The Value of Agents (was Pet Peeve #1)

wqw · Oct 3, 2007

This is the start of my list of pet peeves about agents' and publishers' rules for submissions. Sorry if it overlaps what others have said.

1. "No simultaneous submissions."

Let me start by stating that I understand this rule. No one wants to find themselves in a bidding war on a manuscript. Got it. But with the thousands (?) of queries that go out in a day or a week, the odds of a bidding war for a particular manuscript is ridiculously high.

Okay, the first and most obvious point is- How the hell will they know? I mean, seriously. It's a silly demand. And it seems to be a demand. What are they going to do? Turn you down because they get a call from their source in another agency referencing the query they just fell in love with? It's almost insulting because it's so unrealistic.

Second, think what it says about what they think of writers. They think I am going to sit around and wait the requisite 2-4 weeks for each individual query response before mailing out the next one. And my life expectancy is steadily increasing to 200, and I don't mind waiting until I'm 150 before my first acceptance.

Third, as usual, those who follow the rules are penalized. There are those exceptionally good-hearted and polite folks who will hate to think they are violating the rules (so earnestly stipulated by every agent and publisher) and will do the 2-4 week (or greater) wait. It is a shame to insist on a rule that they KNOW they cannot in any way, shape or form verify, just to punish the virtuous. (I do not include myself in that group.)

And last(ly), there is the most subtle and insidious group of all, those who "accept simultaneous submissions" if they're notified. So, here we have a little honesty test for us would-be's. They know full well we are sending simultaneously, but they want to hear us say it. Except this is a very small % of the total, so if we're notifying them, we're either sending to the others who accept simultaneous subs, OR we are obviously breaking the rules of the vast majority who don't want them, meaning we are almost definitely dishonest in some fashion. And then when all the agents and publishers get together for the Tuesday meetings, this small, elite group can share this information with the others and unmask us, and blacklist us, keep us down, stop us criticizing their cabal. This is my first pet peeve...

Silver King · Oct 3, 2007

Lest anyone thinks this is a flounce in the making, I'm going to scour the forums and find a better place for this thoughtful missive.

Be right back, and the rest of you be NICE.

Silver King · Oct 3, 2007

This looks like the right place.

Peeve away.

ChaosTitan · Oct 3, 2007

"No simultaneous submissions" refers to actual submission of written materials, such as partials or fulls. Not queries. Queries are a whole other animal. Agents know authors send out queries in batches, they expect it and would be foolish not to. So rest easy and send out those queries.

On the other hand, the rare agent might say "no simultaneous queries." It is very rare indeed, but it does happen.

Billingsgate · Oct 4, 2007

Both agents and publishers admonish "No simultaneous submissions!!!" But agents I've worked with always send queries or full MSS of my work out to several publishers at once. In one case a publisher responded right away to the agent, asked "Who else has got this?" (as if they expected it was on several editors' desks at once) and swiftly sent over a contract. So, are agents exempt from this rule? Are only US writers such lowly, contemptible beings that only we must raise our hands to speak, or send out one submission at a time?

jchines · Oct 4, 2007

My agent submitted to three publishers at once; I believe that's standard practice.

Likewise, I queried at least 30 agents, none of whom required exclusivity on queries. And only one of the agents who requested the full asked for an exclusive.

Will Lavender · Oct 4, 2007

Billingsgate said:
Both agents and publishers admonish "No simultaneous submissions!!!" But agents I've worked with always send queries or full MSS of my work out to several publishers at once. In one case a publisher responded right away to the agent, asked "Who else has got this?" (as if they expected it was on several editors' desks at once) and swiftly sent over a contract. So, are agents exempt from this rule? Are only US writers such lowly, contemptible beings that only we must raise our hands to speak, or send out one submission at a time?

Yes, different rules apply there. A publisher, when they are given the work by an agent, works under the assumption that the novel is out to many other publishers at the same time. This is the benefit of having an agent. And it can be a leveraging tool: if you want it, you better make a decision...

And I'm not sure what the OP is peeving about. Writers should feel free to query as many agents as they want, right?

Jamesaritchie · Oct 4, 2007

Simultaneous Submissions

First, "no simultaneous submissions has nothing to do with queries. You can send out as many queries at one time as you like. Though I think it's just plain dumb to send out a bunch at one time.

I can't for the life of me understand why any writer thinks simultaneous submissions are a good idea in any area. Just about the only thing a writer gains by going this route is a record number of rejections in record time.

What they usually think about writers is that most of us are smart enough to know that simultaneous submissions are not a good idea for anyone concerned, including the writer. Especially for the writer.

The best way to land an agent, or an editor, is to do your research, pick and choose wisely, and then write a query that's perfect for that agent or editor. Should that agent or editor say no, you then have the opportunity to write a different query that's perfect for a different agent or editor.

Whether dealing with queries, partials, or fulls, numbers do not land agents or editors, quality does. And part of quality is not sending out shotgun, one size fits all queries or manuscripts.

When you send out a bunch of queries at the same time, or a bunch of partials at the same time, what you send had better be perfect because you just lost several opportunities to make changes. Send out ten, and if they all receive a no, you just lost nine chances to make changes that might have made the difference to one of these agents.

I'd also add this. It's a truly stupid idea to begin a serious relationship by lying to the person you're having the relationship with. Don't pretend you're following an agent's wishes, if you have no intention of doing so. At least be honest enough to admit that you're sending out simultaneous submissions.

If you want an acceptance, then do your homework, pick the right agent, and write something worth accepting.

And forget about waiting. You aren't supposed to be waiting for anything. You're supposed to be writing.

Will Lavender · Oct 4, 2007

Jamesaritchie said:
And forget about waiting. You aren't supposed to be waiting for anything. You're supposed to be writing.

Good advice here.

In fact, it's advice I wish I would have taken. I signed my contract, waited until summer began...and really struggled to pull a legitimate second novel together in the short time I had given myself.

IMO, the best thing you can do when you get an agent? The way to celebrate? Begin another book.

ORION · Oct 4, 2007

I will disagree with James here. I did send queries out in batches of 10 at a time and yes I got many rejections on my first novel but I also continued to write and by the time I was querying LOTTERY (my third novel) I was already working on my fourth.
I don't think it is efficacious to sent one query letter at a time and wait for the response before sending another and yes you SHOULD be continually writing your next project.
I think querying different projects allowed me to see from the get go that something was special about LOTTERY.
But YANNO everybody has a different idea on what works - You have to listen to those who obtained representation and whose work sold and is published IMHO.

victoriastrauss · Oct 4, 2007

Billingsgate said:
Both agents and publishers admonish "No simultaneous submissions!!!" But agents I've worked with always send queries or full MSS of my work out to several publishers at once.

This is one of many reasons why it's a good idea to have an agent, if your goal is one of the larger publishers: agents aren't subject to the "no sumultaneous submissions" rule.

- Victoria

Will Lavender · Oct 4, 2007

ORION said:
I will disagree with James here. I did send queries out in batches of 10 at a time and yes I got many rejections on my first novel but I also continued to write and by the time I was querying LOTTERY (my third novel) I was already working on my fourth.
I don't think it is efficacious to sent one query letter at a time and wait for the response before sending another and yes you SHOULD be continually writing your next project.
I think querying different projects allowed me to see from the get go that something was special about LOTTERY.
But YANNO everybody has a different idea on what works - You have to listen to those who obtained representation and whose work sold and is published IMHO.

I agree.

James says it's dumb to send a bunch at a time.

But I'm not sure why.

(However: what qualifies as "a bunch"?)

I queried in batches of about 10 as well. You're not doing a service to the novel if you don't put it out there a lot. I got agents right away who said, "You know, this is a great idea and I would love to take this on but I don't have the time..." I took that as an affirmation of the sale-ability of my story. Yet it took those agents sometimes months to respond. I had one big-time agent tell me how many queries he received on top of the clients he already had. Can't remember the exact number, but it was staggering.

If you sit back and query in little doses, you could have a good, marketable manuscript that goes unrepped for a hell of a long time. In a perfect world, you'd get bites right away and have no problem getting representation. (It took me two months, maybe.) But the fact of the matter is that competition is FIERCE; gotta stack the deck in your favor. Have to play the odds if you believe in the work.

Julie Worth · Oct 4, 2007

This question comes up constantly.
The answer is to ignore the "no simultaneous" statements. Ignore questions about where and with whom you've submitted, if you possibly can. Don't agree to exclusives unless you're desperate, and then only on the full MS, where the time frame is reasonably short. And don't send out a synopsis unless it's required. In fact, don't send an agent anything that isn't required.

ORION · Oct 4, 2007

Yeah!!!!!Julie!!!!! You GO girl.
What she says...

wqw · Oct 4, 2007

First, let me point out that this rant was originally in the "Office Pool" room and was supposed to be humorous. It was moved here by one of the moderators, which is cool, that's their job, and I appreciate someone taking the time. So I'm glad because I've learned some things here, but am still somewhat confused.

"No simultaneous submissions" doesn't refer to queries, okay, if that's the consensus, because I'm still not sure it is. But if so, then it is still them rigging the game in their favor, and it's nonenforceable. If I am fortunate enough to receive 2 contract offers, I will go with the better one. They don't have to know that, and this is business. You play your cards close to your chest. My point all along was that they will never know what we do or whom we submit to. Until we sign the contract, agent or publisher, it's our ball to play as we wish.

As for multiple queries, I don't get the concept of waiting on any level. Sure it takes a while to write each one, and if you print out 10 quickly you'll increase the odds of making a mistake. But most of us have a goal of being published. It's one of the reasons we write. I'll tell you what my goal is not, and that's researching the other books some agent or editor has worked on so I can include flattery about how I know their work. That's my Pet Peeve # 2, soon to come...

victoriastrauss · Oct 4, 2007

wqw said:
I'll tell you what my goal is not, and that's researching the other books some agent or editor has worked on so I can include flattery about how I know their work. That's my Pet Peeve # 2, soon to come...

The point of this kind of research isn't flattery. If you don't research an agent's track record, or make sure that a publisher is actually marketing and distributing its books, you are likely to a) wind up with a scammer or amateur, or b) query someone completely inappropriate.

Not so funny.

- Victoria

Will Lavender · Oct 4, 2007

wqw said:
"No simultaneous submissions" doesn't refer to queries, okay, if that's the consensus, because I'm still not sure it is. But if so, then it is still them rigging the game in their favor, and it's nonenforceable. If I am fortunate enough to receive 2 contract offers, I will go with the better one. They don't have to know that, and this is business. You play your cards close to your chest. My point all along was that they will never know what we do or whom we submit to. Until we sign the contract, agent or publisher, it's our ball to play as we wish.

Not sure what you mean by "contract offers." Are you talking about agents in this paragraph? I'm confused.

Azraelsbane · Oct 4, 2007

wqw said:
If I am fortunate enough to receive 2 contract offers, I will go with the better one.

Contract offers? Ha! I'd be happy if someone just asked for a damn partial.

And yeah, when they say simultaneous submissions they're not talking about queries.

talps · Oct 4, 2007

Jamesaritchie said:
You can send out as many queries at one time as you like. Though I think it's just plain dumb to send out a bunch at one time.

Raise your hand if you feel like you were just called dumb...

<my hand shoots straight up>

Though I have but a year of the literary world under my belt, I also respectfully disagree with this. Most of aspiring writers are not in the position where our name in the return address line automatically makes our query great. We cannot possibly assume that if we fail with one query, we'll probably get it right on attempt #2 or #3. And just getting it wrong once doesn't conclusively mean it's a bad letter in need of work, it means that that agent didn't take to that letter. Others might.

I certainly agree that mass-mailings are self-sabotage, but I have to believe that my own routine - sending out 2 queries every 4 days - is far from dumb.

And since expecting rejection should be a writer's default setting, does it really matter how many come within a short time period? Isn't it perhaps better to have several in play & thus allow the writer even the simple illusion of hope?

I also think that given the growing number of agents who don't reply to email queries as their rejection, just waiting to hear back from one before sending another seems like a bad idea. Sure, you can assume that after a few weeks of silence you've been rejected. However, I recently got a request for 3 chapters on an email query submitted last April. Should I have waited for this to play out and perhaps send query #2 after the agent rejects the partial sometime in January?

Will said the following: "the fact of the matter is that competition is FIERCE; gotta stack the deck in your favor. Have to play the odds if you believe in the work." I subscribe to this as well. The more darts thrown, the better the chance at a bulls-eye. Still, you do need to exercise discretion. If a dozen query letters have flopped, sure rewrite it. But I don't think it's necessary to rewrite with every single rejection if you believe in your work.

aadams73 · Oct 4, 2007

wqw said:
I'll tell you what my goal is not, and that's researching the other books some agent or editor has worked on so I can include flattery about how I know their work. That's my Pet Peeve # 2, soon to come...

No need. I think we get the picture.

aadams73 · Oct 4, 2007

talps said:
I certainly agree that mass-mailings are self-sabotage, but I have to believe that my own routine - sending out 2 queries every 4 days - is far from dumb.

And since expecting rejection should be a writer's default setting, does it really matter how many come within a short time period? Isn't it perhaps better to have several in play & thus allow the writer even the simple illusion of hope?

I think your method is probably not what James is talking about. There are, however, those who will fire out twenty or more queries at a time. IMHO that's just shooting yourself in the foot, because what if your query is ineffective? I send out just a few at a time, then adjust my query accordingly.

Silver King · Oct 4, 2007

wqw said:
First, let me point out that this rant was originally in the "Office Pool" room and was supposed to be humorous. It was moved here by one of the moderators, which is cool...

The humorous aspect escapes me, hence the move to a more suitable forum. You're in luck, though, since a number of fine writers and personalities, some of whom never enjoy a dip in the "Office Pool" and would've missed your thread, have joined the discussion here to offer advice.

ChaosTitan · Oct 4, 2007

wqw said:
"No simultaneous submissions" doesn't refer to queries, okay, if that's the consensus, because I'm still not sure it is.

It isn't about a consensus. It simply does not refer to queries. A query is a letter that basically says, "This is my project, this is what it's about, interested in reading it?" A submission is a chunk of the written work, be it three chapters, fifty pages, or the full manuscript.

Simul-sub rules tend to be for people who bypass the query stage and simply send out unrequested material (partials or fulls that the agent or editor hasn't specifically asked for).

They don't have to know that, and this is business.

It is a business, which is why many editors have the no simul-sub rule. Editors don't want to spend hours reading a submission, passing it along to co-workers, getting approval from TPTB, only to offer a contract and find out that another editor has it and the author is "waiting for them to respond." It's a fast way to make enemies and get a speedy "never mind" from the interested editor.

My point all along was that they will never know what we do or whom we submit to. Until we sign the contract, agent or publisher, it's our ball to play as we wish.

The funny this is, though, agents and editors do talk to each other. I wouldn't advocate any action that would get you labeled as dishonest, not when it's already so hard to get that elusive contract.

wqw · Oct 5, 2007

Silver King said:
The humorous aspect escapes me, hence the move to a more suitable forum. You're in luck, though, since a number of fine writers and personalities, some of whom never enjoy a dip in the "Office Pool" and would've missed your thread, have joined the discussion here to offer advice.

The humorous aspect was where I was saying all the editors and agents get together on Tuesday night, etc. Also the idea of a rant on anything to me is funny, because of course when you attack a subject on 10 levels you'll be off the mark on 5. I missed the boat on simultaneous queries- I looked it back up and in the Literary Agents guide most of the descriptions say, "considers simultaneous queries." But no complaints and this has been educational, so thanks.

Andrew Zack · Oct 5, 2007

I never ask for an exclusive. What I do ask is that if you get an offer of representation or you accept such an offer, you let me know immediately. Then I can either rush the read and get back to you, or not waste my time reading something that is no longer available.

As for editors...editors who read something and are interested usually call the agent and let them know they are getting other reads. The agent then will probably call every other editor who has it and tell them to get on the stick. Some will. Many will immediately reject the book or tell you to take the other offer, because they either weren't enthusiastic about the pitch or they simply don't feel they have the time to do an overnight read and start beating the bushes in-house for permission to make an offer.

I find that with nonfiction proposals, letting folks know you have interest gets them reading. With fiction manuscripts, it usually gets them to read a chapter and let it go if they don't fall immediately in love with it. But if that "interest" doesn't turn into an offer—as happens often—you lose a little credibility with each editor you tried to rush with the news of that interest.

Z

The Value of Agents (was Pet Peeve #1)

Megalops Erectus

Megalops Erectus

Around

Disappointment to my mother

Got the hang of it, here

Everything is what it seems.

Everything is what it seems.

Sailed away years ago

Writer Beware Goddess

Everything is what it seems.

What? I have a title?

Sailed away years ago

Writer Beware Goddess

Everything is what it seems.

Agony is defeat

It's all happening...

A Work in Progress

A Work in Progress

Megalops Erectus

Around