.gregoryandcompany.co.uk/
and another
http://www.marjacq.com/home/home.htm
http://www.writersservices.com/agent/uk09/index.htm
A literary agency well-known for handling thrillers
http://www.gregoryandcompany.co.uk/
and another
http://www.marjacq.com/home/home.htm
Last edited:
ask jennifer laughlan
Have you ever looked at different web sites? Some don't give you all the info, just the address. But I digress. Since all of you think I'm way out of line for daring to suggest that agents could give us a bit more feedback than a "not for us" form letter, I'll try another example. Let's say your car is running rough and you take it to a mechanic. But when you ask him what's wrong, he replies "I'm way too busy to tell you anything, other than that it's running rough." So you ask, "Well, then what do you think it will take to fix it?", and he replies "I'm much too busy to give you any specifics, and you shouldn't expect me to give you any." So you ask, "Not even one little hint?" and the reply is the same. This is the equivalent of the way agents have been treating aspiring authors for years, and the sad thing is, all of you seem to be fine with it, bristling at anyone who dares suggest that the system could be better. Now before I'm told I'm way out of line again, yes, aspiring writers should take writing classes, do their research, study books on query writing, etc. But what if the aspiring writer does all that, gets rave reviews from his classmates and teachers, and still keeps being rejected? All of you seem to think that agents owe us no explanations at all, and everything is wonderful just as it is. Just keep tossing those softball questions to the agents. Someone has to play devil's advocate, instead of meekly accepting the status quo.
Have you ever looked at different web sites? Some don't give you all the info, just the address. But I digress. Since all of you think I'm way out of line for daring to suggest that agents could give us a bit more feedback than a "not for us" form letter, I'll try another example. Let's say your car is running rough and you take it to a mechanic. But when you ask him what's wrong, he replies "I'm way too busy to tell you anything, other than that it's running rough." So you ask, "Well, then what do you think it will take to fix it?", and he replies "I'm much too busy to give you any specifics, and you shouldn't expect me to give you any." So you ask, "Not even one little hint?" and the reply is the same. This is the equivalent of the way agents have been treating aspiring authors for years, and the sad thing is, all of you seem to be fine with it, bristling at anyone who dares suggest that the system could be better. Now before I'm told I'm way out of line again, yes, aspiring writers should take writing classes, do their research, study books on query writing, etc. But what if the aspiring writer does all that, gets rave reviews from his classmates and teachers, and still keeps being rejected? All of you seem to think that agents owe us no explanations at all, and everything is wonderful just as it is. Just keep tossing those softball questions to the agents. Someone has to play devil's advocate, instead of meekly accepting the status quo.
ask jennifer laughlan
Not asking the agents to fix the MS. Merely asking for a hint every now and then. But this flock of sheep seems to think that's asking too much. If only part of this venom could be directed at the system, perhaps some changes for the better could be made.
Not asking the agents to fix the MS. Merely asking for a hint every now and then. But this flock of sheep seems to think that's asking too much. If only part of this venom could be directed at the system, perhaps some changes for the better could be made.
ask jennifer laughlan
I've been listening, but no one is listening to me. Just because agents aren't required to tell us anything doesn't make it right. And doesn't this close-mouthed approach perpetuate a system of failure? The high rejection rate seems to indicate so. We've all seen agents' advice on how to succeed; tell a good story, have interesting characters, etc. We already know that. If agents could merely state more specifically what they're looking for, seems to me it would save them a lot of time mailing rejection forms. It's the equivalent of telling a waiter you want something good, then expecting him to read your mind as to what you're specifically wanting. (Now I'll be blasted for using another metaphor.) If everyone here feels that agents telling us absolutely nothing is a good system, then so be it.
I've been listening, but no one is listening to me. Just because agents aren't required to tell us anything doesn't make it right. And doesn't this close-mouthed approach perpetuate a system of failure? The high rejection rate seems to indicate so. We've all seen agents' advice on how to succeed; tell a good story, have interesting characters, etc. We already know that. If agents could merely state more specifically what they're looking for, seems to me it would save them a lot of time mailing rejection forms. It's the equivalent of telling a waiter you want something good, then expecting him to read your mind as to what you're specifically wanting. (Now I'll be blasted for using another metaphor.) If everyone here feels that agents telling us absolutely nothing is a good system, then so be it.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,745
- Reaction score
- 3,096
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Website
- www.adriennekress.com
The high rejection rate is due to the fact that most submissions are crap. I've tried to explain to you why this is, how you ought to feel proud that you are not in that 95% and that that ought to give you confidence that someday you may just land an agent, but all you seem to see of me is some happy little blind author who is just another sheep too blind to see what's right in front of her. You deny facts as facts, calling them opinion, you defend your position of not having done research by saying "Have you ever looked at different web sites? Some don't give you all the info, just the address" which is utterly illogical because the Darley Anderson website DOES give you all the info. You simply did not do your research, but you want to excuse your behaviour still.
You insist that the customer/service provider relationship is the same as the author/agent relationship which it simply is not. Your waiter analogy, your mechanic analogy, they all come from a position of the customer being right, of the customer being owed something because you are paying the other person for that right. You do not pay an agent to critique your query. They don't owe you anything. Once you are in a client/agent relationship, then darn tooting they owe you stuff. To use your analogy it's like standing outside a restaurant window and yelling into it at one of the wait staff to bring you a glass of water. You think they're going to serve you? Not likely.
You are also jumping to a huge conclusion that just because people disagree (with evidence) with what you are saying, that that means they are poor sheep willing to put up with a failed system. First off you have yet to establish that the system is failed (well you do, but you do it by ignoring all the facts presented to you - "That's just your opinion", no . . . no, it's not), and second just because we disagree on the points you present does not mean we are blind to other issues.
I for example really hate exclusives. I think it is wrong for agents to ask for them. I also really hate agencies that say, "Well we aren't interested in representing you, but have you thought of self publishing?" and forward you onto a self publishing company. There you go, two things I think are wrong with some agents.
I just utterly and completely disagree that agents owe writers who submit to them anything. Did you read Jennifer's response? Did you read the link I provided for you? Even if you disagree, do you at least understand their point of view aside from it being, "Well they are evil and couldn't recognise good talent if it bit them in the you know what"? Do you have empathy?
You call us names, none of us have done the same for you. We have tried to answer over and over, and all you see is our attempts as mob mentality. But just because a lot of people are saying the same points, does not mean they are brainwashed. Sometimes it means that the points being made are facts that simply cannot be denied. The reason most everyone insists the sky is blue, is because the sky is blue. You saying that it's green and getting frustrated at those who insist otherwise, doesn't make you more right.
We have provided evidence, you have provided opinion. Take a moment. Take a breath and try to see what we are saying.
You are frustrated. I see that. And no I can't relate as well in the writing world, but I can as an actress, believe me. My acting career is not exactly taking off. I resent so many parts of the acting world I can't begin to tell you, but really, the one thing I have real control over is me. So I exercise so I'm in shape. I can control that. I take singing and stage combat lessons to broaden my skill set. I keep taking acting classes. I make myself the best I can be because that's what I have control over. And you'd better believe I get angry at casting directors who don't realise that actors can play more than just themselves, but at the same time I'm not about to expect anything from them. They don't owe me any roles in any films or plays.
I know you want to change everything. I know you wouldn't react badly if an agent gave you personal negative feedback, that you would be grateful. But hon you are the exception. You really truly are. And you should be proud you are the exception. As much as it frustrates you.
Control what you can. You simply will not change the industry by fretting this way. You won't. You can make suggestions when you speak with agents, but keeping at it when she has said she doesn't agree (as with Jennifer) isn't going to make her change her mind. Speak logically and coolly with the people who can affect real change. And in the meantime, work on your query. Please do your research. I know you're mad at me for harping on this, but the thing I LOVED about querying in the UK was that I got to send a whole submission package and not just a letter. Take advantage of this. It's a godsend. Take a moment to consider that Ipswitch wasn't the problem. Maybe your book is fine just as it is, but just for one day pretend that after those first few chapters everything does go downhill. Ask yourself how you could fix it. Just play make believe. Put your ego aside. You may just discover a few simple changes that could make all the difference in the world. Work on your query letter, post it here if you want. Vent in the "Rejection and Dejection" section here. Frustration can be blinding. It can make you hate the world. Don't encourage it. As someone who gets that way often herself, I know how damaging it can be. Soldier on.
And seriously, change your way of thinking about the slush pile. 95% of it is crap. It truly is. You are not in that 95%. The odds are so much more in your favour . . . here, please read this link, it talks about the levels of crap that agents get, it will make you feel so much better about yourself.
It feels impossible at times. Again I do know this. And I know you look at my situation and think, "Well she can talk, she's all happy with her agent", but why can't you see me as a good sign. I had not a single connection in the industry. Not a single published work. Isn't that a good thing? Doesn't that suggest that maybe the situation isn't as hopeless as all that, that the system isn't entirely broken? A book of short stories won the top prize in Canadian literature last year. A book of short stories. One of the hardest things to sell. By a first time novelist. Isn't that fantastic? Isn't it fantastic that Tom Clancy and Mario Puzo were published eventually? Yes they were rejected by the system, and yet someone within that same system saw the good eventually. Doesn't that inspire hope that maybe it might take some time, but someone somewhere will clue in eventually? Art is so darn subjective, and yet still new exciting original stuff gets published every year. They might not be blockbusters, but that has nothing to do with the agent, that has to do with the readers.
I dunno. I guess after a while, cynicism is wearing. Hope isn't all evil you know. Once and a while, used in moderation, it's quite lovely.
You insist that the customer/service provider relationship is the same as the author/agent relationship which it simply is not. Your waiter analogy, your mechanic analogy, they all come from a position of the customer being right, of the customer being owed something because you are paying the other person for that right. You do not pay an agent to critique your query. They don't owe you anything. Once you are in a client/agent relationship, then darn tooting they owe you stuff. To use your analogy it's like standing outside a restaurant window and yelling into it at one of the wait staff to bring you a glass of water. You think they're going to serve you? Not likely.
You are also jumping to a huge conclusion that just because people disagree (with evidence) with what you are saying, that that means they are poor sheep willing to put up with a failed system. First off you have yet to establish that the system is failed (well you do, but you do it by ignoring all the facts presented to you - "That's just your opinion", no . . . no, it's not), and second just because we disagree on the points you present does not mean we are blind to other issues.
I for example really hate exclusives. I think it is wrong for agents to ask for them. I also really hate agencies that say, "Well we aren't interested in representing you, but have you thought of self publishing?" and forward you onto a self publishing company. There you go, two things I think are wrong with some agents.
I just utterly and completely disagree that agents owe writers who submit to them anything. Did you read Jennifer's response? Did you read the link I provided for you? Even if you disagree, do you at least understand their point of view aside from it being, "Well they are evil and couldn't recognise good talent if it bit them in the you know what"? Do you have empathy?
You call us names, none of us have done the same for you. We have tried to answer over and over, and all you see is our attempts as mob mentality. But just because a lot of people are saying the same points, does not mean they are brainwashed. Sometimes it means that the points being made are facts that simply cannot be denied. The reason most everyone insists the sky is blue, is because the sky is blue. You saying that it's green and getting frustrated at those who insist otherwise, doesn't make you more right.
We have provided evidence, you have provided opinion. Take a moment. Take a breath and try to see what we are saying.
You are frustrated. I see that. And no I can't relate as well in the writing world, but I can as an actress, believe me. My acting career is not exactly taking off. I resent so many parts of the acting world I can't begin to tell you, but really, the one thing I have real control over is me. So I exercise so I'm in shape. I can control that. I take singing and stage combat lessons to broaden my skill set. I keep taking acting classes. I make myself the best I can be because that's what I have control over. And you'd better believe I get angry at casting directors who don't realise that actors can play more than just themselves, but at the same time I'm not about to expect anything from them. They don't owe me any roles in any films or plays.
I know you want to change everything. I know you wouldn't react badly if an agent gave you personal negative feedback, that you would be grateful. But hon you are the exception. You really truly are. And you should be proud you are the exception. As much as it frustrates you.
Control what you can. You simply will not change the industry by fretting this way. You won't. You can make suggestions when you speak with agents, but keeping at it when she has said she doesn't agree (as with Jennifer) isn't going to make her change her mind. Speak logically and coolly with the people who can affect real change. And in the meantime, work on your query. Please do your research. I know you're mad at me for harping on this, but the thing I LOVED about querying in the UK was that I got to send a whole submission package and not just a letter. Take advantage of this. It's a godsend. Take a moment to consider that Ipswitch wasn't the problem. Maybe your book is fine just as it is, but just for one day pretend that after those first few chapters everything does go downhill. Ask yourself how you could fix it. Just play make believe. Put your ego aside. You may just discover a few simple changes that could make all the difference in the world. Work on your query letter, post it here if you want. Vent in the "Rejection and Dejection" section here. Frustration can be blinding. It can make you hate the world. Don't encourage it. As someone who gets that way often herself, I know how damaging it can be. Soldier on.
And seriously, change your way of thinking about the slush pile. 95% of it is crap. It truly is. You are not in that 95%. The odds are so much more in your favour . . . here, please read this link, it talks about the levels of crap that agents get, it will make you feel so much better about yourself.
It feels impossible at times. Again I do know this. And I know you look at my situation and think, "Well she can talk, she's all happy with her agent", but why can't you see me as a good sign. I had not a single connection in the industry. Not a single published work. Isn't that a good thing? Doesn't that suggest that maybe the situation isn't as hopeless as all that, that the system isn't entirely broken? A book of short stories won the top prize in Canadian literature last year. A book of short stories. One of the hardest things to sell. By a first time novelist. Isn't that fantastic? Isn't it fantastic that Tom Clancy and Mario Puzo were published eventually? Yes they were rejected by the system, and yet someone within that same system saw the good eventually. Doesn't that inspire hope that maybe it might take some time, but someone somewhere will clue in eventually? Art is so darn subjective, and yet still new exciting original stuff gets published every year. They might not be blockbusters, but that has nothing to do with the agent, that has to do with the readers.
I dunno. I guess after a while, cynicism is wearing. Hope isn't all evil you know. Once and a while, used in moderation, it's quite lovely.
uk agents
T.P., are you sure you're not an agent yourself? Your arrogant attitude would make you an ideal candidate. Because you've found an agent, then anyone who hasn't must not be up to snuff. And you completely ignored my main point. Why do you take such offense at my suggestion that agents could at least provide a word or two of advice in their rejection letters? Don't the high rejection rates tell you that the current system could stand some improvement? No, I guess they don't. You've found your agent, so no one can tell you anything. I even tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and asked for some names of agents, only to be met with more insults. Your "I know it all" attitude is what many of us are running into in our quest to become published, but I do appreciate your sympathetic ear. (Since sarcasm escapes you, as evidenced in my earlier Navy Seals reference, I guess I'd better tell you that part about sympathy was sarcasm.)
T.P., are you sure you're not an agent yourself? Your arrogant attitude would make you an ideal candidate. Because you've found an agent, then anyone who hasn't must not be up to snuff. And you completely ignored my main point. Why do you take such offense at my suggestion that agents could at least provide a word or two of advice in their rejection letters? Don't the high rejection rates tell you that the current system could stand some improvement? No, I guess they don't. You've found your agent, so no one can tell you anything. I even tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and asked for some names of agents, only to be met with more insults. Your "I know it all" attitude is what many of us are running into in our quest to become published, but I do appreciate your sympathetic ear. (Since sarcasm escapes you, as evidenced in my earlier Navy Seals reference, I guess I'd better tell you that part about sympathy was sarcasm.)
- Status