Pub Rants

Category: Agents/Agenting

What A Difference a NO Makes

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: Busy and productive. Lots of stuff out on submission. Now I want to be talking about lots of deal making as the weeks unfold.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? JUST LIKE HEAVEN by The Cure

Since I’m in submitting mode, I couldn’t help but think about how editors are just like agents. A project that floats one editor’s boat is just hated by another. So it really is about matching the right agent with a project and then matching the right editor to it.

For example, here are two NO responses from editors for the same book.

“the character was unlikeable and the writing flat”

“I enjoyed reading this. I connected emotionally to the writing. This is a very intriguing manuscript on many different levels. I’ll give you a call later on today to express my dismay about passing”

Obviously they were both NOs but one was a heck NO and the other a very sad, wish I was offering, close-call NO.

Just another reminder how subjective this biz is. For agents, for editors, for writers, for readers.

We all have our like and dislikes.

Turnaround Time

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: It was a hugely, crazy day and I have 10 minutes to blog before my evening commitment.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? DIDDLEY DADDY by Chris Isaak

I have a new goal this year. For current clients, my goal is to turnaround a read for a proposal with sample chapters in a matter of days (I’m actually achieving this!). If a full manuscript, two weeks.

So far I haven’t managed the latter. It’s taking me more like 3 weeks—edging into four (for which I’m always feeling incredibly guilty about). I do, however, always send my clients email updates with where they are in the queue and my estimated read time (which is invariably off by a couple of days but not usually more than that).

I’m in awe of agents who turnaround in less than a week consistently. I think I’m a fast reader but I guess not that fast.

So why so long for the turnaround on a full?

Well, it comes down to only being able to read at night or on weekends. And if you end up actually having a life while also being an agent (something I would argue is kind of scarce for agents), an evening commitment will nix an evening reading slot. That means it has to wait for the weekend.

There are only four weekends in a month. I can do maybe one full and half over a weekend. Depends if I’m just reading or if I’m doing the edit (as in for revisions before submission). And if there are five or six client manuscripts in the queue…

You can see where the turnaround time starts getting stretched.

Still, I’m committed to this goal. Now if I can just convince my clients not to all submit within a week of each other…

Doing It Exactly Right

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: It’s a late one. Pretty much tells you what a busy day it was but the Nuggets just edged out the Lakers.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? BELIEVE by Cher

Last week I got a call from an unagented author who had an offer on the table from a publisher. She handled the whole situation exactly right so I had to share.

She received the offer and kept her head. She asked the publisher to email the deal points to her and said she would respond in a week. She was gracious and professional to the offering editor.

Then she started calling agents.

In her phone message, she quietly and carefully stated the following:
–her name
–the offer on the table
–the publisher
–the time frame in which she needed agents to respond
–her contact info

I returned her call immediately. She was calm and professional on the phone while explaining her needs. She had obviously prepared for an agent conversation and answered questions immediately when asked.

Ultimately the project wasn’t right for me so I ended up passing, but I think whichever agent she lands will be pleased with her as a new client on his/her list.

Why It’s Probably Not A Good Idea To “Pop By”

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: I didn’t accomplish nearly what I wanted today. Yuck.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? GUILTY by Bonnie Raitt

I admire the passion that would propel a writer to want to pitch a book in person to an agent and at the agent’s office.

The motive is admirable; the actual deed is not.

Please! I strongly recommend that you don’t follow this impulse. Regardless of the desire, it can be viewed as unprofessional and despite my best efforts, I end up having to be firm about saying NO about not taking the pitch in person—which is always construed as being rude.

Yes, you can probably guess this happened to me today. Not to mention, if the popper by is aggressive enough (as in not taking NO for an answer via the intercom and waiting in the lobby until somebody exited so they could come through a secure entrance), the whole action can be viewed as a little threatening. Now that wasn’t the case today but you can see where it could be.

When I mentioned the incident to a friend, he said “Your daring intruder may be right about the importance of sharing her passion for her project, but she has a few things to learn about listening, boundaries, and respect.”

And ultimately in the end, agents want clients who understand that.

Not A Good Resource

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: Had a slightly annoying afternoon when I couldn’t send out emails. Receiving them just fine. I know my website hoster is probably the culprit. The server must have gone down briefly.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? ALL BY MYSELF by Eric Carmen
(Come on. Admit it. You totally belted out this song in front of a mirror when you were a tween. Wait. That dates me doesn’t it?)

Something must be in the air (or on the blog circuit) because I’ve been getting a lot of emails lately where writers ask me what I think about so-and-so agent.

I know I blog and seem approachable and all, but I’m really not a good resource concerning whether an agent might be a good fit for you or not. And generally, I find it sort of unfathomable why somebody would want to ask me. I know some agents personally but I certainly don’t know more than 25 or so. Hardly a dent really in the number of agents out there.

However, I can point you in the right direction for how you can find out.

First off, check the agent’s recent sales. You can do a Google search. You can go to Publishers Marketplace and sign up to receive deal lunch (and do a deal search via their search engine). Agent Query doesn’t have a bad database (and it’s somewhat up-to-date).

I do think that checking an agent’s recent sales history is a big deal and to note types of sales as well because not all agents are equal. And they certainly aren’t considered equal in editors’ eyes. It’s the truth that proposals/submissions from certain agents are going to be read and considered more seriously than others. There is a hierarchy but if you’ve done your sales research homework, I think you’ll get a very good sense of an agent’s standing.

You can check out Writer Beware and Preditors & Editors. Those folks are tops and keep track of the really nasty folks and scammers.

If you want to know how the agent will match with you personally, I have to say that information will probably only be revealed once you have a conversation with the agent and also interview some of that agent’s clients. (And trust me, you don’t need to worry about this aspect unless you have an offer of representation on the table.)

Even then you may not end up with your permanent agent. I’ve heard lots of author stories about how the agent gave up after one book or wasn’t in love with the second book and the author had to move on.

When you sign with an agent, you hope it’s love forever but if it’s not, you’ll need courage and support to move on to find that perfect match.

Rejection Letter Revised!

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: Today I spent lots of time on the phone. I can’t quite believe it’s 3 in the afternoon and I still have quite the TO DO list. I think it’s going to be a late one in the office.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? MESSAGE OF LOVE by The Pretenders

Y’all convinced me; it’s time for a standard rejection letter revise. A quick thank you to all who commented and contributed. I found the reasons why a change should be made quite helpful.

I’m ditching the “sounds intriguing part” and revamping the last paragraph about finding the right match.

Here’s the new and (hopefully) improved letter.

March 15, 2007

Dear Author:

Thank you so much for sending the Nelson Literary Agency your query.

We’d like to apologize in advance for the impersonal nature of this standard rejection letter. Rest assured that we do read every query letter carefully and, unfortunately, this project is not right for us.

Because this business is so subjective and opinions vary widely, we recommend that you pursue other agents. After all, it just takes one “yes” to find the right match.

Good luck with all your publishing endeavors.

Sincerely,
Kristin Nelson
Sara Megibow

My comments:

1. I decided to keep the apology because I am truly sorry that we have to send an impersonal standard letter, and it makes me feel better to have that line included.

2. In the beginning, we actually did “personalize” our standard letter by including the author’s name and title of the project, but the time saved by no longer doing do so is huge; I regret it but we really can’t go back. Sorry! I hear you on how much nicer it is and although query letters are important, they aren’t our first priority.

3. As you noticed, I changed to “project” rather than “we aren’t the right agency for you.” It was a great point you folks made that maybe I’m not interested in this project but the next one could win me over. It’s important to leave the door open.

4. I totally changed the last paragraph and now that I’ve done so, I like this version a lot better.

Other Random Thoughts:

1. When we request and read a full manuscript, we do actually write a completely personalized letter explaining why we are passing. We also semi-personalize our sample pages rejection by including the author’s name and title of the project. I will often write a personal note as well.

2. We don’t have multiple rejection letters. Too time-consuming yet again. Besides, the general consensus from writers is that they appreciate a prompt response and it’s what we have to do to respond quickly. I’m in awe of other agencies that can quickly fire off personalized letters. We’ve tried it and it just doesn’t work for us.

3. And finally, just an interesting tidbit. Sara and I use the same rejection letter when responding so actually there really isn’t a way for anyone to tell if Sara passed on the letter during the first read or if it went to me and I sent the rejection letter.

Rejection—The Humane Way?

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: I’m feeling great because Chutney is finally on the mend. A puppy dog with diarrhea is not a pleasant thing. She’s curled up and sleeping on her snuggle ball right now. And of course she comes to the office. What’s funny is that she’s not the only dog at the offices in our building. It’s a very Colorado thing.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? FNT by Semisonic

I have to say I’m a little curious as to how this little experiment will unfold. As promised, I said I would post my standard rejection letter.

Here it is. I’ve included my comments about the letter in blue. I’ve had this letter, or a close version of it, for the last four years. It may be time for change.

March 14, 2007

Dear Author:
Some salutation seems necessary. We used to include the writer’s name but that was too time-consuming. Not to mention, this is a standard letter and wouldn’t “Dear Author” signal it as so?

Thank you so much for sending the Nelson Literary Agency your query.
And we mean this. Thank you.

We’d like to apologize in advance for this standard rejection letter. Standard letters are so impersonal so we do want to apologize for it. The volume of queries as of late has been too overwhelming to personalize our response anymore. Very true and that’s why we have a standard letter. Rest assured, we do read every query letter carefully and although your work sounds intriguing, we’re sorry to say that we don’t believe we are the right agency for you. I imagine that a lot of writers don’t believe that we read query letters carefully but we really do. Also, many writers have mentioned getting annoyed with the “although your work sounds intriguing” line. After all, if it’s so intriguing, why aren’t we asking for sample pages? Good question. I can’t think of a better way to handle this. Sometimes we do really get intriguing letters but it’s not a book I would pick up and read so ultimately it’s not right for me—but the idea is sound.

You deserve an enthusiastic representative, so we recommend that you pursue other agents. We want to be encouraging after all and it could just be us that doesn’t like the query. After all, it just takes one “yes” and with so many different opinions out there, you could easily find the right match. I explained this line yesterday. Sometimes it really does come down to finding the right agent match who loves the idea and the work.

Good luck with all your publishing endeavors. We want to end on a positive note.

Sincerely,
Kristin Nelson
Sara Megibow
Signed by both of us. Here’s an interesting tidbit. I used to read all my queries but then it got too overwhelming and I couldn’t expend the time on it. In the beginning of my agency, a good day was when we received 10-15 email queries. Now we receive anywhere from 50 to 80 a day. I got desperate so I hired Sara and trained her to screen the queries for me (among other things).

So, Sara reads them all. I only read a percentage of them since Sara will set aside the queries she wants me to read. I will then say ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ on whether to look at sample pages from that batch.

So technically, it is a process with both of us involved and I wanted folks who query us to know that.

So that’s the letter. Things we can’t do.

1. Mention or recommend other agents.

We get requests for this all the time but I like my colleagues and want them to continue liking me so including recommendations is not an option.

2. Personalization of the letter.

It literally is too time-consuming. I know this because we used to do it. I know there are software programs that can drop in the writer’s name as well as the title of the project but I wonder if that’s misleading. This is a standard rejection letter after all. The point is for writers to not take it personally and adding those touches may make the letter a little less impersonal but it’s still a standard one.

What’s better or worse?

Oh The Foibles of Email

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: Gorgeous day. Unfortunately Chutney is sick and I need to run her to the vet this morning.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? SENTIMENTAL LADY by Bob Welsh

The problem with email is that sometimes the tone is not clear—or it can be very open to interpretation.

First off, just let me say that most agents have a standard rejection letter. It’s not good or bad or in any way a personal reflection on you as a writer. It’s simply a standard letter so that writers get a response versus none at all.

Isn’t it in the Godfather movies where he says, “This isn’t personal; it’s business” or some derivation of that?

That’s how you have to view standard rejection letters.

Now of course I have one as well. In the past, I’ve received numerous compliments on how nice my standard letter is. Great. I’m glad it works for some people.

But every once in a while I get an email reply from a frustrated writer that would like to critique the letter. Yesterday, the writer had a problem with the line “After all, it just takes one “yes” and with so many different opinions out there, you could easily find the right match.”

The writer found the phrase condescending, insulting and ridiculous because in her view, it’s not easy to land an agent, that a writer doesn’t have many options, and the market is hard to break into. So my guess is that she has concluded that I’m being unnecessarily cavalier by indicating that it just takes finding the right match in my standard rejection letter.

But I include the line because in many instances, it’s true. I pass on lots of manuscripts that don’t work for me but are sell-able projects that other agents have liked, taken on, and then sold.

So the line is in fact true. For some writers I’ve rejected, it really was about finding the right match. Not for all the writers rejected, mind you, but for some, yes it was.

Tomorrow I think I’ll share my standard rejection letter. Break it down and analyze why I include the things I do in it. Maybe there’s a better way. You guys can chime in and if what you say is valuable, maybe it’s time for a revision. I’m always open.

Market Savvy

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: I’m battling myself to not leave the office early. It’s 70 degrees out. Must go to Park. Must take Chutney for a walk RIGHT NOW. No, I must be good and wait until at least 4 o’clock when it might be reasonable to pop out early to enjoy the day.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? FALL ON ME by R.E.M.

I have to say that I really enjoyed reading the discussion in the comment section of last Friday’s blog so a quick thank you to all who chimed it.

It’s clear to me that writers who have considered the question of market will not run into a problem when querying a work—even if it’s not clear exactly where the work might fit.

Writers who understand and have analyzed the issue will figure out how to label it (literary fiction in an SF setting for example) or decide to not even try and really focus on the storyline in the query.

It’s hard to explain the issue of market savvy versus not when I can’t share a real query letter received that so exemplifies when it misses. The closest example I can give is that when writers miss, it’s usually because they describe the work in an odd manner so it ends up sounding like some strange cross between nonfiction and fiction (my work is women’s fiction that embraces many principles of psychological self-help that will really help readers). Or something like that.

That’s when Sara and I end up shaking our heads in wonder about the aspiring author’s cluelessness regarding the market. If I want psychological self-help, I’ll read a nonfiction book for it. I don’t read a novel to get those principles. I’m much more interested in the story unfolding and how the characters will grow and develop (and if those psychological self-help principals are subtly interwoven so I don’t notice it but it does enhance the story, all power to the writer—but it doesn’t need to be highlighted in the query.) Did I explain that well?

But I do agree that sometimes the most interesting and original fiction can come out of the exercise of writers bending the genres. I personally love that.

Several years ago when I first shopped Shanna Swendson’s ENCHANTED, INC., we were in a little quandary about what to call it.

Was it paranormal chick lit? Or was it fantasy? We ended up calling it paranormal chick lit for submission but in truth, that wasn’t quite right. Maybe today I’d call it lighthearted contemporary urban fantasy (and how many descriptors can I put on that?). That’s actually more accurate but three years ago, nobody in publishing was calling stuff “lighthearted contemporary urban fantasy” so we opted for the first option.

It can be annoying but we do have to name things when going on submission.

And I personally like to hear how writers consider their own work (even if it ends not being completely on target). It can be very telling about how writers perceive themselves, what they want from the work, their career, their style, their direction etc.

Last On The List

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: It was a gorgeous spring-like day in Denver. The kind of day where you just want to sit out at sidewalk café drinking latte rather than working. I controlled myself though.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? (I JUST) DIED IN YOUR ARMS by Cutting Crew

I have to admit that I’m a little behind in reading sample pages and several full manuscripts that I’ve requested.

And not because of lack of desire. I’d love to find something new and exciting.

It’s basically because I have a lot of client material that needs to be read, reviewed, or edited and they are my first priority.

I prioritize by the axiom “live close to the money,” and since it’s my current clients who are earning the dinero, their current projects need to get complete and out on submission before I tackle anything new. And yes I understand that a new project can be money if it’s exciting enough but like a John Cusack film, I’ve to go with the sure thing first.

And I know all of you were thinking she prioritizes based on the axiom “show me the money” but you’d be wrong.

I negotiate by that axiom. Big smile here.