Lit Agent Victoria Marini tweeted the link to a Gawker post about a clearly insane person claiming to be a lit agent (here) which made me reach for the bourbon, just as an incoming email from Amazing Editor persuaded me to make it a double. Here's what AE sent:
So, the same person who sent me (and four other editors here simultaneously) the query on the [redacted] novel, sent me a query today for…something. But what got my attention was the book’s “genre” as: Fiction, Fantasy, Literary, Historical, Romance, Suspense
It's SuperBook! It appeals to everyone! Except of course, anyone who actually knows what they're doing.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label rants. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label rants. Tampilkan semua postingan
Senin, 28 November 2011
Selasa, 01 November 2011
The best communication tool I ever learned was in math class
And of course, it wasn't about math at all.
Now, I love math. I love its elegance. I love its clean form. I love that there is one right answer, and I love that there's not much room for opinion. It's either right or wrong. (That tells you a lot about me of course, but nothing I didn't already know to my rueful dismay--but I digress)
The best teacher I ever had was a math teacher in college. He was a graduate student. Most likely he hated us undergraduates who were there to get our science requirements satisfied. He was teaching the second term, geometry, of a three term, year long sequence.
Here's why he was great: he'd write a problem on the board. Then he'd show us how to solve it. He'd explain the guiding principle of the solution.
Then he'd ask us if we understood.
All you had to do, IF you understood, was nod your head.
The trick was, if you DIDN'T understand you could just sit there, looking befuddled.
Or confused.
And he'd explain it again. In a different way. Sometimes with a different problem, or a different graph or drawing.
Then he'd ask us again if we understood, and again, all we had to do was nod.
Most of the easy stuff we got right away. More complicated stuff took two, or even three explanations. And even if I thought I understood on the first pass, those second times usually helped cement the concept.
I learned a lot of geometry that term. But I learned something more important: If what I was saying didn't make sense to people listening it wasn't their fault. It wasn't my fault either, exactly, but as the teacher, my job was to explain it, not make people feel stupid for not getting it.
I was reminded of this recently when, in a fit of madness, I replied to a query letter about a non-fiction book. I explained I needed a couple of things to evaluate a proposal (things not included in his initial query.) One key thing was how to reach the market (platform.)
The query writer wrote back telling me about the size of the market.
I wrote back explaining it wasn't the size of the market, but how to reach the market that I was concerned with.
At this point the querier dropped the ball. He wrote back telling me my assistant should read the query so as to explain it to me. The implication was that clearly I was too stupid to see what he had explained so clearly.
Well, OK, my assistant IS very bright, and I do depend on her to explain a lot of bewildering things to me (most recent explanations: famous tattoo artists, and drummers) but generally I do know what I'm talking about when the subject is query letters and platform.
This query writer made the same mistake a lot of people do: if I didn't understand what he was writing, I was stupid.
I failed in my effort to communicate what I needed to this querier, but in dismissing me as stupid he ended my willingness to explain a third time using a different example. Don't close down communication by dismissing the person who doesn't get what you're saying until you've tried at least three times.
That applies to your beta readers, your query critiquers and anyone else giving you feedback. "You're wrong" shuts down the process. "Let me try again" gives you another shot.
Be smart. Don't assume I'm stupid.
Now, I love math. I love its elegance. I love its clean form. I love that there is one right answer, and I love that there's not much room for opinion. It's either right or wrong. (That tells you a lot about me of course, but nothing I didn't already know to my rueful dismay--but I digress)
The best teacher I ever had was a math teacher in college. He was a graduate student. Most likely he hated us undergraduates who were there to get our science requirements satisfied. He was teaching the second term, geometry, of a three term, year long sequence.
Here's why he was great: he'd write a problem on the board. Then he'd show us how to solve it. He'd explain the guiding principle of the solution.
Then he'd ask us if we understood.
All you had to do, IF you understood, was nod your head.
The trick was, if you DIDN'T understand you could just sit there, looking befuddled.
Or confused.
And he'd explain it again. In a different way. Sometimes with a different problem, or a different graph or drawing.
Then he'd ask us again if we understood, and again, all we had to do was nod.
Most of the easy stuff we got right away. More complicated stuff took two, or even three explanations. And even if I thought I understood on the first pass, those second times usually helped cement the concept.
I learned a lot of geometry that term. But I learned something more important: If what I was saying didn't make sense to people listening it wasn't their fault. It wasn't my fault either, exactly, but as the teacher, my job was to explain it, not make people feel stupid for not getting it.
I was reminded of this recently when, in a fit of madness, I replied to a query letter about a non-fiction book. I explained I needed a couple of things to evaluate a proposal (things not included in his initial query.) One key thing was how to reach the market (platform.)
The query writer wrote back telling me about the size of the market.
I wrote back explaining it wasn't the size of the market, but how to reach the market that I was concerned with.
At this point the querier dropped the ball. He wrote back telling me my assistant should read the query so as to explain it to me. The implication was that clearly I was too stupid to see what he had explained so clearly.
Well, OK, my assistant IS very bright, and I do depend on her to explain a lot of bewildering things to me (most recent explanations: famous tattoo artists, and drummers) but generally I do know what I'm talking about when the subject is query letters and platform.
This query writer made the same mistake a lot of people do: if I didn't understand what he was writing, I was stupid.
I failed in my effort to communicate what I needed to this querier, but in dismissing me as stupid he ended my willingness to explain a third time using a different example. Don't close down communication by dismissing the person who doesn't get what you're saying until you've tried at least three times.
That applies to your beta readers, your query critiquers and anyone else giving you feedback. "You're wrong" shuts down the process. "Let me try again" gives you another shot.
Be smart. Don't assume I'm stupid.
Rabu, 26 Oktober 2011
Well, no, I'm not paying $9.99
I'm a devoted fan of Mysterious Press and have been for years. When the news came today that their website was up and running and books were available for download, I scurried over post haste.
It's a lovely site. Easy to navigate, lots of ways to buy an ebook.
And right there at the top were books by Ross Thomas. I adore Ross Thomas. I've read them all. I was ready to buy. Because I have a Kindle, I clicked the link to Amazon.
And I didn't buy.
Why?
Because the price is $9.99
And frankly, I'm not willing to pay $9.99 for an electronic edition of a book I've already read. Even if I love it (and I do.)
Otto Penzler is a SMART retailer. I've got the sales receipts to prove it. I've spent hundreds if not thousands at his store over the years, and always been pretty glad to do it. His staff is knowledgeable and friendly.
But, they've missed the key consumer mindset that I think a lot of publishers have too. Ebooks are replacing mass market editions. And mass market editions are $5.99 or $6.99. Or at least they were when I bought ALL of the Ross Thomas books in mass market.
The problem is of course now people expect that the electronic edition is going to come out at the same time as the hardcover. It used to be that hardcover came first, then a year later the mass market at the lower price. If you were willing to wait, you paid less. If you were willing to read fast and give it back when you were done, you paid even less and got it at the library.
I don't know how to solve that problem. All I know is I don't want to pay this much for this book.
I guess I'll just have to go back to reading the $25 hardcovers I bought at The Mysterious Bookshop on my last visit instead of re-reading Ross Thomas.
And if you've got any thoughts on ebook pricing, please leave a comment.**
It's a lovely site. Easy to navigate, lots of ways to buy an ebook.
And right there at the top were books by Ross Thomas. I adore Ross Thomas. I've read them all. I was ready to buy. Because I have a Kindle, I clicked the link to Amazon.
And I didn't buy.
Why?
Because the price is $9.99
And frankly, I'm not willing to pay $9.99 for an electronic edition of a book I've already read. Even if I love it (and I do.)
Otto Penzler is a SMART retailer. I've got the sales receipts to prove it. I've spent hundreds if not thousands at his store over the years, and always been pretty glad to do it. His staff is knowledgeable and friendly.
But, they've missed the key consumer mindset that I think a lot of publishers have too. Ebooks are replacing mass market editions. And mass market editions are $5.99 or $6.99. Or at least they were when I bought ALL of the Ross Thomas books in mass market.
The problem is of course now people expect that the electronic edition is going to come out at the same time as the hardcover. It used to be that hardcover came first, then a year later the mass market at the lower price. If you were willing to wait, you paid less. If you were willing to read fast and give it back when you were done, you paid even less and got it at the library.
I don't know how to solve that problem. All I know is I don't want to pay this much for this book.
I guess I'll just have to go back to reading the $25 hardcovers I bought at The Mysterious Bookshop on my last visit instead of re-reading Ross Thomas.
And if you've got any thoughts on ebook pricing, please leave a comment.**
**I should warn you I'm extremely intolerant of " print publishing is dead" tirades
and anyone who uses the phrase "legacy publishing" doesn't get posted.
If you don't like that, no problem, write your own blog.
Senin, 03 Oktober 2011
AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
"I am seeking representation for my novel, a completed Non-Fiction Romantic Crime Drama."
Even if your novel observes the laws of gravity, and respects the laws of physics you do not ever say your novel is non-fiction. Many things in a novel may be true. That does not make it non-fiction.
A "non-fiction novel" is narrative non-fiction. You'll see "non-fiction novel" used to describe early works in this category; IN COLD BLOOD is a classic example.
But now, and forever onward, here's the rule:
1. Novels are fiction by definition. (no fiction novels much like there is no presidential president)
2. Non-fiction with a narrative arc, and a riproaring good story is "narrative non-fiction."
3. If you don't observe this rule, I will arrange for my non-fictional flying monkeys to visit you.
Even if your novel observes the laws of gravity, and respects the laws of physics you do not ever say your novel is non-fiction. Many things in a novel may be true. That does not make it non-fiction.
A "non-fiction novel" is narrative non-fiction. You'll see "non-fiction novel" used to describe early works in this category; IN COLD BLOOD is a classic example.
But now, and forever onward, here's the rule:
1. Novels are fiction by definition. (no fiction novels much like there is no presidential president)
2. Non-fiction with a narrative arc, and a riproaring good story is "narrative non-fiction."
3. If you don't observe this rule, I will arrange for my non-fictional flying monkeys to visit you.
please NO
"fictional manuscript"
"fictional novelist"
"fictional query"
These phrases make me reach for the bourbon bottle at 10am.
If you want to be a writer, you really have to know what "fictional" means.
Until you do, your agent will be.
"fictional novelist"
"fictional query"
These phrases make me reach for the bourbon bottle at 10am.
If you want to be a writer, you really have to know what "fictional" means.
Until you do, your agent will be.
Sabtu, 10 September 2011
No, you're wrong, and here's why
"No response means no" is the newest way many agents are choosing to handle the glut of queries.
Agents I respect do this.
Here's a recent post by Jill Corcoran that I found via the nicest, most courteous agent in the biz Rachelle Gardner, and she too has this policy.
I profoundly disagree with the premise they use to justify its use:
1. It takes too much time to reply.
That means you haven't figured out yet how to simply your process. I reply to every query. It doesn't take me hours. I have an auto-signature that is the text of the reply. I click reply, I click "sig-query no" from my five options, and click send. Total time: 3 seconds. If you get 100 queries a day, that's 300 seconds to reply. Do the math: 5 minutes.
Don't personalize it with their name. Don't type in anything extra. Just click the auto-sig line and you're done.
What, you can't do this? Your mail management program doesn't allow it?
Get a new mail management program.
Now, it takes longer to READ the queries than it does to respond, but I'm assuming we're both reading the queries. It's only the response time that's at issue.
2. Authors write back with questions/complaints/tirades.
So what? Ignore them. Delete them unread. You don't owe anyone more than that. I've had my share of those too, and these people don't deserve one second more of your time than it takes to delete them.
Further, "no response means no" is a BAD BUSINESS PRACTICE. Who do you think writers are? They're READERS.
If I invest five minutes a day in not making writers feel like they don't matter, I'll have done a good thing.
If I invest five minutes a day in not alienating potential readers for my client's projects, I'll have done a better thing.
If I invest five minutes a day in writers who may query me again with projects I do want, well, that's good for me too.
And you know what? Some writers actually prioritize their queries by who replies to everything. That means *I* get first shot. Come to think of it, why am I telling you this? If I work this right, I'll get all the good stuff!
Agents I respect do this.
Here's a recent post by Jill Corcoran that I found via the nicest, most courteous agent in the biz Rachelle Gardner, and she too has this policy.
I profoundly disagree with the premise they use to justify its use:
1. It takes too much time to reply.
That means you haven't figured out yet how to simply your process. I reply to every query. It doesn't take me hours. I have an auto-signature that is the text of the reply. I click reply, I click "sig-query no" from my five options, and click send. Total time: 3 seconds. If you get 100 queries a day, that's 300 seconds to reply. Do the math: 5 minutes.
Don't personalize it with their name. Don't type in anything extra. Just click the auto-sig line and you're done.
What, you can't do this? Your mail management program doesn't allow it?
Get a new mail management program.
Now, it takes longer to READ the queries than it does to respond, but I'm assuming we're both reading the queries. It's only the response time that's at issue.
2. Authors write back with questions/complaints/tirades.
So what? Ignore them. Delete them unread. You don't owe anyone more than that. I've had my share of those too, and these people don't deserve one second more of your time than it takes to delete them.
Further, "no response means no" is a BAD BUSINESS PRACTICE. Who do you think writers are? They're READERS.
If I invest five minutes a day in not making writers feel like they don't matter, I'll have done a good thing.
If I invest five minutes a day in not alienating potential readers for my client's projects, I'll have done a better thing.
If I invest five minutes a day in writers who may query me again with projects I do want, well, that's good for me too.
And you know what? Some writers actually prioritize their queries by who replies to everything. That means *I* get first shot. Come to think of it, why am I telling you this? If I work this right, I'll get all the good stuff!
Jumat, 06 Mei 2011
How to format a query sent by email
Heading on a query letter today:
---------------------------------------
(date)
VIA: Electronic Mail
Janet Reid
Fine Print Literary Management
240 West 35th Street #500
New York, NY 10001
Janet@fineprintlit.com
Re: Literary Representation
------------------------------------
It took up the entire email screen. It told me nothing I didn't know already, and a lot about the querier.
If you are querying by email you do NOT put the agent's address OR YOURS, at the top. E-queries do NOT follow the standard business letter format you learned in stenography 101.
A proper email query uses the subject line for the factual info: QUERY for (title of your book)/fiction or non-fiction
The first line of your email query is "Dear Snookums"
The next line of text is ABOUT YOUR FRIGGING Amazing BOOK.
A lot of agents are reading queries on their smart phones, and every time an agent has to scroll down, you increase the chance they won't. You want to entice an agent to read on from the VERY FIRST WORD you write. Telling me you are "seeking literary representation" makes me wonder if you think I'm so stupid I need to be told this kind of thing. You think you're being proper and formal. You're not. You're wasting valuable time and real estate. Get to the point. Entice me to read your work.
Be smarter than your phone: learn and follow e-query formatting.
---------------------------------------
(date)
VIA: Electronic Mail
Janet Reid
Fine Print Literary Management
240 West 35th Street #500
New York, NY 10001
Janet@fineprintlit.com
Re: Literary Representation
------------------------------------
It took up the entire email screen. It told me nothing I didn't know already, and a lot about the querier.
If you are querying by email you do NOT put the agent's address OR YOURS, at the top. E-queries do NOT follow the standard business letter format you learned in stenography 101.
A proper email query uses the subject line for the factual info: QUERY for (title of your book)/fiction or non-fiction
The first line of your email query is "Dear Snookums"
The next line of text is ABOUT YOUR
A lot of agents are reading queries on their smart phones, and every time an agent has to scroll down, you increase the chance they won't. You want to entice an agent to read on from the VERY FIRST WORD you write. Telling me you are "seeking literary representation" makes me wonder if you think I'm so stupid I need to be told this kind of thing. You think you're being proper and formal. You're not. You're wasting valuable time and real estate. Get to the point. Entice me to read your work.
Be smarter than your phone: learn and follow e-query formatting.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
