text:
Category: Requested material-wrangling
Posted on April 24, 2013 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on Me and you and a boy? girl? dog? named Snafu
Me and you and a boy? girl? dog? named Snafu
Sorry about my recent slow rate of posting, campers; as the sharper-eyed among you may have noticed, we here at Author! Author! have been experiencing what the old television shows used to call euphemistically technical difficulties. Quite a bit of progress can be seen behind the scenes, I assure you, but it will be a little while before the full benefits will be visible from your side of the page. Mea culpa, and thanks for hanging in there.
I've been hesitant to keep pressing forward with our series-in-progress on manuscript formatting while the visual examples are still acting a bit squirrelly. Writers' conference season is almost upon us, however, and proper formatting can make the difference between an enthusiastically-read post-pitch submission and one that our old pal, Millicent the agency screener, picks up with trepidation, so I'd like to smuggle the standard format basics into everyone's writing tool kit sooner rather than later. Let us press on unabashed, therefore.
When last we broached the subject, I showed how the first page of text does not, from a professional perspective, make an adequate substitute for a title page in a book manuscript — a demonstration that, if past is any prologue, may well have left some of you scraping your jaws off the floor. Don't be too hard on yourself, if so: most first-time submitters simply assume that if a manuscript does include a title page — and a hefty majority of submissions arrive without one — it should be a replica of a hoped-for book cover. That's what they've seen in bookstores (ask your grandparents, children), so that must be what looks professional to the professionals, right?
As I hope those of you who have been following his series have already shouted: heavens, no. Standard format for manuscripts does not resemble what's on the printed page of a published book in many respects.
You'd be surprised at how many aspiring writers are not aware of that, judging by how many single-spaced, non-indented, photo-heavy submissions turn up at agencies. Even the more industry-savvy rookies — the ones who have taken the time to learn that book manuscripts must be double spaced, contain indented paragraphs, be printed on one side of the page, etc. — are frequently unaware that that in traditional publishing circles, the author typically has very little say over what does and does not grace the cover.
Millicent is quite cognizant of that fact, however; experience watching books travel the often bumpy road from initial concept to publication have shown her that cover art is almost invariably the publishing house's choice. So is pretty much everything on the dust jacket, including the back jacket copy, the book's typeface, and every other cosmetic consideration. So when she opens requested materials to find something like this:
she sees not a manuscript perfectly ready for publication — that's what some of you, thought, right? — but evidence that the sender does not understand the difference between a published book and a manuscript. At minimum, this admittedly rather pretty top page demonstrates that the writer does not understand that throughout the publication process, the title page of a manuscript is not just its top cover.
Nor is it merely the shouted-out declaration of the book's title and who wrote it, another popular choice in submissions. What possible practical purpose could a title page like this serve at the submission stage?
Not much doubt about what it's called or who wrote it, true, and the typeface certainly blares those two facts with gratifying gusto, but how precisely does this (unusually small, for some reason best known to the writer) sheet of paper fulfill any of the functions the agent or small publisher to whom it was submitted might need it to serve? How, in fact, is it a better title page than the most common of all, the following?
No, your eyes are not deceiving you: the single most popular title page option in manuscript submissions is none. It's an especially common omission in e-mailed submissions. Half the time, e-mail submitters don't even include a cover letter; they just attach the requested number of pages. "I've been asked to send this," title page-eschewers murmur, doubtless to convince themselves, "so the agency has to know who I am. Besides, my name and the title are in the slug line — that's the writer's name and title in the upper right margin of the page, should anyone have been wondering. Surely, that's enough to identify the manuscript."
Well, it might be, if Millicent were fond of guessing games, but hands up, anyone who seriously believes that agents ask to see so few manuscripts in any given year based upon the tens of thousands of queries they receive that any requested materials must be instantly recognizable not only to their weary peepers, but to the entire staffs of their agencies. Keep those hands up if you also cling to the writer-flattering notion that agents and editors hearing pitches at conference find so few of them convincing that they could easily identify both book and writer by the storyline alone.
Found better uses for your hands, did you? Glad to hear it. But if presenting a fantasy book cover isn't the point of including a title page, and if its main goal is not to shout that you — yes, YOU — managed to pull off the quite impressive achievement of writing an entire book or book proposal, what meaning is this poor, misunderstood page supposed to convey to Millicent?
Its mission is not particularly romantic, I'm afraid: a properly-formatted title page is simply a quiet, practical piece of paper, containing a specific set of marketing information any agent or editor would need in order to bring your book to publication. If Millicent doesn't spot that information as soon as she claps eyes on the pages her boss, the agent of your dreams, asked you to send, her first impression of your submission will be that you've made her life a little harder.
Call me zany, but I doubt that was Ann Gardiner's goal when she put all of that effort into designing that pretty faux book cover and popped it into the envelope with her first 50 pages. I would be surprised if Ama Narcissist actively desired to make it difficult for an agent who fell in love with her writing to contact her. And I would be downright flabbergasted if the e-mailing submitter that just didn't think to include a title page with his Word document hadn't just assumed that Millicent keeps every single one of the thousands of e-mails her agency receives in any given week in a special file, all ready to be leafed through so if her boss wants to see more of the manuscript, she can waste 17 hours trying to track down the sender's original e-mailed query. Because all that's required to respond to an e-mailed submission is to hit REPLY, right?
Again: heavens, no. Any reasonably established agency may be relied upon to be juggling far, far too many submissions at any given time.
Do those inarticulate gasps of frustration mean that some of you have under-labeled manuscripts in circulation at this very moment, or merely that you have questions? "But Anne," hyperventilating writers the English-speaking world over gasp, "I'm an inveterate reader of agency and small publishing houses' submission guidelines, and they rarely state a preference for including a title page. What gives?"
What gives, my air-deprived friends, is that it's actually pretty uncommon for submission guidelines to get down to the nitty-gritty of page formatting. As much as the strictures of standard format may seem new and strange to an aspiring writer confronting them for the first time, it's just how the publishing industry expects professional book writing to be presented. A title page is so presumed to be part of a properly-formatted manuscript that many submission guidelines might not bother to mention it at all.
Which may be why, in practice, submitting without a title page is far more common than including one, especially for electronic submissions. This presentation choice is particularly common for contest entries, perhaps because contest rules seldom come right out and say, "Hey, buddy, include a title page, why doncha?" — and they virtually never say, "Hey, buddy, don't bother with a title page, because we don't need it." Instead, they usually just ask entrants to include certain information with their entries: the category the writer is entering, perhaps, with contact information on a separate sheet of paper.
Which has, you may be interested to hear, a name amongst those who handle manuscripts for a living. It's called, if memory serves, a title page.
Ah, a forest of hands has sprouted in the air. "But Anne," murmur those of you who currently have submissions floating around out there without your contact information attached, "I'd like to go back to that part about the expectation that a manuscript should include a title page being so widespread that a pro putting together submission guidelines might not even think to bring it up. Assuming that pretty much everyone else whose submission will land on Millicent's desk on the same day as mine was in the dark about this as I was until I read your recent fine-yet-sleep-disturbing post, should I even worry about not having included a title page? I mean, if Millie were going to reject manuscripts on this basis alone, she'd be a non-stop rejection machine."
Of course, she isn't a non-stop rejection machine. She's a virtually non-stop rejection machine. She genuinely gets excited about quite a few submissions.
But that wasn't really the crux of your question, was it, worried submitters? You're quite right that this omission is too common to be an instant-rejection offense at most agencies, despite the fact that including it renders it far, far easier for the agent of your dreams to contact you after he has fallen in love with your writing. However, any deviation from standard format on page 1 — or, in the case of the title page, before page 1 — will make a manuscript look less professional to someone who reads submissions day in, day out. It lowers expectations about what is to follow.
To gain a better a sense of why, let's revisit a couple of our examples from earlier in this series. Welcome back, R.Q. Snafu and Faux Pas. See if you can spot where they went astray.
While opening pages like these do indeed include the requisite information Millicent or her boss would need to contact the author (although Faux Pas' pulls it off it better, by including more means of contact), cramming all of it onto the first page of text doesn't really achieve anything but saving a piece of paper, does it? What precisely would be the point of that? This tactic wouldn't even shorten the manuscript or contest entry, technically speaking: the title page is never included in a page count. That's why pagination begins on the first page of text.
So what should a proper title page for a book manuscript or proposal look like? Glad you asked:
Got all three of those last three images indelibly burned into your cranium? Excellent. Now weigh the probability that someone who reads as many manuscripts per day as Millicent — or her boss, or the editor to whom her boss likes to sell books — would not notice a fairly substantial difference in the presentation.
Exactly. Now assess the likelihood of that perception's coloring any subsequent reading of the manuscript in question.
The answers are kind of obvious once you've seen the difference, are they not? Trust me, Millicent will have seen the difference thousands of times.
Again, I see many raised hands out there in the ether. "But Anne," upright individuals the globe over protest, "I get that including all of the information in that last example would render it simpler for a Millicent who fell in love with the first three chapters of MADAME BOVARY to contact Mssr. Flaubert to ask for the rest of the manuscript. I'm not averse to making that part of her job as easy as humanly possible. However, I don't quite understand why my presentation of that array of facts need be quite so visually boring. Wouldn't my manuscript be more memorable — and thus enjoy a competitive advantage — if the title page were unique?"
At the risk of damaging your tender eardrums, HEAVENS, no! To folks who handle book manuscripts for a living, a title page is most emphatically not the proper place for individual artistic expression; it's the place to — stop me if you've heard this before — provide them with specific information necessary for dealing with a submission.
Anything else is, in a word, distracting. To gain a sense of why, let's take a gander at another type of title page Millicent sees with great frequency — one that contains all of the right information, but is so unprofessionally formatted that the care with which the writer followed the content rules gets entirely subsumed in the visuals.
Where should I even begin with this one? It's pretty, undoubtedly, but would anyone care to start listing any of the five things wrong with it?
If you immediately zeroed in on the picture, give yourself a gold star for the day. Since there is literally no chance that any image a writer chooses to place on a manuscript or proposal's title page will end up on the published book's cover, what's the point of placing it here? Decorating your submission's title page with photos or drawings will just seem bizarre to Millicent. (And that goes double for Mehitabel, the veteran literary contest judge. She is likely to emit a well-bred little scream when she opens the entry envelope.)
Award yourself two gold stars if you said Ms. White should nix the red lettering — or any lettering that isn't black, for that matter. Like every other page in the manuscript, the title page should be printed in black ink on white paper. No exceptions.
Help yourself to a third gold star out of petty cash if you also caught that her contact information should not have been centered. Pin a great big blue ribbon on yourself, too, if you pointed out that Ms. White used two different typefaces here, a classic standard format no-no. Not to mention the fact — although I do seem to be mentioning it, don't I? — that the type size varies.
Feel free to chant it with me, axiom-lovers: like everything else in the manuscript, the title page should be entirely in 12-point type. It should also be in the same font as the rest of the manuscript.
With the usual caveat: unless an agent specifically requests otherwise, of course. Or contest's rules; double-check for title page restrictions. (Why? Well, since the title page is generally the first part of an entry Mehitabel sees, not adhering to the rules there can knock an otherwise promising submission out of finalist consideration before she has a chance to read the first line of text. Contest rules exist for a reason, you know.)
You may place the title — and only the title — in boldface if you like, but that's about as far as it's safe to venture on the funkiness scale. Do not, I beg you, give in to the temptation of playing with the typeface. No matter how cool your title page looks with 24-point type, resist the urge, because Millicent will be able to tell from across the room if you didn't.
Don't believe that size matters? See for yourself:
Quite a difference, isn't it? Apart from Mssr. Smith's tragic font choice and his not having countermanded Word's annoying propensity to reproduce e-mail addresses in blue ink, did you notice any potentially-distracting problems with this title page?
If you said that the last example included both a slug line and a page number in the bottom right corner, snag yourself yet another gold star. Add whipped cream and walnut clusters if you mentally added the reason that those additions are incorrect: because the title page is not the first page of text, and should not be formatted as if it were.
While I'm on a boldface kick, title pages should not be numbered. This means, incidentally, that the title page should not be counted as one of the 50 pages in those 50 pages the agent of your dreams asked you to submit. Nor would it count toward the total number of pages for a contest entry.
That loud whoop you just heard was contest-entering writers everywhere realizing that they could squeeze another page of text into their entries. Who knew so many of them could tap-dance?
While you've got those title pages firmly imprinted upon your brainpan, let me briefly address a question from incisive reader Lucy, one of many aspiring writers enamored of the clean, classic look of initials on a book cover. As you may have noticed, our pall Snafu shares the same preference. Lucy wondered if other naming choices might raise other distracting thoughts.
What if you have a weird name which is gender confusing? Say a boy named Sue? Should he put Mr. Sue Unfortunate on his title page? Or just Sue Unfortunate?
Lucy's responding, of course, to the fine print on R.Q.'s first page. Here it is again, to save you some scrolling:
I was having a little fun in that last paragraph with the still surprisingly common writerly belief that the agents and editors will automatically take a submission by a woman more seriously if the author submits it under her initials, rather than under her given first name. J.K. Rowling aside, this just isn't true, at least in fiction circles.
In fact, in North America, women buy the overwhelming majority of novels — and not just women's fiction, either. A good 90% of literary fiction readers (and agents, and editors) have two X chromosomes — and some of them have been known to prefer reading books by Susans rather than Roberts.
So unless you have always hated your parents for christening you Susan, you won't really gain anything professionally by using initials in your nom de plume instead. Go ahead and state your name boldly, Sue.
Even better, why not publish under a name you actually like instead? That'll show your Susan-loving parents, Norm.
I just ruffled a few feathers out there, didn't I? "But Anne," I hear many an initialed purist exclaim, "I don't want to be judged as a female writer; I want to be judged as a writer. What's wrong with removing gender markers altogether from my title page — or my query letter, for that matter?"
Well, there's nothing wrong with it per se, Susan, except that people are probably going to leap to a conclusion about your sex regardless, at least if you happen to be writing in a book category that tends to be marketed more to one sex than another. In most fiction and pretty much all nonfiction categories, Millicent's first response upon seeing initials on a title page, especially if neither the By part and the contact information contain a first name, will often be, "Oh, this is a female writer who doesn't want to be identified as one," rather than "Gee, I wonder who this intriguing person without a first name is. I'm just going to leap right into this manuscript with no gender-based expectations at all."
Why might young Millie have this reaction — and her older boss be even more likely to respond this way? Because female writers (and with a few notable exceptions, almost exclusively female writers) have been submitting this way for a couple of hundred years now. It's not all that hard a code to crack.
Historically, the hide-my-sex-for-success strategy has been used far, far less by male authors — except, of course, that hugely prolific and apparently immortal author, Anonymous, and the reputedly male writers of such ostensibly female-penned first-person classics of estrogen-fueled wantonness (avert your eyes, children) as THE HAPPY HOOKER, COFFEE, TEA, OR ME? and MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA. Even during periods when some of the most popular and respected novelists have been women (and there have been quite a few such periods in the history of English and American prose, contrary to what your high school English textbook probably implied), when someone named Stanley Smith wrote a novel, the title page has generally said so.
Because, you see, even back in the 19th century, many readers would have just assumed S. Smith the novelist was a nice lady named Susan. (It's probably where your parents got the idea to christen you that, Norman.) Or those readers would have assumed that you were an Oxford don writing scurrilous fiction that might have shocked your colleagues on the side. That avocation has historically resulted in fewer book readers naming their children Susan, though.
That being said, an author's pen name is ultimately up to the author. The choice to identify yourself with initials or not is entirely up to you — or, more accurately, to you and your agent, you and your editor, and you and your future publisher's marketing department. Some sets of initials look cooler than others in print, just as some names look better than others on book jackets.
Or so claimed my father, the intrepid fellow who demanded that the maternity ward nurse convey him to a typewriter to see how my name looked in print before committing to filling out my birth certificate. The better to check if it would look good on a book jacket, my dear. So for those of you who have wondered: however improbable it sounds, Anne Mini is in fact my given name; it just happens to look great in print, thanks to a little paternal forethought.
If I had preferred to publish under A. Mini, though, I doubt anyone but my father would have strenuously objected. Certainly not at the submission stage — when, for some reason that mystifies Millicents, many aspiring writers seem to believe that the question of pen name must be settled for good. It doesn't. Should you already be absolutely certain that you would prefer to go by your initials, rather than your given name, feel free to identify yourself that way on your title page.
For convenience's sake, however, it's customary for the contact information to list the name one prefers an agent to ask to speak to on the telephone.
Which brings us back to Lucy's trenchant question: how on earth does a writer with a gender-ambiguous name delicately convey whether s/he would prefer to be addressed as Ms. or Mr.? S/he doesn't, at least on the title page, or indeed in the query letter: that's a matter for subsequent conversation with one's agent. These days, though, it's unlikely that the agent who has just fallen in love with the writer of our last example would address a potential client so formally: the e-mail or phone call offering representation would probably begin Dear Norman.
At worst, an agent reading in a hurry might call and ask for Ms. Unfortunate. But you can live with that, can't you, Susan?
Besides, unless a writer's gender (or sex, for that matter) is crucial to the story being told, why should it come up before then?
See earlier commentary about being judged by one's writing, not one's sex. If a writer is genuinely worried about it, s/he could always embrace Norman's strategy above, and use a more gender-definite middle name in the contact information.
Keep your chins up, Susans everywhere — you may have little control over what literary critics will say about your work, but you do have control over what name they call will you while they're doing it. That's worth something, isn't it?
More concrete examples of properly and improperly formatted manuscripts follow next time. Keep those questions coming, and as always, keep up the good work!
Posted on August 2, 2012 January 19, 2017 - 7 Comments on So you've pitched successfully — now what? Part V: presenting your manuscript so its glory shines unfettered
So you've pitched successfully — now what? Part V: presenting your manuscript so its glory shines unfettered
I had to laugh, campers: remember Tuesday's lengthy post on cover letters for submissions, and, by extension, on the many, many benefits of tailoring one's communications with agents, editors, and the rest of us that read for a living in such a way that (a) one demonstrates a laudable ability to communicate clearly in writing, (b) one displays an admirable willingness to follow the directions given in the request for pages, and (c) one practices a level of courtesy that indicates not only that one would be a pleasure to work with, but also that one does not expect the manuscript-requester either to have been holding her breath, awaiting your submission, or to drop all of her other work to pay attention to your pages the instant they arrive? You know, the post in which I explained with meticulous care that since so many aspiring writers are inconsiderate in their submissions, it would be very much in your interest to be the one submitter that day that greets Millicent the agency screener with professional politeness? To be, in fact, the one aspiring writer out of a thousand that puts in the effort and thought to render herself easy to help?
Once again, as so often occurs, the universe rushed to provide me with further examples to illustrate a discussion already in progress here at Author! Author! Yesterday, I found myself devoting hours to an author that expected me to abandon any work-related plans I might have had for my afternoon to pay attention to an essay he had written — as a potential guest post here, as it happens — without any prior warning. That in itself is too common to be irritating; it frequently takes writers years to accept that their deadlines are not the only ones with which the pros deal. The fact that he had pulled the same stunt on Monday, while less ordinary, had already confirmed him in my mind as someone that would not be especially easy to help.
Being an easy-going sort of person, however (or at least as easy-going as it is possible to be in a deadline-based business), my first response to his popping up again — and so soon, too — was not to dismiss him as inconsiderate or unprofessional. I intended merely to give him a gentle hint that the next time he wanted my advice, he should plan on asking, nicely, to book my time a week in advance.
That was my plan, anyway, until it became clear that he was outraged about Monday's editorial feedback. You know, the stuff I'd spent an hour thoughtfully compiling for him on a moment's notice.
Which, again, is not in itself unusual enough to raise my delicate eyebrows much. What did throw me a little — and make me think of our ongoing series — was that the tirade the author saw fit to e-mail me was clearly his immediate response to my editorial suggestions. That indeed surprised me: by the time most writers make their way into print, they have generally learned that their first responses to revision requests do not always match up with their subsequent thoughts on the subject. An experienced author might still compose that irate e-mail telling the editor that she must be out of her ever-loving mind, but he usually has the presence of mind not to hit SEND.
Why bring this up in the midst of a discussion on submission, you ask, other than to plant the seed in your mind that a prudent writer will wait a few days before taking issue with an agent or editor's revision request? Two reasons: to illustrate my earlier point that how writers present themselves sometimes discourages the pros from trying to help them — and to remind everyone that the manuscript is not necessarily the only part of the submission that an agent, editor, or Millicent will weigh in deciding whether to represent a writer. The writing is the most important element, of course, but the professionalism of a submission packet and submission behavior that demonstrates both courtesy and a willingness to follow directions will also go a long way toward convincing a pro that yours is the project out of tens of thousands to select.
Perhaps equally important for first-time submitters to know, this is a business in which politeness counts, as do reputations. Although it may appear huge and monolithic to a writer trying to break in, U.S. publishing is actually a relatively small and diverse world. People talk.
Why might a writer want to be concerned about what they say? Well, let me put it this way: I already knew when the soon-to-be irate author approached me with a request to guest-blog that he tended to overreact to editorial feedback. I'd heard stories.
To be fair, such stories abound. One does not have to hang around publishing circles very long to learn that as a group, writers have a reputation for being hypersensitive to feedback, if not downright resistant to it. We also, I'm sorry to report, have gained the image of reacting with equally violent negativity to any suggested revision, be it a request to alter a single paragraph in Chapter 2 or to rework the entire last third of the book.
"What do you mean, I have to add a comma on line 3 of page 147?" the faceless author of professional anecdote rails. "That would utterly destroy my artistic vision! And you want me to stop using adverbs to modify every appearance of the word said? Madness!"
Like most stereotypes, the writer that flies into an insensate rage over the slightest criticism is largely mythical, of course, and his ubiquity is certainly exaggerated. In my experience, most writers serious about their craft do try pretty hard to be open to professional critique. And that can be genuinely challenging, as almost every aspiring writer thinks of her first manuscript, at least, as part of herself.
So when even the best-intentioned agent or editor says something as self-evidently helpful as, "You know, your target audience might respond better to this character if he didn't swear in every sentence," it's not entirely surprising that a writer new to revision might hear not a practical suggestion to excise a few dozen specific words over the course of a manuscript with a hundred thousand of them, but a blanket condemnation of her writing style.
It's even less astonishing than such a misinterpretation would have been fifty or sixty years ago. Most aspiring writers today are not aware of it, but the submission system used to be set up, at least in part, to inure them to the fact that one of the ways the pros help writers is by offering feedback. How so? Well, in the bad old days, a writer would send a manuscript (often, unwisely, his only copy) to a publishing house, and he would receive a response from some kind editorial assistant. Most often, that missive would be a form letter, thanking the writer for his submission but informing him that it did not meet the publisher's needs at that time.
If the manuscript demonstrated even the slightest hint of what at the time was called promise, however, that editorial assistant — or even an editor — might well fill that letter with feedback and professional advice. And not only in the instances in which the editor felt the manuscript had sufficient publishing potential that the letter included a request to revise and resubmit: astonishingly often, the pros would take the time to say encouraging words to those only beginning to tread the path to writing professionally.
That meant, if a writer kept at it, she would see a definite progression in submission response. At first, she might receive only generic form letters, but if she worked on her craft and presentation, the next time around, the rejection might take the form of a nice note. After that, she might receive a few general editorial suggestions to improve her work. If she took those seriously, her next effort might spark a letter with detailed feedback, along with a request to resubmit the manuscript after those changes were made. And then, if she was hard-working, talented, and lucky enough to have written something that might appeal to the current market, an editor might well have acquired the book, even if it still needed some polishing.
The writer had, in short, time to get used to the idea that writing professionally meant being expected to make revisions. That wouldn't necessarily mean that she liked it, of course, or that she would feel that all of the feedback would improve the book, but at least an aspiring writer could use the process in order to become accustomed to professional expectations.
Sounds nice, doesn't it? "I'll say it does, Anne," feedback-starved writers everywhere sigh. "That system sounds as though it was not only much more pleasant for aspiring writers — once one became accustomed to receiving professional feedback, that is — but as though it would ultimately result in better books. Why on earth did they give it up?"
Well, not all of them did — there are still quite a few smaller publishing houses that at least try to adhere to this model. But even there, and certainly at the larger houses, the pressure not to give feedback or accept unsolicited submissions has been and continues to be immense: since the sheer number of writers actively seeking publication has risen astronomically since, say, 1952, it would be prohibitively time-consuming to respond to each manuscript individually.
Which is why, in case those of you that were shocked to learn the publishing industry doesn't still operate like this had been wondering, most of the big houses had made the switch thirty years ago to requiring novelists to approach them through agencies. Before the mid-1970s, it was not at all uncommon for a fiction writer not to land an agent until after she sold her first book.
And it wasn't always a minor book, either. According to editorial legend, Ordinary People was a direct acquisition, for instance. An editorial assistant discovered it in the slush pile, the immense stack of unsolicited submissions that used to build up to avalanche proportions in every major house.
Going through the slush pile took immense amounts of time, as you might imagine, so you can hardly blame publishers for being relieved when agencies took over initial manuscript-screening duties. And for years, the submission process in the latter echoed what used to happen at the publishing houses, at least in part: an aspiring writer's progress followed a definite arc.
It was a longer arc, though, because agencies were not eager to generate slush piles; instead of accepting unsolicited submissions, they required prospective clients to query first. And although a great many of those queriers did receive form-letter rejections, it used to be unheard-of for a query not to elicit any response at all. As a writer's understanding of the querying process improved, she might reasonably expect to begin to receive first encouraging rejections ("Although this is not for me, it's an intriguing premise — keep trying!"), then requests for pages. Indeed, as recently as five years ago, agents could occasionally be heard opining at conferences that if a writer was receiving only form-letter replies, there must be something wrong with his query.
Seems so long ago, doesn't it? Now, it's downright common for agencies not to respond to queries at all if the answer is no.
Before ten or fifteen years ago, though, the submission process followed the earlier publishing house norms even more closely than querying did. Agencies would almost always ask for only the first few pages at first; if an agent requested the entire manuscript, it meant she was really excited about the book. If submitted pages received a form-letter reply, it meant that the agency did not consider the manuscript a serious contender for representation. If the manuscript showed promise, however, the rejection might still contain some form-letter elements ("I'm sorry, but I just didn't fall in love with this book."), but it might also contain a few sentences of praise and encouragement.
That way, the writer could learn something from the rejection. He could learn even more if he received what was known as a rave rejection, an apologetic letter explaining what the agent liked about the manuscript, as well as the reasons that she did not believe she could sell it. Although revise and resubmit requests became less common with the advent of the personal computer — which caused an increase in submissions beyond anything the publishing world had ever seen — agents would sometimes test a writer's talent and flexibility by asking for specific revisions before signing him. More often, though, an agent would take a chance on a book that was nearly polished, reserving the revision requests for after the representation contract was signed.
So, again, while some aspiring writers did strike lucky with a first query or first submission, the norm was an ever-increasing level of feedback and much subsequent revision. Although having to land an agent typically added considerable time to the publication process, the savvy writer could learn a great deal about what it would be like to work with an editor.
Today, however, time constraints and constantly rising query numbers have resulted in both less feedback along the way and an expectation that a writer will already be producing perfectly-polished manuscript pages by the time of first submission. That's a tall order, but not without justification: any reputable agency will receive too many clean, well-written, professionally-formatted manuscripts to worry much about the promising projects that don't rise to that standard. A serious writer will pick herself up, dust herself off, and learn how to do better next time, right?
That's Millicent's belief, anyway. But since writers now are so seldom told why their submissions were rejected — indeed, it's become common not to get back to the writer at all if the answer is no, even after a request for the full manuscript, something that stuns most aspiring writers to learn — it's harder than fifty years ago to learn how to improve one's submission. It's harder than it was fifteen years ago. Heck, it's harder than it was five years ago.
Which is why, as you might have guessed, I started this blog seven years ago — seven years ago next week, in fact, should anyone want to send flowers. And should any of you have thought, "My God, why would Anne put up with that guest blogger's weird response to her feedback?" that's also why I periodically ask established authors to share their experiences with you. It's simply a whole lot harder than it used to be for aspiring writers to gain that experience on their own.
So let's turn our focus to that most practical of matters, how to pull together a submission packet. And, while you're at it, using that packet as a subtle means of demonstrating that not only are you a writer serious enough about your work to learn how to present it professionally — rather than, say, expecting an agent or editor to take the time to explain how you might improve your submission next time — but that you also would be a courteous, upbeat client careful about following directions, open to constructive criticism, and generally a joy to help.
Let's start with the most obvious question: how do you get your manuscript to the agent?
Mailing your submission so it arrives looking good
At the risk of making those of you in love with online querying and submission groan, I should preface the practical by saying that most of what follows is directly applicable to the hard-copy submission of requested materials via mail. It's also, to head off any misunderstandings at the pass, intended to advise only writers submitting book manuscripts and book proposals; other branches of publishing have different rules.
And please don't tell me that simply nobody accepts mailed submissions anymore. Even in these mercurial days of e-mailed queries, electronic submission, and Hubble telescope photographs of far-flung celestial bodies (I'm a sucker for a nice snapshot of Jupiter), most agencies still prefer paper submissions. Heck, many still insist on mailed queries as well.
Why? Well, fear of computer viruses, for one thing. Every single e-mailed submission Millicent opens is one more opportunity for something nasty to infest the agency's computer system. But there's another reason that both Millie and a submitter might, given the choice, prefer hard-copy submission: it's so much easier for an electronic submission to get lost.
Why, you ask, your face a frozen mask of horror? Well, when Millicent gets on an online submission reading roll, she hits the DELETE key more than any other, right?. So it's not too surprising that her finger would slip occasionally. Force of habit, really; the lady rejects a heck of a lot of manuscripts between lunch and checking out for the day.
For reasons both of tradition and prudence, then, a lot of writers are going to be in the market for shipping containers for their manuscripts. Yet as insightful long-time reader Jen wrote in to ask some time back, it's far from self-evident what kind of container would look professional to Millie:
Sending off all those pages with nothing to protect them but the slim embrace of a USPS envelope seems to leave them too exposed. Where does one purchase a manuscript box?
An excellent question, Jen: many, many aspiring writers worry that a simple Manila envelope, or even the heavier-duty Priority Mail envelope favored by the US Postal Service, will not preserve their precious pages in pristine condition. Especially, as is all too common, if those pages are crammed into an envelope or container too small to hold them comfortably, or that smashes the SASE into them so hard that it leaves an indelible imprint in the paper.
Do I sense some of you scratching your heads? "But Anne," head-scratchers everywhere ask, and bless their experience-seeking hearts for doing so, "once a submission is tucked into an envelope and mailed, it is completely out of the writer's control. Surely, the Millicents that inhabit agencies, as well as the Maurys that screen submissions at publishing houses and their Aunt Mehitabels that judge contest entries, are fully aware that pages that arrive bent were probably mangled in transit, not by the writer who sent them. They can't blame me for mashed mail, can they?"
Well, yes and no, itchy ones. Yes, pretty much everyone who has ever received a mauled letter is cognizant of the fact that envelopes do occasionally get caught in sorting machines, if not actually mauled by playful bands of orangutans with a penchant for playing volleyball with objects with pointy corners. Mail gets tossed around a fair amount in transit. So even a beautifully put-together submission packet may arrive a tad crumpled.
Do most professional readers cut the submitter slack for this? Sometimes, but if Millicent's just burned her lip on that latt? she never seems to remember to let cool, it's not going to take much for the next submission she opens to irritate her a little. Especially if the submission she happened to be perusing while reaching for her latt? was a revise-and-resubmit job that apparently did not take her boss' thoughtful earlier editorial advice.
To coin a phrase, appearances count. You should make an effort to get your submission to its intended recipient in as neat a state as possible. How does one go about insuring that? The most straightforward way, as Jen suggests, is to ship it in a box designed for the purpose. Something, perhaps, along the lines of this:
Just kidding; no need for a medieval Bible box here. What most professional writers like to use looks a little something like this:
This is the modern manuscript box: sturdy white or brown cardboard with a lid that attached along one long side. Usually, a manuscript box will hold from 250 to 750 pages of text comfortably, without allowing the pages to slide from side to side.
While manuscript boxes are indeed very nice, they aren't necessary for submission; the attached lid, while undoubtedly aesthetically pleasing, is not required, or even much appreciated at the agency end. Manuscripts are taken out of the boxes for perusal, anyway, so why fret about how the boxes that send them open?
In practice, any clean, previously-unused box large enough to hold all of the requested materials without crumpling them will work to mail a submission. Don't waste your valuable energies badgering the manager of your local office supply emporium for an official manuscript box; you may only confuse him. Anything close to the right size will do, but err on the large side: it's easier to pad a manuscript around the edges to fit in a big box than to bend it to squeeze into a small one.
My finely-tuned editorial senses are picking up some resistance, are they not? Some of you dislike the notion of using just any old box, rather than one specially constructed for the purpose, I'm guessing I'm not entirely surprised. I hear all the time from writers stressing out about what kind of box to use — over and above clean, sturdy, and appropriately-sized, that is — and not without good reason. In the old days — say, 30+ years ago — the author was expected to provide a box, and a rather nice one, then wrap it in plain brown paper for shipping.
These old boxes are beautiful, if you can still find one: dignified black cardboard, held together by shining brass brads. They were darned near immortal, too; I have several that members of my family routinely sent back and forth to their agents in the 1950s, back when sending a manuscript across the country entailed sending it on a multi-week trek. To this day, not a sheet of paper inside is wrinkled.
Ah, tradition. For sending a manuscript, though, there's no need to pack it in anything so fancy — or indeed, anything extravagant. No reasonable agent is going to look down upon your submission because it arrives in an inexpensive box.
In fact, if you can get the requested materials there in one piece box-free — say, if it is an excerpt short enough to fit into a Manila folder or Priority Mail cardboard envelope without danger of wrinkling — go ahead. This almost always will work for a partial or the briefer stack of materials acceptable to send in a query packet.
Do bear in mind, though, that for either a query or submission packet, you want to have your pages arrive looking fresh and unbent. Double-check that your manuscript will fit comfortably in its container in such a way that the pages are unlikely to wrinkle, crease, or — perish the thought! — tear.
The chances of avoiding those dreadful fates are substantially higher if you print all of your submission packet materials on bright white 20 lb. paper or better. I favor 24-lb., myself. Yes, it costs a few dollars more, but it honestly is penny-wise and pound-foolish to use cheap paper for submissions. Not only does heavier paper ship better, but it's less likely to wilt over the course of the multiple readings a successful submission will often see at an agency.
It's also, let's face it, more attractive. As we saw last time, if you can look at a stack of printed pages and see even a vague outline of page 2 while you're examining page 1, your paper isn't heavy enough.
Look for a box with the right footprint to ship a manuscript without too much internal shifting. To keep the manuscript from sliding around and getting crumpled, insert wads of bubble wrap or handfuls of peanuts around it, not wadded-up paper. Yes, the latter is more environmentally-friendly, but we're talking about presentation here. Avoid the temptation to use newspaper, too; newsprint stains.
While I'm on the subject of large boxes, if you've been asked to send more than one copy of a manuscript — not all that uncommon after you've been picked up by an agent — don't even try to find a box that opens like a book: just use a standard shipping box. Insert a piece of colored paper between each copy, to render the copies easy to separate. Just make sure to use colored printer paper, not construction paper, or the color will rub off on your lovely manuscripts.
I don't have time to box-shop. I'm right on top of a submission deadline, possibly one that is self-imposed!
Fair enough. If you're pressed for time, your local post office is probably your best bet for one-stop shopping will probably stock manuscript-sized boxes, as does USPS online. Post offices often conceal some surprisingly inexpensive options behind those counters, so it is worth inquiring if you don't see what you need on display.
Do be warned, though, that the USPS' 8 ?" x 11″ boxes only LOOK as though they will fit a manuscript comfortably without bunching the pages. The actual footprint of the bottom of the box is the size of a piece of paper, so there is no wiggle room to insert a stack of paper without wrinkling it.
Trust me, that's not something you want to find out after you've already printed out your submission — or when you are right on top of a deadline. If you're in doubt about the internal size of a flattened-out box (as they tend to be at the post office), fold it into box shape and try placing a standard sheet of paper flat on the bottom. If it doesn't lie completely flat, choose a larger box.
Yes, yes, I know: the USPS is purportedly the best postal service in the world, a boon to humanity, and one of the least expensive to boot. Their gallant carriers have been known to pursue their appointed rounds despite the proverbial sleet, hail, dark of night, and mean dogs. They have also been, as an institution, saddled with some of the nation's most difficult budgeting requirements, so we may well be seeing postal services reduced. I, for one, find that deplorable.
But when faced with an only apparently manuscript-ready box on a last-minute deadline, the thought must occur to even the most sympathetic postal patron: what do they expect anyone to put in an 8 1/2" x 11" box other than a manuscript? A beach ball? A pony? A small automobile? Why not just design the box to hold a ream of paper?
I'm trying to submit on a budget. Is there any chance that I might pick up something appropriate for free?
Actually, yes, but it does mean opting for slightly more expensive postage. It's usually worth it, though: far and away the most economical box source for US-based writers are those free all-you-can-stuff-in-it Priority Mail boxes that the post office provides:
Quite the sexy photo, isn't it? Downright ravishing, considering that it's of an object made of cardboard? . If you don't happen to mind all of the postal service propaganda printed all over it, these 12″ x 12″ x 5 1/2″ boxes work beautifully, with a little padding. (Stay away from those wadded-up newspapers, I tell you.)
Whatever difficulties you may have finding an appropriately-sized box, do not, under any circumstances, reuse a box clearly marked for some other purpose, such as holding dishwashing soap. As desirable as it might be for your pocketbook, your schedule, and the planet, never send your manuscript in a box that has already been used for another purpose. Millicent considers it tacky.
Don't pretend you've never thought about doing this. We've all received (or sent) that box that began life as an mail-order shipping container, but is now covered with thick black marker, crossing out the original emporium's name. My mother takes this process even farther, turning the lines intended to obfuscating that Amazon logo into little drawings of small creatures cavorting on a cardboard-and-ink landscape.
As dandy as this recycling effort is for birthday presents and the like, it's not appropriate for shipping a submission. It's unprofessional — and if there's ever a time when you want your work to be presented as professionally as possible, it's when you're submitting it.
Think about it: do you really want your manuscript to prompt an allergy-prone Millicent to mutter between sneezes, "Why does this submission smell of fabric softener?" (One drawback of nicer paper: it soaks up ambient smells like a sponge. My memoir's editor evidently smoked a couple of cartons over my manuscript, and even now, years later, the marked-up pages still smell like the employee handbook in a Marlboro factory. I knew better than to hit SEND on my reaction to that until weeks after my asthma attack had subsided. And even then, I edited out any references to coughing.)
"But wait!" I hear the box-savvy cry, "Those Amazon boxes are about 4 inches high, and my manuscript is about 3 inches high. It just cries out, 'Stuff your manuscript into me and send me to an agent!'"?
A word to the wise: don't take advice from cardboard boxes; they are not noted for their brilliance. Spring for something new, and recycle that nice Amazon box for another purpose.
How can I keep my manuscript from being mistaken for an unsolicited submission?
Every time you send requested materials, without fail, you should write REQUESTED MATERIALS in great big letters in the lower left-hand corner of the submission envelope. If you have been asked to submit electronically, include the words REQUESTED MATERIALS in the subject line of the e-mail. This will help your submission to land on the right desk, instead of in the slush pile or recycling bin.
Why might an agency receive unsolicited materials to confuse with yours? The submission guidelines on their websites, usually, as well as confusion amongst writers that believe publishing still works as it did fifty years ago. To be absolutely clear, what agencies list on their websites' general submission guidelines does not constitute a request for those materials; that's just stuff they want to have handy while they're considering a query. So a Millicent working in such an agency might routinely process first chapters, opening pages, or a synopsis with a query — all of these would, in the industry's eyes, be unsolicited submissions.
The logic runs thus: guidelines that recommend submitting extra material with a query are generic, aimed at any aspiring writer who might conceivably be considering sending a query. By contrast, a solicited submission, a.k.a. requested materials, is one that an agent is waiting to see because she has asked a particular writer to send it following a successful pitch or query. Because the agent expressed positive interest in seeing those pages, the lucky requestee is fully justified in scrawling REQUESTED MATERIALS in letters two inches high in the lower right-hand corner of the envelope or shipping box, just to the left of the address, to assure that the submission lands on the right desk instead of the slush pile made up of, you guessed it, unsolicited manuscripts.
Everyone clear on the difference between solicited and unsolicited materials? Dandy.
Yes, readers who have been wishing I would drop all of this talk of cardboard and focus upon your concerns? "This is all very helpful, Anne, but a bit superficial, literally. I want to know what goes inside that manuscript box and in what order."
Okay, let's pretend for a moment that you have just been asked to submit materials to the agent of your dreams.
What goes in the box?
The first thing you should do is take a very close look at both the missive in which the agent expressed the request and the agency's guidelines. Why? Well, just as generic requests vary in what agents ask queriers to send, so do requests for solicited material. While every agency and small publishing house seems to have a slightly different idea of what constitutes a standard submission packet.
Remember, part of what you want to demonstrate here is your professionalism and courtesy. You're also being given an opportunity to show you can follow directions. So send precisely what the agent has asked you to send, no more, no less.
What might you be asked to send, you ask? Good question. Here are the most commonly-requested constituent parts, in the order in which they are generally expected to appear in the box:
1. Cover letter
We covered this one last time, right? Any questions?
2. Title page
Always include a title page, if any manuscript pages have been requested — yes, even if you have already sent the first 50 pages, and are now sending the rest of the book.
Why? Long-time readers, chant it with me now: because the submission looks more professional that way.
Also, like the cover letter, a properly-constructed title page renders it easy for an agent to track you down. Believe me, if the agent of your dreams falls in love with your manuscript, you're going to want to hear about it right away. As luck would have it, we discussed how to construct a proper title page earlier in this series.
3. The requested pages in standard format, unbound in any way.
The operative word here is requested. If an agent or editor asked you for a partial, send PRECISELY the requested number of pages. Don't fudge here — even if your novel features a tremendous cliffhanger on p. 51, if the agent of your dreams asked for the first 50 pages, send only the first 50 pages, period.
Actually, in this instance, you should send only the first 50 pages even if they do not end in a period. Even if the designated last page ends mid-sentence, stop there. When an agent or editor asks for a specific number of pages, send that number of pages — no more, no less.
They mean pages in standard manuscript format, by the way. It's impossible to over-estimate the desirability of sending professionally-formatted submissions. If you're brand-new to reading this blog or have somehow avoided my repeated and vehement posts on standard format for manuscripts over the last seven years, you're in luck: earlier in this series, I provided a quick reference guide to proper formatting, for your double-checking convenience.
4. A synopsis, if one was requested, clearly labeled AS a synopsis.
With fiction, when an outline is requested, they usually mean a synopsis, not the annotated table of contents appropriate for nonfiction. For nonfiction, an outline means an annotated table of contents. Most of the time, though, what an agent will ask to see for either is a synopsis.
5. Author bio, if one was requested.
An author bio is a one-page (double-spaced) or half-page (single-spaced) plus photo account of the submitting writer's professional credentials. Typically, when an agent submits a manuscript or book proposal to editors, the author bio is tucked immediately at the end of the manuscript or sample chapter.
6. A SASE big enough to fit the entire manuscript.
For those of you new to the SASE, it's an acronym for self-addressed, stamped envelope. For a submission, the SASE should be large enough to send back every scrap of paper you're mailing to the agency.
Emphasis on the stamped part: always use stamps, not metered postage, for the SASE. That's probably going to be a lot of stamps: due to the paper-consumptive rigors of standard format, one rarely, if ever, meets a full-length manuscript that weighs less than two pounds.
That means some luckless intern is going to have to tote it to the post office personally. Don't make her life more difficult by sticking metered postage on the package.
If the requested pages fit in a Manila or Priority Mail envelope, it's perfectly acceptable to fold a second one in half, stamp and address it, and tuck it in the submission package. But how does one handle this when using a box as a SASE?
Well, it would be impracticable to fold up another box inside. If you have been asked to send so many pages that you need to pack 'em in a box, paper-clip a return mailing label and stamps to your cover letter, along with a polite request that the agent would affix both to the shipping box in the event of rejection. To be on the safe side, explain in your cover letter how you want them to reuse the box: peel the back off the mailing label, stick it over the old label, affix new postage, and seal.
You can also nab one of those tough little everything-you-can-cram-in-here-is-one-price Priority Mail envelopes, self-address it, add postage, and stick it into the box. If you don't care if your manuscript comes back to you a little bent, this is a wonderfully cash-conscious way to go. Those envelopes are surprisingly tough, in my experience — what are they made out of, kryptonite? — and while the pages don't look too pretty after a cross-country trip in them, they do tend to arrive safely.
And think about it: if you're getting the manuscript back, it's because Millicent's rejected it. Who cares if the pages show up on your doorstep bent?
In case you couldn't tell, I'm not a big fan of writers over-investing in impressive return postage — or of aspiring writers shelling out the dosh to overnight their submissions. Neither is necessary, and quick shipping most emphatically won't get your work read faster.
Or taken more seriously. Don't waste your money.
7. Optional extras.
For a partial, if you want to send a second, business-size envelope SASE as well, to make it easy for Millicent to request the rest of the manuscript, place it at the bottom of the packet (and mention it in your cover letter.)
If you don't want to spring for delivery confirmation, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard for the agency to mail to you to acknowledge receipt of the manuscript. They don't always send it back, but usually, they do. To generate a chuckle in a hard-worked Millicent, I always liked to send a SASP that looked like this — although with a stamp attached, of course:
Don't worry about this causing extra effort; it doesn't, and you will have proof that they received it. This is important, because manuscripts do go astray from time to time. You can also have the post office track the box for a low fee.
8. Pack it all in a durable container that will keep your submission from getting damaged en route.
Again, any questions?
And that, my friends, is the low-down on the submission packet. Don't forget that every syllable you send to an agency is a writing sample: this is a time to use impeccable grammar, punctuation, and printing, please. No smudges or bent corners, either. Make it all pretty and hope for the best.
And don't forget to keep sending out queries — and, if requested, other submissions — while you're waiting to hear back. If there's one thing that veteran submitters have learned from experience over the past five years, it's that they don't always hear back. Yes, even on a full manuscript. Keep moving forward.
Above all, comport yourself at every point throughout like a professional writer ready and willing to be helped to publication. Try to think of the submission stage as on-the-job training in how to keep your cool and deliver the goods.
Yes, it can be a very frustrating process, but believe me, the more successful you are, the more often you will be asked to revise your work, do promotion, and engage in other activities that, given their druthers, most writers would choose not to do. It's going to be tempting at some point along your learning curve to beard the heavens with your bootless cries over the abject unreasonableness of anyone but the artist having a say over how to manifest her artistic vision.
But remember, writing is not just for the writer — it's primarily for the reader. Is it really so unreasonable to believe that agents and editors with years of experience shepherding books from the writer's desk to a particular target audience might conceivably be able to give you some good advice?
And if you doubt that — and I sense that some of you do — please, for my sake, consider two more things. First, do you recall that irate author I talked about at the beginning of the post, the one that glanced at my feedback, raced to his computer, and shot off an e-mail in the first throes of injured ego? He thought I was telling him to do the precise opposite of what I actually advised.
I suspect that he realized that as soon as he calmed down; he's a reasonable guy. I also suspect that even as I write this, he is bitterly regretting that he hit SEND.
More importantly from a professional point of view, he wasted what must have been an hour of his time venting at me because he just hadn't read very carefully. And caused me to waste a couple of hours of my time soothing him to the point where he could hear what I was actually saying. How much easier and less stressful it all would have been had he not acted on his initial impulse — and how much more likely, frankly, I would have been to help him out when his next book comes out.
Writers usually learn this from unpleasant experience, but I like to help speed up that learning curve. Which is why I would also like you to consider this: reactions like our friend's are the reason that writers as a group have gained a reputation for over-sensitivity to feedback. Agents and editors do have a pretty good reason to choose writers, as well as manuscripts, with care.
Be a delight, if you possibly can — or at least save your most vehement responses for the moments when it counts most. Remember, it takes only a few isolated tantrum-throwers to give the whole lot of us a bad reputation. Keep up the good work!
Posted on March 16, 2012 January 19, 2017 - 6 Comments on Queryfest, part XXIX and I/II: tracking the wily US letter outside of its natural habitat
Queryfest, part XXIX and I/II: tracking the wily US letter outside of its natural habitat
Last time, judging by the number of horrified private e-mails I have received since I last posted, I suspect I outdid myself on the reader-cautioning front. As so often happens, what induced widespread panic was not one of my habitual grand, wide-ranging philosophical statements, but commentary on a relatively small, practical matter it had never occurred to me to discuss in this forum — and, based upon the aforementioned e-mails, had not occurred to many of my international readers as a problem.
At the risk of sending still more of you charging into the streets, wild-eyed and screaming, allow me to recap: if you are planning upon querying or submitting to a US-based agency, your letter/synopsis/manuscript/everything else you even consider sending them should be printed on US letter-sized paper (8.5″ x 11″), not the internationally standard A4 (8.26″ x 11.69″).
(Oh, and at the risk of repeating myself on another point: it honestly is more efficient — and easier on me — if readers post their reactions and questions in the comments here on the blog, rather than sending them via e-mail. That way, I do not end up composing 42 separate soothing responses when only one would suffice. Also, if you post questions and concerns here, the chances are infinitely higher that some future reader with a similar perplexity will find the response. Karma points for all concerned!)
Those of you far-flung readers who did not immediately clutch your chests and hurl maledictions toward the muses are, I would guess, (a) not intending to approach US-based agents and publishing houses, in which case you should indeed stick with A4, (b) already aware that when in Rome, it's only polite to do as the Romans do, in which case your tact is to be commended, or (c) smugly assuming that as you are cost-conscious enough to be approaching these agents and publishers electronically, this admonition simply does not apply to you. In that final case, I'm afraid I have some bad news.
You see, US printers and photocopiers are stocked with 8.5″ x 11″ paper — and it's not at all beyond belief that an agent, literary contest, or small publisher whose submission guidelines specify electronic submissions will want at some point to print out your synopsis, query, entry, or manuscript. So even if you are submitting electronically from abroad, your submissions should be formatted for US letter-size paper.
Half of you did double-takes at the mention of the word contest, didn't you? That's right, campers: the overwhelming majority of the surprisingly hefty number of contest entries sent from abroad to writing contests here are misformatted. Either they are printed on the wrong size paper or, if the entry arrives electronically, they are formatted for A4. Any guesses why either might result in instant disqualification, even if the contest's rules did not specify US letter?
Award yourself a gold star if you immediately leapt to your dainty feet, shouting, "I know, Anne! A4 allows more words per page than US letter, even with the same margins. So if the pages were full and the contest had length restrictions for entries, it would be quite easy to run quite a bit over the expected word count inadvertently."
Quite right, gold star recipients. To borrow an example from the other side of the Atlantic, here is how the opening to the third chapter of Sir Walter Scott's IVANHOE would appear in US letter — and, as is our wont here at Author! Author!, if you are having trouble reading individual words, try holding down the COMMAND key and hitting + repeatedly.
Here's the first page of that chapter again, formatted for A4. Can you blame Mehitabel, everyone's favorite veteran literary contest judge, for suspecting that ol' Walt was trying to sneak in some extra verbiage?
In a paper submission, she's likely recognize the problem here as a different paper size. In an electronic submission, though, she might just have a vague sense that something was wrong here. 11-point type instead of 12-point, for instance, or the whole shebang shrunk by 97%: both are fairly common dodges contest entrants (and aspiring writers frustrated by too-short synopsis requirements in general) utilize to try to side-step length restrictions. So even if she had not already knocked this opening out of finalist consideration for all of those which clauses (not considered particularly graceful writing, by current American standards) or the U.K. spellings (when in Rome, etc.), she might well have moved it to the disqualification pile for formatting reasons.
Did that blinding flash of light I saw illuminate the ether a moment ago indicate that the logic puzzle-lovers among you have just extrapolated correctly? "But Anne," you cry, clutching your metric rulers, "does that mean that all of the time I have already invested in getting my query down to a single page — or whittling my synopsis down to a specified number of pages, or hacking at my contest entry until it is the length requested in the rules — has not in fact achieved my desired object? Are you (gulp) telling me (shiver) that because I wrote all of these assuming the A4 format, they are too long by US letter-sized paper standards?"
That's precisely what I'm telling you, swift calculators. As we saw in a previous post, writers querying, submitting, and entering from abroad frequently violate US length expectations without either intending to cheat or realizing that they have. And no, neither Mehitabel nor her niece, our pal Millicent the agency screener, will necessarily cut you any slack for not being aware of the difference in the paper supply.
Well might you gasp like a trout yanked from the murky depths to sunlit air, e-mailing queriers. If you have been composing your queries in Word set to printing on A4, copying your letters, and pasting them into an e-mail, they probably are longer than a US-generated query would be. And yes, Millicent probably has noticed.
Tempted to think that you might get away with it, are you? Let me ask you: if you had spent the past few months reading thousands of 1-page queries, do you honestly think that your brain wouldn't automatically start counting lines if the one in front of you seemed a touch on the long side?
While it can be annoying to trim an extra line or two from a query that's already bumping up against the one-page limit, and downright maddening to try to round a contest entry off so the last page does not end in mid-sentence (although in a contest for book-length works, just as in an agent's request for a specific number of pages, no one expects the bottom of the last page to end a sentence, section, or thought), I reserve most of my compassion for the hapless submitter-from-abroad wrestling with a synopsis. Pretty much no matter who a writer is or how long the synopsis in question is supposed to be, every line is precious. And since the convention for synopses is to fill all of the allowed pages to the last line or the one before it — you knew that, right? — those few extra lines afforded by A4 paper can make quite a bit of difference.
Yes, of course I'll show you. To borrow another story from across the pond, force it into a YA format (hey, it's been a boring day), and present it in US letter:
Uses up every available line, does it not? Here's precisely the same synopsis formatted for A4.
Makes more of a cumulative length difference than you would have thought, doesn't it? This second version could take another entire paragraph — and don't tell me that in summarizing a plot as complex as HAMLET, our friend Will would not have appreciated a little extra descriptive space. Not on this continent, buddy!
Now that I have impressed upon you the importance of using the paper size (and accompanying formatting) if you will be sending queries, synopses, manuscripts, and/or contest entries to the US from abroad, I still have that uneasy sense that those of you affected by this news might be gathering your pitchforks and torches to storm the castle, anyway. "But Anne," you shout, brandishing the aforementioned weapons of mad scientist intimidation, "it's not as though US letter is common outside the US. Where would you suggest I pick some up?"
Ooh, good question, pitchfork-brandishers — and a much better question than it would have been just a few years ago. For quite some time, the answer was fairly easy: US-based Kinko's stocked US letter paper in its outlets all over the world. Once FedEx and Kinko's merged, however, that seemed to become quite a bit less common. So while I could, as most writing advisors still do, just glibly tell those of you living abroad to track down a US-owned company, walk in, and demand to buy a ream or two of their paper, that's less feasible than in days of yore.
So what's a writer to do? The advice would be to order US letter paper from an American-owned company that has branches in your neck of the woods — while Amazon UK doesn't seem to stock it, Amazon US does, and they do ship abroad. Shipping costs will be expensive enough, though, that you might want to try stopping by your local stationary store first, smiling as sweetly as you can, and asking them to order a box for you, just for comparative pricing purposes. (Your stationer may know US letter by its alternate name, American quarto.)
Yes, that's rather inconvenient, but certainly less so than the primary answer I found when I did a quick online search — which was, I kid you not, "Go ask at the American embassy."
While I'm on the subject of tracking down hard-to-find office supplies necessary to the writing set, this seems like an excellent time to repost a question that nonfiction writer Liz brought up the last time I wrote about the rigors and strains of pulling together a nonfiction proposal. After having eyed the photo I posted, she inquired:
What is the make of this portfolio? I cannot find one like this that is not made of paper/card and 30 pages max capacity. Please help!!
I can't even begin to estimate how many times a year I hear this particular cri de coeur, both via e-mail (boo!) and popping up in the comments (hooray!). Since the comments are, for some reason that escapes me, not searchable with that handy little search engine that continually lurks for your exploratory pleasure at the upper right-hand corner of this blog, though, some of you may have missed my answers. Let's go ahead and address this in a searchable part of the blog, hey?
For those of you who are not already gnashing your teeth over this particular problem, in the United States, book proposals are presented in plain black folders — yes, even at the submission stage. Don't even consider trying to use anything fancy or colorful; it will just look unprofessional to the pros. What Millicent and her boss, the agent of her dreams, will expect to find in a nonfiction submission is something like this:
I know: boring. That's the way they like it.
The folders in question, by the way, are the ones with horizontal pockets inside, not the ones with brads in the middle. The latter are for high school book reports, the former for book proposals, and ne'er the twain shall meet. So if the folder in your hand does not look like this when you open it:
scuttle on back to the office supply story and pick up one that does. And whatever you do, do not bind your proposal in any way. Let those pages flap around loose, just as they do in a manuscript. Well, not quite the same: the marketing part of the proposal is placed (neatly, please) on the left-hand pocket, while the sample chapter, author bio, and clippings are typically placed on the right-hand side.
Which leads us right back to Liz's problem, right? A book proposal usually runs in the neighborhood of 30-60 pages, including sample chapter, so she, clever writer, wants a folder that holds at least 20 pages per side. Generally speaking, plastic folders tend to hold more in their pockets than the flimsy cardstock type. (Liz's proposal won't be discarded if she sends it a nice cardstock folder; it's merely more likely to get a bit mangled in transit.)
Once again, the Internet is the writer's friend here. The Office Depot website carries an Oxford brand pocket folder that can hold up to 200 pages. It's looks like it may be available only online, though. Scrolling through the site, I found one that they seem to sell in their stores, an Office Depot brand 2-pocket poly folder that holds up to 50 pages..
They also, should anyone happen to be in the market for it, sell a really nice 24-lb. US letter paper. While 20-lb. paper is fine for a submission, I prefer 24-lb.: it won't wilt in the hand with repeated readings.
Oh, you don't want Millicent to get so excited about your writing that she passes pages of it around the office?
Again, though, you might want to toddle down to your local stationary emporium and inquire. You might be surprised at what's lurking in their back room.
My overall point, should it have gotten a trifle lost in the welter of details, is that when it comes to querying, submission, and literary contest entry, what might be easiest — or most obvious — for the writer often is not what the people on the receiving end are expecting. Yes, that's can be kind of annoying, but remember, one of the things an aspiring writer is demonstrating at query or submission time is that she can present her work professionally. That means, among other things, printing manuscripts on the size of paper currently in use in that agency and presenting proposals in the kind of quiet, dignified folder that allows the writing to speak for itself.
Because that's how the Romans roll, people. Keep up the good work!
Posted on February 19, 2012 January 19, 2017 - 4 Comments on The threshold of difficult: a tale of three memoirists, or, can't we all get along?
The threshold of difficult: a tale of three memoirists, or, can't we all get along?
I'm getting back to you a few days later than I intended in posting, campers, but not for any of the usual reasons. Not that the usual reasons wouldn't have been more than enough: this last week has been a festival of juggling my editing clients' deadlines, adapting book promotion advice to the needs of individual books and the ever-changing tastes of the literary market, and dealing with the second week of that allergic reaction I mentioned a couple of posts back, the one that initially made me look like the unholy love child of Boris Karloff from his Bride of Frankenstein period and James Spader, shortly after that unfortunate offspring had been burned at the stake by villagers of the pitchfork-and-torch variety. By this last Monday, the histamine had faded, naturally: for the next four days or so, I merely resembled Cro-Magnon man as it might have been played by Lon Chaney, Sr., of Phantom of the Opera fame.
And some people say there's no such thing as progress.
No, my excuse for sidling away from the blog this week was far more profound: for the first time in the six-and-a-half-year Author! Author! hegemony, I found myself wondering whether I should blog about a power dynamic relatively common in agent-writer and editor-author relationships. Not because its existence is any secret — as any faithful attendee of literary conferences knows, plenty of the pros are not shy about sharing stories of difficult clients — but because I hesitated to add more complaints to the already-burgeoning array of horror stories floating around the Internet. As long-term Author! Author! readers know, I'm very aware of how easily professional advice to writers can get twisted in the retelling: what might begin as a single weary, battle-scarred agent blurting out a pet peeve or expressing a personal preference on a conference dais can all too often end up being presented online as a universally-applicable rule of submission, querying, or even writing style three months later.
"But Anne!" those of you fond of trawling the web to form composite impressions of wildly contradictory advice protest, and who could blame you? "What's wrong with that? Obviously, someone in the conference audience heard what the weary agent said and wanted to warn other writers away from running afoul of that agent's pet peeve — or any agent's pet peeve, for that matter. Speaking of horror stories, we've all heard our share about how easy it is for a well-meaning-but-industry-ignorant writer to blunder into being labeled (shudder) difficult. I, for one, am grateful for that plethora of warnings."
I'm not faulting the motives of those who choose to pass such admonitions along — the first time. That is indeed often a generous move. The problem arises when that initial warning gets passed along again (and again, and again), often with tweaks, embellishments, and, let's face it, incorrect interpretations. As should not come as much of a surprise to anyone who has ever played the magic game of Telephone, by the tenth, fifteenth, or fiftieth retelling, the pro who first uttered the advice would not recognize it. Frequently, it's not just the content that changes; you'd be amazed how often a single observation about a unique situation gets transmogrified into a barked order about what must be done in every instance.
Oh, you thought that a sweeping axiom like the surprisingly ubiquitous agents hate it when writers use adverbs started life that way? Hardly likely. From a professional point of view, it's an absurd assertion: sometimes adverbs make sense to use, sometimes they don't.
It's not at all difficult to picture, though, some poor agent sighing over an opening page in which every other sentence is decorated with an -ly — or that same agent talking about it on a conference panel a week later. With half the aspiring writers in the audience frantically scribbling notes, it's only reasonable to expect Agent X hates adverbs to turn up online fairly shortly thereafter, right? Or for the next person to pass the news along to report it as agents hate adverbs? And, down the line, for someone who misunderstood the point of an English class exercise aimed at improving characterization in dialogue to conflate instead of Herbert said angrily, why not try showing his anger in his speech? with the shocking news about agents breaking out in hives the instant they clap eyes on an adverb in a submission, creating a universal axiom that no good writer uses adverbs, ever.
Which, I suspect, would come as something of a surprise to Agent X. As the most cursory glance through his clients' published novels and memoirs would demonstrate, he's a great fan of the skillfully-applied adverb.
At the risk of coining an axiom, both the source and the context are important to consider when weighing writing advice. And that goes double for anything you may hear about the kind of behavior that gets writers labeled difficult.
Oh, I'm not saying that you should not worry about the phenomenon: it definitely exists, and it is most assuredly true that writers unfamiliar with the rules of the game occasionally find themselves on the receiving end of the epithet without perceiving that an interaction has gone awry. I'm just saying that when you hear a blanket rule asserted, you might want to ask some follow-up questions about how the asserter knows it to be true. And when you stumble upon one of those third-hand this-is-how-a-writer-got-dropped horror stories, whether told from the agent's, editor's, or writer's perspective, you might want to consider the possibility that the original teller's intent is not being borne out in the version before you. Or — and this is true more often than any of us who give writers advice online might like to think — that a conclusion drawn from a single person's reaction to a single instance might not in fact be reflective of an industry-wide feeling about a pervasive phenomenon.
I'm going to be talking about some of those pervasive phenomena a little bit later — hey, I wasn't kidding about being hesitant to blog about some of this stuff — but first, let's address that widespread writerly fear of running afoul of unspoken rules. As I said, it's not entirely unjustified: what experience has made self-evidently rude to someone working in an agency might not strike someone new to the querying process as even vaguely impolite.
Take cold-calling an agent, for instance: if you'd like to see an entire panel of publishing professionals cringe in unison, by all means, raise your hand in an agents' forum and ask if it's okay to call an agent instead of querying in writing. Chances are, every agent on the dais will have a personal horror story about that pushy aspiring writer who thought, wrongly, that if a hard-sell technique works for used cars, why, only a spineless wimp would content himself with writing a query letter, sending it off, and waiting weeks or months for a reply. Why wait that long, when the agency that represented Tuesdays with Morrie has a listed telephone number?
Oh, you may laugh (at least, I hope those of you who have queried or pitched before are), but agencies get approached like this all the time. As you may have heard, agents hate it.
Unfortunately, those who have heard that are not the only people who want to land agents. So why not just call, the writer who has not taken the time to learn how books actually get published reasons, perhaps pretending to be a personal friend of the agent's to get past Millicent, and explain to the agent how he just has to drop everything to read his manuscript? While he's at it, wouldn't it strengthen the appeal to go on a tirade about how much he wants to get published — unlike, say, every other writer who contacts the agency?
Why? To anyone not new to the agency biz, the answer is simple: because agencies simply don't work that way, and with good reason. Think about it: if an agent got a reputation for saying yes to this kind of approach, he would be inundated with calls from precisely the type of writer that most agencies do not want to represent, those who believe that being talented grants them the right to expect instantaneous, personal attention.
Which is, incidentally, usually the way difficult gets defined in a publishing context: a writer's not following prevailing industry etiquette in a manner that requires someone within it to expend unanticipated time and energy in dealing with her.
That covers a lot of territory, obviously, but once a writer understands this underlying principle, not being difficult becomes, well, easier. Instead of trying to learn and abide by each rule of etiquette one at time, laboriously, as if they existed in a vacuum, a writer can simply look at what she is being asked to do, compare it to what she is planning to do, and ask, "Okay, will this make more work for the agent/editor/contest judge? And if so, is the benefit I hope to derive from it worth the risk of eating up more of that person's time?"
Don't you wish someone had told you about that test before the first time you queried or submitted to an agent? Unfortunately, this measure of behavior is so self-evidently applicable to those who would actually be inconvenienced by violated expectations that it's rarely discussed in the company of writers, except as a complaint.
Except, perhaps, phrased as send what we tell you to send, not what you want us to see. And please believe us that we chose the query format for a reason.
By either of these standards, the clueless caller above is clearly difficult, but so is the submitter who, when asked to send the first ten pages of a manuscript, sends fifteen. In both cases, the agent (or, in the second instance, her Millicent) would have to spend valuable time handling a situation she had no way to see coming: chatting with a writer calling out of the blue, reading those extra pages. Since the writer in both cases is being difficult — and does it really matter from her point of view whether the behavior is the result of ignorance or inconsideration? — why should she bother to invest that time at all? Why not just reject the writer out of hand?
Was that thunderous clamor out there in the ether the sound of a good third of you leaping to your feet? Perhaps — and I'm only guessing here — the third of you who have in the past sent more pages than an agent requested? Or that a contest's rules specified? "But Anne," the over-sending many shout, "I didn't mean to be difficult. Surely, no one serious about evaluating writing would want to base that assessment on two-thirds of a scene. Wasn't I being nice to care about the agent's reading experience? Or are you saying that I should have rewritten the scene so that it ended on page 10?"
Neither, as it happens: you should have sent the first ten pages. Period. Sending more is being difficult.
Your audible huffs of annoyance are understandable, over-senders, but here we have an instance where the perception of inconsideration differs wildly from the writer's and agent's perspectives. You assumed, and not unreasonably, that the request for a partial, contest's length restriction, or permission to send a specified number of pages with your query was not only intended to provide the agent with an indication of your writing style, the professionalism of your presentation, the voice of the book in question, its appropriateness for your target audience, and how you handle narrative, but to demonstrate how you structure a full scene.
Oh, you didn't think about it that much? You just thought it would make better reading if the writing sample didn't get cut off in mid-paragraph?
I hate to break it to you, but either way, an over-sender deliberately disregards a request for a specific number of pages. That's not only difficult, from the recipient's perspective; that's rude. Not only does including the extra pages imply an expectation that the agent, Millicent, or contest judge will make time to read them, but also — you might want to sit down for this one — a belief that the person requesting that number of pages just didn't understand that not every manuscript will feature a section or chapter break at the bottom of page 10.
Or 15, or 50, or whatever length the requesting agent/contest rules/submission guidelines indicated. Which, from a professional reader's perspective, is a pretty insulting assumption: honestly, someone who handles manuscripts for a living or has judged more than a single contest entry would have to be awfully unobservant to think that. No one who asks for 10 pages expects a ten-page scene; they want to see if you can write. If an agent or contest wants to read an entire chapter or manuscript, it will ask for it point-blank.
The over-sending writer doesn't think of it in those terms, naturally; often, he's just trying to present himself in the best light as a storyteller. In doing so, however, he also presumes, wrongly that the pro will bend the rules in just this one instance. What could another couple of pages matter, after all?
Plenty, to an agent, Millicent, or contest judge who reads tens of thousands of pages a year. Five extra pages on a ten-page writing sample means devoting one and a half times the reading minutes to this submission than one that followed the rules. Why make the exception, when we all know from experience that on the writing grapevine, an anecdote about a single writer-agent interaction can quickly mutate into an immutable rule of conduct?
More to the point, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that a writer who violated one rule or request, however well-meaningly, would do it again in future — and that the belief that the rules really don't apply to him would be problematic down the line, as well as time-consuming for the agency? If a writer thinks it is acceptable to send 15 pages instead of 10, why wouldn't he also presume that the agency and the industry are willing to let him fudge on the length of a synopsis? Or an author bio?
Still think it's unfair to leap to the conclusion that such an aspiring writer would be a difficult client at the query packet stage? Okay, let's consider how Millicent might make that assessment at the submission stage. Try this one on for size: what if a novelist presumes, not entirely unreasonably, that since publishing houses employ copyeditors, he doesn't need to proofread or spell-check?
Millicent sees this all the time, of course; usually, she leaps to the conclusion that the writer just can't spell and/or doesn't know the rules of grammar. But let's assume for the moment that an apparently random array of typos pepper an otherwise estimable manuscript. Is that enough evidence to decide that this writer is difficult?
No? Okay, what if a memoirist operates on the assumption that somebody else involved in the publishing process is going to fact-check the parts of the book that she did not experience first-hand, so it really doesn't matter if her manuscript said the Cuban Revolution occurred in 1952?
Lest anyone be tempted to rip that last line out of context and promulgate it as fact around the Internet: it didn't. Look it up.
But is this gaffe sufficient to label the writer too difficult to take on as a client? Most aspiring writers would say no; from their perspective, it's just a minor typo. Would you feel different, though, if the mistake were consistent throughout the manuscript?
Still no? Okay, what if the protagonist's family had emigrated from Cuba in 1950, and the narrative represented the move as their having fled the revolution? If you were Millicent, would the prospect of your boss' having to convince the writer that she is wrong about her family's motivations for coming to this country? Or accuse her of having misrepresented them in order to make a narrative point? And that regardless of why the historical accuracy is off, she is going to have to change either the date or the memoir's story arc?
Still no takers? Okay, what if a nonfiction writer believes, with some justification, that since her future agent must by definition know much, much more about the current market for her type of book than she does, she's just not going to bother to include a marketing section in her book proposal? Again, it happens all the time. So does restricting the Competitive Market Analysis to just a couple of books, or limiting the marketing plan to a breezy announcement that since bookstores sometimes allow book signings (a fact that's sure to astonish anyone currently working in the publishing industry), the writer is willing to show up at any signings the publisher might take the time to set up.
Now Millicent has pretty good reason to believe that not only will this writer be both time-consuming and rather irritating, at least at first, for her agency to represent — do you want to be the one to tell her boss, the agent, that it is his job, not the writer's, to write the book proposal in its entirety? — but that this writer is actively planning to be time-consuming for the publishing house that picks up her book as well. (These days, first-time authors usually set up their signings themselves.) So the agency will probably have to spend time mediating some disagreements down the line.
What do you think? Too difficult?
I'm sensing that for some of you, even this provocation seems insufficient. "But Anne, I always thought being difficult was a function of how someone works and plays with others, a pattern demonstrated over the course of many incidents over time. I understand that all of the attitudes you describe would result in more work for the agent, but surely each could be fairly easily resolved with just a short explanatory conversation. After all, the writer has every motivation to try to make this relationship work."
Perhaps, but you would be surprised at how often writers don't act that way, at least in their earliest interactions with the agents and editors of their dreams. That's a real pity, because for better or worse, all an agent, her Millicent, and/or a contest judge can base her assessment of a writer upon is the evidence actually in front of her: the query or pitch, accompanying materials, contest entry, requested pages — and that writer's behavior while providing them. Given that they are charged with the task of selecting a small handful of writers out of the thousands who approach them (or, in the judge's case, winnowing hundreds of entries down to a list of finalists in the single digits), is it honestly astonishing that they would have developed a tendency to extrapolate ease of working with a writer based upon whether that writer adheres to industry manners and respects the pro's time?
Believe it or not, writers often do send quite definite messages about their attitudes at the querying stage. Take, for instance, the querier who shrinks the query's typeface in order to cram more information into a one-page letter. Or the submitter who sends requested pages in a mailing format requiring a signature on the receiving end. Or, sacre bleu, the rejected writer that sees fit to send an e-mail, demanding a complete explanation of a no.
Is this difficult behavior? Well, apply our test: it's all time-consuming — and frankly, kind of annoying — on the receiving end. How so? Well, he font-shrinker presumes that Millicent will both not notice the deviation from the norms of query presentation (but she will) and be willing to strain her eyes to read the extra parts (but she won't). The confirmation signature-requirer may not think about the fact that his demand would compel someone at the agency to stop what she is doing in order to pay attention to an arriving package, but believe me, when you're receiving fifty manuscripts a month, forty-nine of which did not require a work stoppage to accept, it's noteworthy.
And do we even need to discuss the futility of having a heart-to-heart with an angry writer with whom one has already decided not to work? Or why such a conversation would have no chance whatsoever of changing the agent's mind? Or, if gravity suddenly began making things fall up, babies abruptly began being born 42 years old, and agents started being open to this sort of follow-up conversation with queriers, the question the agent would have to weigh throughout that conversation would not be gee, did I make a mistake in rejecting this writer? but wow, if this writer is so touchy about a simple, polite no, how will he react when I or his future editor ask him to make changes in his manuscript?
That last one, of course, is the classic publishing pro's complaint about difficult writers: indeed, the term is often used as a synonym for those so in love with their own words that they are not open to revision suggestions. Those of you who attend writers' conferences have heard that one before, have you not? It's right up there with writers are lazy and writers whine about deadlines in complaint popularity.
How popular, you ask? Well, if you walked into that bar that's never more than a hundred yards from any writers' conference in North America, sat at the next table over from the agents, and took a sip from your drink every time you overheard one of those three comments, you wouldn't remember enough about the event the next day to render it a useful learning experience.
Suffice it to say, though, that if you did have a clear enough head to remember it, you would no longer wonder why agents and editors have been known to roll their eyes when writers start to talk about their creative freedom being hampered. Although many, many writers are pretty good about implementing editorial feedback (at least after an initial period of shock has passed), every pro who's been at it for a while has a personal horror story about that one writer who stamped his feet, screamed, cried, and threatened to sue over a suggestion as practical and simple as "Would you mind changing your protagonist's sister's name, since Ellen looks so much in print like Eileen (the villain), Helen (the sidekick), Helene (the schoolyard friend in that flashback), and you've chosen for some reason best known to yourself to abbreviate all of those names in the dialogue to El, Eil, Hel, and Hel?"
Oh, you think I'm joking? I once edited a memoir in which the seven daughters of the family's names all ended in –een — not because those were their names in real life, but because the author felt that this array of synonyms was an essential reflection of the family's ethnicity. When I pointed out, nicely, that the visual similarity rendered the fifteen (oh, no, another –een!) scenes in which they appeared as a group slightly challenging for readers who had not seen fit to equip themselves with a program to follow, not to mention impossible for a skimmer, the author saw fit to…
Well, let's just say the reaction wasn't pretty. Unlike most editors and virtually all agents working with a first-time author, however, I was willing to keep making the case for changing the names not just once, but many times over the course of a few months. But then, unlike denizens of publishing houses and agencies, freelance editors charge by the hour.
That giant thud you just heard, in case you were curious, was the collective stomach of every agented writer reading this hitting the floor immediately after toting up what their last creative disagreement with their representatives would have cost.
I bring up the creative differences issue advisedly: when aspiring writers borrow trouble about the problems they might face in working with an agent or editor at a publishing house, it's often the concern they express first. Certainly, those of us who answer writers' questions hear it frequently. Usually, it runs something like this: "My vision of the book doesn't fit neatly into the publishing industry's notion of what books like this are like." (Pause for the advice-giver to ask how, what makes the writer think so — and if he believes his book concept is a category-buster, is it possible he's assigned it to the wrong book category?) "I know what I want to say, though, and I'm afraid that an agent will ask me to change it to make it easier to sell."
Well, if the book honestly does contain elements that would render it less marketable, and those elements are not so critical to the story arc or NF argument that they did not trigger rejection all by themselves, this writer is probably right: it would be a good agent's job to advise him how to maximize the book's marketability. Writers do, after all, seek out agents because of the latter's expertise in selling books to publishing houses, right?
Instead of desiring the judicious application of that expertise, however, the change-fearful writer would prefer an agent simply to take the manuscript as he has chosen to form it and walk it around to editors. Happily for the fearer, many good agents' acceptance standards are so high that they do sometimes — not often — decide to send out a new client's work without requesting changes. That most emphatically does not mean, though, that the fearful writer's agent would be pleased if, after interesting an editor in acquiring the book, the writer flatly refused to accept revision requests from the publisher.
Which, in case anyone out there is harboring any illusions on the subject, is the norm for newly-acquired books in the current market, not the exception. It's also fairly common now — brace yourself, should any of your illusions have survived that last sentence unscathed — for a book under contract to be passed from the control of the acquiring editor to another editor before the manuscript reaches the front of the print queue, due to layoffs, retirements, parental leaves, etc.
Still think Millicent should not be considering ease of working relationship at the querying phase?
Now that I've depressed you into a stupor, I'd like to share with you the situations I hemmed and hawed about talking about at all; let's consider them in the light of the difficulty-assessment criteria we've gotten so good at applying. A couple of caveats before we launch, though: I am presenting these not to hold the (heavily fictionalized) persons and (factually accurate) attitudes involved up to ridicule or censure, but in the hope that we might discuss these interactions fruitfully, with an eye toward helping all of you avoid such contretemps in your writing careers.
I do think the matter is ripe for discussion. Although the web is stuffed to the gills with admonitions about what agents love and hate, as well as writers' complaints, we actually don't talk all that much — or all that productively — amongst ourselves about how to reconcile professional expectations about how a working writer should interact with the business side of the industry with how those of us on the creative side tend to think of our manuscripts. And that's a shame, because all too often, when something goes wrong, the writer in the situation can mistakenly believe that she's the only one to whom it has happened.
Fair warning: some of what is to follow may make some of you angry. Although I understand that it may be tempting to take a few pot shots at the messenger, I do wish you wouldn't. I also hope that, even if some of this strikes you as unfair — and it probably will — we can concentrate upon how these situations could have been improved or avoided, rather than giving in to the temptation of luxuriating in lamentations.
As I said, there is already quite enough of that on the net, isn't there?
To keep the conversation from getting too heated or personal feelings getting hurt, I would like to reiterate that the people here are all fictionalized, to protect the parties involved. Sexes have been changed; story details have been significantly altered; no publishing professional or house is identifiable. So if any of the resulting case studies happens to bear any resemblance to something that happened to you or someone you know, please take it as a testament to just how pervasive these phenomena are, rather than a provocation to clutch your heart, cry, "Mon dieu, that's me/my critique partner, Sheila/my agent!" and tumble sideways in a heap.
So please help me welcome, with compassion and an open mind, three well-meaning memoirists, Huey, Dewey, and Louise. In order to help clarify the sometimes hard-to-discern missteps, miscommunications, and power dynamics, I'm going to tell each of their stories twice: once from the writer's point of view, and once from the relevant publishing professional's perspective. True to the rules of memoir (and first-person narrative in general), each will be exclusively from that perspective. Perhaps, after considering both sides, we can mediate between them.
Let's begin with Huey's saga. Take it away, Hugh!
I have to say, I was disappointed. I had been querying my memoir, the story of my wife's battle with a life-threatening illness, for more than two years when Agent Montrose asked to see my proposal. The request caught me a bit off-guard, I'm afraid: I had a full manuscript, but had only been picking away at the proposal in fits and starts. Every time I sat down with it, I felt like I was being given a pop quiz on material we hadn't covered in class. It just didn't make sense that they would rather have me write about my book than read the book itself.
So when Montrose sent the request for the proposal, I e-mailed him back and said that it would be a few months. Wouldn't he like to see the manuscript instead? He said no — a blow, of course, but he was nice about it. He said to send the proposal when it was done.
Well, I worked on it; really, I did. Every few weeks, I sent an e-mail to Montrose, to let him know how I was getting along. The first couple of times, he replied cheerily, telling me to take my time and to let him know if I had any questions. Then he just stopped replying. He didn't even respond to my Christmas card.
So now I don't know what to do. I think I could finish the proposal in another month or so — I have some vacation coming up — but if he's lost interest, shouldn't I be moving on?
Before we move on to Montrose's version, what's your initial impression? Was Huey being difficult, or has he just been having difficulties? Is his assessment of Montrose's waning interest well-founded? And then there's the most important question of all: should Huey finish the proposal? Or should he be looking — or have been looking — for an agent who would have said yes to reading the manuscript?
Got your answers to that dizzying array of rhetorical questions firmly in mind? Excellent. Let's take a gander at what happened from Montrose's perspective.
I have to say, I was disappointed; that book had some real potential. I know what you're thinking — there are a million caretaker memoirs out there, so what's different about this one? Well, the synopsis, for one thing: unlike a good 80% of the memoir synopses I see, this one had a beginning, middle, and an end; the two main characters grew and changed. I think that disease memoir readers would root for these people.
Millie, my assistant, kept burbling about how her aunt had gone through the same thing as his wife, and how much she was looking forward to a really good book about it. Publishers love people like Millie: whenever any of their acquaintance goes through something rough, their first instinct is to buy 'em a book.
Imagine my disappointment, then, when it turned out Huey had not even begun a proposal. Heck, he didn't even seem to realize that was how nonfiction books were sold; he kept suggesting that I should read the memoir instead — which was something like 150,000 words, for heaven's sake. I liked what I had seen, though, and he genuinely seemed flummoxed, so I sent him the agency's proposal guidelines and hoped for the best.
That was sometime in 2010, I think; I don't really remember. He never sent the proposal, just a lot of excuses, as if I could simply change my mind about whether a proposal was necessary. Too bad — it could have been an interesting memoir.
Taken together, these two accounts form quite a sad little story, do they not? Huey was lucky enough to find an agent (and a Millicent) genuinely taken by his book concept — but he was not ready to take advantage of it. While Montrose's conclusion that Huey just hadn't done enough homework about how nonfiction is sold might not have been entirely correct, it's hard to argue that the effect of the writer's not having taken the necessary steps to learn how to write a book proposal amounted to the same thing, in practical terms. Yet Montrose did, by his lights, do all he could to help, and rather more than most would have done in this situation: being a good memoir agent, realized that proposal-writing is a professional skill, and thus not something even the most gifted memoirist is born knowing, so he provided his potential client with both encouragement and guidelines.
See how easily, though, a writer's just not knowing the ropes can result in practical difficulties for the pro trying to help him? Huey felt, understandably, that since the proposal was a stand-in for the book, it didn't make sense that Montrose couldn't make up his mind about representation based upon the manuscript. But since Montrose knew that he could not approach the editors he already had in mind for this project without a proposal, what good would it have done to read the manuscript first? Especially when Huey had already told him that the draft was considerably longer than this type of memoir typically runs; with an Annotated Table of Contents in hand, they could talk down the line about cutting it down to a more reasonable length.
So should Huey give up on Montrose at this point and move on to querying other agents? I think that's the answer he would like here; it would save him an awful lot of work, wouldn't it? Frankly, I would rather see him invest that energy in a class on proposal-writing. Or reading a good book on the subject. Or hiring a developmental editor to assist him in writing it. Or, heck, he could take a peek at the step-by-step instructions on how to write a book proposal buried in this very site, cleverly concealed under the opaque heading HOW TO WRITE A BOOK PROPOSAL.
Then, when he has a professional proposal in hand, he will be ready to start querying again. As a courtesy, he might drop Montrose an e-mail first, to see if he's still interested in reading it, but he shouldn't be too disappointed if the answer is no: a lot has changed in the literary market since 2010. And Millie is in graduate school now; isn't that terrific?
The issue of who is or is not being difficult isn't so cut and dried at the submission stage as it was when querying, is it? There's a reason for that: since the perception of whether someone is easy to work with is inextricably linked to how intensely one happens to be working with him, as well as to the expectations appropriate to that level of contact, the threshold of difficult is obviously different before and after an agent becomes interested in a writer's work.
It's also different once a writer and an agent have made a formal commitment to work together. Consider, if you will, memoirist Dewey's dilemma.
God, what a nightmare that turned out to be. I slaved over that book proposal — read five books about how to do it, took an expensive weekend seminar, read everything there was about it online, the works. So when Agent Paulette said she loved it, it felt like I'd swum across the Atlantic and washed up on some beach in France. All I wanted was to catch up on my sleep.
So when I didn't hear from Paulette for a while, it didn't seem that weird. She said that she would want me to make a couple of tiny changes — no big deal, just tweaks to appeal a little better to the current market. But when I was still waiting a couple of months later, I felt I had to call and ask what was going on. She said she was sorry — she had been just swamped, and she would get to it soon.
Well, a week later, I still didn't have the feedback. Yet another call. That produced results — and how! Didn't she realize I had a full-time job? It took me three months to make those changes. Once again, I dumped the results into her capable hands and collapsed.
So I guess I shouldn't have been surprised when I didn't hear from her right away — or ever, really, unless I contacted her first. She just kept saying it was a slow process, that editors took a while to read things these days, anything and everything to put me off. After six months, I began to wonder whether she was still sending it out at all. But just try talking to her about it; she's so touchy.
Dewey would be happy to continue in this vein as long as you're willing to listen; just ask the other members of his writing group. Because your time is valuable, however, I'll skip ahead to the end of his story:
And now I'm feeling really trapped: since the book has been shopped around, I would have to write another, or at least another proposal, before I could query someone else. Guess I'm still in the middle of the Atlantic after all.
The lingering questions are pretty self-evident here, I think. In a situation where both partners are doing the job they agreed to do in pursuing a collective goal, it usually takes some time for each to adjust to the other's work style. To assess how well Dewey's and Paulette's meshed, let's take a peek at what she has to say on the matter.
God, what a nightmare that turned out to be. It started out so promising, too: Dewey's book proposal was one of the best I'd seen in a long time. It needed a little work, of course — as most of them do — but I was confident that the results would be good.
A lot of brand-new clients are pretty jumpy, so when Dewey started e-mailing me every other day, to ask what he was supposed to change, it didn't seem that weird. I was in the middle of a three-book deal for another client; he knew he would have to wait his turn. I wasn't even all that worried when, after I sent him the revision memo, he initially reacted as though I'd asked him to recreate the works of Homer from memory. It was too much, he didn't have the time, and so forth.
But he was serious about the book and cranked it out. Rather more quickly than the average client, actually; you wouldn't believe how often I pass along feedback to a client, then hear nothing for a year or two.
Not our boy Dewey, though. Practically the instant he'd sent me the new version, he starts nagging me about when I'm going to submit it. I explained the process to him, naturally: it's not as though I have much control over how fast other people read. That seemed to calm him down, but a few days later, he'd be calling or e-mailing again. Doesn't he know I have other clients? And that it's in his best interest to leave me alone long enough to sell his book?
Again, quite sad. Here are two perfectly nice, professionally-focused individuals, both eager to collaborate on selling a book proposal they both perceive to be excellent. So what happened?
Misaligned expectations, I'm afraid: Dewey just didn't understand what his role in their relationship would be, other than writing. Because that was what he was prepared to do, he got antsy every time he didn't have an assignment on his plate; he didn't have a constructive outlet for all of that nervous energy. So he focused it on prodding Paulette into a job that she already knew perfectly well how to do — which, in turn, took up enough of her time and energy that she felt, not unreasonably, that his demands were making it harder for her to do that job.
An expectations draw, really — and a dynamic that could have been improved by these two fine people having an honest, straightforward conversation about what Paulette was actually doing to promote the book, as well as how he could spend his time and energy while she did it. I'm happy to report that they did have that conversation (perhaps at the suggestion of someone who knew and cared about them both), and they are getting along swimmingly. Paulette's still knocking herself out, talking up his book — and his next. Dewey's working on the proposal for that. In his spare time, he's taking an online class on book promotion; he's already started a blog, to establish a web presence for the happy day when he has a book out.
Not all such tug-of-wars end quite so harmoniously, however. Prepare yourself, please, to enter the world of Louise.
Oh, you wouldn't believe what happened. I had my doubts about Evelyn from the get-go: no matter how much work I did or how well I did it — and I really ripped myself to shreds meeting her constant demands — she never seemed satisfied. "I'll do my best," was all she ever said, as though she had to compensate for something wrong with my book.
I remember my guts churning during our very first phone conversation: right away, she started criticizing my proposal. Before she'd even signed me! I bit the bullet, though, and knuckled under to her demands, even though they seemed really far afield from where I wanted to take my book. She told me it had to be that way in order to sell, so like a fool, I went along with it.
The book took FOREVER to sell, but I wasn't supposed to ask questions about where it was or why it was taking so long. I was just supposed to wait by the phone, in case a call came — because then, Evelyn said, the acquiring editor would probably have a whole new set of suggestions for how to modify the book. I just kept praying that the editor that picked it up would get my artistic vision better.
But the instant we had signed the contract, the quibbling began. Was I really married to the chapter I liked best? Did I really have to spend thirty pages talking about my spiritual connection with marsupials? Was it really important to the story I was telling that I had been raised from ages 4 to 6 by bears?
That sort of thing. You'd think they had never met an interesting, multifaceted person before; all they wanted me to do was simplify my complex life. I don't know how novelists feel about having their stories chopped to pieces, but for a memoirist, that story is a life. I couldn't exactly change what I had done ten years before because some editor didn't like it, right?
And don't even get me started on the marketing trauma. They changed my title — then got mad at me for not liking the new one. They asked what I would like to see in a cover — then came up with something totally different. They asked me to list every town where I had friends — then expected me to construct my own book tour. Even though I showed up and did my best at every single podunk bookstore where they wanted me to do a reading — I even did a few libraries; way to cater to an audience that wants to buy books — they were never satisfied; they always seemed to want me to do more. And no matter how much promotion I did, the book never sold up to their completely preposterous expectations. Naturally, they thought that was my fault, too.
Of course, Evelyn took their side. She did on everything. And every time I tried to talk to her about it, she always changed the subject to my next book. At first, I thought she was kidding — when would I have possibly found time to write a new proposal? I was already working full-time, helping my sister through a truly horrific divorce, and promoting my book. When was it going to be time for somebody else to do some work?
After a few years of this, with no offer for the next book on the table, I just couldn't take the constant conflict anymore. There's no way I would work with any of these people again; it's way too stressful. If and when I have the time and energy to write yet another book proposal, I'd rather start querying again from scratch than to entrust the fruit of my art to Evelyn.
Okay, so I took a few liberties in the bear department; this story was just too depressing otherwise. The lot of the first-time author today couldn't be more different than it was twenty years ago — and as quite a few of those authors walk into the process with expectations more in line with thirty or forty years ago, when advances were significantly higher and authors carried less of the responsibility for book promotion, the expectations clash can be pretty dramatic.
Since, by Louise's account, realizing her dream resulted in such deep disappointment, I'm reluctant to analyze her career trajectory too much. At least, not before we've heard Evelyn's side of the story.
Oh, you wouldn't believe what happened. I had my doubts about Louise from the get-go: when she was into what I asked her to do, she couldn't be happier, but let one little obstacle fall in her path, and she'd freak out. It always made me just a touch nervous when an e-mail from her appeared in my inbox. But I don't have to tell you what kind of audience a really good memoir pandas would draw. I honestly did fall in love with that proposal.
In retrospect, though, I should have listened to my gut feeling during our first phone conversation: she nearly fell over when I told her that before I signed her, I would want her to revise her proposal to my specifications first. Editors expect a certain style and structure from my agency's clients, after all. We had quite the little argument; she seemed to feel that any concession now would doom her book. Once I convinced her that I wasn't going to back down, however, she did an excellent job on the rewrite.
And my hopes proved justified when I started shopping her proposal around; on paper, Louise was a great client. Her proposal was very strong. She wasn't inexperienced at working with an editor, either; she had a couple of previous publications — articles on another subject, if memory serves. since she had put herself through graduate school as a stand-up comic, I had no qualms about predicting she would be great at readings. I always mentioned it when I was pitching her book.
In practice, though, she could be pretty trying. Everything would be going along fine, or so I would think, and suddenly, I'd find myself on the receiving end of an ultimatum. I wasn't selling the book fast enough; I was showing it to the wrong people; was this really the right economy to be trying to push a book on pandas? Every time, it was different; sometimes, I got the feeling she was picking fights with me so she would have an excuse to ask if there had been any nibbles on the proposal. Once the book sold, however, she was over the moon — this was the best possible outcome in every way. And she actually delivered the manuscript to the editor a week ahead of schedule.
So when the editor called me to say that Louise had been stormily contesting every single revision suggestion in the editorial memo, I can't say that I was entirely surprised. Nor was I particularly surprised when Louise called me in tears, convinced that her book was going to get destroyed. It took a lot of hand-holding over a period of weeks, but eventually, she did make the requested changes. I have to say, they made the book better.
Then the marketing department started calling; Louise hated the change they wanted to make to her title. Then she couldn't stand the cover design, the back jacket, the Amazon blurb, the advance reviews…in short, everything was a battle that went on for weeks on end. And for someone who used to tell jokes for a living, she certainly seemed reluctant to get out and promote her book. She kept telling me that she had a job, family, obligations: did I want her to write her next book proposal, she would demand, or did I want her to do the publisher's job for them?
Of course, we all expected her to do both: that's what career writers do. But she seemed to feel that she had paid her dues, and now was entitled to coast. Which would have made more sense, I've got to say, had her first book sold particularly well, or if the proposal for the next were anywhere near as strong as the first. I wish I could say that I believed she had put a quarter of the energy into it that she's evidently focused upon serving me with ultimatums about how I need to do more for her.
After a while, I just stopped reading them closely; I don't need the drama. A quick skim was enough. When she sent that nasty e-mail saying that thanks to me, she had lost faith in her second book, and so was dropping it for a third, well, let's just say that I wasn't surprised then, either. Or when the third lost its shine for her, too, also apparently my fault. I don't remember why she said she was leaving our agency; I'm sure it was in a similar vein.
There's quite a bit that could have gone differently here, but for the sake of today's discussion, let's not focus on that. Instead, I would like you to notice that it was not just quite divergent expectations that harmed this working relationship; it was also that issues don't seem to have gotten hashed out much until at least one party was already angry. An ultimatum, after all, is not exactly an invitation to first-round negotiation.
Allow me to make a tiny, insignificant suggestion to anyone contemplating entering this kind of working partnership: try to regard it as a relationship. Relationships take work, after all, and they tend not to thrive on mind-reading. If both parties are not up front about what they want from the other, is it honestly surprising if one or the other occasionally guesses incorrectly?
If I ruled the universe, every writer-agent (and writer-editor) relationship would start out with a full and frank discussion of what the agent expects to do for the writer — and what the writer will need to do to support those efforts. I would also mandate up-front agreement on how often each party feels it is appropriate to communicate; just knowing when to expect an update can make a huge difference to a writer gnawing his fingernails up to the elbow while waiting to hear back on a round of submissions. That way, too, the writer does not have to guess whether it's too soon to ask a follow-up question.
The last time I checked, though, I did not rule the universe. If I did, libraries would be open 24 hours per day, businesses would allow their employees two-hour lunches — the better to browse at bookstores or finish reading that chapter, my dear — and my former elementary school would be named after Ambrose Bierce, who lived in my home town many years longer than Robert Louis Stevenson, whose name graces my former middle school. And the high school would bear the name of M.F.K. Fisher, who lived there longest at all.
I'm not sure what they would name after me, once I have shuffled off this mortal coil and joined the choir invisible. I'm sure they could come up with an unnamed Quonset hut.
Since none of these things are currently the case, however, I can only conclude that I do not have the power to change writers' sometimes troubled relationships with the publishing industry with a wave of my wee hand. All I can do is advise, recommend, and, every so often, mediate. And urge everyone concerned to bear in mind that they are all good people (at least, most of them are) committed to the same quite estimable goal: bringing great stories and marvelous writing to readers everywhere. Who, let's face it, don't particularly care how difficult it was to bring the books they love into print.
It's a noble endeavor, from every perspective. Let's all try to gain some insight into others' points of view — and, of course, keep up the good work!
Posted on September 8, 2011 January 19, 2017 - 4 Comments on The logic behind the SASE, or, how to be prepared for something falling on you from a zeppelin
The logic behind the SASE, or, how to be prepared for something falling on you from a zeppelin
Last time, I broached the subject of the infamous and ubiquitously-requested SASE, industry-speak for the Stamped, Self-Addressed Envelope (get it?) that should accompany every mailed query letter and/or submission packet. (E-mailed queries and submissions cannot include them, obviously, as these forms of communication have no temporal heft to them.) There's no such thing as a Get Out of Thinking About It pass on this one, I'm afraid: forgetting to include a SASE in a query is an instant-rejection offense at virtually every agency in North America.
Or, to put that in terms even Narcissus could understand, no matter how gifted, talented, and/or beautiful a writer or his work may happen to be, neglecting this small piece of industry etiquette effectively assures that Millicent the agency screener will not spend enough time with ol' Narcissus' query packet to find out that he and his work display any or all of these delightful attributes. The packet will simply be rejected unread.
And not merely because Narcissus' nasty habit of assuming that the rules that apply to ordinary mortals could not possibly apply to him is darned annoying to anyone who has to deal with him professionally. If the agent decides to pick up the manuscript, the writer's having included the expected SASE demonstrates a pleasing ability to follow directions — and if the agent decides to pass, s/he may return rejected pages at the writer's expense.
Yes, I know: it's trying to be expected to underwrite one's own rejection, but there actually are some benefits for the SASE-provider in this arrangement. To name but one: actually finding out that your query has in fact been rejected, rather than gnawing your fingernails in perpetual worry for a year or two.
Oh, you would prefer to be left to wonder whether (a) the agency has a policy of not informing rejected queriers if the answer is no (quite common), (b) the agency has a policy of not reading incomplete query packets (like, say, those that omit a SASE), or (c) your packet got stuck sideways in the mailbox, and never reached the agency at all?
The expectation that an aspiring writer will always include a SASE with any kind of paper query or submission is universal, at least among U.S. agencies and publishers, so much so that I've noticed that many agencies don't even explain what it means on their websites or listings in the standard guides anymore. It's become one of those secret handshake things, a practice that the industry just assumes that any writer who is serious about getting published will magically know all about without being told.
Call me zany, but as those of you have been reading this blog for a while are already aware, I'm not a big fan of unspoken assumptions; they place the writer new to the game at a serious strategic disadvantage. So I hope those of you who have been at this for some time will forgive my taking a second post to explain to those new to querying what a SASE is and why, to put it bluntly, the writer is expected to pay the postage for a rejection letter or returned manuscript.
SASE logic seems to be counterintuitive for many aspiring writers. Contrary to popular opinion, a SASE shouldn't always take the form of a business-size envelope; it varies according to what was sent in the first place. To accompany a single-page query, it's letter-sized, but should you happen to be querying an agency whose guidelines call for writers to include more than five pages of additional materials (e.g., writing sample, synopsis, author bio, book proposal, a chapter or two), you'd be sending that in a Manila envelope, right? In that case, the SASE would need to be a second Manila envelope, stuffed inside the first, carrying sufficient materials to ship all of those additional materials back to you.
Oh, you hadn't been thinking of the SASE in those terms? Or was that giant whoosh I heard not a collective gasp, but a whole bunch of eyebrows out there hitting the ceiling?
Probably the latter, I'm guessing, because I'm constantly meeting aspiring writers who are unaware that a SASE should also accompany a manuscript submission. That tends to come as a great big surprise to even writers who have been querying and submitting for a while: since the prevailing wisdom is that the point of the SASE is ease of getting back to a writer to say yes or no, it's far from uncommon for submitters of 500-page manuscripts to include a simple business-size envelope as a SASE. While certainly understandable, this misses the primary goal of the SASE: ensuring the safe return of whatever a writer sends to an agency.
Thus, you should always include enough postage on your SASE that everything you submitted may be popped into it and mailed with a minimum of effort on the sender's part. That means, in practice, including a shipping container (second envelope, box, or a shipping label to affix to the box in which you sent the manuscript) already addressed to you with enough postage to get all of those requested pages back to you in one piece.
Since all of that will need to be tucked into the same envelope or box that contains your query, any materials the agency's submission guidelines request, and/or requested materials, it can get cumbersome, once the time comes to pack it all up. Not to say expensive, especially for writer submitting to US-based agencies from outside the country, who not only have to figure out what the return postage would be in dollars instead of their local currency, but have to wrap their eager fingertips around some US stamps.
Don't worry, foreign readers: there's a trick to it. I'll be getting to that.
I'm constantly barraged with questions from readers about why, in the age of fairly universal paper recycling and cheap, high-quality printers, a writer shouldn't just ask an agent to recycle a rejected manuscript. Quoth, for instance, clever reader Melospiza:
Why on earth would you want your manuscript back (after it has been rejected)? It won't be pristine enough to send out again. Why spend the money? And any parcel over one pound can't be dropped in a mailbox, but must be taken to the post office, not something an agent will appreciate. Let the agent recycle the paper and enclose a (business-size) SASE only.
Oh, would only that were possible, Melospiza, but there's a rather basic, practical reason to include the SASE for safe return of the manuscript. Chant it with me now, campers: as with a SASEless query, not including a SASE in a submission is usually an automatic-rejection trigger.
Yes, you read that correctly: leaving a SASE out of the submission packet can, and often does, result in a submission's being rejected unread; ask about it sometime at a writers' conference. The vast majority of agents will be perfectly up front about the fact that they train their screeners accordingly.
The owners of all of those eyebrows are clutching their heads now, aren't they, thinking of all of those SASEless submissions — or, more likely, submissions accompanied by only a #10 SASE, rather than one with sufficient postage for the manuscript's return — they sent out in the dark days of yore. "Okay, I can understand why Millicent would reject SASE-free queries without reading them," the head-clutchers cry, "but why, in heaven's name, would an agent who asked to see pages reject them unread?"
Good question, retrospective panickers. The short answer: because it's obvious to Millicent that a writer who submits without a manuscript-size SASE doesn't know the secret handshake.
The longer answer is hardly more comforting, I'm afraid. In the publishing industry, it's considered downright rude for a writer not to include a SASE both large enough and loaded down with enough pre-paid postage to send — wait for it — EVERYTHING enclosed back to the sender. If the SASE isn't tucked into the packet, or if the postage is not sufficient, and if the agency is going to keep its side of the tacit agreement allowing it to read a writer's unpublished work, it is going to have to shell out the dosh to mail the rejected manuscript back. Ditto with a query letter that arrives unaccompanied by a SASE.
The result in both cases is generally a form-letter rejection — which costs the agency not only the price of the return postage, but also an envelope and Millicent's time to address it — or, as is increasingly popular, no response at all. Yes, even for a submission. Pages often go bye-bye, because it would be expensive for the agency to ship back the whole shebang.
I implore you, no matter how little you want to see that manuscript again, do not omit the SASE for the return of the manuscript. Unless, of course, the agency's website or listing in one of the standard agency guides says specifically that they will recycle rejected manuscripts. (Practically none of them do, but check anyway.)
"You must be pulling our collective leg, Anne," I hear some of you muttering. "Okay, maybe SASEless queries do tend to get rejected unread, but I can't believe that it happens to submitted manuscripts or book proposals. By the time an agent is sufficiently interested in you to want to see actual chapters of your book, your foot is too firmly in the door for your submission to be tossed aside unread for a reason as unrelated to the quality of the writing as not including a SASE. I mean, really, what purpose would being that touchy serve?"
A fairly tangible one, actually: it would be one less manuscript for Millicent to read.
Remember, it's her job to reject 98% of what crosses her desk; even a very successful agent at a giant agency seldom picks up more then 5 or 6 new clients per year, even including ones poached from other agencies. (Which happens all the time, by the way. It would astonish most aspiring writers to know just how many of us agented writers are unhappy with our current representation. As I say early and often, you don't want just any agent to represent you — you want a well-connected, fully engaged agent who loves your writing and will defend it to the death.) Every submission that disqualifies itself on technical grounds is another step toward that ongoing goal of thinning the pack of contenders.
Do you really want to volunteer your precious manuscript for that particular kamikaze mission?
Admittedly, from the submitter's point of view, a good argument could be made that this practice inevitably leads to, as Melospiza rightly points out, a big ol' waste of money, not to mention trees, without really providing much benefit to the gentle, tolerant souls who actually pay for the return postage. After all, from the writer's perspective, a SASE included with a submission is only going to be used if the news is bad. If the agency likes a partial, they're going to ask to see the entire manuscript — which means your initial submission will get filed, you will send another packet (with another SASE), and your first SASE may well end up in the trash.
Or, if you're really lucky, you'll never see it again, because it will end up in a file drawer in your new agent's office. Fingers crossed!
If, on the other hand, the agent of your dreams does not like it, all you are doing by providing the postage is paying to get the news that they're turning you down in a way that will make your postal carrier's back ache, rather than via a nice, light #10 envelope. So why not just send the manuscript along with a business-size SASE, and be done with it?
Because that's not how the industry works, that's why. (See commentary above re: secret handshakes.)
If you're willing to risk it, you could always include a line in the cover letter, politely asking the agency to recycle the manuscript if they decide not to offer representation and mentioning the business-sized SASE enclosed for their reply. Do be aware, however, that this strategy sometimes backfires with screeners trained to check first for a manuscript-sized SASE: it's not unheard-of for the Millicents of the world to toss aside such a manuscript without reading the cover letter.
As I believe I may have mentioned before, I don't make the rules of submission; I only try to render them comprehensible. Let's all pray that when Millicent does engage in the summary rejection of the SASEless, she flings that precious ream of paper into a recycling bin.
Originally, the whole paper-wasting arrangement was set up this way in order to protect writers. The logic behind this one is so pre-computer — heck, it's pre-recycling, if you don't count Abe Lincoln's scrawling the Gettysburg Address on the back of a used envelope — that it's likely to be counterintuitive to anyone querying or submitting for the first time today.
Return with me now to those thrilling days of yesteryear, when books were widely read, writers didn't need agents because publishing houses still read through their slush piles, and the photocopier had not yet been invented. Prior to the advent of personal computers (and nice laser printers in workplaces that might conceivably be accessible after the boss goes home for the day), you could not print out spare copies of your precious manuscript to submit to every Tom, Dick, and Random House in the biz, obviously. Nor could you attach a Word document to an e-mail and send it off via Pony Express. Or even pop down to the corner copy store to run off half a dozen copies.
Equally obviously, no sane human being would entrust her only copy of a manuscript to the vagaries of the mails. So how did writers reproduce their work to submit to several publishing houses or agencies simultaneously?
They retyped it, that's how. Every single page, every single syllable, every single time.
Think those hardy souls wanted to get their rejected manuscripts back? Darned tootin'. It might save them weeks of retyping time.
My long-term readers will have heard my favorite concrete example of how these returned manuscripts helped writers before, but it's such a terrific illustration of just how much the SASE used to assist the average aspiring writer that I have no qualms about trotting it out again. Back in the far-away 1950s, my mother, Kleo, was married to Philip, a struggling science fiction writer. While she toiled away at work and went to school, Philip spent his days composing short stories.
Dozens of them. Type, type, type, week in, week out. She would come home and edit them; he would type a revised version. One or the other of them would get a good idea, and they would collaborate in writing the result: one dictating, one typing. She would take them to writing classes and the magazine editors who were already publishing her brother's SF short stories, returning with still more feedback. Off he went to type another draft.
From scratch. Every single time either of them wanted to change a word. Hard for those of us who write on computers even to imagine, isn't it?
As writers did in those dark days prior to e-mail, Philip and Kleo stuffed each of those short stories into gray Manila envelopes with a second envelope folded up inside as a SASE and sent them off to any magazine that had evinced even the remotest interest in SF or fantasy. (Except for the ones that Kleo hand-sold by taking to a magazine editor, which is actually how Philip got his first story published. She was, in effect, his original agent. But I digress.)
Each time a short story was rejected — as, in the beginning, all of Philip's and Kleo's were — and landed once again in their mailbox with the accuracy of a well-flung boomerang, they acted as professional writers should act: they submitted the rejected story to another magazine immediately. To minimize retyping, they would iron any pages that had gotten bent in the mail, slip the manuscript into a fresh envelope (yes, with a fresh SASE), and pop it into the mail.
Since there were not very many magazines that accepted SF or fantasy back then, they had to keep impeccable records, to avoid sending a rejected story back to a magazine that had already refused it. But Philip kept typing away, and kept as many stories in circulation at once as possible.
How many? Well, no one knows for sure anymore — since occasionally the only copy of a story got sent by mistake, some inevitably got lost.
(Which reminds me to nag those of you sending out manuscripts in the computer age: when was the last time you made a back-up of your manuscript? If, heaven forfend, a gigantic anvil fell from one of those anvil-toting zeppelins we're always seeing overhead these days onto your main writing space, would it crush both your computer and your back-ups? Do you really want to be crawling about in the ashes, frantically trying to find the remnants of your hard disk?)
One day, the young couple opened their front door to find 17 rejected manuscripts spread all over their minuscule front porch. Their tiny mailbox apparently hadn't been able to hold that many emphatic expressions of "No!"
So what did the aspiring writers of yesteryear do when faced with that many rejections on the same day? Did they toss all of that paper into the recycling bins that had not yet been invented? Did they rend their garments and give up writing forever? Did they poison their perfectly nice mail carrier for bringing so much bad news all at once?
No, they did what professional writers did back then: Philip had his wife iron the pages so they could be sent out again and resubmitted.
Lest you find the story depressing, the science fiction writer was Philip K. Dick, and one of those stories was THE MINORITY REPORT. Which a director who shall remain nameless (because he changed the ending in a way that would have caused any author's resentful spectre to dive-bomb LA, howling) made into a rather lucrative movie, decades later.
Which only goes to show you: contrary to the common writerly fantasy/daydream/self-flagellation-after-rejection theme, even the best writers generally have to brazen through quite a bit of rejection before hitting the big time. As my mother likes to say, the only manuscript that stands NO chance of getting published is the one that sits in the bottom drawer, unseen by human eyes.
Admittedly, it was not the most comforting lullaby to have sung above one's cradle, but she knew whereat she spoke. It's as true today as it was six decades ago, when there were no photocopying machines, no computers, and no guarantee that the copy you sent would ever be retrievable if it went astray in some publisher's office.
For our purposes today, the important thing to take away from this story is not the warm glow from the implied pep talk (although that's nice, too), but the understanding that agencies don't ask for SASEs in order to inconvenience, annoy, or impoverish aspiring writers. They do it today for precisely the same reason that they did it in the 1950s: to get your work back to you as expeditiously as possible, so you may try its fortunes elsewhere.
Also, as I mentioned last time, the practice was intended to protect the writer's copyright. Just as an e-mailed attachment could conceivably end up, through the magic of multiple forwarding, anywhere on the planet, a loose manuscript that isn't either in an agent or editor's office, safely tucked away in that proverbial bottom desk drawer, or being conveyed through sleet, snow, and/or dark of night between one and the other could in fact be stolen.
I know; creepy even to consider. But think about it: is it more or less likely than something pointy falling on your house from a zeppelin?
I'll answer that one for you: it does happen from time to time, so a savvy writer keeps very, very good track of who precisely has his manuscript when. (If this prospect tends to keep you up at night, please see the SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT MY WORK BEING STOLEN? category on the list at right for tips on how to protect your work.)
Three other things of which a savvy writer keeps very good track: which agents she has already queried (and with what unsolicited-but-permitted extra materials), which already-queried agents have requested materials (and what they requested; every agency asks for the submission packet to contain different components), and which agents are still waiting for her to send them those materials. If an aspiring writer is querying and/or submitting to multiple agents at once — and she should, unless the agent of her dreams has a no simultaneous submissions policy — she had better maintain excellent records; otherwise, it's just too easy to mix things up.
Or not to know where to send Query #18 when the first 17 SASEs turn up in her mailbox. Or her inbox.
Speaking of minding the details, a savvy writer also takes care when applies postage to her SASE. Let's take a gander at what postage-related fears were keeping intrepid reader Rachel up at night:
I have a question about the SASE that you put in with your materials. I understand it was always better to use stamps so that the agent can just toss it in the outgoing mail bin at the agency. But I was talking to the postal clerks yesterday and they said that post-911 rules are now in effect: any stamped package over 13 ounces has to be brought to the post. I asked to get metered mail instead, and they said it wouldn't work because it would have that date (yesterday) on it. A dilemma!
I explained my situation to them and the clerks suggested just using a priority stamp (and the same shipping box), because if a SASE were expected, then stamps are really the only way to go. Is that how they're doing it now?
Good question, Rachel. Before I answer it, let's clarify the situation by reiterating the difference between a query packet's SASE (a missive containing the query letter + any unsolicited materials an agency's website said were permissible to send with it) and one tucked into a submission (requested materials).
When sending a query, SASE use is pretty straightforward: the writer takes a second envelope, writes his own address on it, adds appropriate postage, folds it, and stuffs it — neatly, please, as becomes a Sanitary Author — into the query envelope. (Oh, like you've been able to get the SA out of your mind since yesterday's post.)
When sending a submission packet, the process is similar, but the packaging is different. If the agent only asks to see limited number of pages, few enough that they could be comfortably placed in a Manila envelope without wrinkling them (the Sanitary Author deplores crumpled pages; so do many agents), all you need to do is take a second Manila envelope, self-address it, affix the same amount of postage you're going to use to send the whole packet to the agency, fold it, and place it neatly within the submission envelope.
Don't worry; I shall be devoting some of our collective time in the week to come to explaining how to handle a request for a partial. I wouldn't leave you hanging.
SASE-wrangling becomes a bit trickier if you've been asked to send the entire manuscript, because that generally entails using a box. (For a detailed explanation of what types of box should and shouldn't be used, complete with glamorous photographs of cardboard in its various manifestations, again, tune in tomorrow.)
Obviously, it's going to be unwieldy to stuff a second box inside the first, so it's completely acceptable just to include a self-addressed mailing label and postage. Be sure to mention both in your cover letter, so they won't get lost on the agency end. (Again, don't panic: I'll be talking about how to pull off including such necessary-but-prosaic details gracefully early next week.
If you have already submitted a partial, and then the agent asks for the whole manuscript, don't just send the rest of the pages: by the time they arrive, Millicent probably will not have a clear enough recollection of the partial just to pick up the story where your initial submission left off. (Heck, by then, Millicent may already have moved on to pastures new; the turnover amongst screeners can be pretty remarkable.) Send the entire manuscript, in the aforementioned box.
Equally obviously (but I'm going to mention it anyway, just in case), the stamps on the SASE need to be US stamps, if the agency is US-based. That requirement means that SASEing is invariably a great deal more challenging — and expensive — for writers in foreign climes querying or submitting to US agencies. The far-flung are not exempt from the SASE expectation, I'm afraid, which can make e-mailed querying a more attractive option.
Good news for the far-flung: the US Postal Service's website sells stamps at face value, rather than at the exorbitant mark-up one frequently finds for them abroad. The USPS more than happy to ship 'em to your doorstep in exotic climes so you may stick 'em onto your SASE before popping your submission into the mail.
But let's get back to the crux of Rachel's question: has the post-9/11 alteration in post office policy altered what agencies expect to see on a SASE?
The last decade has indeed seen some changes in how agencies handle packages, but actually, most of them date from before 9/11, back to the anthrax scare. Before that, virtually no agency accepted electronic submissions. A few scary mailings later, and suddenly, agencies all over New York were opening e-mail accounts. Hey, they may not pay their Millicents much, but the average agency certainly doesn't want its screeners to get sick from opening a poisoned query envelope.
E-mailed queries and submissions don't carry the risk of that sort of infection (and I think we can all guess how the Sanitary Author would feel about that). They do, however, occasionally contain computer viruses, so few agents will open an attachment unless they have already specifically requested an electronic submission from a writer.
That's why, in case you'd been wondering, most agencies have policies forbidding e-queriers from sending unsolicited materials as attachments. Too much risk of computer contamination. Instead, they will usually ask queriers to copy any permissible additional materials and paste them into the body of an e-mail.
Rachel's clerk was quite right about heavier packages having to be physically carried into the post office by human being, rather than blithely dropped into a mailbox or dumped in a mailroom — a policy shift that would affect virtually any submitted full manuscript, since they tend to be heavy little critters. However, that most emphatically does not mean is that the agent is going to be taking a rejected manuscript to the post office herself, or even that the Millicent who screened it will. Some luckless agency intern will be toting a whole mess of them there every few days.
Or not; since the USPS changed its regulations in this respect, many agencies have side-stepped the return mail problem by ceasing to return submitted manuscripts to their writers at all. (Sensing a pattern here?) Check policies before you submit.
Interestingly, agencies that operate this way virtually always still expect submitters to include SASEs with their submissions. Go figure. The moral: unless you are querying or submitting electronically OR an agency specifically says it doesn't use SASEs, you should always include one.
And always use actual stamps, rather than metered postage. It's called a STAMPED, self-addressed envelope for a reason, you know. The goal here is not merely convenience in mailing, but the submitter's paying for his own manuscript's return. Regardless of whether that means tossing it into the nearest mailbox (which would still be possible for most partial manuscripts) or assigning Millicent to do it, stamps have always served the purpose best.
That being said, I must confess that I don't quite understand the clerk's recommendation to Rachel to affix Priority Mail postage to the SASE, unless he was either lobbying her to use a flat-rate Priority Mail envelope as a SASE (not a bad idea, especially if the submission is just a few chapters; they fold nicely into a submission envelope) or simply trying to hawk a more expensive stamp. The distinction between Priority Mail and regular mail is the speed with which it arrives; the ease of mailing is identical.
Buying a more expensive stamp or a cheaper one to affix to the SASE is entirely up to the writer; coughing up the dosh for speedier return is not going to impress Millicent. Like overnighting requested materials vs. sending them regular mail, whether a submitter elects to pay a shipper extra money to convey a manuscript from point A to point B is generally a matter of complete indifference to the agent receiving it, as long as it gets there in one piece.
("And looking pretty," adds the Sanitary Author. "None of those pesky wrinkles. Print your manuscript on nice, bright-white, 20-pound paper while you're at it, please. It's aesthetically more pleasing than the cheap stuff.")
To be blunt about it, the agent has absolutely no reason to care how quickly a rejected manuscript reaches its submitter. All she's going to care about is whether you've included the means to mail it back to you at your expense, not hers.
And that, my friends, is the logic that most agencies' listings in the standard agency guides and websites compress into the terse advice Include SASE. Apparently, somewhere on earth, there lurks a tribe of natural-born queriers who realize from infancy precisely what that means, so it requires no further explanation.
I'll bet our old pal, the Sanitary Author, is one of that happy breed. For the rest of us, learning how agencies work requires a bit of homework — and the asking of trenchant questions. Keep up the good work!
Posted on May 4, 2011 - No Comments on A detour from the pet peeve parade: the short road home
A detour from the pet peeve parade: the short road home
Throughout our rather sprawling Pet Peeves on Parade series, I have been chattering blithely about narrative conflict and tension, as though every aspiring writer out there were already hard at work, trying to ratchet up the quotas of both in their manuscripts. As, indeed, those of us who read for a living so frequently advise: make sure there is conflict on every single page is, after all, one of the most commonly-given pieces of how-to-please-the-agent-of-your-dreams revision advice.
But if you'll pardon my asking, what does it mean?
Seriously, how would a conscientious self-editor apply this advice to the manuscript page? Insert a sword fight every eight paragraphs or so? Have the nearest gas station should spring a leak just because the protagonist happens to be strolling by? Force the lovers in your romance cease stop billing and cooing in favor of snarling at one another?
Of course not — but you would be surprised how often aspiring writers stumble into the harsh daylight at the end of a writers' conference muttering to themselves, "Must ramp up conflict. Tension on every page!" without being certain what that means on a practical level. There's a pretty good reason for that: colloquially, conflict and tension are often used interchangeably, but amongst professional writers and those who edit them, they mean two different but interrelated things.
So let's take a moment to define our literary terms, shall we?
Narrative conflict is when a character (usually the protagonist, but not always) is prevented from meeting his or her goal (either a momentary one or the ultimate conclusion of the plot) by some antagonistic force. The thwarting influence may be external to the character experiencing it (as when the villain punches our hero in the nose for asking too many pesky questions), emerge from within her psyche (as when our heroine wants to jump onto the stage at the county fair and declare that the goat-judging was rigged, but can't overcome that fear of public speaking that she has had since that first traumatic operatic recital at the age of 10), or even be subconscious (as when our hero and heroine meet each other quite accidentally during the liquor store hold-up, feeling mysteriously drawn to each other but not yet realizing that they were twins separated at birth).
Narrative tension, on the other hand, is when the pacing, plot, and characterization at any given point of the book are tight enough that the reader remains engaged in what is going on — and wondering what is going to happen next — rather than, say, idly wondering whether it is time to check in again with a 24-hour news network. A scene or page may be interesting without maintaining tension, and a predictable storyline may never create any tension at all.
Or, to put it so simply that a sophisticated reader would howl in protest, conflict is character-based, whereas tension typically relates to plot.
Because conflict and tension are related, a manuscript that suffers from a lack of one often suffers from a paucity of the other as well. First-time novelists and memoirists are particularly prone to falling prey to both, enough so that the professional readers' stereotype of a first submission is — are you sitting down? — a story that meanders episodically from event to unrelated event, just like real life.
"And just like real life," our old pal, Millicent the agency screener, has been known to murmur over manuscripts, "any randomly-chosen scene will not appear to a bystander to be going anywhere in particular. Is there a point to all of this slice-of-life activity?"
Why might first books be more likely to fall prey to this pervasive problem than others? Keeping both conflict and tension high for an entire manuscript is darned difficult; it's a learned skill, and many quite talented writers have been known to write a practice book or two before they learn it.
Oh, should I have checked again that you were sitting down before I broached that one?
The other major reason first books tend to drag is that writers new to the biz are far less likely to sit down and read their manuscripts front to back before submitting them than those who've been hanging around the industry longer. Long enough, say, to have heard the old saw about a novel or memoir's needing to have conflict on every page, or the one about the desirability of keeping the tension consistently high in the first fifty pages, to keep Millicent turning those submission pages.
Yet another reason that I keep yammering at all of you to — sing along with me now, long-time readers — read your manuscript IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN HARD COPY, and OUT LOUD before submitting it. Lack of conflict and tension become far, far more apparent when a manuscript is read this way.
Actually, pretty much every manuscript mega-problem is more likely to leap off the page at the reviser reading this way, rather then the more common piecemeal scene-by-scene or on-the-screen approaches. This is particularly true when a writer is revising on a deadline — or has just received a request for pages from a real, live agent.
Which is, of course, precisely when it's most tempting not to give your work a thorough read-through. Especially in the second case: if you're like the overwhelming majority of aspiring writers, you'll be so excited by a positive response to your query that you'll want to pop those pages in the mail or hit the SEND button within 24 hours or so. You know, before that nice agent changes his mind.
If you read that last paragraph and cried, "By gum, that's me!" relax. Requests for pages don't expire for a year or so, typically. Even if the request came as the result of a successful pitch — and if so, kudos on your bravery — an aspiring writer does not, contrary to popular panicked opinion, need to get the requested materials onto the agent's desk before s/he forgets the pitch. If one pitched at a reasonably busy conference, it's safe to assume that s/he will forget your pitch — but that s/he will have taken good notes.
Translation: you have time to proofread before sending all or part of your manuscript. In fact, it's only professional to take the time to do so.
Unfortunately, those whose writing would most benefit from a good, hard, critical reading tend to be those less likely to perform it. While many aspiring writers develop strong enough self-editing skills to rid their entries of micro-problems — grammatical errors, clarity snafus, and other gaffes on the sentence and paragraph level — when they're skidding toward a deadline, they often do not make time to catch the mega-problems.
So let's all chant the mantra together again for good measure: before you submit so much as a paragraph of your writing to a professional reader, it would behoove you to read it IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN HARD COPY, and OUT LOUD.
I know, I know: it has too many syllables to be a proper mantra. Chant it anyway, so it doesn't slip your mind the night before that contest deadline.
Many a hand has been in the air for many a paragraph now, hasn't it? "But Anne," anguished middle-of-the-night manuscript contemplators everywhere wail, "how can I tell if my manuscript does indeed lack conflict and/or tension? I've read some of the individual passages so often now that they seem set in stone to me."
Excellent question, anguished self-editors. While there are as many individual causes of sagging tension and conflict minimization as there are plotlines, certain types of narrative choices are more conducive to producing them. In the interest of keeping all of you revisers' spirits up as you approach the often-daunting task of revision, I'm going to begin with the easiest to spot — and one of the simpler to fix.
I like to call this extremely common manuscript phenomenon the Short Road Home, and it comes in two flavors, full-bodied and subtle. Today, I shall focus on the full-bodied version.
The Short Road Home crops up when a problem in a plot is solved too easily for either its continuance or its resolution to provide significant dramatic tension to the story — or to reveal heretofore unrevealed character nuances. Most often, this takes the form of a conflict resolved before the reader has had time to perceive it as difficult to solve — or understand what the stakes are.
What might the SRH look like on the page? Well, in its full-bodied form, characters may worry about a problem for a hundred pages –- and then resolve it in three.
We've all seen this in action, right? A character's internal conflict is depicted as insurmountable — and then it turns out that all he needed to do all along was admit that he was wrong, and everything is fine. The first outsider who walks into town and asks a few pointed questions solves a decade-old mystery. The protagonist has traveled halfway around the world in order to confront the father who deserted him years before — and apparently, every road in Madagascar leads directly to him.
Ta da! Crisis resolved. No roadblocks here.
The thing is, though, blocked roads tend to be quite a bit more interesting to read about than unblocked ones. So you can hardly blame Millicent for becoming impatient when pages at a time pass without conflict — and then, when the long-anticipated conflict does arise, the narrative swiftly reaches out and squashes it like a troublesome bug.
Wham! Splat! All gone, never to be heard from again. Perhaps like so:
Percy rumpled his hair for what must have been the fifteenth time that day. How on earth was he going to find his long-lost relative in a city of half a million people, armed with only a ten-year-old photograph and a dim memory that Uncle Gerard adored hazelnut gelato?
Perhaps that was the best place to start; he nipped around the corner to Gelato Galleria. After all, sensory memories were always the strongest.
"Hazelnut?" The man behind the counter seemed thunderstruck. "Only one customer has ever ordered hazelnut here. Mr. Gerard's my best customer."
Percy reached across the counter to grasp him by his striped lapels. "When was he last in? Be quick, man — it may be a matter of life and death."
"Th-this morning. He ordered seven pints for a party this evening. I'm supposed to deliver it."
"Allow me." Percy's tone dispensed with the possibility of further discussion. "I would be delighted to deliver it for you."
Or maybe like this:
Irene mopped her sopping brow, staring after the departing train. Her last chance for redemption chugged away from her. If only she hadn't been so stubborn! Or so true: Mother had been wrong to extract that promise on her deathbed, the one about never revealing her true identity. Now, the only sister she would ever have was gone from her life forever.
She was wiping her eyes furtively when someone tapped her on the shoulder. Really, strangers were so pushy these days. She wheeled around.
"I missed my train," Eileen said sheepishly. "Would you mind putting me up for another night?"
"Another night?" Irene threw her arms around her sibling. "You can stay with me forever. You are my identical twin!"
"Well," Eileen murmured into her sister's curls, "that would explain why meeting you three hundred pages ago was so like gazing into a mirror. How strange that nobody else noticed the resemblance, eh?"
Or, even more common, the too-quickly-resolved conflict on the scene level:
"I had that paper a minute ago," Archibald said, beginning to contemplate perhaps thinking about maybe starting to contemplate looking for it. "Where can it be? Without it, I cannot walk into that meeting."
"Is this it?" Grace held up the wastepaper basket, angled so he could see within its shallow depths.
Relieved, he fished it out. "Thanks, I would have been lost without it."
It drives Millicent nuts. "If a conflict so unimportant to the plot and/or character development that it can be disposed of this quickly," she murmurs, "why include it in the manuscript at all?"
Good question, Millie — often, a problem's being too easy to solve is an indicator that it could be cut with no cost to the story. Or that the problem was not set up in sufficient detail in the first place. Slice-of-life scenes are, alas, particularly susceptible to too-quick resolution, as are scenes where, heaven help us, everyone is polite.
Yes, you read that correctly. Few traits kill conflict on a page as effectively as a protagonist who is unfailingly polite. Contrary to popular belief amongst writers, a monotonously courteous protagonist is almost never more likeable than one who isn't — and even everyday polite statements tend to make professional readers start glancing at their watches.
Why? Well, as delightful as courtesy is in real life, polite dialogue is by its very definition generic; it reveals nothing about the speaker except a propensity toward good manners.
Don't believe me? Here's an exchange that crops up in a good 90% of submitted manuscripts.
"Why, hello, Betty," Marjorie said.
"Hello, Margie. How are you today?"
"Fine, thanks. And you?"
"Fine. How are the kids?"
"Fine. How is your mother doing?"
"Fine. Nice weather we're having, isn't it?"
"Oh, yes. It seems to be spring at last."
"Yes. Yes, it does."
Put down that revolver, Millicent. I assure you, life is still worth living.
But you see the problem, right? On the page, good manners are predictable — and thus inherently tension-reducing.
Or, to put it as Millicent would, "Next!"
Take care, however, not to pursue the opposite route from Short Road Home by creating false suspense; Millicent doesn't like that much, either. False suspense is the common tension-increasing technique of withholding information from the protagonist that a fairly simple and logical action would have revealed earlier in the plot, or even in the scene — or by denying the reader information that the protagonist already knows.
Trust me: if the clue is in plain sight, most professional readers will resent it if the narrative doesn't point it out the first time it appears; if the protagonist has traveled five hundred miles to ask his grandmother about her past, Millicent is going to get angry if he just sits there passively and waits for her to blurt out the long-hidden information, rather than asking her about it.
Ditto if the protagonist sees his late cousin's face appear in a window, confronts some hideous monster in the closet, and/or recognizes that the French ambassador is actually his long-lost brother — but the reader is not filled in on what he knows, or even sees, for six more chapters. Amongst the pros, it's considered a cheap form of tension-building.
Not sure why? Okay — my God, what's that creeping up behind your desk chair? Oh, it's…horrible. Too horrible to describe…
Not a very satisfying plot twist, is it? And it should look familiar from last time: it's a variation on the she ran through the woods opening.
In its most extreme form, false suspense can become what the fine film critic Roger Ebert calls an Idiot Plot, one where the fundamental problem of a story could have been solved if just one character had asked just one obvious question early in the plot. ("Wait — how will our wandering unarmed into the murder's lair lay a trap for him?")
We're all familiar with Idiot Plots, right? Sitcom episodes very, very frequently feature them, presumably so any given issue can be resolved within 22 minutes. A zany crew of misfits is hardly likely to solve the world hunger problem in that amount of time, after all. But a trumped-up conflict based upon Janie's being afraid Fred will find out that she lied about something really, really unimportant? You can probably write the last scene right now, based upon that last sentence alone.
"Wait a gosh darned minute," I can hear some of you say. "The very fact that Mssr. Ebert has a pet name for it reflects the fact that Idiot Plots are widely accepted in the entertainment industry. Since the reading public also watches television and movies, wouldn't they just accept quick resolutions of conflict as the current storytelling norm? If the writing in the scene is good enough, can't I get away with a few shortcuts?"
Well, it depends: does taking any one of those shortcuts reduce the tension? Would fleshing out a conflict increase it at a crucial point? Would, in short, the manuscript exhibit both conflict and tension on every page if you DIDN'T take those shortcuts?
Before you answer that, bear in mind that a story does not have to be inherently stupid or poorly written to feature an Idiot Plot — or a Short Road Home, for that matter. In the classic comic novel TOM JONES, the heroine, Sophia, spends half the book angry with Tom because she heard a single rumor that he had spoken of her freely in public — and so, although she has braved considerable dangers to follow him on his journey, she stomps off without bothering to ask him if the rumor were true.
And why does Sophia do this, you ask? I'd bet a nickel that Henry Fielding would have said, "Because the plot required it, silly. If she'd stuck around at the inn to ask him, the romantic conflict would have been resolved in thirty seconds flat!"
That may have been sufficient reason to satisfy an editor in the 18th century, but let me assure you that the folks working in agencies and publishing houses are made of sterner stuff these days. They've seen the same movies and sitcoms you have: they're tired of Idiot Plots and Short Roads Home.
"Show me something fresh," Millicent cries at the stacks and stacks of manuscripts on her desk, "something I haven't seen before!"
So here's a special message to those of you who have deliberately held your respective noses and produced Idiot Plots because you thought the market preferred them: don't. Try adding legitimate conflict to every page instead and seeing what happens.
Well, that was easy. I guess my work here is done.
Or does a certain amount of disgruntlement linger in the air? "Well, you may not like it, Anne," some of you mutter, "but I have seen the Short Road Home used countless times in books. How can a trait knock my manuscript out of consideration when so many prominent writers do it routinely? Clearly, someone is selling stories with these kinds of devices."
I can easily believe that you've seen the Short Road Home a million times in published books, and a million and twelve times in movies — so often, in fact, that you may not have identified it as a storytelling problem per se. Allow me to suggest that the main producers of Short Roads Home, like Idiot Plots are not typically first-time screenwriters and novelists, though, but ones with already-established track records.
In other words, it would not necessarily behoove you to emulate their step-skipping ways. As a general rule, the longer ago the writer broke in and/or the more successful he has been, the greater latitude he enjoys. There's even an industry truism about it: to break into the business, a first book has to be significantly better than what is already on the market.
To be blunt, as good is not necessarily good enough. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you that, but it's just a fact of the literary market.
That inconvenient reality can create some tension (hooray for drama!) in a critique group made up of a mix of published and unpublished writers. Years ago, a genuinely fine writer of many published books brought my critique group a chapter in which her protagonist escaped from a choking situation by kneeing her attacker (who happened to be her boyfriend) in the groin. The attacker slunk off almost immediately, never to return; conflict resolved.
Naturally, three aspects of this scene immediately set off Short Road Home alarm bells for me. First, reflexes tend to kick in pretty darned quickly. My self-defense teacher taught me that a man will instinctively move to protect what she liked to call "his delicates," so that area is not a good first-strike target when you were defending yourself. So why didn't the bad guy automatically block the blow?
Second, the attacker was able to walk out of the room right away after being battered in the groin, with no recovery time. Simple playground observation tells us is seldom true in these instances.
Third — and what marked this exchange as a SRH rather than merely physically improbable — this scene ended a relationship that had been going on for two-thirds of the book. One swift jab, and both sides spontaneously agreed to call it a day.
Is it just me, or are most relationships, abusive or otherwise, just a touch harder to terminate permanently? I've had dentists' offices try harder to keep in touch with me. By this story's standards, everyone who works at my college alumni magazine is a dedicated stalker.
But because my colleague was an established author, she was able to get this SRH past her agent, although her editor did subsequently flag it. However, it's the kind of logical problem reviewers do tend to catch, even in the work of well-known writers — and thus, it should be avoided.
But that's not the only reason I brought up this example. I wanted you to have a vivid image in your mind the next time you are reading through your own manuscript or contest entry: if your villain doesn't need recovery time after being kneed in the groin or the equivalent, perhaps you need to reexamine just how quickly you're backing your protagonist out of the scene.
One true test of a SRH is if a reader is left wondering, "Gee, wouldn't there have been consequences for what just happened? Wasn't that resolved awfully easily?" If you are rushing your protagonist away from conflict — which, after all, is the stuff of dramatic writing — you might want to sit down and think about why.
Another good test: does the first effort the protagonist makes solve the problem? Not her first thought about it, mind you — the first time she takes an active step. If your heroine is seeking answers to a deep, dark secret buried in her past, does the very first person she asks in her hometown know the whole story — and tell her immediately? Or, still better, does a minor character volunteer his piece of her puzzle BEFORE she asks?
You think I'm kidding about that, don't you? You don't read many manuscripts, I take it. All too often, mystery-solving protagonists come across as pretty lousy detectives, because evidence has to fall right into their laps, clearly labeled, before they recognize it.
"Funny," such a protagonist is prone to say, evidently looking around the house where he spent most of his formative years and raised his seventeen children for the very first time, "I never noticed that gigantic safe behind the portrait of Grandmamma before."
Seriously, professional readers see this kind of premise all the time. An astoundingly high percentage of novels feature seekers who apparently give off some sort of pheromone that causes:
a) People who are hiding tremendous secrets to blurt them out spontaneously to someone they have never seen before;
b) Long-lost parents/siblings/children/lovers whose residence has remained a source of conjecture to even the most dedicated police detectives to turn up in an instantly-fathomable disguise toward the end of the book;
c) Flawlessly accurate local historians to appear as if by magic to fill the protagonist in on necessary backstory at precisely the point that the plot requires it;
d) Characters who have based their entire self-esteem upon suffering in silence for the past 27 years suddenly to feel the need to share their pain extremely articulately with total strangers;
e) Living or dead Native American, East Indian, and/or Asian wise persons to appear to share deep spiritual wisdom with the protagonist;
f) Diaries and photographs that have been scrupulously hidden for years, decades, or even centuries to leap out of their hiding places at exactly the right moment for the protagonist to find them, and/or
g) Birds/dogs/horses/clouds/small children/crones of various descriptions to begin to act in odd ways, nudging Our Hero/ine toward the necessary next puzzle piece as surely as if they had arranged themselves into a gigantic arrow.
Here's a good rule of thumb for whether your story is taking the Short Road Home: at every revelation, ask yourself, "Why did that just happen?"
If your answer is, "So the story could move from Point A to Point B," and you can't give any solid character-driven reason beyond that, then chances are close to 100% that you have a SRH on your hands.
What should you do when you find one? Well, clear away the too-easy plot devices first, then try throwing a few metaphorical barrels in your protagonist's path. Give him a couple of unrelated problems, for instance. Make the locals a shade more hostile, or a cohort a touch less competent. Add a subplot about a school board election. Have the old lady who has spent the last fifty years proudly clinging to letters from her long-lost love burn them ten minutes before she dies, instead of handing them over to the protagonist with an injunction to publish them with all possible speed.
Make your protagonist's life more difficult any way you can, in short. Go ahead; s/he'll forgive you.
On the plot level, having your protagonist track down a false lead or two is often a great place to start making his life a more interesting hell. Trial and error can be a fantastic plotting device, as well as giving you room for character development.
For some fabulous examples of this, take a gander at almost any film from the first decade of Jackie Chan's career. In many of them, Our Hero is almost always beaten to a pulp by the villain early in the story — often more or less simultaneously with the murderer's gloating over having killed the hero's father/mother/teacher/best friend. (In Western action films, the same array of emotions tends to be evoked by killing the hero's beautiful wife, who not infrequently is clutching their adorable toddler at the time.) Then we see him painfully acquiring the skills, allies, and/or resources he will need in order to defeat the villain at the end of the film.
Or check out the early HARRY POTTER books. When Harry and his friends encounter new threats, they don't really have the life experience to differentiate between a teacher who dislikes them and someone who wants Britain to be overrun by soul-sucking wraiths. Yet miraculously, by responding to the smaller threats throughout the school year, Harry et alia learn precisely the skills they will need to battle the major threat at the end of the book.
Oh, you hadn't noticed that the plots of the first three books were essentially identical? Nice guy, that Voldemort, carefully calibrating his yearly threat to wizardkind so it tests Harry's skills-at-that-age to the limit without ever exceeding them.
Now, strictly speaking, quite a bit of that pulp-beating and lesson-learning is extraneous to the primary conflict of the story's ultimate goal of pitting Good Guy vs. Bad Guy. Jackie Chan and Harry could have simply marched out to meet the enemy in the first scene of the movie or book. We all know that he's going to be taking that tromp eventually.
But half of the fun for the audience is watching the hero get to the point where he can take on the enemy successfully, isn't it?
Remember, the goal of storytelling is not to get your protagonist from the beginning to the end of the plot as fast as possible, but to take your readers through an enjoyable, twisted journey en route. Short Roads Home are the superhighways of the literary world: a byway might not get you there as quickly, but I guarantee you, the scenery is going to be better.
Try taking your characters down the side roads every once in awhile; have 'em learn some lessons along the way. Stretch wires along the path in front of them, so they may develop the skills not to trip. And let 'em fail from time to time — or succeed occasionally, if your protagonist is disaster-prone. Varied outcomes are usually interesting for the reader than continual triumph or perpetual defeat.
Next time, I'm going to tackle a harder-to-spot version of the Short Road Home — because yes, Virginia, today's was the easy one to fix. Keep up the good work!
Posted on December 8, 2010 - No Comments on Formatpalooza, part V: the first thing Millicent the agency screener spots in a submission — and no, it's not writing talent
Formatpalooza, part V: the first thing Millicent the agency screener spots in a submission — and no, it's not writing talent
How well have your delicate writerly sensibilities been absorbing from the last few posts' worth of inoculation with professional formatting know-how? Yes, Virginia, it has been a whole lot of information to take in all at once, now that you mention it. It may have left a bit of a sore place, but much better a one-time quick sting than engendering years of rejection without knowing why, I always say. Once you've gotten exposed to the correct way to format a book manuscript, chances are that you'll be immune to formatting problems in the future.
Why, yes, I have run that metaphor right into the ground. How kind of you to notice.
There's a reason I'm hammering on it so hard, however: one of the great fringe benefits of inoculation is that, as unpleasant as it may have been at the sticking-point, so to speak, the stuck usually doesn't have to think all that much about smallpox or whooping cough for quite a long time afterward.
So too with standard format for book manuscripts — once a writer gets used to how a professional submission is supposed to look, everything else is going to look wacky. As I have been threatening imploring you to believe promising you repeatedly every few minutes while running through the standard format strictures, once you get used to how a professional manuscript is put together, any other formatting is going to feel downright uncomfortable.
And to prove it to you, I'm going to spend the rest of this series let you see precisely how different standard format and non-standard format appears to the pros. In the spirit of that old chestnut, SHOW, DON'T TELL, I shall be sliding in front of your astonished eyes pages that follow the rules right next to ones that don't, for side-by-side comparison purposes.
That way, you'll learn to tell which is which on those numerous future occasions when I don't happen to be standing next to you, whispering in your ear. (I find that writers on a deadline tend to work better with minimal nearby murmurings.)
But before I launch into it, the usual caveats: what I'm about to show you relates to books, book proposals, and other occupants of query or submission packets only, folks. At the risk of repeating myself (and repeating myself and repeating myself), standard format for manuscripts is just that, a set of guidelines for how book submissions should be formatted, not short stories, screenplays, poetry, magazine and newspaper articles, or anything else.
If you're looking for formatting tips for any of the latter, run, don't walk, to consult with those knowledgeable souls who deal with that kind of writing on a day-to-day basis. By the same token, it would be a trifle silly to look to those who deal exclusively with other types of formatting for guidance on constructing a book manuscript, wouldn't it?
Yes, Virginia, I have mentioned this before, and recently. I shall no doubt mention it again: I'm constantly meeting aspiring writers who believe, mistakenly, that writing is writing, and thus all of it should be formatted identically.
That's just not the case. Out comes the broken record:
Please recognize that not everything that falls under the general rubric writing should be formatted identically. Book manuscripts should be formatted one way, short stories (to use the most commonly-encountered other set of rules) another.
So if your favorite source — other than yours truly, of course — tells you to do something diametrically opposed to what I'm showing you here, may I suggest double-checking that the other source is indeed talking about book manuscripts and not, say, submissions to a magazine that accepts short stories?
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but contrary to popular belief, submission standards differ by type of publication. Yet surprisingly often, those giving practical to aspiring writers will conflate the format for, say, short stories, one with that for book manuscripts, resulting in a first page that will look incorrect to either. (Although, generally speaking, such guidelines tend to stick closer to the short story format than to the book.)
A word to the wise: if you have encountered conflicting bit of advice on the Internet — and if you've done even the most minimal search on the subject, I'm sure you have — consider the source. If that source does not make a distinction between book and short story format, or doesn't seem to be aware that all professional manuscripts are not the same, be wary.
Everyone clear on that? Good, because I wouldn't want any of you to be submitting articles to magazines using the format we've been discussing with such vim.
Caveat #2: as is always an excellent idea before you even consider submitting to any given agent, editor, or contest, check the individual agency's, small publisher's, or contest submission guidelines before you send anything. I've been presenting standard format here, but if the agent of your dreams (or the agent with whom you are currently signed, if they don't happen to be the same person) has expressed a strong preference for his clients formatting in a manner opposed to what you see here, for heaven's sake, run with that.
But only for submission to that particular agent, not to every single one currently dancing a jig on the earth's crust. Contrary to what a good 95% of the generic submission advice out there maintains (or implies by omission), individual preferences do vary. Long-time members of the Author! Author! community, chant it with me now: not every piece of formatting advice writers hear at conferences or online refers to a hard-and-fast industry-wide expectation. Sometimes, an expressed preference is merely personal.
Admittedly, major deviations from standard format are genuinely uncommon — among manuscripts that agents are currently submitting to editors at major US publishing houses, at least — but let's face it, you're not going to get anywhere telling an established agent that no one else's clients are using 18-point Copperplate Gothic Bold if he happens to have an unnatural affection for it. Part of working with an agent entails trusting that he knows more about marketing books than you do. If he doesn't, you wouldn't want to be working with him, right?
I must have misheard all of the query-weary submitters out there. The answer you meant to give is a resounding yes.
Before my last statement sends anyone out there into that time-honored writerly I've just signed with an agency but what if I chose the wrong one? panic, remember this: if you've done your homework before you signed, and thus are certain that he has a solid recent track record selling books in your category, you have every reason to have faith in your representative.
Or so I keep telling myself when I can't sleep at night. Hey, handing one's hopes and dreams to someone else to market is no emotional picnic.
On to the practical examples. Please study both the good and bad examples very, very carefully if you are planning to submit book-length work to a North American agent or editor anytime soon: writers often overlook non-standard formatting as a possible reason that an otherwise well-written manuscript might have been rejected.
Oh, not all by itself, generally speaking, unless the violation was truly egregious by industry standards, something along the lines of submitting unnumbered pages or not indenting paragraphs, for instance, the kind of faux pas that might actually cause Millicent to cast the entire submission aside, unread. But in a garden-variety well-written manuscript that combines non-standard format with even just a couple of the common agents' pet peeves — a cliché on page 1, for instance, or several misspellings in the first paragraph — the result is generally fatal.
Certainly, other rejection reasons get a lot more airplay, particularly at writers' conferences. If you want to take a long, hard look at some of the better-discussed reasons, I would urge you to gird your loins and plunge into the REJECTION ON PAGE ONE category at right. (Not for the faint of heart: in it, I go over a list of instant-response rejection reasons given by a group of agents going over a stack of actual submissions at a conference, one by painful one.)
Yet surprisingly little conference time seems to be devoted to deviations from standard format for manuscripts. Why shouldn't conference speakers take thirty seconds of their speaking gigs to pointing out, for instance, that the ways in which a professional manuscript does not resemble a published book — ways that are unfortunately quite obvious to an agent, editor, contest judge, etc., from practically the moment their eyes light upon a submission?
Why is it so very apparent, you ask? Because much of the time, submitting writers will work overtime to make it apparent.
Seriously, many aspiring writers clearly go out of their way to format their submissions to resemble published books, in the mistaken belief that this will make their work seem more professional. As we've already discussed in this series, the opposite is generally true — and often, it's apparent in a professional reader's first glance at the first page of a submission.
If the implications of that last assertion made you dizzy — if, for instance, you found yourself picturing our old pal Millicent pulling a submitted manuscript out of its envelope, casting a critical eye over the first page, hooting, and stuffing the whole thing into the handy SASE along with a photocopied rejection letter — try placing your head between your knees and breathing slowly.
Go ahead. I'll wait until you recover.
And then follow up with a hard truth that may get those of you new to the game hyperventilating again: the VAST majority of submissions are rejected not only on page 1, but within the first few lines of page 1. Heck, a harried Millicent will derive a negative impression of a manuscript even prior to page 1.
Keep taking those nice, deep breaths. That dizziness will pass shortly.
Ah, some of you have found your wind again, have you? "Oh, come on, Anne," I hear some hard-boiled submission veterans scoff, "she makes up her mind that this isn't a submission to take seriously before to page 1? How is that even possible?"
Well, the most common don't-take-this-one-seriously trigger is the absence of any title page whatsoever. Many submitters, for reasons best known to themselves, omit the title page altogether from their submissions — often, I suspect, because they are unaware that a professional book-length manuscript always has a title page.
Why? Long-time readers (or even those who have been paying attention over the last couple of posts, pull out your hymnals and sing along with me now: a properly-formatted title page tells an agent precisely how to contact the brilliant author who wrote it — and tells an editor precisely how to contact the agent who represents her.
Was that gargantuan gasp a signal that those of you who have title page-free submissions circulating at the moment are just a teeny bit worried? If so, relax: forgetting to include a title page almost certainly won't prevent Millicent from reading your submission at all.
She tends to read even the most bizarrely-formatted submissions for at least a line or two (although often no more than that). But that initial impression of an author's lack of professionalism — or, to call it by a kinder name, of having a lot to learn about how the publishing industry works — does often translate into a rather jaundiced reading eye for what comes next.
Why? Well, let's take a peek through her reading glasses, shall we? The first thing Millicent sees when she opens the average requested materials package is something like this:
If you're having trouble reading the fine print, try double-clicking on the image.
Have it in sharp focus now? Good. Our Millie might also encounter a first page like this:
Or, heaven help us, like this:
Taken a good gander? Excellent. Now tell me: why might Millicent take one look at these and conclude that the respective submitters of these three first pages could use a good class on manuscript formatting — and thus would be time-consuming clients for her boss to sign?
I see all of you 'Palooza followers out there with your hands in the air, jumping up and down, eager to tell everyone what's wrong with this as a first page of text — and you're absolutely right, of course. We're going to be talking about precisely those points in the days to come.
For now, however, I want you to concentrate upon how this example has failed as both a title page and a first page of text: by not including the information that Millicent would expect to see on either.
What makes me so sure she would find this discovery disappointing, at best? Because what she (or her boss agent, or an editor, or a contest judge) would have expected to see on top of that pile of paper was this:
This is a standard manuscript title page for the same book — rather different, isn't it? Visibly different, in fact, from several paces away, even if Millicent isn't wearing her reading glasses.
Again, submitting the earlier examples rather than that last would not necessarily be instantly and automatically fatal to a manuscript's chances, of course. Most of the time, Millicent will go ahead and plunge into that first paragraph of text anyway.
However, human nature and her blistering reading schedule being what they are, she may not. And not necessarily just because she's impatient with your formatting; she genuinely has only a minute or so to decide whether to read beyond page 1. For those of you new to this screener's always-rushed days, she has a stack of manuscripts up to her chin to screen — and that's at the end of a long day of screening queries; screening manuscript submissions is in addition to that.
Given the stack of submissions threatening to topple over onto her poor, aching head, if she has already decided that a submission is flawed, just how charitable an eye do you think she is likely to cast upon that typo in line 13? To use her favorite word: next!
To be fair to Millicent, while it may well be uncharitable of her to leap to the conclusion that Faux Pas' or Ridiculous' manuscripts are likely to be unpolished because they did not include a proper title page, agencies do have a vested interest in signing writers who present themselves professionally. For one thing, they're cheaper to represent, in practical terms: the agent doesn't have to spend as much time working with them, getting their manuscripts ready to submit to editors.
Let's face it, no agent in his right mind would send out a manuscript that didn't include a standard title page. It serves a number of important — nay, vital — marketing functions.
To understand why, let's take another peek at the professional version. So you don't have to keep scrolling up and down the page, here it is again:
Did you take a nice, long look? Good. While we're at it, let's also take a gander at a proper title page for a book with a subtitle):
Those formats firmly in your mind? Excellent. Now for a pop quiz: how precisely do Rightly and Collie's first sheets of paper promote their respective books than Faux Pas or Ridiculous' first pages?
Well, right off the bat, a good title page tells a prospective agent or editor what kind of book it is, as well as its approximate length. (If you do not know how to estimate the number of words in a manuscript, or why you should use an estimate rather than relying upon your word processor's count, please see the WORD COUNT category at right.) Both of these are pieces of information that will tell Millicent instantly whether the submission in her hand would meet the requirements of the editors to whom her agency tends to sell.
Oh, yes, that's important in a submission, whether to an agency or a publishing house. Really, really important.
Why? Well, think about it: if Millicent's boss had decided not to represent Action/Adventure anymore, or if editors at the major houses had started saying that they were only interested in seeing Action/Adventure books longer than 90,000 words, Rightly Stepped would be out of luck.
But then, being a savvy submitter, ol' Rightly would also want his work to be represented by an agent who just adores very long Action/Adventure novels — and regularly goes to lunch with scads and scads of editors who feel precisely the same way, right?
As I may have mentioned seven or eight hundred times before (in this post, it feels like), the standard title page also tells Millicent precisely how to contact the author to offer representation — and that's a very, very good thing for everyone concerned. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: it is always in a writer's best interest to make it easy for an agent to help him.
I might be wrong, of course, but I suspect that not forcing Millicent to forage through the mountain of paper on her desk to find a misplaced cover letter with your phone number on it might be a good start toward being easily to assist. Like bothering to number your pages, identifying yourself clearly on your title page and providing contact information up front is a small way that you can make her life — and her boss' — just a little less hectic.
By contrast, Faux Pas' first page doesn't really do anything but announce the title of the book and leap right into the story. That's one underachieving piece of paper, isn't it?
Starting to get a feel for how a title page is supposed to look — and how it isn't? Don't fret all night, if not: more concrete examples follow next time. Keep up the good work!
Posted on December 5, 2010 - No Comments on Formatpalooza, part II: not all truths are self-evident
Formatpalooza, part II: not all truths are self-evident
Hard to believe anyone would actually need to be told that those are gumballs, isn't it? They are the epitome of the breed: large, spherical, colorful, and — dare I say it? — potentially jawbreaking. Yet clearly, at some point in the probably not-too-distant past, some passing myopic soul must have asked the proprietor, "So are those gumballs?"
I suspect that s/he just got tired of answering the same question 4200 times per week. Those of us who work with manuscripts for a living can sympathize.
Just to breathe the word editor (or my preferred title, book doctor) anywhere near the pronoun I and the verb am is to invite an avalanche of questions about manuscripts: how to get them published, how to get them under the eyes of an agent, how to keep them from getting rejected, and, surprisingly often, what they should look like.
Frankly, there seems to be a lot of confusion out there on that last subject — and that puzzles the pros, because standard format for manuscripts actually hasn't changed all that much over the last 50 years. Oh, underlining is out and italics are in to designate words in foreign languages (currently, one should never underline anything in a book manuscript; I'll be getting to that), and how one does indentation has altered a bit with the adoption of Microsoft Word as the industry standard for electronic submission (Word measures its tabs in fractions of an inch, not character spaces), but overall, the professionally-formatted manuscripts of today quite closely resemble the professionally-formatted manuscripts of, say, 1958.
That's not to say, of course — or is it really that self-evident? — that all writing should be, or ever was, formatted in this manner. Short story format is different from standard format for books and book proposals, and has been for quite some time. So are essay format, academic format, journalistic format, and even how a published book will look on a page.
Which is, I suspect, the source of most of the confusion amongst aspiring writers of books. A tremendous amount of the formatting advice out there doesn't seem to make the distinction between submitting writing to an agent or editor at a publishing house and submitting it to a magazine that prints short stories — or, indeed, presenting it in any context. That small omission leads many, many aspiring writers down the proverbial primrose path, because the fact is, the rules are different for different types of writing.
Do all of those eyebrows currently slapping into hairlines mean that this comes as a surprise to some of you? Were you under the impression that all writing should be formatted identically for submission anywhere, anytime?
If so, you are most emphatically not alone, especially since the rise of Google. Now, it's far from uncommon for aspiring writers to plug manuscript page, submission format, or some similarly descriptive term into a search engine and come up with 25,000 pages, 65% of which will claim (or at least imply by omission) that they are stating the presentation rules for all professional writing.
Except they're not. How do I know? Because it's empirically impossible.
"But Anne," some of you ask, cradling your sore brows, "why should that be the case? There are plenty of authors who write both short stories and novels, or essays and nonfiction books. Wouldn't it just make sense that everybody would use the same format for writing?"
That would make sense, if (a) the overall system had been set up by writers, not publishers, (b) there had ever been an overall system governing all kinds of writing, and/or (c) the various species of writing were not published by completely distinct sets of people, each of whom have established norms for their own particular branches. Obviously — or is it so obvious? — the people outside an industry do not have the right to set submission standards for the people within it.
Or, to put it another way: just as all writing is not identical, neither is all publishing.
That very notion is making some of you squirm, isn't it? I'm not entirely surprised: every time I have broached the subject formally, those who have heard rumors elsewhere that something has changed leap upon my well-intentioned little gazelles of advice with the ferocity of hungry lions, demanding that I either recant my not at all heretical beliefs or, as I mentioned last time, to compel literally every other writing advice-giver in North America to agree to abide by precisely the same rules.
To dispel any illusions up front: neither of those things is going to happen during Formatpalooza. In my professional experience, the formatting I'm discussing here is indeed important, and not just in theory. I have sold books adhering to these rules; my editing clients have sold books using them; agents, editors, and contest judges regularly complain about writers who don't adhere to them — or even know such rules exist. So I feel entirely comfortable in saying early and often that manuscripts presented in standard format look professional to people who handle manuscripts for a living.
Does that mean every professional reader, everywhere, every time, will want to see your work formatted this way? No, of course not: as I also say early and often, should you happen to be submitting to an agent, editor, or contest that specifically asks you to do something other than I advise here, obviously, you should give him, her, or it what he or his stated guidelines request.
That's just common sense, right? Not to mention basic courtesy. Yet judging by the plethora of questions I'm constantly getting on the subject, it's not self-evident.
To make this last point pellucidly clear for those of you who have not been hanging around Author! Author! throughout our long autumn of 'Paloozas: I would actively encourage you not only to check the standard agency guides for expressions of alternate preferences, but also to run an Internet search on any individual agent to whom you were planning to submit, to double-check that s/he hasn't stated in some public forum that, for instance, s/he prefers only a single space after a period or a colon or can't stand the sight of Times New Roman instead of Courier. Admittedly, it requires a bit more effort on the submitter's part, but hey, it's worth it.
Why? Chant it with me now, 'Palooza devotees: if an agent or editor has been kind enough to take the time to tell aspiring writers precisely what s/he wants to see, be it in a query letter, storyline, or manuscript submission, a savvy writer should pay attention.
Again, that's just being both smart and polite, isn't it? If an agency has been considerate enough of its future clients to post submission guidelines, it's only courteous to acknowledge their efforts.
I spot some timid hands raised out there. "But Anne," point out some confused by conflicting advice — and who could blame them, given the multiplicity of it? "I've been doing my homework, and the overwhelming majority of the guide listings and agency websites I've found don't talk about manuscript format at all. Does that mean that these fine folks just don't care about how I present my writing?"
The short answer is no. The long answer is that standard format is just that: standard. So much so that to many folks who read and sell manuscripts for a living, it's patently self-evident that they expect to see submissions in standard format.
So here is the mid-length answer: in the absence of specific alternate directions, the best course is always to adhere to the rules of standard format.
That's why I revisit this topic regularly. To repeat the disclaimer I've run every single time I've run a series on formatting: these are the rules that I use myself, the ones that my lengthy experience tells me work. There are, however, other rules out there, presented by some very credible sources. If you find other guidelines that make sense to you, use them with my good wishes.
Seriously: as far as I'm concerned, what you do with your manuscript up to you. I'm only trying to be helpful here. Personally, I would strenuously advise against implementing any piece of formatting advice that deviates from the strictures of standard format unless you are positive that the specific agent or contest to whom you are planning to submit it wants to see your work that way — all too often, individual agents' preferences fly around the rumor mill billed as the new universal expectation — but hey, I'm a realist: I'm aware that many, if not most, aspiring writers find it magnificently annoying to learn that they might have to produce more than one version of their manuscripts to submit to agents (or, even more common, writing contests) with different guidelines. They want to format their work once and be done with it, and who can blame them?
While I'm strenuously advising things, I would also urge you never to implement a rule you do not understand. That's why I provide such extensive explanations for each of my suggested guidelines — so my readers may consider the various recommendations out there and form their own opinions.
You're smart people; I know you're up to the challenge.
I'm also confident that my readers are savvy enough to understand that paying attention to how a manuscript looks does not imply that how it is written doesn't make a difference. Of course, writing talent, style, and originality count. Yet in order to notice any of those, a reader has to approach the page with a willingness to be wowed.
That willingness can wilt rapidly in the face of incorrect formatting — which isn't, in response to what half of you just thought, necessarily the result of mere market-mindedness on the part of the reader. After you've read a few thousand manuscripts, deviations from standard format leap out at you. As will spelling and grammatical errors, phrase repetition, clichés, telling rather than showing, and all of the writing problems we've all heard so much.
They're distractions from your good writing. My goal here is to help you minimize the distractions that would catch Millicent the agency screener's eye first.
I hear those of you who have spent years slaving over your craft groaning out — believe me, I sympathize. For those of you who have not already started composing your first drafts in standard format (which will save you a lot of time in the long run, incidentally), many of the tiny-but-pervasive changes I am about to suggest that you make to your manuscript are going to be irksome to implement. Reformatting a manuscript is time-consuming and tedious, and I would be the first to admit that at first, some of these rules can seem arbitrary.
At least on their faces. Quite a few of these restrictions remain beloved even in the age of electronic submissions because they render a manuscript a heck of a lot easier to edit — and to read, in either hard or soft copy. As I will demonstrate with abundant examples later in this series, a lot of these rules exist for completely practical purposes — designed, for instance, to maximize white space in which the editor may scrawl trenchant comments like, "Wait, wasn't the protagonist's brother named James in the last chapter? Why is he Aloysius here?"
Perhaps this is self-evident from what I have already said, but here's one last, quick caveat before I launch back into the list: the standard format restrictions I'm listing here are not intended to be applied to short stories, poetry, journalistic articles, academic articles, or indeed any other form of writing. The guidelines in this series are for BOOK manuscripts and proposals, and thus should not be applied to other kinds of writing. Similarly, the standards applicable to magazine articles, short stories, dissertations, etc. should not be applied to book proposals or manuscripts.
For the guidelines for these, you may — and should — seek elsewhere. (See my earlier rejection of universality.)
Everyone clear on that and ready to dive back into the matter at hand? Excellent; help yourself to a gumball. Let's recap the rules we covered last time:
(1) All manuscripts should be printed or typed in black ink and double-spaced, with one-inch margins around all edges of the page, on 20-lb or better white paper.
(2) All manuscripts should be printed on ONE side of the page and unbound in any way.
(3) The text should be left-justified, NOT block-justified. By definition, manuscripts should NOT resemble published books in this respect.
(4) The preferred typefaces are 12-point Times, Times New Roman, Courier, or Courier New — unless you're writing screenplays, in which case you may only use Courier. For book manuscripts, pick one (and ONLY one) and use it consistently throughout your entire submission packet.
Is everyone happy with those? PLEASE pipe up with questions, if not. In the meantime, let's move on.
(5) The ENTIRE manuscript should be in the same font and size. Industry standard is 12-point.
No exceptions, please. No matter how cool your desired typeface looks, or how great the title page looks with 14-point type.
Yes, even on the title page, where almost everyone gets a little wacky the first time out. No pictures or symbols here, either, please. Just the facts. (If you don't know how to format a title page professionally — and yes, Virginia, there is a professional format for it — please see the TITLE PAGE category on the list at right.)
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there's a term for title pages with 24-point fonts, fancy typefaces, and illustrations.
It's high school book report. Need I say more?
(6) Do not use boldface anywhere in the manuscript BUT on the title page — and not even there, it's not mandatory.
This seems like an odd one, right? Actually, the no-bolding rule is a throwback to the old typewriter days, where only very fancy machines indeed could darken selected type. So historically, using bold in-text is considered a bit tacky for the same reason that wearing white shoes before Memorial Day is in certain circles: it's a subtle display of wealth.
You didn't think all of those white shoes the Victorians wore cleaned themselves, did you? Shiny white shoes equaled scads of busily-polishing servants.
You may place your title in boldface on the title page, if you like, but that's it. Nothing else in the manuscript should be bolded. (Unless it's a section heading in a nonfiction proposal or manuscript — but don't worry about that for now; I'll be showing you how to format both a book proposal and a section break later on in this series, I promise.)
(7) Every page in the manuscript should be numbered — except the title page.
I'm quite serious about this: even if you take no other advice from Formatpalooza, please remember to number your pages.
This may seem like a little thing, but you'd be surprised how often violating this rule results in instantaneous rejection. Few non-felonious offenses irk the professional manuscript reader (including yours truly, if I'm honest about it) more than an unnumbered submission or contest entry. It ranks right up there on their rudeness scale with assault, arson, and beginning a query letter with, Dear Agent.
Why? Gravity, my friends, gravity. What goes up tends to come down — and if the object in question happens to be an unbound stack of paper…
Did that seem like an abstract metaphor? Not at all. Picture, if you will, two manuscript-bearing interns walking toward each other in an agency hallway. Between them, a banana peel. What is going to happen when the first slips, and the second tumbles on top of him, screaming?
You may giggle, but anyone who has ever worked with submissions has first-hand experience of this (okay, perhaps not the part about the banana peel, as well as what comes next: after the blizzard of flying papers dies down, and the two combatants rehash that old Reese's Peanut Butter Cup commercial's dialogue ("You got romance novel in my literary fiction!" "You got literary fiction in my romance novel!"), what needs to happen?
Yup. Some luckless soul has to put all of those pages back in the proper order. Put yourself in Millicent's moccasins for a moment: just how much more irksome is that task going to be if the pages are not numbered?
Number your pages. Trust me, it is far, far, FAR easier for Millicent to toss the entire thing into the reject pile than to spend the hours required to guess which bite-sized piece of storyline belongs before which in an unnumbered manuscript.
FYI, the first page of the text proper is page 1 of the text, not the title page, and should be numbered as such. If your opus has an introduction or preface, the first page of that is page 1, not the first page of chapter 1.
Why, you ask? Long-time readers, pull out your hymnals and sing along: BECAUSE A MANUSCRIPT SHOULD NOT LOOK IDENTICAL TO A PUBLISHED BOOK.
The title page is not the only one commonly mislabeled as page one, by the way: epigraphs — those quotations from other authors' books so dear to the hearts of writers everywhere — should not appear on their own page in a manuscript, as they sometimes do in published books. If you feel you must include one (considering that 99.9999% of the time, Millicent will just skip over it), include it between the chapter title and text on page 1.
If that last paragraph left your head in a whirl, don't worry — I'll show you how to format epigraphs properly later in this series. (Yes, including some discussion of that cryptic comment about Millicent. All in the fullness of time, my friends.)
(8) Each page of the manuscript (other than the title page) should have a standard slug line in the header. The page number should appear in the slug line, not anywhere else on the page.
Including the slug line means that every page of the manuscript has the author's name on it — a great idea, should you, say, want an agent or editor to be able to contact you after s/he's fallen in love with it. The slug line should appear in the upper left-hand margin (although no one will sue you if you put it in the upper right-hand margin, left is the time-honored location) of every page of the text except the title page (which should have nothing in the header or footer at all).
A trifle confused by all that terminology? I'm not entirely surprised. Most writing handbooks and courses tend to be a trifle vague about this particular requirement, so allow me to define the relevant terms: a well-constructed slug line includes the author's last name, book title, and page number, to deal with that intern-collision problem I mentioned earlier. (The slug line allows the aforementioned luckless individual to tell the romance novel from the literary fiction.) And the header, for those of you who have not yet surrendered to Microsoft Word's lexicon, is the 1-inch margin at the top of each page.
Traditionally, the slug line appears all in capital letters, but it's not strictly necessary; if the agent of your dreams has a preference on the matter, trust me, you'll be the first to hear about it after she signs you. Personally, I find the all-caps format visually distracting, so the third page of my memoir has a slug line that looks like this:
Mini/A Family Darkly/3
Since the only place a page number should appear on a page of text is in the slug line, if you are in the habit of placing numbers wacky places like the middle of the footer, do be aware that it does not look strictly professional to, well, professionals. Double-check that your word processing program is not automatically adding extraneous page markers.
Do not, I beg of you, yield like so many aspiring writers to the insidious temptation add little stylistic bells and whistles to the slug line, to tart it up. Page numbers should not have dashes on either side of them, be in italics or bold, or be preceded by the word page.
If that admonition strikes you as a disappointing barrier to your self-expression, remember, professional readers do not regard formatting choices as conveyers of personal style. The point here is not to make your slug line stand out for its innovative style, but your writing. In order for that to be possible, your manuscript's pages to look exactly like every other professional writer's.
And yes, Virginia, I am going to keep making that point over and over until you are murmuring it in your sleep. Why do you ask?
If you have a subtitle, don't include it in the slug line — and if you have a very long title, feel free to abbreviate, to keep the slug line from running all the way across the top of the page. The goal here is to identify the manuscript at a glance, not to reproduce the entire book jacket.
Why not? Well, technically, a slug line should be 30 spaces or less, but there's no need to stress about that in the computer age. (A slug, you see, is the old-fashioned printer's term for a pre-set chunk of, you guessed it, 30 spaces of type. Aren't you glad you asked?)
Keep it brief. For instance. my agent is currently circulating a novel of mine entitled THE BUDDHA IN THE HOT TUB — 26 characters, counting spaces. Since my last name is quite short, I could get away with putting it all in the slug line, to look like this:
Mini/The Buddha in the Hot Tub/1
If, however, my last name were something more complicated, such as Montenegro-Copperfield — 22 characters all by itself, including dash — I might well feel compelled to abbreviate. Just for the sake of variety, let's see it in all caps:
MONTENEGRO-COPPERFIELD/BUDDHA/1
Incidentally, should anyone out there come up with a bright idea for a category heading on the archive list for this issue other than SLUG LINE — a category that already exists, but is unlikely to be found by anyone not already familiar with the term — I'd be delighted to hear suggestions. I've called it a slug line ever since I first clapped eyes on a professional manuscript (an event that took place so long ago my response to the sight was not, "What's that at the top of the page, Daddy?" but "Goo!"), so I'm probably not going to be coming up with a good alternative anytime soon. Thanks.
(9) The first page of each chapter should begin a third of the way down the page, with the chapter title appearing on the first line of the page, not on the line immediately above where the text begins.
That's fourteen single-spaced lines, incidentally. Don't panic if you're having trouble visualizing this — I'll be giving concrete examples of what the first page of a chapter should look like later in this series.
The chapter title (or merely "Chapter One") may appear on the first line of the first page — not on the last line before the text, as so many writers mistakenly do. The chapter title or number should be centered, and it should neither be in boldface nor underlined.
Why shouldn't the title appear immediately above the text, as one so often sees — and, frankly, as some other writing sites advise? Because that's where the title of a short story lives, not a book's.
Self-evident now that you've heard it, isn't it?
Because confusing the two formats is so common, very frequently, agents, editors and contest judges are presented with improperly-formatted first pages that include the title of the book, by Author's Name, and/or the writer's contact information in the space above the text. This is classic rookie mistake.
To professional eyes, a manuscript that includes any of this information on the first page of the manuscript (other than in the slug line, of course) seems like it just ended up in the wrong office. Clearly, the writer wanted not the agency to which she sent it, but the magazine down the street.
So where does all of that necessary contact information go, you ask? Read on.
(10) Contact information for the author belongs on the title page, not on page 1.
This is one of the most obvious visual differences between a short story submission (say, to a literary journal) and a novel submission. To submit a manuscript — or contest entry, for that matter — with this information on page 1 is roughly the equivalent of taking a great big red marker and scrawling, "I don't know much about the business of publishing," across it.
Just don't do it.
"But wait," I hear some of you out there murmuring, "I need a title page? Since when?"
Funny you should mention that, because…
(11) Every submission for a book-length work should include a title page, even partial manuscripts.
This one seems to come as a surprise to a lot of aspiring writers. You should always include a title page with ANY submission of ANY length, including contest entries and the chapters you send after the agent has fallen in love with your first 50 pages.
Why, you ask? Because it is genuinely unheard-of for a professional manuscript not to have a title page: literally every manuscript that any agent in North America sends to any editor in hard copy will include one, for the exceedingly simple reason that it's the page that includes the agent's contact information.
Yet, astonishingly, a good 95% of writers submitting to agencies seem to be unaware that including it is industry standard. To them, the cover letter, address on the SASE, or the e-mail to which the requested materials were attached are identification enough. But in practice, it's actually none of those things will necessarily still be attached to your pages at the point when the agent of your dreams says, "By jingo, I've read enough. This is a writer I must sign, and pronto!"
Oh, you think that the SASE won't go flying when those interns collide in the hallway? Or that e-mails never get deleted accidentally?
On the bright side, the widespread ignorance that a title page is expected means that if you are industry-savvy enough to include a professionally-formatted title page with your work, your submission automatically looks like a top percentile ranker to professional eyes from the moment it's pulled out of the envelope. It's never too early to make a good first impression, right?
If you do not know how to format a proper title page — and yes, Virginia, there is a special format for it, too — please see the TITLE PAGE category at right. Or wait a few days until I cover it later in this series.
Again, it's entirely up to you. No pressure here. Have a gumball while you wait.
Before anyone who currently has a submission languishing at an agency begins to panic: you're almost certainly not going to get rejected solely for forgetting to include a title page. Omitting a title page is too common a gaffe to be an automatic deal-breaker for most Millicents. Ditto with improperly-formatted ones. And yes, one does occasionally run into an agent at a conference or one blogging online who says she doesn't care one way or the other about whether a submission has a title page resting on top at all.
Bully for them for being so open-minded, but as I point out roughly 127,348 times per year in this forum, how can you be sure that the person deciding whether to pass your submission upstairs or reject it isn't a stickler for professionalism?
I sense some shoulders sagging at the very notion of all the work it's going to be to alter your pages before you send them out. Please believe me when I tell you that, as tedious as it is to change these things in your manuscript now, by the time you're on your third or fourth book, it will be second nature to you.
Why, I'll bet that the next time you sit down to begin a new writing project, you will automatically format it correctly. Think of all of the time that will save you down the line.
Hey, in this business, you learn to take joy in the small victories.
More guidelines follow in the next couple of posts — yes, those of you whose hearts just sank audibly, standard format does indeed have that many rules — and then we shall move on swiftly to concrete examples of what all of this formatting looks like in practice. Why go over this in such detail? Because, again, I'm not asking you to embrace these guidelines just because I say so.
You should never do that, no matter how credible the source urging you to implement a rule that is new to you. I want you to have enough information on the subject to be able to understand why following them might be a good idea.
I'm funny that way. Keep up the good work!
Posted on November 27, 2010 - 13 Comments on First Pages that Grab: Carolin Walz' Gothic Wars, or, reading on a jet plane
First Pages that Grab: Carolin Walz' Gothic Wars, or, reading on a jet plane
Yes, yes, I know: I have not been in the habit of giving subtitles to the prize posts in the Author! Author! Great First Pages Made Even Better Contest, but frankly, I felt that my feedback on today's winning entry, GOTHIC WARS by Carolin Walz, warranted it. Turbulence fought penmanship, and I fear that for the most part, turbulence won. Since this has historically been the fate of many a manuscript whose marginalia was penned on the way to or from a writers' conference — oh, you can think of a better use of flying time than reading submissions? — I felt that it was only fair to present all of you with the results, so you may recognize travel-skewed comments when the agent of your dreams presents them to you.
With the advent of electronic submissions — still not universally accepted, but climbing steadily in popularity — you'd be astonished at how many agents reading submissions on airplanes around this time of year. Specifically, on their electronic readers.
Surprised? Or even alarmed at the prospect of your meticulously-formatted pages being read on that small a screen? Well, think about it in practical terms: if you were an agent traveling over the river and through the woods to Grandmother's house, which would be more efficient to tote as reading material, a couple of heavy manuscripts — or 30 electronic submissions on your Kindle?
Of course, this is only likely to be the case at agencies that accept electronic submissions. And even then, typically, those Grandmother's house-bound submissions (or, at this point in the weekend, those returning from Grandmother's) will have had to make it past Millicent the agency screener's strict scrutiny before making it onto the boss' Kindle.
Which just goes to show you: electronic submissions can be pretty well traveled. Yet all too often, aspiring writers assume, wrongly, that the simple fact that they've sent their manuscripts as Word attachments to an e-mail automatically means that everyone who might conceivably read their submission will have access to their contact information.
"After all," these submitters reason, "all Millicent or her boss has to do to say yes to me is to hit the REPLY key. What could be easier than that?"
What, indeed? Unless, of course, your electronic submission has been downloaded to an electronic reader. Then, it actually isn't inconceivable that an agent could fall in love with a manuscript — and yet have no idea how to get in touch with the person who wrote it. Or even be sure who did write it.
Scary prospect, is it not? Breathing into a paper bag should reverse that hyperventilation within a couple of minutes.
"But Anne," some of you wheeze, "couldn't the agent just ask his Millicent to comb through the agency's e-mail inbox? Surely, my original e-mail would be in there, right?"
Possibly, but do you have any idea how many e-mails an agency that accepts electronic submissions receives in any given week? Or even on any given day? Forget about finding a needle in a haystack — Millicent would be looking for a needle in a hay field.
Fortunately, this dire extremity is easy to avoid with a little advance preparation on the submitter's end. First, it's always a good idea to include one's full contact information with any submission, electronic or otherwise; don't you want the agent of your dreams to be able to call you with any follow-up questions she might have? Second, it's an even better idea to include precisely the same title page a savvy submitter sends along with a paper submission in an electronic submission.
How is that possible? It's not particularly difficult in a Word file: just copy and paste your title page at the top of your manuscript document as its first page. To avoid the title ending up with the slug line that every other page in the manuscript should feature in its top margin, select DOCUMENT from the FORMAT menu in Word, then choose LAYOUT. Click "Different first page." Then you can just clear the header for the title page, while leaving the rest of the document as is.
Ah, I hear some of you murmuring, but doesn't that mean that the first page of Chapter 1 would be numbered as page 2 in the slug line? (For those of you who are not in fact murmuring that, but instead are wondering what the heck a slug line is, it's the AUTHOR'S LAST NAME/TITLE/PAGE # that appears in the upper-left corner of a professionally-formatted manuscript. For some visual examples and explanation of how to include this important information correctly on your pages, take a gander at the SLUG LINES ILLUSTRATED category on the archive list at right.)
There's a way around that, too: under the INSERT menu, choose PAGE NUMBERS…, then FORMAT. Under PAGE NUMBERING, simply set the "Start at…" number to 0. Voilà! The second page of the document is now page 1!
"Aha!" those of you still breathing crossly into your paper bags gasp. "I've got you now, Anne. Why wouldn't the agent of my dreams simply look at the top of any page of my manuscript to see what my name was? If Millicent misplaced my original e-mail, she could just do a search of her inbox under my last name. Problem solved!"
Quite true, oh gaspers — provided that you included a slug line. You would be positively amazed at how many electronic submitters (or, heck, paper submitters) do not.
How much difference could the omission possibly make to a submission that did not go astray, you ask? Well, since the fine folks who read manuscripts for a living expect every page of every manuscript to include a slug line, quite a bit.
See for yourself. Here is today's winning entry in the format that the judges first encountered it:
A bit bare on the top end, isn't it? Here it is again, properly formatted:
Makes more of a difference than you would have expected, doesn't it? As does another small formatting change: two spaces after the colon in the Part I designation, rather than the original one. Again, it's a seemingly small thing, but to eyes sharpened to the norms of professional manuscripts, it would jump out.
Some of you former wheezers have your hands in the air now, I see. "But Anne, didn't you do something else to the formatting? There are more words in the second version, are there not? The last sentence on each page is different."
Well spotted, ex-hyperventilators. The difference between the first page and the second is that the first is in TextEdit, the second Word.
About 10% of the entries in this contest arrived in TextEdit, although the rules had specified sending the first page as a Word attachment to an e-mail. The judges decided not to disqualify entrants for this, primarily because it would afford me such an excellent opportunity to talk about why this would not be a good way to submit electronically to an agency or publishing house.
Word is, quite simply, the U.S. industry standard — when an agency asks submitters to send pages as attachments to e-mails, they mean a Word attachment. Specifically, a .doc document, not a .docx document, since many agencies are running older versions of Word. (If they are running a really old version of Word, you may have to send your pages as a .rtf document, so they will be able to open it.)
You should honor this expectation; send any requested materials in Word, not TextEdit or any other word processing program you happen to favor. The fact that it is possible for a Word user to do as I did, convert a TextEdit document into Word, does not mean that Millicent will necessarily be willing to do it; after all, her boss would not be able to submit your book electronically to an editor at a publishing house that way. A U.S.-based agent would certainly expect any writer it signed to convert all manuscript documents to Word, anyway, so in the long run, it will actually save time to just write your documents in Word in the first place. (If you are unsure how to format a manuscript page in Word, please see the obscurely-titled HOW TO FORMAT A MANUSCRIPT category on the archive list at right. Or just stick around here at Author! Author! for December, when I shall be going over the rigors of standard format again. So dig out your long-harbored formatting questions, people!)
Besides, as we saw above, the formatting is not always identical. In a submission where length is an issue — if, say, the manuscript goes over 400 pages, Millicent's usual oh, dear, that's a bit on the long side limit in most fiction categories — even those few extra words per page may make an overall difference. Sometimes, standard format is the writer's best friend.
Don't believe me? Okay, let me ask you: how much time have we spent so far talking about technical and presentation issues in Carolin's fine first page, and how much about either the writing or the content? THAT's how distracting these issues are to professional readers.
It's genuinely a pity here, because Carolin has a terrific book concept. Here's the way she described it to the judges:
The historical novel Gothic Wars tells the story of Emperor Justinian's reconquest of Gothic Italy in the sixth century CE from the point of view of the last Goth king, Teja. It provides a fresh look at a war that is usually seen through the victors' eyes (like Robert Graves' Count Belisarius).
Interesting, eh? Here's her 1-page book description.
Again, fascinating — but once again, we're distracted by formatting, aren't we? The slug line contains a first name, sixteen-year-old is not hyphenated (a mistake that I have been seeing more and more over the last couple of years; is this rule not being taught anymore?), and there is odd, additional spacing between the lines. Here's that page again, with just simple double-spacing:
Once again, we see what a big difference seemingly small formatting issues can make. Actually, tinkered-with spacing between paragraphs is fairly common in submissions. It puzzles the pros: since just selecting double-spacing under the FORMAT menu (it's one of the choices under PARAGRAPH) is actually far easier for the writer than manually changing the spacing between the lines, why does anyone go to the extra trouble? It's not necessary; Word will do it for you.
And once again, we've been distracted from the engaging story and the writing by technical issues. Let's see what Millicent would have to say about something other than presentation, shall we?
Hey, I wasn't kidding about that turbulence. (Don't worry; the copy I shall send Carolin will be legible.) But as you may see, Millicent's first instinct was to point out the formatting issues. She also raises an interesting point that affects the marketability of many realistic novels.
Carolin has done a beautiful job here of giving the gritty feel of Teja and Gertruda's quotidian life, hasn't she? And she does it primarily through showing, not telling: the level of practical detail here is excellent. It's also quite clear — and this is rarer in historical fiction submissions than any of us might like to hear — that she's done her homework: as a reader, I believe that these specifics are historically accurate.
That's all going to be great for readers after GOTHIC WARS is published, of course, but it could present a problem at the submission stage. Teja comes across here as an ordinary person, not an extraordinary one. From the synopsis, of course, we know that's not the case in his life overall. However, as we have seen throughout our discussions of all of our Great First Page Made Even Better winning entries, Millicent tends to make up her mind about whether she wants to follow a protagonist onto page 2 based exclusively on page 1, not the synopsis or brief description in the query letter, a too-ordinary-seeming protagonist may not provide the temptation to read on she wants.
Fortunately, this is a very easy fix: Teja merely has to exhibit some extraordinary quality on page 1. If Carolin likes the dramatic arc of having a young boy develop extraordinary qualities over time — as most historical novelists tend to prefer — she can always resort to the tactic I suggested for yesterday's winning post: open with a prologue set later in the book, then revert to this scene after.
In historical novels, this strategy often works beautifully. I would be especially pleased to see Carolin try it here, because it's fairly likely that Millicent will not know much about the wars in question. A well-crafted, informative prologue could go a long way toward convincing her that readers will consider this historical event inherently interesting and important.
Hey, it's not always a foregone conclusion. And Millicent is far more likely to have been an English major than an ancient history concentrator, if you catch my drift.
Did you catch the nit-pick in the first line, or did turbulence prevent your being able to read the handwriting? Any guesses why Millicent might ask is it actually necessary to have these two things happen at precisely the same moment?
If you immediately shouted, "By Jove, it's in response to the use of as in that sentence," take a gold star out of petty cash. X happened as Y happened is an immensely popular sentence structure in novel submissions; one sees it less in published fiction. And that's a bit surprising to many aspiring writers, because, let's face it, quite a few things do happen simultaneously in the real world.
Why the differential? Because editors have been scrawling in the margins for decades is it actually necessary to have these two things happen at precisely the same moment?
Most of the time, it isn't. Nor is it here: it doesn't actually add either plot or character development to Carolin's page 1 that Teja's rubbing his eyes as Aunt Gertruda gives him the water. If the actions came one after the other, or even if they were reversed, it would not affect the reader's understanding of what's going on here, right?
The simultaneity implied by as is often not necessary to the reader's understanding of what is going on; it's simply the writer's attempt to be factually accurate about a series of events. But by using this structure when the simultaneous nature of two different happenings is not relevant to the scene, a narrative can both (a) mislead the reader about what actually is important for the reader to notice in the scene and (b) over time, cause the reader to tune out as as an indicator of timing.
That last one is problematic, potentially, in a story with a lot of action in it. At some point in the story, it's going to be vital that the reader understand that X happened as Y happened. So it's an excellent idea to reserve as, like profanity, for only those moments when it will have the most effect.
Let's see, what else did our Millie flag? How about the Hollywood narration in the second paragraph?
We're all familiar with Hollywood narration, right? It's a staple of television and movies: one character tells another something they already both know, simply so that the audience may learn it, too. As in:
Joyce: Oh, Kent, my husband of twelve years, how glad I am to see you safely home! You know how your job as a test pilot of experimental aircraft frightens me.
Kent (chuckling ruefully): Honey, you have been worrying about me since that long-ago day in college when you first saw me slip on the ice-covered library steps and slide head-first onto the quad. You should know by now that my head's as hard as a rock!
Joyce: Well, you're not the one who is going to have to explain your sudden, fiery demise to our three children — Lara, eight; Timothy, twelve, and little Ghislaine, six — are you?
Kent: I suppose not. Nor would I have to face your father, the senator from our fair state, should you become widowed. As you yourself heard me tell not only him, but a crowd of two hundred of our nearest and dearest at our fifth anniversary party — which, as you may in fact recall, was held at Chez Georges, the fanciest French restaurant in town — your well-being and happiness is my highest priority.
Joyce: Except, of course, for our children's. Why, just six months ago, when Lara rode her bike into the side of that truck and you had to rush her to see old Doc Courtland — he who delivered both all of our children and myself — you were magnificent.
Kent: So, too, were you that time that our youngest, not yet out of diapers, went wandering off into that cornfield and got kidnapped by aliens. I was so impressed when you…
Well, I won't bore you with what happened after Joyce followed Ghislaine into that field; suffice it to say that the next ten minutes of dialogue concern her many lacerations and burn scars. But why should Joyce and Kent be reminding each other of these major life events at all, when it's completely beyond the realm of possibility that either party should have forgotten about any of them?
Evidently, just so you, dear readers, will know about them, too. Trust me, Millicent will not find this presentation subtle.
Which is a shame in this case, where the Hollywood narration is rather subtle: Gertruda might actually have asked this question. However, since this information would also have been perfectly easy to introduce in a couple of narrative sentences — unlike TV and movies, novels do not rely exclusively upon dialogue and visual cues to convey information to their audiences — it's probably best to err on the side of giving even the implication of Hollywood narration a wide berth.
Especially if, as here, it comes with a signpost. Generally speaking, any time a character says, "You know…" there's an excellent chance that what she is about to say next is Hollywood narration, and thus could be cut.
We wouldn't want to distract Millicent from that nice description in the first paragraph, would we? Or from those evocative details in the last one?
So nicely done, Carolin — you're a set of quite minor revisions away from a genuinely stellar first page. Which is, I hope, precisely why members of the Author! Author! community will find this and our other winning entries both helpful and inspiring: the difference between a manuscript that wows Millicent and one she rejects is often based upon not her overall perception of a manuscript's writing quality or marketability, but the cumulative effect of a series of small, rather subtle problems that could, with patient revision, be polished away.
Keep plugging ahead, Carolin — and everybody, keep up the good work!
Posted on October 23, 2010 - 1 Comment on Just when you thought we were 'Paloozaed-out, here comes Authorbiopalooza!
Just when you thought we were 'Paloozaed-out, here comes Authorbiopalooza!
Okay, so maybe the masses aren't rejoicing to quite this extent. But back in the heady days of Querypalooza, a number of you fine people asked for a similar fiesta devoted to preparing for that usually unexpected request, the author bio. And since many, many more of you did not raise violent objection when I suggested I might take a run at it this fall, it's been on my agenda.
Actually, I've moved it up on my agenda — and not only because my annual quick perusal of a few hundred agency websites (oh, you thought I didn't check how submission guidelines change between my yearly querying series?) revealed that a higher percentage of query packets are expected to contain something bio-like than in times past. I had intended to devote an intervening week or so to close textual analysis of more winners in the Author! Author! Great First Page Made Even Better Contest — I haven't forgotten about you, third-placers! — now that we've had a few refreshing, synopsis-filled weeks to catch our breath and get excited about craft issues again. However, that's the kind of post that requires an upbeat attitude to write well, and since I had yet another crash-related health setback this week, I probably won't be my trademarked chipper self for another week or so.
Don't ask. Just pile up more pillows on the bed and hope for the best.
But enough about me; let's talk about you. Specifically, about how you're going to portray yourself in your author bio.
And half of you just tensed up, worried that you might not have enough professional credentials to render you interesting to an agent or editor, didn't you? I recognize the symptoms: the same proportion of my readership drew in its collective breath sharply when I first broached the issue of composing the credentials paragraph for your query letters.
Back then, the whimpering ran a little something like this: "But Anne, this is my first book! I don't come from a magazine or newspaper background, so I don't have previous publications to cite. Therefore, nothing I could possibly say about myself has any potential whatsoever for impressing Millicent the agency screener. Hadn't I better just avoid saying anything autobiographical at all?"
The short answer is no. The long answer is NOOOOOOOOO. Why? Well, in the first place, it's a myth that the only personal information worth noting in a query letter or author bio is previous publications. They help, obviously, but they certainly aren't the only things a potential agent or editor might want to know about you.
It's actually kind of surprising how pervasive that myth is, given the glaring logical fallacy it contains. Think about it: for it to be true, all agents would have to (a) prefer previously-published authors to the exclusion of all others, (b) not understand that even bestselling authors must at some point have to produce a first book, and/or (c) be unaware that writers occasionally draw upon life experience to construct their narratives. Obviously, selling memoir would be more or less impossible if (c) were true — and as any of you who have read an interview with an established author recently, disregarding life experience would render many novels harder to market as well.
But let's zero in on the core of the concern: agencies that harbor the (a) prejudice will come right out and say prefers to represent previously published writers or obtains most clients through recommendations from others in their agency guide listings and websites; if neither states that up front, it's safe to assume that while writing credentials might help your query get through the door, they're not required for admission.
Why? Because even bestselling authors must at some point have to produce a first book, silly. (You might have seen that one coming, after (b), right?) While first books typically make up only about 4% of the literary market in any given year — yes, really — in the current tight market, it can actually be easier for an agent to sell an editor on a new writer with an exciting (read: easy-to-publicize) bio than on an author whose first two books did not sell well.
So it would be financially misguided for an agency that did not adhere to (a) to instruct its Millicents to rule out any query or bio that did not list past publications. Yes, even for fiction. Platform matters these days, of course — in the current tight book market, any selling point is bound to help — but contrary to popular believe among aspiring writers, platform need not consist solely of previous publications and/or celebrity in a non-writing field.
Even a cursory peek at the dust jackets of any randomly-selected group of new releases will demonstrate otherwise. Dust jacket bios virtually always contain non-publication information, for the exceedingly simple reason that it might interest a potential reader in the person who wrote the book.
Which is, incidentally, one of the reasons agency guidelines ask aspiring writers to include biographical info in their queries and/or a bio in their query or submission packets. Not only are they curious about what you're like — they want to know if there's anything in your background that would make a publishing house's marketing department swoon with joy.
"Hey!" the marketers shout, linking arms to engage in raucous dancing. "This new writer is going to be a terrific interview on a subject other than his book! How often does that happen?"
Still not convinced that it might be in your best interests to make yourself sound like an interesting person, one who perhaps has at some point in the course of a lifetime done something other than sit hunched in front of a computer, typing feverishly? Okay, I'll pull out the big gun, argumentatively speaking: (d) for non-publication credentials not to matter, agents whose submission guidelines or requested materials letters ask for biographical information couldn't possibly mean their requests.
Which would be a trifle strange, considering how many query guidelines include tell us something about yourself or similar verbiage. And it would render all of those requests for query or submission packets to include an author bio downright bizarre.
That being the case, why would a savvy querier or submitter even consider not providing them with this information?
Does this sound vaguely familiar to those of you who followed Querypalooza and/or Synopsispalooza? It should: for the last — yow, has it been a month and a half already? — I've been concentrating upon query packets, submission packets, and the things that go in them. Throughout that worthy endeavor, I have mentioned early and often that the guiding principle of constructing a query packet, submission packet, or contest entry is give them precisely what they ask to see.
No more, no less. If an agency's submission guidelines say to query with a synopsis, the first five pages, and an author bio, that's precisely what the savvy querier's envelope should contain, along with a SASE. By the same token, if an agent responds to a query with a request for the first 50 pages, the submission packet should contain a cover letter, the title page, 50 pages of text, and a SASE large and stamp-laden enough to get the whole shebang back to you.
That's it. No home-baked cookies, even if you're marketing a cookbook; no synopses for the other five manuscripts lying dormant in your desk drawer, and certainly no page 51. Remember, part of what you're demonstrating in a query or submission packet is that you are that surprisingly rare aspiring writer capable of and willing to follow directions to the letter.
Thus, as a clever between-the-lines reader might have already figured out, if an agency's guidelines specify that they want to see a bio paragraph in your query or an author bio in your query or submission packet, it would behoove you to put 'em there. Ditto if a request for pages asks for a bio.
All that being said, my next piece of advice may come as a bit of a surprise: I always advise aspiring writers to include an author bio with requested pages in a submission packet. I'm not talking about that 5-page writing sample some agents ask to see, naturally, but even if an agent asks to see even as little as 50 pages or a chapter, consider tucking your bio at the bottom of the stack.
Oh, if you could see your faces; did Frankenstein's monster just walk into the room? "But Anne," you shriek in horror, ducking swiftly behind the nearest large piece of furniture, "that might look as though I (pause here for hyperventilation) were disregarding the submission guidelines! Why in heaven's name would I take a risk like that?"
Good question, panicky ones. Try breathing into a paper bag while I answer it.
Quite simply, it's such a common professional practice that it's unlikely to raise any eyebrows. When an agent circulates a novel to editors, it's generally with an author bio as the bottom page in the stack; it's also the last page of a book proposal. So including it in a full manuscript submission tends to come across as professional, rather than an amateur's attempt to slip additional information in under the wire.
Just between us, though: if some additional information might slip under the wire this way, is that such a bad thing?
Before those of you who currently have requested materials floating around agencies or small publishing houses begin to freak out, I hasten to add: including an author bio in a submission packet is most emphatically not required. Unless, of course, the agent or editor in question has asked to see one.
Increasingly, though, they are asking — even at the querying stage, which would have been unheard-of just a few years ago. Now, agents routinely request author bios with submissions, especially for nonfiction, agents will often want to know up front who this writer is, what s/he does for a living, and what else s/he's writing.
That set some of you hyperventilating again, didn't it? Relax — you can do this.
Soothingly, author bios are one of the few marketing materials in the writer's promotional kit that tends not change much throughout the agent-finding-through-publication process. Nor, even more comforting, have the basics of writing one changed much in the last 30 years.
Refreshing, eh? Don't go sinking into that lavender-scented bath too quickly, though, because twos things about the author bio have changed in recent years. First, the author is now expected to write it, rather than the publisher's marketing department. (Although they may well tweak it.) Second, the author needs to provide it increasingly early in the publication process.
How early, you ask? Well, I don't want to disturb your plans for the weekend, but do you have time to start work on yours right now?
Come out from behind that large piece of furniture; the monster can see you perfectly well back there. Procrastinating about this particular professional obligation won't make it go away.
Besides, you knew this day was coming — or that it would once you successfully sold a book, right? Although agents and editors are asking for author bios earlier in the process than in days of yore, it can hardly come as a surprise that you'd have to come up with one eventually. Any of you who has ever read a hardcover book with a dust jacket must have at least suspected that your bio was somehow relevant to the process, right?
I sense some glancing at the clock out there, don't I? "But Anne," those of you on your way out the door to mail requested materials whimper, "I'm aware that I'm going to need to construct one sometime, but need it be this very second? Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until, say, somebody in authority actually asks to see it?"
Well, to be quite honest with you, you could get away with doing just that. It wouldn't be the wisest course, however.
Why? Well, writing an eye-catching author bio isn't easy; just as it's much less stress-inducing for an aspiring writer to cobble together a synopsis almost anytime other than immediately after an agent or editor has asked her to produce one, tossing together an author bio when you're frantically trying to proofread your novel at 3 AM and figure out how much postage to slap on your SASE for its safe return is quite a bit more challenging than, say, devoting a free afternoon to the task three months before you're planning to query at all.
I just mention. The results also tend to be — if not better, than at least of a quality that would not make the writer cringe should a shortened version ever turn up on a dust jacket to linger there until the end of recorded time. (Or longer, perhaps: most of the end-of-the-world scenarios I've seen have paper and cockroaches as the happiest survivors of nuclear activity.)
Seventeen dozen hands just shot up in the air, despite the potential for attracting roving monsters' attention. "Shortened version?" the confused shout in unison. "Wait, isn't the author bio identical to that 50-word paragraph I've been seeing for years inside the back flap of book covers, a belief apparently corroborated by your crack above about how we all should have expected to have to write one eventually?"
Touché on that last point, and it's a good question in general: many, if not most, aspiring writers simply assume that what they see in print is precisely what the publishing industry expects to receive. But just as a professionally-formatted manuscript does not resemble a published book in many respects — and if that's news to you, hang on: there's a Formatpalooza in our collective future — the kind of author bio appropriate to the query or submission stage differs fairly significantly from the kind found on dust jackets.
For one thing, it's longer. The standard in the neighborhood of 250 words — or, to put it in visual terms, one double-spaced page or just over half a single-spaced page with an author photo at the top. (And yes, Virginia, I shall be inundating you with concrete examples of both later in this series. How can you even doubt?)
"Um, Anne?" the time-pressed pipe up again. "That sounds as though you're about to ask me to rattle off my selling points as an author, and, as we discussed back in Querypalooza, I don't feel that my credentials are all that impressive. Besides, it's awfully difficult many of us to carve out time in our schedules to write, much less to market our work to agents. I'm in the middle of my tenth revision of Chapter 3, and I'm trying to get a dozen queries in the mail before Thanksgiving. I also have a life. May I be excused, please, from dropping all that in order to sit down and compose something I only might need if one of those agents asks to see the book — and asks to see a bio?"
Well, first off, clock-watchers, congratulations for having the foresight to send off a flotilla of queries well before the onset of the holiday season. As long-term readers of this blog are already aware (I hope, given how frequently I mention it), the publishing industry slows W-A-Y down between Thanksgiving and the end of the year. Best to get your query letters in before the proverbial Christmas rush, I always say. Because, really, if you don't, you're probably going to want to hold off on sending the next batch until after the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday.
Yes, in response to all of those shouted mental questions from those of you who do not happen to be U.S. citizens: I do mean after January 27th, 2011.
Why wait so long, you howl in frustration? Several reasons. First, as we discussed before, during, and after the traditional mid-August-through-Labor-Day publishing vacation period, Millicent's desk is going to be piled pretty high with envelopes when she returns after her winter holidays. Place yourself in her snow boots for a moment: if you were the one going through all of that backlog of unopened queries, would you be more eager to reject any given one, or less?
I'm going to leave the answer to that between you and your conscience.
Second, in the US, agencies are required by law to produce tax documents for their clients by the end of January, documenting the royalties of the previous year. Yes, everyone knows it's coming, but common sense will tell you that the vast majority of the inmates of agencies were English majors.
Have you ever watched an English major try to pull together his tax information?
Third — and to my mind, the best reason by far — do you really want your query (or submission) to get lost amongst similar documents from every unpublished writer in North America who made the not-uncommon New Year's resolution, "By gum, I'm going to send out 20 queries a month, beginning January 1!"
Fortunately for Millicent's sanity, the average New Year's resolution lasts a grand total of three weeks, so her February is not nearly so hectic as her January. But for those resolution-fueled few weeks, she's not likely to be an exceptionally good mood, if you catch my drift.
All that being said (and I had a surprising amount to say on the subject, didn't I, considering that the foregoing could have been summarized quite adequately as, "Start getting those queries out now!"), I would encourage all of you who are at the querying stage of your careers to set aside anywhere from a few hours to a couple of days to sit down and hammer out a great author bio for yourself. Ideally, sometime really, really soon, even if you are not planning to query an agency that asks for a bio up front.
Again, how does now sound?
Why I am I pressing you on this? For some very, very practical reasons: often, the request for a bio comes when your mind is focused upon other things, like doing a lightning-fast revision on your book proposal so you can send it to that nice editor who listened so attentively to your pitch at a conference or just before you start dancing around your living room in your underwear because your before-bed e-mail check revealed a response to a query.
Agents and editors tend to toss it out casually, as if it's an afterthought: "Oh, and send me a bio." The informality of the request can be a bit misleading, however: the one-page author bio is actually a very important tool in your marketing kit.
Yes, yes, I know: over the years — and frequently throughout the course of Query- and Synopsispalooza — I have told you that many, many things were important tools in your marketing kit. Your synopsis, for instance. Your query letter. Your pitch. Your first 50 pages. Your first page.
And you know something? I wasn't lying to you any of those times. They're all important.
So just how important is the author bio, you ask, cynicism hardening your comely eyes? Well, it's not unheard-of for editors, in particular, to decide to pass on the book they're being offered, but ask the agent to see other work by the author, if the bio is intriguing enough.
Yes, really: it's happened more than once. Heck, it's happened to me more than once.
Admittedly, my background is pretty unusual (and detailed, conveniently enough, in my bio, if you're interested). My cult of personality aside, a general axiom may be derived from the fact that attracting interest in this manner has happened to any writer, ever: it is not a tremendously good idea just to throw a few autobiographical paragraphs together in the last few minutes before a requested manuscript, proposal, or synopsis heads out the door.
Which is precisely what most aspiring writers facing a bio request do. In the extra minute and a half they have left between devoting 20 minutes to dashing off a synopsis and when the post office door locks for the night.
Big, big mistake: if the bio reads as dull, disorganized, or unprofessional, agents and editors may leap to the unwarranted conclusion that the manuscript — or, heaven help us, the writer — also dull, disorganized, and/or unprofessional. After all, they are likely to reason, the author's life is the material that she should know best; if she can't write about that lucidly, how can she write well about anything else?
That made you dive behind the sofa again, didn't it? Sad but true, Millicent and her ilk have to draw conclusions based solely upon the evidence on paper in front of them. If only a writer had any control over how they might perceive her personally…
Oh, wait, she does: she can write her bio so she comes across as fascinating.
A good bio is especially important if you write any flavor of nonfiction, because the bio is where you establish your platform in its most tightly-summarized form. That's important, because — chant it with me now, long-time readers – "What's your platform?" is practically the first thing any agent or editor will ask a NF writer.
Think about it: your platform consists of the background that renders you — yes, YOU — the best person on earth to write the book you are pitching. This background can include, but is not limited to, educational credentials, relevant work experience, awards, and significant research time.
You know, the stuff we discussed at length when you were thinking about the credentials paragraph of your query letter. For a NF writer, the author bio is a compressed résumé, with a twist: unlike the cold, linear presentation of the résumé format, the author bio must also demonstrate that the author can put together an array of facts in a readable, compelling fashion.
"Hey, Anne," some of you ask suspiciously, clutching your paper bags and keeping an eye out for any monsters who might be about to jump out at you, "why was that last bit in boldface? I'm a novelist, so I was preparing to zone out on that bit about platform, but the amount of ink in the type makes me wonder if I should be internalizing a lesson here."
Well reasoned, paranoid novelists: just as the author bio is an alternate venue for the NF writer to demonstrate his platform, the bio provides Millicent similar information about a novelist.
Aren't those of you fiction writers tempted to cling to the old-fashioned notion that you're exempt from this daunting challenge glad that you already had your hyperventilation bags in hand? "A bio?" novelists say nervously when agents and editors toss out the seemingly casual request. "You mean that thing on the back cover? Won't my publisher's marketing department write that for me?"
In a word, no. They might punch it up a little down the line, but in the manuscript-marketing stages, you're on your own.
If this comes as a nasty surprise to you, you're not alone. The tendency to assume that someone else will take care of the bio is practically universal amongst writers — until they have been through the book publication process. Unfortunately, despite the ubiquity of this misconception, hemming and/or hawing about the production of one's bio is most assuredly not the way to win friends and influence people in an agency.
Or a publishing house, for that matter. You think the marketing department isn't eager to get to work reorganizing your bio?
So if you take nothing else from today's post, absorb this enduring truth and clutch it to your respective bosoms forevermore: if you want to gain practice in being an agent's dream client, train yourself not to equivocate whenever you are asked to provide extra material whilst marketing your work. Instead, learn to chirp happily, like the can-do sort of person you are: "A bio? You bet!"
Yes, even if the agent or editor in question has just asked you to produce some marketing data that strikes you as irrelevant or downright stupid. Even if what you're being asked for will require you to take a week off work to deliver. Even in you have to dash to the nearest dictionary the second your meeting with an agent or editor is over to find out what you've just promised to send within a week is.
Or, perhaps more sensibly, post a comment here to inquire. That's what Author! Author! is here for, you know: to help writers get their work successfully out the door.
Why is appearing eager to comply and competent in your bio so important, I hear you ask? Because professionalism is one of the few selling points a writer can't list in an author bio. A bio is not a self-praise session, after all: it's a collection of facts, organized to make it clear to Millicent that you are either extremely credible, personally fascinating, the best person in the known universe to write this particular book, or, ideally, all of the above.
And no, you may not simply tell her any of those things directly. Self-aggrandizing statements look pretty silly on the page, after all. See for yourself:
Bart Smedley is a consummate professional writer. He's up every day at 4:30 AM, hard at his writing. Instead of taking the lunch hour most ordinary mortals do, he hies himself to the local library to read past issues of Publishers Weekly, in order to understand his future agent's lot better. An undeniably wonderful human being, Bart is a delight to know, funny, insightful, and personable. Also, he is physically attractive: he is indeed a thing of beauty and a joy forever.
Admit it: you'd laugh if you were Millicent. To most people in positions to bring your work to publication, self-praise regarded as a sure indicator of how much extra time they will have to spend holding a new author's hand on the way to publication, explaining how the industry works.
How much extra time will they want to spend on you and your book, I hear you ask, over and above the time required to sell it? It varies from agent to agent, of course, but I believe I can give you a general ballpark estimate without going too far out on a limb: none.
Again, I know — all the agency guides will tell the previously unpublished writer to seek out agencies with track records of taking on inexperienced writers. It's good advice, but not because such agencies are habitually eager to expend their resources teaching newbies the ropes.
It's good advice because such agencies have demonstrated that they are braver than many others. They are willing to take a chance on a new writer from time to time, provided that writer's professionalism positively oozes off the page and from her manner.
I'll bet you a nickel, though, that the writers these agencies have signed did not respond evasively when asked for their bios.
Professionalism, as I believe I have pointed out several hundred times before in this forum, is demonstrated in many ways. Via manuscripts that conform to standard format, for instance, or knowing not to call an agency unless there's some question of requested materials actually having been lost. It is also, unfortunately for those new to the game, demonstrated through familiarity with the basic terms and expectations of the industry.
This is what is known colloquially as a Catch-22: you get into the biz by showing that you know how people in the biz act — which you learn by being in the biz.
So "Bio? What's that?" is not the most advisable response to an agent or editor's request for one. Nor is hesitating, or saying that you'll need some time to write one. (You're perfectly free to take time to write one, of course; just don't say so up front.)
Why is even hesitation problematic, I hear you ask? (My readers are so smart; I can always rely on them to ask the perfect questions at the perfect times. Also to have a paper bag and monster-repellant spray handy.)
Well, let me put it this way: have you ever walked into a deli on the isle of Manhattan unsure of what kind of sandwich you want? When you took the requisite few seconds to collect your thoughts on the crucial subjects of onions and mayo, did the guy behind the counter wait politely for you to state your well-considered preferences? Or did he roll his eyes and move on to the next customer after perhaps 7 seconds?
And did that next customer ruminate at length on the competing joys of ham on rye and pastrami on pumpernickel, soliciting the opinions of other customers with the open-mindedness of Socrates conducting a symposium. Or did he just shout over your shoulder, "Reuben with a dill pickle!" with the ultra-imperative diction of an emergency room surgeon calling for a scalpel to perform a tracheotomy with seconds to spare before the patient sustains permanent brain damage from lack of oxygen?
If you frequent the same delis I do when I'm in town, the answers in both cases are emphatically the latter. Perhaps with some profanity thrown in for local color.
NYC-based agents and editors eat in those delis, my friends. They go there to relax.
This regional tendency to mistake thoughtful consideration — or momentary hesitation — for malingering or even slow-wittedness often comes as an unpleasant shock to those of us who are West Coast bred and born, I must admit. Here in the Pacific Northwest, we like to encourage meditation in daily life; there are retail emporia in the greater Seattle metropolitan area where the Buddha himself could happily hold a full-time job with no significant loss of contemplative time.
Even in retail. "I'm here if you need anything," the Buddha would say, melting into the background to think. "Just let me know if you have questions about those socks. There's no rush. Go ahead and become one with those shoes."
This is why, in case you have been wondering, NYC-based agents and editors sometimes treat those of us who live out here like flakes. In certain minds, we're all wandering around stoned in bellbottoms, offering flowers to strangers at airports, reusing and recycling paper, and spreading pinko propaganda like, "Have a nice day."
That is, when we're not writing our books in moss-covered lean-tos, surrounded by yeti in Birkenstocks. Oh, you laugh, but I'm not entirely sure that my agent understands that I'm not composing my current novel in a yurt by light provided by a squirrel-run generator. Or so I surmise from his tone.
My point is, it would behoove you to have an author bio already written by the time you are asked for it, so you will not hesitate for even one Buddha-like, yeti-consulting moment when the crucial request comes. Not entirely coincidentally, I shall be spending the next week of posts on helping that happen.
And make mine tempeh, avocado, and sprouts on sourdough, please, with a side of smoked salmon for my yeti friend here. Oh, and six AA batteries on rye for the monster lurking in the background. In a paper bag, if you please, so we'll be prepared for any contingency.
We've got to build up our energy for some hardcore bio-writing, after all. Keep up the good work!
P.S.: while I'm in nagging mode, when's the last time you backed up your writing files? If you can't remember, wouldn't now be an excellent time to rectify that?
Posted on October 6, 2010 - No Comments on Synopsispalooza, Part IX: for those who are beginning to feel overwhelmed, or, there is a proper time and place for primal screaming — and the synopsis page isn't it
Synopsispalooza, Part IX: for those who are beginning to feel overwhelmed, or, there is a proper time and place for primal screaming — and the synopsis page isn't it
I meant to post yesterday, honestly; blame my physical therapist's fondness for crying out, "Just lean on your hands for another few minutes while we try X…" I use those hands for other things, as it turns out. I even had this half-written before PT yesterday, but all of my hand and wrist strength had been used up for the day.
I've said it before, and I'll no doubt say it again: life is no respecter of deadlines.
As we've been working our way through Synopsispalooza, I've been worrying about something over and above my aching wrists: has my advice that virtually any aspiring writer will be better off sitting down to construct a winning synopsis substantially before s/he is likely to need to produce one coming across as a trifle callous, as if I were laboring under the impression that the average aspiring writer doesn't already have difficulty carving out time in a busy day to write at all? Why, some of you may well be wondering, would I suggest that you should take on more work — and such distasteful work at that?
I assure you, I have been suggesting this precisely because I am sympathetic to your plight. I completely understand why aspiring writers so often push producing one to the last possible nanosecond before it is needed: it genuinely is a pain to summarize the high points of a plot or argument in a concise-yet-detail-rich form.
Honestly, I get it. The newer a writer is to the task, the more impossible — and unreasonable — it seems.
And frankly, aspiring writers have a pretty good reason to feel that way about constructing synopses: it is such a different task than writing a book, involving skills widely removed from observing a telling moment in exquisite specificity or depicting a real-life situation with verve and insight, the expectation that any good book writer should be able to produce a great synopsis off the cuff actually isn't entirely reasonable.
So it's probably not utterly surprising that the very prospect of pulling one together can leave a talented writer feeling like this:
Rather than the way we feel when we polish off a truly stellar piece of writing, which is a bit more like this:
There's just no getting around it: synopsis-writing, like pitch- and query-writing, is not particularly soul-satisfying. Nor is it likely to yield sentences and paragraphs that will be making readers weep a hundred years from now — fortunate, perhaps, because literally no one outside of an agency, publishing house, or contest-judging bee is ever going to see the darned thing. Yet since we cannot change the industry's demand for them, all we writers can do is work on the supply end: by taking control of WHEN we produce our synopses, we can make the generation process less painful and generally improve the results.
Okay, so these may not sound like the best conceivable motivations for taking a few days out of your hard-won writing time to pull together a document that's never going to be published — and to do so before you absolutely have to do it. Unless you happen to be a masochist who just adores wailing under time pressure, though, procrastinating about producing one is an exceedingly bad idea.
But as of today, I'm no longer going to ask you to take my word for that. For those of you who are still resistant to the idea of writing one before you are specifically asked for it I have two more inducements to offer you today.
First — and this is a big one – taking the time to work on a synopsis BEFORE you have an actual conversation with an agent (either post-submission or at a conference) is going to make it easier for you to talk about your book professionally.
Don't sneeze at that advantage, perennial queriers — it's extremely important for conference-goers, e-mail queriers, and pretty much everyone who is ever going to be trying to convince someone in the publishing industry to take an interest in a manuscript, because (brace yourselves) the prevailing assumption amongst the pros is that a writer who cannot talk about her work professionally probably is not going to produce a professional-quality manuscript.
I know, I know — from a writer's point of view, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense: we all know (or are) shy-but-brilliant writers who would rather scarf down cups of broken glass than give a verbal pitch, yet can produce absolute magic on the page. Unfortunately, in contexts where such discussion is warranted, these gifted recluses are out of luck.
Why? Well, it's sort of like the logic underlying querying: evaluating a 400-page manuscript based solely upon a single-page query letter — or, even more common, upon the descriptive paragraph in that query — is predicated upon the assumption that any gifted writer must be able to write marketing copy and lyrical prose equally well. (Cough, cough.) Similarly, conference pitching assumes that the basic skills an agent must have in order to sell books successfully — an ability to boil down a story or argument to its most basic elements while still making it sound fascinating, a knack for figuring out how it would fit into the current market, the knowledge to determine who would be the most receptive audience, editorial and reader both, for such a book, the bravery to tell someone in a position to do something about it — are lurking in the psyche of your garden-variety brilliant writer as well.
Come to think of it, querying and synopsizing effectively require most of those skills as well, don't they? Particularly synopsizing, if you think about it like a marketer, rather than like a writer.
And yes, you should try to do that from time to time: contrary to popular opinion amongst aspiring writers, being market-savvy does not necessarily mean compromising one's artistic vision or selling out. As any working artist could tell you, one can be a perfectly good artist and still present one's work well for marketing purposes. Refusing to learn professional presentation skills does not improve one's art one jot; all it does is make it harder to sell that art.
So force yourself to think like a marketer for a second, rather than the author of that 380-page novel: if you were the book's agent, how would you describe it to an editor? Perhaps like this:
(1) introduce the major characters and premise,
(2) demonstrate the primary conflict(s),
(3) show what's at stake for the protagonist, and
(4) ideally, give some indication of the tone and voice of the book.
(5) show the primary story arc through BRIEF descriptions of the most important scenes.
(6) show how the plot's primary conflict is resolved or what the result of adopting the book's argument would be.
Or, if you were the agent for your nonfiction book, you might go about it like this:
(1) present the problem or question the book will address in a way that makes it seem fascinating even to those not intimately familiar with the subject matter,
(2) demonstrate why readers should care enough about the problem or question to want to read about it,
(3) mention any large group of people or organization who might already be working on this problem or question, to demonstrate already-existing public interest in the subject,
(4) give some indication of how you intend to prove your case, showing the argument in some detail and saying what kind of proof you will be offering in support of your points,
(5) demonstrate why the book will appeal to a large enough market niche to make publishing it worthwhile (again, ideally, backed up with statistics), and
(6) show beyond any reasonable question that you are the best-qualified person in the known universe to write the book.
In short, you would be describing your book in professional terms, rather than trying to summarize the entire book in 1-5 pages. In fact, try thinking of your synopsis as the book's first agent: its role is not to reproduce the experience of reading your manuscript, but to convince people in the publishing industry to read it.
Tell me: does thinking of the pesky thing in those terms make it seem more or less intimidating to write?
Although it may feel like the former, in the long term, taking the time to do this well usually helps a writer feel less intimidated down the line. Investing some serious time in developing a solid, professional-quality synopsis can be very, very helpful in this respect. The discipline required to produce it forces you to think of your baby as a marketable product, as well as a piece of complex art and physical proof that you have locked yourself away from your kith and kin for endless hours, creating.
Not only will it be easier for you to sit down and write a synopsis for your next book (and the one after that), but by training yourself not to answer the question, "So what do you write?" with a short, pithy, market-oriented overview of the plot or argument, you are going to come across to others as much more serious about your writing than if you embrace the usual response of, "Well, um, it's sort of autobiographical…"
Again, that progress is nothing at which to be sneezing. An aspiring writer who has learned to discuss his work professionally is usually better able to get folks in the industry to sit down and read it. That's not a value judgment — it's a fact.
Half of you are shaking your heads in resentful disbelief, aren't you? "But Anne," those of you annoyed by the brevity of a requested synopsis point out, "you keep saying that every syllable an aspiring writer sends to an agency is a writing sample. So how can I NOT think of the 3-page synopsis they want me to send as a super-compressed version of my book? Let me be all stressed out over trying to fit 100 pages into a paragraph or two, already."
I can tell you how: because you'll drive yourself crazy if you think of it that way. The purpose of a synopsis is not to summarize the entire book; it is to give a swift overview of its high points. Thus, the synopsizer's problem is not compression — it's selection.
Does the sound of a thousand pairs of eyebrows crashing into hairlines mean that some of you had never thought of it that way before? Cast your eyes back over those lists of what is supposed to be in a professional synopsis: do any of those steps actually ask you to summarize the book?
No, they are asking you to hit the high points — but to present those high points like a readable story or single-line argument.
Don't get too upset if you hadn't thought of it that way before. Even writers who are absolutely desperate to sell their first books tend to forget that it is a product intended for a specific market. As I have mentioned earlier in this series, in the throes of resenting the necessity of producing a query letter and synopsis, it is genuinely difficult NOT to grumble about having to simplify a beautifully complicated plot, set of characters, and/or argument.
But think about it for a second: any agent who signs you is going to have to be able to rattle off the book's high points in order to market it to editors. So is any editor who falls in love with it, in order to pitch it to an editorial committee.
See why they might want to have a synopsis by their sides? This is not a pointless hoop through which agents, editors, and contest rule-mongers force aspiring writers to jump in order to test their fortitude; a synopsis is a professional requirement, necessary for any of these people to help you bring your writing to your future reading public.
You're feeling just the teensiest bit better about having to write the darned thing, aren't you?
Here's another good reason to invest the time: by having labored to reduce your marvelously complex story or argument to its basic elements, you will be far less likely to succumb to that perennial bugbear of pitchers, the Pitch that Would Not Die.
Those of you who have pitched at conferences know what I'm talking about, right? Everyone who has hung out with either pitchers or pitch-hearing agents has heard at least one horror story about a pitch that went on for an hour, because the author did not have the vaguest conception what was and was not important to emphasize in his plot summary.
Trust me, you do not want to be remembered for that. Your manuscript has many, many other high points, doesn't it?
For those of you who haven't yet found yourself floundering for words in front of an agent or editor, allow me to warn you: the unprepared pitcher almost always runs long. When you are signed up for a 10-minute pitch meeting, you really do need to be able to summarize your book within just a few minutes — harder than it sounds! — so you have time to talk about other matters.
You know, mundane little details, such as whether the agent wants to read the book in question.
Contrary to the prevailing writerly wisdom that dictates that verbal pitching and writing are animals of very different stripes, spending some serious time polishing your synopsis is great preparation for pitching. Even the most devoted enemy of brevity will find it easier to chat about the main thrust of a book if he's already figured out what it is.
Stop laughing — I have been to a seemingly endless array of writers' conferences over the years, and let me tell you, I've never attended one that didn't attract at least a handful of aspiring writers who seemed not to be able to tell anyone else what their books were about.
Which, in case you were wondering, is the origin of that hoary old industry chestnut:
Agent: So, what's your book about?
Writer: About 900 pages.
The third inducement: a well-crafted synopsis is something of a rarity, so if you can produce one as a follow-up to a good meeting at a conference, or to tuck into your submission packet with your first 50 pages, or to send off with your query packet, you will look like a star, comparatively speaking.
You would be astonished (at least I hope you would) at how often an otherwise well-written submission or query letter is accompanied by a synopsis obviously dashed off in the ten minutes prior to the post office's closing, as though the writing quality, clarity, and organization of it weren't to be evaluated at all. I don't think that sheer deadline panic accounts for the pervasiveness of the disorganized synopsis; I suspect lack of preparation.
Hmm, wasn't someone just talking about unprepared pitchers always going long?
I also suspect resentment. I've met countless writers who don't really understand why the synopsis is necessary at all; to them, it's just busywork that agents request of aspiring writers, a meaningless hoop through which they must jump in order to seek representation.
No wonder they hate it; they regard it as a minor species of bullying. But we all know better than that now, right?
All too often, the it's-just-a-hoop mentality produces a synopsis that gives the impression not that the writer is genuinely excited about this book and eager to market it, but rather that he is deeply and justifiably angry that it needed to be written at all.
And that's a problem, because to an experienced eye, writerly resentment shows up beautifully against the backdrop of a synopsis. It practically oozes off the page.
Unfortunately, the peevish synopsis is the norm, not the exception; as any Millicent who screens queries and submissions would be more than happy to tell you, it's as though half the synopsis-writers out there believe they're entering their work in an anti-charm contest. The VAST majority of novel synopses simply scream that their authors regarded the writing of them as tiresome busywork instituted by the industry to satisfy some sick, sadistic whim prevalent amongst agents to see aspiring writers suffer.
(You're chortling at this attitude by this point in the post, aren't you, even if you were one of the many who believed it, say, yesterday? If not, you might want to go back and reread that bit about why the agent of your dreams actually does need you to provide her with a synopsis. But back to the resentment already in progress.)
Frustrated by what appears to be an arbitrary requirement, many writers just do the bare minimum they believe is required, totally eschewing anything that might remotely be considered style. Or, even more commonly, they procrastinate about doing it at all until the last possible nanosecond, and end up throwing together a synopsis in a fatal rush and shove it into an envelope, hoping that no one will pay much attention to it.
It's the query letter and the manuscript that count, right?
Wrong. In case you thought I was joking the other 47 times I have mentioned it over the last couple of weeks, EVERYTHING you submit to an agent or editor is a writing sample.
If you can't remember that full-time, have it tattooed on the back of your hand. It honestly is that important to your querying and submission success.
While frustration is certainly understandable, it's self-defeating to treat the synopsis as unimportant or to crank it out in a last-minute frenzy. Find a more constructive outlet for your annoyance — and make sure that every page you submit represents your best writing.
Realistically, it's not going to help your book's progress one iota to engage in passive-aggressive blaming of any particular agent or editor. It's even less sensible to resent their Millicents. They did not make the rules, by and large.
And even if they did, let's face it — in real life, almost nobody is actually brave enough to say to an agent or editor, "No, you can't have a synopsis, you lazy so-and-so. Read the whole darned book, if you liked my pitch or query, because the only way you're going to find out if I can write is to READ MY WRITING! AAAAAAAAH!"
Okay, so it's mighty satisfying to contemplate saying it. Picture it as vividly as you can, then move on.
I'm quite serious about this. My mental health assignment for you while working on the synopsis: once an hour, picture the nastiest, most aloof agent in the world, and mentally bellow your frustrations at him at length. Be as specific as possible about your complaints, but try not to repeat yourself; the goal here is to touch upon every scintilla of resentment lodged in the writing part of your brain.
Then find the nearest mirror, gaze into it, and tell yourself to get back to work, because you want to get published. Your professional reputation — yes, and your ability to market your writing successfully — is at stake.
I know, the exercise sounds silly, but it will make you feel better to do it, I promise. Far better that your neighbors hear you screaming about how hard it all is than that your resentment find its way into your synopsis. Or your query letter. Or even into your verbal pitch.
Yes, I've seen all three happen — but I've never seen it work to the venting writer's advantage. I'll spare you the details, because, trust me, these were not pretty incidents.
Next time, I shall delve very specifically into the knotty issue of how a synopsis folded up behind a cold query letter might differ from one that is destined to sit underneath a partial manuscript. In the meantime, try to indulge in primal screaming only when nobody else is around, and keep up the good work!
Posted on September 28, 2010 March 4, 2021 - 7 Comments on Synopsispalooza, Part IV: getting down to the nitty-gritty, or, is this the part where I get to stomp on Tokyo?
Synopsispalooza, Part IV: getting down to the nitty-gritty, or, is this the part where I get to stomp on Tokyo?
Fair warning, campers: I'm in a foul mood today. I've answered the phone for eight telemarketers so far this evening, seven of whom refused to believe that I have not been secretly operating the A+ Mini-Mart out of my home. My physical therapists' office forgot that I had an appointment today, so I got dressed up in my silly gym clothes for nothing. A client's deadline just got moved up by a couple of months, meaning that his manuscript was due, oh, yesterday.
All of that I could take with equanimity. What really got my proverbial goat were the two — count 'em, two — aspiring writers who chose today to appear out of the blue and demand that I drop everything to pay attention to them, despite the fact that neither knows me well enough to be asking for a favor, let alone demanding it, and did so in the rudest manner imaginable. Not only that, but each was so self-absorbed that s/he actually became angry with me for setting limits on how much of my time I would allow them to co-opt.
I was really very nice about it, honest. But both evidently chose to believe that because they had faith in their talent, I owed them my professional attention. One even sent me a document, presumably for me to edit out of the goodness of my heart.
Because, obviously, I could not possibly have anything else to do. I could get back to stomping on Tokyo later.
I wish I could say that this kind of thing does not happen to those of us who are kind enough to give the occasional free advice to the aspiring, but truth compels me to say otherwise. In fact, this attitude is so pervasive that quite a few pros simply avoid giving any advice to up-and-comers at all.
Which is why, in case any of you recent conference-goers had been wondering, it can be very hard to ask some of the speakers a pertinent question or track down an attending agent for a hallway pitch. They've probably been the victims of aspiring writers who mistook momentary interest, the willingness to answer a complex question, or even just plain old politeness for a commitment to a lifetime of non-stop assistance. One doesn't have to encounter too many such boundary-leapers to start erecting some pretty hefty walls in self-defense.
Oh, I understand the impulse to push it from the aspiring writer's perspective: since can be so hard to catch a pro's eye that when you meet someone in the know who is actually nice to you, it can feel like the beginning of a friendship. And it may be — down the line. But from the pro's point of view, all that friendly interaction was, or could possibly be construed as being, is just that, a friendly interaction with a stranger.
So imagine the pro's surprise when she arrives back in her office to find five e-mails from that stranger, each more desperate and demanding than the last.
Wildly different understandings of the same interaction are especially prevalent at conferences that schedule pitching appointments for attendees. Most first-time pitchers walk into their sessions so terrified that if the agent or editor smiles even a little and listens sympathetically, they just melt. Here, at last, is a personal connection in an industry that can seem appallingly impersonal from the outside. So when the agent or editor concludes the meeting with a fairly standard request for pages, these pitchers sometimes conclude that the pro only made the request to be nice; s/he couldn't possibly have meant it.
That's the less common reaction. The significantly more common is to act as though the agent or editor has already committed to taking on the book. If not actually serving as best man or maid of honor at the writer's wedding.
Yes, really — I see it at conferences all the time. The writer rushes home, instantly prints up his manuscript, and overnights it to his new friend. Or she rushes home, opens her e-mail account, and instantly sends the requested pages as an attachment to her new friend. Even if they received requests from other agents or editors, they won't send 'em out — that might offend the new friend, who clearly by now has a deep stake in signing the writer.
Then both writers fill Hefty bags with Doritos and plop themselves down between their telephones and their computers, waiting for the positive response that will doubtless come any minute now. And they wait.
Many of them are still waiting, in this era where some agencies have policies where no response equals assumed rejection. Others are stunned to receive form-letter rejections that contain no mention of their positive personal interaction at the conference at all. Some are unwise enough to follow up upon either of these reactions with a hurt or angry e-mail to that faithless new friend.
Who will, I guarantee you, be mystified to receive it. "Why is this writer taking my rejection so personally," they murmur to their screeners, "not to mention so unprofessionally? We talked for five minutes at a conference; it's not as though I made a commitment to help him. It's my job to talk to writers at conferences, after all."
"Hey, look," Millicent says, pointing at her boss' e-mail inbox, "your new protégé has just sent you yet another e-mail. Ooh, there's a third. And a fourth!"
The agent buries her head in her hands. "Cancel my e-mail account. I'm moving to Peru to become a llama herder."
What we have here, my friends, is a failure to communicate. Agents, editors, conference speakers, and writing gurus are nice to aspiring writers, when they are, because they are nice people, not because any of us (not the sane ones among us, anyway) are likely to pick a single aspirant at random and decide to devote all of our resources to helping him. Any of us who interact with aspiring writers on a regular basis meet hundreds, if not thousands, of people just burning for a break, yet not one of us possesses the magical ability to stare deeply into the eyes of a writer we've just met, assess the talent coiled like a spring in that psyche, and determine whether she, alone of those thousands, is worth breaking a few rules to help get into print. Nor are most of us living lives of such leisure that we have unlimited time or resources to devote to helping total strangers.
Yes, yes, I know: this blog is devoted to helping total strangers along the road to publication, and I do in fact post almost every day. Don't quibble; I'm on a roll here.
Yet that level of instant, unlimited devotion is precisely what many aspiring writers simply assume is the natural next step after a pleasant initial interaction with a publishing professional. While most, thank goodness, have the intrinsic good sense or Mom-inculcated good manners not to start demanding favors instantly or barrage that nice pro with e-mails asking for advice or a leg up, the few who do are so shameless that, alas, they give all aspiring writers a bad name.
The moral: sometimes, a pleasant conversation at a conference is just a pleasant conversation at a conference. Don't assume that polite interest in your writing equals a commitment to help you promote it. And never, ever, EVER risk alienating the rare pro who is willing to give a little free advice by presuming that the proper response to an act of kindness is to treat it as an invitation to ask for still more favors.
Any buildings still standing, or have I smashed them all with my giant lizard feet?
Okay, I feel better now. Time to get back to doing today's single professional favor for masses and masses of writers I have never met. After that, I'm off the charitable clock.
For the last couple of posts, I've been showing you examples of good and not-so-good 1-page synopses, so we could talk about (okay, so I could conduct a monologue about) the overarching strategies that rendered them more or less effective. Since the response so far has been no more traumatized than one might expect from writers faced with the prospect of constructing a 1-page synopsis for a 400-page novel of a complexity that would make Tolstoy weep, I'm going to assume that we're all pretty comfortable with the basic goals and strategy of a 1-page synopsis intended for tucking into a query envelope or to copy and paste at the bottom of an e-mailed query.
Before I move on to the ins and outs of writing the longer synopsis, I feel I should respond to some of the whimpers of confusion I've been sensing coming from some of my more structurally-minded readers. "Hey, Anne," some of you have been thinking quite loudly, "I appreciate that you've been showing us visual examples of properly-formatted synopses — a sort of SYNOPSES ILLUSTRATED, if you will — but I'm still not positive that I'm doing it right. If I clutch my rabbit's foot and wish hard enough, is there any chance that you might go over the various rather odd-looking formatting choices you've used in them before, say, I need to send out the 1-page synopsis currently wavering on my computer screen? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top?"
Who am I to resist the charms of a well-stroked rabbit's foot — especially when the request accompanying it is expressed so politely? Let's take another gander at the good 1-page synopsis for PRIDE AND PREJUDICE:
For veterans of my extended forays into the joys and terrors of standard format for manuscripts, none of the formatting here is too surprising, right? Printed out, this 1-page synopsis strongly resembles a properly-constructed manuscript page — and with good reason.
For the most part, standard format for a synopsis is the same as for a page of manuscript: double-spaced, 1-inch margins all around, indented paragraphs (ALWAYS), doubled dashes, numbers under 100 written out in full, slug line, 12-point Times, Times New Roman, or Courier, the works. (If you're unfamiliar with the rules of standard format, you will find them conveniently summarized under the HOW TO FORMAT A MANUSCRIPT category on the list at right. Or you could wait until later in the autumn, when I shall be launching into Formatpalooza.)
What it should NOT look like, but all too many query packet synopses do, is this:
Why might our Millicent instantly take umbrage at this alternate formatting? Chant it with me, long-time readers of this blog: the only time business formatting (i.e., non-indented paragraphs) is acceptable is in business letters (but not query letters or personal correspondence) or e-mails. Because folks in the industry are aware of that, there is a well-established publishing tradition of regarding block formatting as the structural choice of the illiterate.
So the disturbingly common practice of submitting a block-formatted synopsis ("Well, it's not a manuscript page, so why should it be formatted like one?") or query letter ("It's a business letter, isn't it? I'm trying to break into the book-writing business.") is — how shall put this delicately? — a really bad idea. Remember, everything in a query or submission packet is a writing sample. Format the constituent parts so they will convince Millicent of your deep and abiding commitment to excellence in the written word.
As in manuscript, the author's contact information does not appear on the first page of the synopsis. Unlike the first page of a manuscript, however, the title of the book should appear on the first page of a synopsis, along with the information that it IS a synopsis.
Hey, Millicent has a lot of pieces of paper littering her desk. Do you really want yours to go astray — or be mistaken for a page of your manuscript?
Worried about what might happen to all of that formatting if you e-mail your 1-page synopsis? Relax: if it's a requested synopsis, you'll be sending it as a Word attachment, anyway.
If the synopsis will be accompanying an e-mailed query, you're still going to want to write it initially in Word. As with manuscript pages, if you format your synopsis like this in Word, copy it, and paste it into the body of an e-mail (as many agencies' querying guidelines now request), much of the formatting will remain intact: indented and double-spaced. Easy as the proverbial pie. Of course, the slug line — the author's last name/title/page # that should appear in the header of every page of your writing you intend to submit to professional readers — won't appear in the e-mailed version, nor will the margins, but you can live with that, can't you?
More to the point, Millicent can — much, much better, usually, than with a block-formatted synopsis. The fewer provocations you can give for her to start stomping on nearby buildings, the better.
I see some of the sharper-eyed among you jumping up and down, hands raised. "Anne! Anne!" the eagle-eyed shout. "That's not a standard slug line in your first example! It says Synopsis where the page number should be! Why'd you do it that way? Huh? Huh?"
Well caught, eager pointer-outers. I omitted the page number for the exceedingly simple reason that this is a one-page synopsis; the slug line's there primarily so Millicent can figure out whose synopsis it is should it happen to get physically separated from the query or submission it accompanied. (Yes, it happens. As I MAY already have mentioned, Millie and her cronies deal with masses and masses of white paper.)
If this were a multi-page synopsis, the slug line would include the page number, but regardless of length, it's a good idea to include the info that it is a synopsis here. That way, should any of the pages mistakenly find their way into a nearby manuscript (again, it happens), it would be easy for Millicent to spot it and wrangle it back to the right place.
Sometimes, it seems as though those pages have a life of their own. Especially when the air conditioning breaks down and someone in the office has the bright idea of yanking the rotating fan out of the closet. Or Godzilla decides to take a stroll down a nearby avenue, shaking everything up.
Oh, you may laugh, but think about it: like a manuscript, a query or submission synopsis should not be bound in any way, not even by a paper clip. So if a synopsis page does not feature either the writer's name or the title of the work (and the subsequent pages of most query synopsis often fail to include either), how could Millicent possibly reunite it with its fellows if it goes a-wandering?
Heck, even if it's all together, how is she supposed to know that a document simply entitled Synopsis and devoid of slug lines is describes a manuscript by Ignatz W. Crumble entitled WHAT I KNOW ABOUT EVERYTHING AND YOU SHOULD, TOO?
Don't make Millicent guess; she may have had a hard day. Unidentified pages tend to end up in the recycling — or, if the Millicent happens to work in one of the many, many agencies that does not recycle paper (you'd be amazed), in the trash.
A second (or third, or fifth; extrapolate) page should also look very similar to any other page of standard-formatted manuscript, with one vital exception: the slug line for a synopsis should, as I mentioned above, SAY that the page it decorates is from a synopsis, not a manuscript, in addition to displaying the author's last name, the title of the book, and the page number. (If you don't know why a slug line is essential to include in any professional manuscript or why anyone would name something on a pretty page of text after a slimy creature, please see the SLUG LINE category on the archive list conveniently located at the lower right-hand side of this page.)
One caveat: if you are planning to submit a synopsis to a contest, double-check the rules: many literary contests simply disqualify any entry that includes the entrant's name anywhere but on the entry form. (This is a sign of honesty in a contest, incidentally; it's substantially harder to rig the outcome if the judges don't know which entrant wrote which entry.) If you're entering a name-banning contest, you should still include a slug line, but omit the first part: TITLE/SYNOPSIS/PAGE #.
Okay, some of you have had your hands in the air since you read the example above. "But Anne," the tired-armed point out, "aren't you ignoring the giant lizard in the room — or, in this case, on the page? You seem to have given some of the character names in all capital letters, followed by their ages in parentheses. Why?"
I'm glad you asked. It's not absolutely necessary, technically speaking, but most professional fiction and memoir synopses capitalize the entire name of each major character the first time it appears. Not every time, mind you; just the first.
Why only the first? To alert a skimming agent or editor to the fact that — wait for it — a new character has just walked into the story.
Because Millicent might, you know, miss 'em otherwise. She reads pretty fast, you know.
It is also considered pretty darned nifty (and word-count thrifty) to include the character's age in parentheses immediately after the first time the name appears, resulting in synopsis text that looks something like this:
ST. THERESA OF AVILA (26) has a problem. Ever since she started dating multi-millionaire GEORGE ARMSTRONG CUSTER (82), all of her friends have unaccountably decided that she is mercenary and hates Native Americans. Apart from JEANNE D'ARC (30), her wacky landlady-cum-bowling-partner, who uses every opportunity to pump Theresa for man-landing tips, none of the residents of Theresa's swanky Upper East Side co-op are even speaking to her — at least until they start desperately vying for invitations to her exclusive wedding extravaganza, a lavish event to be held onstage at the Oscars, with THE REVEREND DOCTOR OWEN WILSON (44 if he's a day) officiating. How will Theresa find a maid of honor — and if she does, what will her jealous old boyfriend GOD (∞) do in response?
Should any of you out there think you're up to rounding out the plot above into some measure of coherence and submitting it, please, be my guest. Really. I'd love to read it.
For the rest of you, please note what I have done here: in preparing a synopsis for a comedy, I have produced — sacre bleu! — a humorous treatment of the material. Brevity need not be the death of wit.
And if I were creating a synopsis for a steamy romance novel with the same premise (although I tremble to think what a sex romp with that particular cast of characters would entail), you can bet your last wooden nickel that I would take some writerly steps to make my reader's mouth go dry and his breath become short while perusing it.
Would I do this because I'm wacky? No, because — sing it out now, long-time readers — in a query or submission packet, the synopsis is a writing sample.
Oh, had I mentioned that fourteen or fifteen times already in this series? Well, it cannot be said too often, in my opinion. The sensible writer aims to use the synopsis to demonstrate not only that it is a good (or at least marketable) story, an attention-grabbing yarn peopled with fascinating, well-rounded characters, but that the s/he is a terrific storyteller.
I heard that monumental collective gasp of dread. Don't worry — in the days to come, I shall be talking about ways in which you can tweak your synopsis in order to convey that lovely impression.
For the nonce, let's take a quick field trip back to yesterday's examples of a not-so-hot 1-page synopsis. Now that you know what Millicent is expecting to see, do you notice any formatting problems here?
If you immediately leapt to your feet, screaming, "It doesn't have a slug line! It doesn't have a slug line!" award yourself a gold star for the day. Make that two if you also bellowed that it doesn't say anywhere on the page that it is a synopsis.
Take a medal out of petty cash if you noticed that the pages are not numbered: a major no-no in any submission, ever, and one of the more common mistakes. And yes, you should number it (although technically, it's optional for a one-page synopsis — and no, you should not number it consecutively with the manuscript, unless a contest rules SPECIFICALLY tell you to do so. Just as the first page of Chapter 1 is always page 1, regardless of what may come before it in a submission packet, the first page of a synopsis is always page 1.
Top yourself with a halo if you also discovered that Aunt Jane made the rookie mistake of adding her name to the synopsis anywhere but in the slug line. For book-length works, the first page of text — regardless of whether it is in the manuscript, the synopsis, or any other requested materials — is not a title page.
Don't treat it as if it were one; it looks unprofessional to the pros. Save your contact information for your query or cover letter and your title page.
Everyone happy with his or her score on that quiz? Excellent. Let's tackle yesterday's other negative example:
Where do we even begin? Millicent would almost certainly not even read this one — in fact, she might burst into laughter from several paces away. Any guesses why?
Well, for starters, it starts too far down on the page, falling into the same title-page error as the previous example. It's the over-the-top typeface, though, and the fact that the page uses more than one of them, that would set Millicent giggling and showing it to her coworkers.
Oh, and it doesn't contain a slug line or numbering, either. But I doubt Millicent would even notice that in mid-guffaw. Or while she is crying, "Next!"
It makes one other error for a fiction synopsis, a subtler one — and this one may surprise you: it mentions the title of the book in the text of the synopsis.
Why is this a problem? Well, for the same reason that it's considered unprofessional to begin the descriptive paragraph in a query letter with something like LETTERS FROM HOME is the story of…: it's considered stylistically weak, a sign that the synopsis is talking about the book instead of getting the reader involved in the story. Or, to put it another way, and a bit more bluntly: a fiction synopsis is supposed to tell the story of the book; one that pulls the reader out of the story by talking about it at a distance tends not to do that well.
And anyway, the title is already both at the top of the page (and SHOULD be in the slug line). Why, Millicent wonders impatiently, cradling her too-hot latte until it cools — she's learning, she's learning — would the writer WANT to waste the space and her time by repeating the information?
"Wait just a minute, Anne," I hear some of my former questioners call from the rear of the auditorium. "You're talking about the cosmetic aspects of the query synopsis as though it were going to be judged as pitilessly as the manuscript I'm hoping Millicent will ask me to submit. Surely, that's not the case? The synopsis is just a technical requirement, right?"
Um, no. As I said, it's considered a WRITING SAMPLE. So yes, the writing in it does tend to be judged — and dismissed — just as readily as problematic text anywhere else in the query packet.
Sorry to be the one to break that to you. But isn't it better that you hear it from me than to be left to surmise it from a form-letter rejection? Or, as is more often the case, NOT surmise it from a form-letter rejection and keep submitting problematic synopses?
What? I couldn't hear your replies over the deafening roar of aspiring writers all over the English-speaking world leaping to their feet, shouting, "Wait — my query or submission might have gotten rejected because of its formatting, rather than its writing or content?"
Um, yes — did that seriously come as a surprise to anyone? Oh, dear: I guess it really is time for a Formatpalooza.
While my former questioners are frantically re-examining their query packets and rethinking their former condemnations of Millicents, is anyone harboring any lingering questions about submission formatting? This would be a great time to ask, because next time, we'll be leaving technicalities behind and delving into the wonderful world of storytelling on the fly.
After I trample that one last cottage on the edge of time. If I'm on a rampage, I might as well be thorough. Keep up the good work!
Posted on September 23, 2010 - 17 Comments on First pages that grab: Author! Author! Great First Page Made Even Better second-place winners in adult fiction, David A. McChesney's SAILING DANGEROUS WATERS and Ellen Bradford's PITH AND VINEGAR
First pages that grab: Author! Author! Great First Page Made Even Better second-place winners in adult fiction, David A. McChesney's SAILING DANGEROUS WATERS and Ellen Bradford's PITH AND VINEGAR
My apologies for the must-have-been-agonizing delay between the prize posts for the first-place winners of the Author! Author! Great First Page Made Even Better Contest and the second-place winners. Believe me, the lapse was not intended to be editorial: I'm excited about both of today's winners, but I had a bit of a car-crash recovery setback earlier in the week. I didn't want to risk sounding grumpy about two writers whose narrative voices I like quite a bit.
So a drum roll, please, for the joint winners of second prize in Category II: Adult Fiction: David A. McChesney's SAILING DANGEROUS WATERS and Ellen Bradford's PITH AND VINEGAR.
While all of that portentous rumbling is still hanging in the air, let me take a moment to air one of my pet peeves: gratuitous quotation marks. The other day, a staffer at my physical therapist's office handed me a special-ordered piece of medical equipment in this bag:
What, one wonders, was the writer's intent in placing quotation marks around my name? Was he in some doubt about whether it was my real name — as in, This belongs to the so-called Anne Mini? Did he mistakenly believe that he was shipping this not particularly personal piece of equipment not to my PT, but to a monogrammer, and he wanted to make sure the right spelling stitched into it? Or had someone immediately behind him just shouted my name, and he was quoting her?
Was this merely a case of forgotten attribution? Is this an obscure quote from a book I do not know — a minor work of Charles Dickens, perhaps? Or, still more disturbingly, is this kind soul trying to let me know, albeit in code, that somebody out there is talking about me?
None of the above, probably: my guess would be that the guy with the marking pen thought, along with a surprisingly high percentage of the marking-things population, that quotation marks mean the same thing as underlining. He is mistaken.
Don't ever follow his example. To a professional reader, the common practice of placing things in quotation marks to indicate either emphasis in speech ("Marvin K. Mooney, will you 'please go' now?"), a stock phrase (everybody laughed, because "all the world loves a lover"), or just to call attention to individual words on a sign (Fresh "on the vine" tomatoes, 3 for $2) simply looks illiterate. Sorry to be the one to break the harsh news, but it's true.
So how should one use quotation marks? How about reserving them for framing things that characters actually say?
I know; radical. The next thing you know, I'll be calling for aspiring writers to use semicolons correctly.
I do not bring any of this up lightly — or, indeed, purely to rid the world of a few more sets of perplexingly-applied quotation marks. Both of today's entries grabbed the judges with their strong, distinct authorial voices, but each left us murmuring amongst themselves, speculating about what the writer's motivations might have been.
Although these two first pages don't actually have a great deal else in common — other than both beginning the text 1/4 of the way down the page, rather than 1/3; the addition of a single additional double-spaced line would have made a positive cosmetic difference in both — the judges agreed that they shared a certain kinship: the unanswered question might well lead even an agency screener who admired the writing to hesitate about reading on.
Why? Well, Millicent isn't all that fond of unanswered questions on page 1, and with good reason: in order to be able to recommend a novel manuscript to her boss, she is going to have to be able to tell him (a) who the protagonist is, (b) what the book is about, (c) the book category, (d) to what specific target audience within that book category's already-established readership it should be marketed, and (e) how this book is different/better than what is already on the market for the folks mentioned in (e).
If Millicent can't answer any of these questions. she's going to have a hard time convincing the agent even to read the submission. (Actually, she prefers to be able to answer all of them by the bottom of p. 1, but she's prepared to change her mind between then and p. 50.) And no, "But the writing is so good!" is no substitute for being able to come up with answers: books are pitched to editors within well-established categories.
So when a fresh, new narrative voice that does not appear to fit comfortably within an existing book category, our Millie is left in something of a quandary. How, she wonders, is she going to make the case for this book?
That's a good exercise to apply to any manuscript, incidentally: reading a first page or book description and trying to figure out the book's category is excellent practice for narrowing down your own. In that spirit, take a gander at Dave McChesney's first page and book description; tell me, what do you think the category is?
If you found yourself murmuring, "Hmm, this reads like Naval Adventure," you agree with most of the judges. Even more so if you additionally told yourself, "I'd bet a doubloon that there's adventure awaiting those characters within the next page or two." Although some of the judges felt that it might have been more of a Millicent-grabber to toss the characters straight into that imminent action, none denied that page 1 set up the expectation for excitement.
Cast your eyes over the book's description, though, and see if you think the proverbial shoe still fits the assumed book category:
Still sounds like a rollicking Naval Adventure, doesn't it? Or do I sense some puzzled head-scratching out there?
"Wait just a doggone minute, Anne," head-scratchers across the English-speaking world protest. "He hopes to quickly set out for his world, England, and Evangeline, but finds obstacles continually placed in his path? In the known world? Does this take place in a different world, or this one? And if it's the former, shouldn't that be made clear to Millicent on page 1?"
Well caught, head-scratchers — and in answer to that last question, a resounding yes. Let's take a gander at how Dave himself categorizes his book:
SAILING DANGEROUS WATERS, the second Stone Island Sea Story, combines Naval Adventure and Fantasy. An additional yet similar world gives these voyagers of the early nineteenth century more seas to sail and challenges to meet. Uniquely, they are aware of and able to control their journeys between the two worlds.
An interesting notion, right? But you can already hear Millicent slapping her forehead and muttering, "How on earth am I going to define this book for my boss?"
Universally, the judges felt that in fairness to Millicent, some fantasy elements should appear on page 1. Otherwise, they argued, it was simply too likely that when she came upon fantastic happenings later in the manuscript, she might conclude — wrongly in this case — that Dave did not know that he was genre-jumping, or that the authorial choice to present a fantasy premise in a completely dedicated naval fantasy voice was in fact a choice, not a misunderstanding of how book categories work.
That's why Dave's taking the quite large risk of telling Millicent in his brief book description (and presumably in his query) that this is a category-crosser is quite smart. True, there is not a great deal of demonstrable overlap between the readership of these two categories. (Which is why I am bound to mention marketing advice agreed-upon by a full half of the judges: since this is such a strong Naval Adventure voice, why not write a straight Naval Adventure first, land an agent that way, and then segue into fantasy with the NEXT book?) Also, if an agency is not open to the possibility of combining these two disparate categories in a single book — or, in this case, a series — its Millicent may well reject the query on that basis alone.
So why is it smart to give her the opportunity up front? Because for a truly genre-expanding novel to make it into print, it's going to need an agent willing — nay, eager — to take on the challenge. Trust me, it's far, far easier on a writer emotionally to find out a particular agent is not up for it at the querying stage, rather than several years into an unhappy writer-agent relationship.
Let's assume for the moment that Dave's query has already passed muster with the Millicent guarding an agency very much up for this challenge. How might Millie respond to this first page?
As you may see (and we have continually seen throughout this series), how a professional reader responds to a page of text can be extraordinarily different from how an ordinary reader might. I would be surprised, for instance, if many of you had caught the verb repetition in lines 1 and 2, or the lack of a necessary paragraph break on line 8. (It's a bit confusing to have one person speak and another — or in this case, several others — act within the same paragraph.) Or, really, to be actively annoyed by the almost universal Baby Boomer tendency to compress the phrase all right into alright.
I blame album cover lyrics for the ubiquity of that last one. (If you don't know what album covers are, children, ask your grandparents.)
Nor would the average reader be likely to gnash her teeth over the preponderance of tag lines, those pesky he said, he mentioned, he groaned speaker-identifiers, but Millicent's choppers are unlikely to remain ungnashed. Why? Well, one of the standard measures of the reading level of the target audience is the frequency with which tag lines appear: in books for early readers, for instance, who may well be reading aloud or having the book read to them, tag lines are virtually universal.
"See Spot run, Dick," Jane said.
"I see Spot run," Dick replied. "Run, Spot, run."
In most adult fiction, on the other hand, tag lines are deliberately minimized. Although the frequency with which they are expected to appear does vary from book category to book category (chant it with me, campers: there is no substitute for reading widely in your chosen book category, to learn its norms), most of the time, it's simply assumed that the reader will be able to figure out that the words within quotation marks are in fact being spoken aloud by a character without the narrative's having to stop short to tell us so.
After all, quotation marks around words can only mean that either those words were spoken out loud or the narrative is trying to cast doubt upon the authenticity of something (as in "I see you're wearing your 'designer' dress' again, Alice."), right?
Typically, tag line minimization is achieved by incorporating other action or thought into a dialogue paragraph — or simply to alternate between already-established speakers. Like so:
"Oh, there's Spot at last." Jane blew on her freshly-filed nails to free them from dust before she applied screaming red polish. "And there he goes. See Spot run, Dick."
Dick backed against the wood-paneled wall, eyes wide. "I see Spot run. Run, Spot, run!"
Jane lowered one heavily-lashed lid, the better to aim her gun. "How would you feel about following Spot's example, Dick?"
"Pretty darned good."
"Then run, Dick, run, before I change my mind and turn you into Swiss cheese."
These are all easily-fixed matters of style, however. There was one obviously deliberate authorial choice, however, that left the judges scratching their heads as if they had wandered into a dandruff convention. Millicent almost certainly would have the same reaction. Any guesses as to what on this page might engender that response?
If you flung your hand into the air, shouting, "Oh, I've been scratching my head raw over this one, too! Why are Original Vespican, Original, Baltican all in italics? They aren't foreign words, are they, or the names of ships, which could legitimately be italicized?"
Apparently not — from how they are used here, they may be the names of nationalities or tribes. If that's the case, however, it's hard to guess what the authorial point of italicizing them could possibly be: one does not, after all, routinely employ italics when talking about Swedish fjords or Navaho rugs.
Presumably, there is a perfectly sound rationale behind this authorial choice — Dave's been an active member of the Author! Author! community for years, and never have I known him to set at naught the rules of standard format for frivolous reasons. I said as much to the other judges, in fact. But they felt — and I must say I concur — that however valid it might be to include those italics in the published version of the book, at the submission stage, the manuscript should omit them.
Why? Well, as we all know (at least I hope we do), manuscripts do not resemble published books in many important respects. Double-spacing, for instance, and doubling dashes. While it might conceivably be possible for a writer to justify an occasional deviation from standard format, remember, the submitter is literally never there when Millicent screens his manuscript; it is going to need to stand on its own merits. And Millicent is not all that keen on formatting originality: she knows all too well that any fancy formatting in the published book would be the editor's call, not the author's.
In Dave's case, then, it could certainly be argued that no one but his future editor is genuinely qualified to determine whether those italics should remain or not. However, that perfectly legitimate point is not likely to help him much at submission time, if Millicent gets tired of scratching her head over it.
So I offer up this question for your pondering pleasure: since Millicent's delicate eyebrows are so very likely to be lifted beyond the point of comfort by those page 1 italics, wouldn't it be more prudent for Dave to hold off on those italics-by-choice until he can discuss it with his future editor? That way, the risk of the italics triggering rejection drops to zero, and he can still make a case for including those italics in the eventual book.
Isn't it amazing how much issues ostensibly unrelated to either the quality of the writing, the strength and consistency of the narrative voice, or even the inherent excitement of the story can affect its submission chances?
With that capacious question ringing in our ears, let's turn to Ellen Bradford's extremely likable page 1:
Engaging, isn't it? I must say, this one won me over in spite of myself: as a professional reader, I tend to be a trifle suspicious of self-deprecating narrators; it's hard to keep it up for the entire length of a book. It's even harder to do if the narrative is genuinely funny, as this page is — self-deprecating humor often lends itself to one-note storytelling, and even when it doesn't, those who do not get the jokes are wont to write off the narrator as whiny.
Hey, I don't control readers' reactions. I just tell you about 'em.
This is a voice that a lot of readers would quite happily follow for chapters on end — but is it compelling enough to carry Millicent on to page 2?
That's not at all a frivolous question, or even a reflection upon the writing here: let's face it, Millicent doesn't make it to page 2 in most submissions. And contrary to popular opinion amongst aspiring writers, the quality of the writing is not always the determinant of whether she flips the page.
Remember, our Millie likes to be able to answer the basic questions about a submission in at least a cursory way by the bottom of page 1. To recap: (a) who the protagonist is, (b) what the book is about, (c) the book category, (d) to what specific target audience within that book category's already-established readership it should be marketed, and (e) how this book is different/better than what is already on the market for the folks mentioned in (e).
Take another gander at Ellen's page 1. How many of those questions would you be comfortable answering?
Oh, it establishes the protagonist and the tone of the book beautifully; one could even make a pretty good guess that the target market is women insecure about their appearance — which is to say pretty much all of us. But what is this book about? Where would it sit on a shelf in Barnes & Noble?
Because the judges were all about book category-appropriateness, the contest's rules asked entrants to provide a brief paragraph dealing with questions (b) – (e). Here's Ellen's response:
Pith and Vinegar will turn the world of adult fiction on its ear. Or its kidney. Take your pick. But what remains non-negotiable and absolutely, undeniably 100 percent pure fact is that adult fiction will be resting on an unfamiliar body part.
As will the story's heroine.
Again: funny, even charming. But did it answer those professional questions, beyond alerting us that it is fiction aimed at adults?
Is it Mainstream Fiction? Women's Fiction? Chick lit? The judges were inclined toward the latter, but let's take a peek at the longer book description, to see if we can find out more.
Okay, so the book sounds like a hoot; I give you that. And now we know that it is Women's Fiction — which is fabulous, as this is a voice that would appeal to many, many readers in that target market. There is surprisingly little funny fiction out there right now featuring larger female protagonists, so you go, Ellen!
But this description would be at a very serious competitive disadvantage at most US-based agencies. Care to guess why?
If you already had your hand in the air, crying out, "But Anne, those paragraphs are not indented, and she skipped a line between paragraphs!" give yourself a hearty pat on the back. You are quite right: in dealing with the publishing industry, every paragraph should be indented. Block-formatting just looks illiterate to Millicent.
You wouldn't want her to think you were the kind of person who would shove quotation marks around perfectly innocent words and phrases for no apparent reason, would you?
No, but seriously, folks, this is a trap into which well-meaning aspiring writers inadvertently stumble all the time. An agency's submission guidelines ask for an unusual addition to the query packet, or the form-letter positive response to a query requests a much shorter synopsis than the writer has on hand. So he tosses something off — only to realize with horror a few days after he sent it that those additional requested materials were not in standard manuscript format.
If that doesn't seem like a big deal to you, think of it this way: which would you prefer, Millicent's starting to read your synopsis with an open mind, or her harrumphing at the first sight of it, "Oh, no — I wonder if the manuscript is improperly formatted, too," and beginning to peruse your word with a pre-jaundiced mind?
There's another common generator of Millicent's knee jerks back on page 1. Let's take a gander:
A couple of those points caught you by surprise, didn't they? Almost universally, Millicents are a mite touchy about having jokes explained to them, at least on the page. After the tenth time it happens in a single day of screening, it can start to feel like a minor insult to one's intelligence.
And there's some justification to that: the writerly impulse to over-explain has does typically have its roots in a fear that the average reader won't get it. Much of the time, those fears are unfounded; inveterate readers are a pretty savvy bunch, and professional readers even more so.
Here, those fears are definitely unjustified — it would be perfectly easy to follow the metaphor without, say, the narrative's informing us three times that it is indeed a metaphor, or repeating the word potato every few lines. With an image that strong, it's a safe bet that the reader is going to remember it.
Yet our amusing narrator seems far more afraid that the reader's mind will stray off the relevant spud than to let us know where the story is set, how the narrator fits into the world she is depicting (perhaps she works at the Bloodworthy News?), or even the time frame — because, let's face it, a lot of women have felt potato-shaped across a broad array of contexts for at least the last century. (They might well have felt that way before, but bathroom scales were not widely available until the 1920s, so they didn't have numbers to back up the general impression.)
Are you seeing a running theme here, though? Both of these winning entries left Millicent guessing about a few significant matters at the bottom of page 1 — and in both cases, one of those significant somethings was the book category.
But that's actually not the primary reason that a well-trained Millicent might not turn the page. Any guesses?
Hint: the problem I have in mind is noted twice on the marked-up example above.
Yes, that's right: the single-sentence paragraphs. Aspiring writers just love these, and as we've discussed, they can work well in moderation — to introduce a bit of genuinely startling information or a plot twist that might get lost to the skimming eye if the sentence were attached to the paragraph above or below.
The vast majority of the time, that's not how such one-line paragraphs turn up in manuscript submissions, however. A surprisingly high percentage of writers who aspire to be funny seem to believe that a single-line paragraph is the only way to designate a punch line, a tactic about as subtle as following Millicent around with a drum kit and executing a rim shot each and every time she reads a joke.
Think about it: if the reader can see from across the room that a joke is coming, because every joke that preceded it in the text was also in a single-sentence paragraph, hasn't the narration lost the element of surprise so crucial to maintaining a humorous tone all the way through the book?
That doesn't appear to have been Ellen's motivation in creating the single-sentence paragraphs here, though; my guess is that they are intended to reflect the greater-than-full-stop pause these statements might carry in verbal speech. Regardless, breaking the it takes at least two sentences to form a narrative paragraph rule doesn't actually provide any benefit to the narrative — certainly not a large enough bang to outweigh the risk of a very well-read Millicent's knee jerking over it.
Don't believe me? Okay, here are the opening three sentences as submitted:
If eyes were the windows to the soul, I was a potato.
Well, metaphorically speaking, I was a potato. Physically, I didn't look like a root vegetable unless I turned sideways in one of those nasty change-room mirrors that sadistic shops selling Barbie-sized clothing always mounted on their flimsy doors.
Got those firmly in mind? Now cast your eyes over them with the single-sentence paragraph problem removed in the most obvious manner imaginable — although while I'm at it, I'll do a spot of trimming.
If eyes were the windows to the soul, I was a potato. Well, metaphorically speaking. Physically, I didn't look like a root vegetable unless I turned sideways in one of those nasty change-room mirrors that sadistic shops selling Barbie-sized clothing always mounted on their flimsy doors.
Was any meaning lost in that transition? Any nuance, even? Is there anything to prevent someone reading it out loud from emphasizing that first sentence?
Of course not. The same holds true for the other single-sentence paragraph. Let's review it in context:
A few stray hairs perhaps, under harsh fluorescent lighting, but everyone knew how cruel those lights could be.
I may in some tiny and insignificant way, have resembled a potato. But some potatoes on eBay looked like the Virgin Mary or Albert Einstein, so there was a lot of genetic variance. And metaphorically speaking, I was covered with many eyes, like a potato.
And here it is again, cleaned up a trifle:
A few stray hairs, perhaps, under harsh fluorescent lighting, but everyone knew how cruel those lights could be.
All right, I may, in some tiny and insignificant way, resemble a potato. But some potatoes on eBay looked like the Virgin Mary or Albert Einstein, so there was a lot of genetic variance. And metaphorically speaking, I was covered with many eyes.
Okay, so that was more than a trifle, but you know how I (and Millicent) feel about word repetition and comma use. My point is — and you probably saw this coming, right? — that stand-alone paragraph wasn't actually adding anything significant to the text. The next paragraph was able to absorb it into its first sentence with no loss of meaning at all.
What lesson are we to derive from all of this? Several, actually. First, I clearly was eager to jump back into the swim of commenting on these entries — this is a long post, even by my standards. Second, while it may require a bit of plot massage, the more you can show Millicent of the book's tone, what it's about, who the protagonist is, and so forth by the bottom of page 1, the happier she will be.
Finally, as we've been seeing throughout this series, even a very well-honed narrative can often benefit from a bit of judicious revision. Just to stick that bug in the ear of all of you who are going to receive requests for pages in the months to come: fight the urge to send off those pages instantly; it's well worth your time to re-read those pages IN THEIR ENTIRETY, IN HARD COPY, and OUT LOUD before popping 'em in the mail or hitting SEND.
Do I need to remind you about Millicent's jumpy knee? Don't make me pull out another quotation mark example to get her going.
A few more contest entries to come, then it's on to Synopsispalooza, beginning on Saturday. Well done, Ellen and Dave, and keep up the good work!
Posted on September 14, 2010 - 2 Comments on Querypalooza, part XXIV: torn between two agents, feeling like a fool…is submitting to both of you breaking all the rules?
Querypalooza, part XXIV: torn between two agents, feeling like a fool…is submitting to both of you breaking all the rules?
I'm much more cheerful today, thanks. So much so, that I shall be returning to my cherished-since-last-Friday tradition of submission practicalities in the mornings, query content in the evenings as of right now. I have a couple of posts' worth of letter examples waiting in the wings, but since posting them will extend Querypalooza yet another day beyond its previously-planned limits (hey, I have a lot to say on the subject), I'm going to go ahead and spend the next couple of submission posts to address a set of similarly-themed questions that I get about once per month from aspiring writers.
To whit: what's the deal with simultaneous submissions? Or multiple querying, for that matter? Will any agent get angry at a writer for already having a submission out with someone else, and, if so, does that mean a writer should only submit to one agent at a time? Wouldn't that take years, potentially?
This is a great set of questions, ones that fit into this series not only practically, but conceptually as well. Much of the art of successful querying and submission does lie in learning, figuring out, and sometimes outright guessing what the agent of one's dreams wants one to do: how to approach, what elements should be in the query packet, what kind of first page will most grab her screener, and so forth. As theoretically-minded reader Jens commented so thoughtfully just the other day, a central theme running through Querypalooza has indeed been THOU SHALT OBEY.
I prefer the more gentle Fats Waller iteration: find out what they like and how they like it, and let 'em have it just that way.
Part of the problem is, of course, that an aspiring writer doesn't merely need to wade through multiple agency submission guidelines in order to learn the ropes — it's more or less expected that a writer serious about getting published will invest the time in some class or Internet series like this. The way queries and submissions are presented professionally isn't a secret; they're just not self-evident. A writer new to the biz generally does need to find out how it's done from a writer who isn't.
That necessity tends to compound the confusion for many writers, alas: surely, I don't have to tell any of you reading that there's an awful lot of querying and submission advice out there, much of it contradictory. (Which is, in case you'd been wondering, why I always provide such extensive explanations for everything I advise: I know that you have to choose amongst quite a bit of competing information; it's as important that you know why I'm suggesting something as to understand how to implement the suggestion. I never, ever want any of my readers to do what I say just because I say so. So there.)
As those of you following this series may have noted with alarm, an awful lot of the common wisdom about querying and submission just isn't true, or at any rate, just isn't true anymore. How, then, is someone brand-new to the process supposed to figure out what to do?
Frequently, aspiring writers attempt to resolve this dilemma by turning to someone like me — often, unfortunately, after they've inadvertently stumbled into an industry faux pas. Some of the most heart-rending perennial problems are the result of believing the common wisdom and applying it to every agent one might ever want to approach, rather than carefully reading each agency's submission guidelines and treating each query/submission situation as unique.
Sometimes, though, even that level of hedging doesn't prevent a writer from falling into a ditch. Witness, for instance, the situation into which completely innocent and well-meaning reader Virginia tumbled not too long ago:
I submitted only two queries to two agents. One got back to me quickly and did ask for exclusive right to review. A few days after I agreed to this, the second agent replied and asked for pages. I don't want to violate my agreement, but how do I tell the second agent I'm really happy she wants to see more but she has to wait?
Successful queriers end up in this kind of dilemma all the time, often without understanding how they ended up there or why they're stressed out about what is in fact the outcome they wanted: more than one agent interested in reading their work. An exclusive is always a good thing, they reason nervously, a sign that an agent was unusually eager to see a queried or pitched book, and thus decided to bypass her usual method of requesting manuscripts.
Not always, no. Sometimes, a request for an exclusive genuinely is the result of an agent's being so excited by a query or pitch (especially if that book has just won a contest) that she's afraid that another agent will snap it up first. But far more often, a surprise request for an exclusive is the natural and should-have-been-expected outcome when a writer queries an agency that has an exclusives-only policy that the querier simply didn't do enough research on the agency to know about, and so is surprised by the request.
Especially gobsmacked by this (usually predictable) outcome: queriers who do what virtually every aspiring writer asked to submit materials does (and what I suspect occurred here), sending out pages within hours of receiving the request. Overjoyed at what they assume (in this case, wrongly) will be the only interest their queries will generate, many multiply-querying writers don't pause to consider that multiple requests for manuscripts are always a possible outcome while sending out simultaneous queries. Thus, it follows as night the day, so is a situation where one of those agents requests an exclusive.
This is why, in case any of you inveterate conference-goers have been curious, agents, editors, and those of us who teach classes on marketing writing invariably sigh when an aspiring writer raises his hand to ask some form of this particular question — and it's not for the reason that other aspiring writers will sigh at it. (The latter wish they had this problem, and who could blame them?) The pros will sigh because they're thinking, Okay, did this writer just not do his homework on the agents he approached? Or is he asking me to tell him that he can blithely break the commitment he's made to Agent #1? Does this writer seriously believe all agents are in league together, that I would be able to grant permission to insult one of my competitors?
That's why everyone else will sigh. I, however, sigh whenever I hear this question because my thought process runs like this: okay, I have to assume that the questioner is someone who hasn't read any of my blog posts on querying or submission, as much as that possibility pains me to consider. But since I have no fewer than four explicitly-named categories on my archive list — conveniently located at the bottom right-hand side of my website's main page: EXCLUSIVES AND MULTIPLE SUBMISSION, EXCLUSIVES TO AGENTS, SIMULTANEOUS SUBMISSIONS, and WHAT IF MORE THAN ONE AGENT ASKS TO SEE MY MANUSCRIPT? — directly aimed at answering this question, and eight more that deal with it within the larger context of submission (AFTER YOU RECEIVE A REQUEST FOR PAGES, AFTER YOU SUBMIT, HOW LONG BEFORE THE REQUEST FOR PAGES EXPIRES? HOW SOON MUST I SEND REQUESTED MATERIALS? INDUSTRY ETIQUETTE, IS IT OKAY TO SUBMIT TO SEVERAL AGENTS AT ONCE? and REQUESTED MATERIALS), as well as a dramatically-reenacted scenario directly related to this issue in the Industry Etiquette series, I also have to assume that the questioner is facing a situation that I have managed to overlook addressing in any of these posts. So I shall eschew the temptation just to send the questioner to any or all of those categories, try to understand how and why this situation is unique, and answer the darned question for the 477th time."
Yes, I can think with that much specificity in mid-sigh, thank you very much. It's just one of my many, many talents.
All that being said — or at any rate thought loudly — it actually isn't fair to leap to the conclusion that if aspiring writers read agents' websites and agency guide listings more thoroughly, they would never end up in this situation. Sometimes, this request does come out of a genuinely blue sky, whacking a conscientious multiple querier or submitter right in the noggin.
In fact, it seems to be happening to aspiring writers more and more these days, and for a couple of excellent reasons. First, as a group, you're querying more widely. That's a good thing, as querying just a handful of agents isn't a legitimate test of a book concept's marketability. Second, as a group, agencies are taking significantly longer these days to get back to queriers and submitters, if they get back to them at all. That's a bad thing, because quite a bit of the common wisdom out there dictates that writers should wait to hear back on one submission before sending out the next.
Poppycock.
Excuse my salty language, but now that many agencies routinely just don't respond to queries at all if the answer is no, it would be equally silly for a savvy writer to query them one at time and to wait to hear back from all of those simultaneous query recipients before submitting to the first agent who asks to see pages.
Ditto, unfortunately, for submissions in an environment where even a requested full manuscript may well sit on a corner of an agent's desk for a year. (Millicent already decided she liked it.) If an agency has a no-reply-if-the-reply-will-be-no policy, stated or unstated, the hapless submitter can have no idea whether silence means no or I just haven't had time to read the rest of it yet.
Yes, really. As agencies have been cutting their staffs over the last couple of years (and aspiring writers who wouldn't have had time to query or submit three years ago have been digging old manuscripts out of bottom desk drawers now that they've been downsized), turn-around times have gotten demonstrably longer. So has the practice of not telling a submitter if the answer is no — or even hanging on to a manuscript someone at the agency likes in the hope that market conditions will change.
The result: I've been hearing more and more from writers who just don't know whether their submissions have been rejected, are still in the reading pipeline, or have simply been lost. How could they, when industry etiquette dictates that submitters should not bug agents while they are considering?
But back to the question of exclusivity. Often, the writer simply will not know that exclusivity is a possibility until an agent asks for it. Unless an agency has an exclusives-only policy (and some do; check), the prospect generally will not be mentioned in its submission guidelines.
Then, too, the request for an exclusive is seldom formulated in a manner that informs a writer not already aware of the fact that she can say no. Or that she can grant it at a later date. Or put a time limit on the exclusive, if she agrees to it at all.
All of these things are perfectly legitimate writerly responses to an exclusivity request, incidentally. Unless an agency informs would-be queriers in advance that it has an exclusives-only submission policy, a submitting writer is under no obligation to grant an exclusive to an individual agent. And, as with any other favor, the writer has the right to place conditions on it if she grants it.
Was that deafening crash I just heard the sound of thousands of eyebrows hitting the ceiling? Yes, yes, I know: all of that runs counter to the tiptoe-around-the-agents common wisdom.
Other than much the common wisdom being seriously out of whack on this issue, why do so many aspiring writers not understand their options at this juncture? Well, for starters, 99.999% of the time, what an aspiring writer asked for an exclusive thinks the agent is saying in the request is not, "Okay, this sounds interesting and marketable, but I don't want to have to rush to beat competing agents in reading the manuscript. Please remove the necessity of my having to hurry by agreeing not to show it to anyone else until I've gotten back to you."
Which is, by the way, what a request for exclusivity means, at base. Rather deflating to think of it that way, isn't it?
What 99.999% of aspiring writers in this situation hear is "Oh, my God — this is the most exciting book premise/query/pitch I've ever heard. I'm almost positive that I want to represent it, even though I have not yet read a word of the manuscript or book proposal. Because my marrow is thrilled to an unprecedented extent, I shall toss all of my usual submission expectations and procedures out the nearest window. If you grant my request for an exclusive, I'm going to clear my schedule so I may delve into this submission the nanosecond it arrives in my office. May I have it today — or, at the very latest, tomorrow — so I can stop holding my breath until it arrives?"
And then the giddy aspiring writer is astonished when weeks or months pass before the agent makes a decision, precisely as if there had been no exclusive involved. The only difference, from the writer's point of view, is that she was honor-bound not to approach other agents until she heard back.
Pardon my asking, but what precisely did the writer gain by granting that exclusive?
I think that a couple of factors contribute the confusion so many agent-seeking writers seem to feel on this subject. First, many writers confuse initial interest with a commitment — why would an agent ask to see a manuscript exclusively, they reason, unless they already thought they might want to sign the author?
The short answer: typically, an agent won't ask for an exclusive (or for pages, for that matter) unless he thinks representing it as a possibility; it is a genuine compliment. However, since agents who ask for exclusives seldom make the request of only one writer at a time, a writer should not assume that his is the only exclusive on the agent's desk.
If that last bit made your stomach drop to somewhere around your knees, don't feel blue, or even slightly mauve: the vast majority of writers who have ever been asked for an exclusive peek at their work were under laboring under the same misconception. The temptation to believe the request means more than it actually does is incalculable.
Second, as I mentioned above, aspiring writers agree to an exclusive, they don't necessarily understand what it actually entails — and usually are either too excited or too shy to ask follow-up questions before they pack off those requested materials. So let's invest some blog space into going over what granting that solo peek will and will not entail.
Within the context of submission, an exclusive involves a writer agreeing to allow an agent a specific amount of time to consider representing a particular manuscript, during which no other agent will be reviewing it. In practice, both the agent and the writer agree to abide by certain rules:
– ONLY that agent will have an opportunity to read the materials;
– no other agent is already looking at it;
– the writer will not submit it anywhere else;
– in return for these significant advantages (which, after all, pull the manuscript out of competition with other agents), the agent will make a legitimate effort to read and decide whether or not to offer representation within a specified time period, but
– if no time restriction is specified in advance, or if the agent always requests exclusives (yes, such agents do exist), the manuscript may simply be considered on precisely the same time scale as every other requested by the agency.
Is everyone clear on the rules? Be honest, now: they differ quite a bit from what you were expecting, don't they?
Now that we know what Virginia agreed to do in granting an exclusive to Agent #1, let's take a gander at her options after she has received a request for materials from Agent #2. If she wants to play by the rules — and she should, always — her choices are three.
If she specified a time limit on the exclusive — which an agent will rarely propose spontaneously; it's not in his interest — the answer is very simple: if less than that amount of time has passed, don't send the manuscript to anyone else until it has. On the day after the exclusive has elapsed, she is free to submit to other agents.
What is she to tell the other agent in the interim? Nothing, if the agreed-upon length of the exclusive is reasonable — say, between one and three months. (Three weeks used to be standard, but see remarks above re: backlogs at agencies.) Agents are perfectly used to writers taking some time to revise before submitting requested materials. Virginia's second agent probably wouldn't blink twice if she didn't get back to him before then.
Remember, it's not as though an agent who requests materials sits there, twiddling his thumbs, until he receives it. He's got a lot of manuscripts already sitting on his desk — and piled on the floor, and threatening to tumble of his file cabinet, and waiting in Millicent's cubicle…
Besides, what would Virginia gain by telling him she'd already promised an exclusive to another agent, other than implicitly informing him that she had already decided that if the other Agent #1 offered representation, she would take it? How exactly would that win her Brownie points with #2? Or, indeed, help her at all?
In practice, all waiting on fulfilling the second request means is that Virginia will have an attractive alternative if Agent #1 decides to pass on the manuscript. That's bad because…?
Oh, wait: it isn't. Actually, it's an ideal situation for a just-rejected submitter to find herself occupying. Way to go, Virginia!
Worrying about what might happen to Virginia if Agent #1 doesn't get back to her within the specified time frame? Relax; she still has several pretty good options: one completely above-board, one right on the board, and the last slightly under it.
First, the high road: about a week after the agreed-upon exclusive expires, Virginia could send Agent #1 an e-mail (not a call), reminding him that the exclusive has elapsed. Would A1 like more time to consider the manuscript solo, or should Virginia send the manuscript out to the other agents who have requested it? Naturally, if he selects the latter, she would be delighted to have him continue to consider the manuscript also.
That's fortunate, because I can already tell you the answer will be the former. Or — and this has become disturbingly common of late — the answer will be silence, which it's in a savvy Virginia's interests to take as the former. (Yes, silence might mean that the agent's no longer interested, but it might also mean that he intended to answer and forgot. Or that he honestly believes he can get to the manuscript before another agent has a chance to make an offer.) In any case, Virginia has been perfectly above-board here: ethically, she is no longer bound by that exclusive. She should it out to Agent #2.
The writer doesn't achieve much by taking the high road, usually, other than possibly an extension of the exclusive. The level road is cosmetically similar, but frees the writer more.
Virginia could write an e-mail to the agent, informing him politely that since the agreed-upon period of exclusivity has elapsed, she's going to start sending out requested materials to other agents. Then she should actually do it, informing Agent #2 in her cover letter that another agent is also considering the work.
That way, she gets what she wants — the ability to continue to market her work — while not violating her agreement with Agent #1. All she is doing is being up front about abiding by the terms of the exclusive.
The slightly subterranean but nevertheless justifiable third option would be not to send an e-mail at all, but merely wait until the exclusive has lapsed to send out the manuscript to Agent #2. She should, of course, inform A2 that there's also another agent reading it. I don't favor this option, personally, because despite the fact that Virginia would be perfectly within her rights to pursue it — the agent is the one who breached the agreement here, not the writer — because if Agent #1 does eventually decide to make an offer, Virginia will be left in a rather awkward position.
Enviable, of course, but still a bit uncomfortable.
When an exclusive does not carry an agreed-upon time limit — and most don't, because writers don't ask — the ethics are more nebulous, the costs to the writer significantly higher. Sometimes enough so that being asked to grant an exclusive turns out to be an actual liability.
As exciting as a request for an exclusive may be, it does tie the writer's hands, for precisely the reason Virginia feels conflicted: throughout the duration of the exclusive, the writer agrees not to show the manuscript to any other agent. If other agents are also interested, this can mean a substantial delay in getting the manuscript onto their desks — not to mention the fact that if Agent A offers to represent it, B and C may not see it at all.
In an environment where it often takes months to hear back on a submission, it's not all that hard to envision a situation where a writer might actually want to say no to an exclusive, is it?
While you're pondering the implications, I'll be changing the subject slightly, to underscore a few points. But never fear: I'm going to talk about the perils and escape hatches of the unlimited exclusive tomorrow; it's too complex to toss off in just a few paragraphs.
For now, let's concentrate on the kind of exclusives a savvy writer should be delighted to grant. To that end, I want to make absolutely certain that each and every querier and submitter out there understands two things — no, make that three:
1) As flattering as a request for an exclusive is to an aspiring writer, granting it is optional.
2) Since by definition, a writer cannot submit to other agents during the exclusive period — yes, even if the writer queried the others first — it's ALWAYS a good idea to set a time limit.
3) Since granting it limits the writer's options, it's best reserved for situations where one's top-choice agents are interested in the book.
Why limit it to your favorite picks? Try to think of granting an exclusive as if you were applying for early admission to an Ivy League school: if the school of your dreams lets you in, you're not going to want to apply to other universities, right?
By applying early, you are saying that you will accept their offer of admission, and the school can add you to its roster of new students without having to worry that you're going to go to another school instead. It's a win/win, in other words.
So if the best agent in the known universe for your type of writing asks for an exclusive, you might genuinely want to say yes. But if you have any doubt in your mind about whether Harvard really is a better school for your intended studies than Yale, Columbia, or Berkeley — to mix my metaphors again — you might want to apply to all of them at the same time, so you may decide between those that do admit you.
To put it another way, if you are asked for an exclusive because your work is sought-after, it is up to you whether you would prefer to go steady right off the bat or date around a little. Got it?
If not, I can keep coming up with parallels all day, I assure you. Don't make me start sending you to past posts.
That doesn't mean you should necessarily say no to this type of exclusivity request, but if you say yes, set a reasonable time limit on it, so you don't keep your book off the dating market too long. This prudent step will save you from the unfortunately common dilemma of the writer who granted an exclusive a year ago and still hasn't heard back.
Yes, in response to that gigantic collective gasp I just heard out there: one does hear rumors of agents who ask for exclusives, then hold onto the manuscript for months on end. Within the past couple of years, such rumors have escalated astronomically.
Set a time limit. Three months is ample. (And no, turning it into three weeks will almost certainly not get your manuscript read any faster. This is no time to be unreasonable in your expectations.)
No need to turn asking for the time limit into an experiment in negotiation, either: simply include a sentence in your submission's cover letter along the lines of I am delighted to give you an exclusive look at my manuscript, as you requested, for the next three months.
Simple, direct — and trust me, if the agent has a problem with the time you've specified, he'll contact you to ask for more.
Of course, protecting your ability to market your work isn't always that simple: negotiation is not possible with the other type of exclusive request, the kind that emerges from an agency that only reviews manuscripts if no one else is; the writer is not offered a choice in the matter. Consequently, a request for an exclusive from these folks is not so much a compliment to one's work (over and above the sheer desire to read some of it, that is) as a way of doing business.
In essence, exclusive-only agencies are saying to writers, "Look, since you chose to query us, we assume that you have already done your homework about what we represent — and believe us, we would not ask to see your manuscript if we didn't represent that kind of writing. So we expect you to say yes right away if we make you an offer."
Noticing a homework theme in all of these unspoken assumptions? Good. Let me pull out the bullhorn to reiterate: because agents tend to assume that any serious writer would take the time to learn how the publishing industry does and doesn't work, querying and submitting writers who don't do their homework are significantly more likely to get rejected than those who do.
Okay, bullhorns down; back to the issue at hand. Why might an exclusive submissions policy be advantageous for an agency to embrace?
Well, for one thing, it prevents them from ever having to experience the fear associated with the first type of exclusive request. If you send them pages, they may safely assume that you won't be e-mailing them a week later to say, "Um, Agent Q has just made me an offer, slowpoke. I still would like to consider your agency, so could you hurry up and finish reading my manuscript so you can give me an answer? As in by the end of the week?"
Okay, so you wouldn't really be that rude. (PLEASE tell me you wouldn't be that rude.) But let's face it, agents who don't require exclusive submissions do receive these types of e-mails fairly often: nervous writers often assume, mistakenly, that they should be sending agents who have their manuscripts constant updates. And agents hate the kind of missive mentioned in the last paragraph, because nobody, but nobody, reads faster than an agent who has just heard that the author of the manuscript that's been propping up his wobbly coffee table is fielding multiple offers.
Agencies who demand exclusivity are, by definition, unlikely to find themselves in an Oh, my God, I have to read this 400-page novel by tomorrow! situation. After even the third or fourth panicked all-nighter, exclusives might start to look like a pretty good policy.
Increased speed is the usual response to multiple offers, note. Since people who work in agencies are perfectly well aware that turn-around times have been expanding exponentially of late, the mere fact that other agents are considering a manuscript isn't likely to affect its place in the reading queue at all.
What does the writer get in return for agreeing not to submit to others for the time being? Not a heck of a lot, typically, unless the agency in question is in fact the best place for his work and she would unquestionably sign with them if they offered representation. But if one wants to submit to such an agency, one needs to follow its rules.
Happily, agencies that maintain this requirement tend to be far from quiet about it. Their agents will trumpet the fact from the conference dais. Requires exclusive submissions or even will accept only exclusive queries will appear upon their websites, in their listings in standard agency guides, and on their form replies requesting your first 50 pages.
(Yes, in response to that shocked wail your psyche just sent flying in my general direction: positive responses are often form-letters, too, even when they arrive in e-mail form. I sympathize with your dismay.)
If exclusives-only agencies had company T-shirts, in short, there would probably be an asterisk after the company's name and a footnote on the back about not accepting simultaneous submissions. If they're serious about the policy, they're serious about it, and trying to shimmy around such a policy will only get a writer into trouble.
Do I feel some of you tensing up again? Relax — agencies with this requirement are not very common.
Why? It limits their querying pool. Because they require their potential clients to bring their often protracted agent search to a screeching halt while the submission is under consideration, such agencies are, in the long run, more time-consuming for a writer to deal with than others. As a result, many ambitious aspiring writers, cautious about committing their time, will avoid querying agencies with this policy.
Which, again, is a matter of personal choice. Or it is if you happened to notice before you queried that the agency in question had this policy.
Do check their T-shirts in advance, though, because I assure you, no one concerned is going to have any sympathy for a writer complaining about feeling trapped in an exclusive. They'll just assume that she didn't do her homework.
Tomorrow morning, I shall discuss other aspects of this particular dilemma. In tonight's 8 pm post (hey, I need a bit of time to recover after physical therapy), it's back to query example analysis. In the meantime, keep up the good work!
Posted on September 13, 2010 - 4 Comments on Querypalooza, part XXII: slicing the pie attractively and stuffing it in a box. Or envelope. With a SASE.
Querypalooza, part XXII: slicing the pie attractively and stuffing it in a box. Or envelope. With a SASE.
After last night's rather depressing little post on how a relatively tiny tone adjustment can make the difference between a winning query letter and one that — how shall I put this? — does not tend to inspire confidence in Millicent the agency screener, it's rather a relief to be winging our way back to presentation and packaging, isn't it? This morning, I'm going to be picking up where we left off yesterday morning, talking about how a savvy writer should respond to a request for a partial manuscript.
A partial, for those of you new to the term, is a manuscript excerpt of a length specified by its requester — an agent, usually, although if an editor is considering buying the rights to one of her already-acquired authors' next book before it is finished (and thus preventing it from being subject to bidding from other publishers), she may ask for a particular number of pages or chapters.
How writers who have not yet landed agents typically encounter a partial is after a successful query or pitch. Rather than requesting the entire manuscript, the agent (or, more commonly for queries, the agent's Millicent) will say something like, "Send us the first 50." Then, if they like what they see in those opening pages, they will request either a longer piece (as in, "Send us the first 100.") or the full manuscript.
The lengths of partials vary by agency — 50 pages, the first three chapters, and 100 pages traditionally being the most popular options — but a partial will always begin on page 1. Which means, in practice, that if you're first told to send the first three chapters and later asked for the first 100, the first submission packet might contain pp. 1-62, but the second would invariably contain pp. 1-100.
Why? Well, weeks or months might pass between the time Millicent finished reading the first submission and sat down to enjoy the second. You wouldn't expect her just to pick up where she left off last time, would you? She reads far, far too many manuscripts to remember the details of even one she liked two months ago.
But I'm getting ahead of myself, amn't I? Before I delve into the rather intense implications of that last paragraph, let's make sure we're all on the same page, so to speak. How do the requested pages of a partial differ from the pages an agency's website might say queriers should include with their letters?
Glad you asked. You will be, too, I suspect.
REQUESTED MATERIALS — and well, everything else
To be absolutely clear, I'm not talking about sending pages to an agency whose guidelines specify that queriers should include the first chapter, a few pages, or a synopsis with a query — all of these would, in the industry's eyes, be unsolicited materials. Partials are always requested materials, meaning that a specific agent asks an individual writer to send (usually by regular mail) a predetermined number of pages.
Yes, yes, I know: it's a bit counter-intuitive that a blanket statement in an agency's submission guidelines that any agent currently operating under its roof would like to see certain materials from every querier doesn't constitute solicitation, but according to the logic of the industry, it doesn't. A list of what should go in a query packet does not a personal solicitation of even those same materials make.
Why am I raining on the partials parade by mentioning this up front, you ask? Because the consequences of confusing solicited and unsolicited manuscripts tend to be very, very high for the writer who blithely mails off the latter. So let's run over the difference in a touch more detail, shall we?
A solicited submission consists of manuscript pages that an agent is waiting to see, usually following a successful pitch or query. An unsolicited submission consists of a stack of manuscript pages from a writer who has not yet been personally asked to send anything.
Ne'er the twain shall meet, my friends. If an agency or small publishing house's submission guidelines do not SPECIFICALLY state that it wants to see pages, sending unsolicited materials almost universally results in those pages being rejected immediately, unread.
Continuing that logic, when an agency's guidelines say something like include the first chapter, that should not be read as an assurance that every first chapter sent to it will be read — which is, let's face it, precisely what the vast majority of queriers believe such guidelines to be promising. But reading the entire contents of every single query packet would be highly unusual, and not very efficient: as we have been discussing for much of the summer and shall be again later this week, most submissions contain rejection triggers on page 1. Sad, but true.
Only if Millicent finds the query letter compelling will she read any of the attached materials at all, which has even more drawbacks for the querier than might at first be apparent. Think about it: why would an agency want to see an unsolicited writing sample — which is, effectively, what any pages in a query packet constitute — with a query?
To save overall processing time, of course: in the long run, it's significantly less time-consuming for Millicent to be able to check those opening pages for rejection triggers while the query is still in her hand. How so? Well, the alternative — responding to the query with a request for a partial, waiting until it arrives, waiting until the submission packet works its way to the top of the reading pile, then scanning the opening pages for rejection triggers — eats up both the agency's time and space, yet 98% of the time, yields precisely the same result.
Thus, from the rejected writer's point of view, the primary difference between mailing a query packet containing that unsolicited first chapter and sending off just the query, waiting for a response, receiving a request for a partial, dispatching it, and hearing back in the negative is speed. While rapid turn-around is really only a plus if the answer is yes — and even then, the best possible outcome from a query packet is a request for the full manuscript, not an offer of representation.
Oh, hadn't I mentioned that an agent's accepting a client on a partial alone is practically unheard-of? That agency whose guidelines thrilled you by saying you could send 50 pages with your query will want to see the rest of your book before making up its mind about your writing, after all.
Do I spot some tears trembling in eyes reading this? "But Anne," those who have been favoring agencies that allow page submission with queries point out, and who could blame them? "I thought — well, never mind what I thought. But there's still a benefit to the querier in sending those unsolicited materials if the agency says it's okay, right? I mean, if Millie likes my query, she can fall in love with my writing on the spot. So from my perspective, this kind of query letter is quite a bit less time-consuming, too: it gets me to the full manuscript request stage that much quicker."
Potentially — but the accepted querier's gain in speed is bought at the cost of the rejected querier's not knowing whether her packet got rejected due to something in the query letter or in the enclosed manuscript pages. Even if Millicent did scan the attached pages before rejecting the packet, the writer will almost certainly never find that out. Few US agencies give specific rejection reasons anymore (yes, that missive expressing regret that I just didn't love this enough to feel confident trying to place it in the current competitive market was a form letter), so the more materials in the query packet, the more the rejected querier is left to speculate on what needs to be revised.
I'm not bringing all of this up to depress you (although I recognize that may be the effect) or to discourage anyone from querying any agency that asks for writing samples up front. It's just important to recognize that those pages are in fact writing samples — and thus unsolicited submissions, not requested materials.
Expect them to be treated accordingly. Believe me, the querying and submission process will be easier on you that way.
Everyone clear on the distinction between requested and unsolicited pages? Okay, here's a pop quiz, just to be sure: why is a partial invariably a solicited submission? (For bonus points, work into your answer the magic words a savvy submitter always writes on the outside of an envelope or places in the subject line of an e-mail bearing the partial to an agent.)
If you immediately leapt to your feet and shouted, "By jingo, a partial is a solicited submission by definition, because a partial is the precise number of pages the agent in question asked to see," pat yourself on the back three times. If you took a deep breath and added, "And I would never dream of sending any manuscript, partial or otherwise, that an agent or editor had asked to see without whipping out my trusty black marker and writing REQUESTED MATERIALS in 2-inch-high letters on the front of the envelope and/or in the subject line of the e-mail," award yourself another couple of hearty congratulatory slaps.
Then fling yourself onto the nearest chaise longue and take a few nice, deep breaths. That lulu of a second answer must have used up every cubic millimeter of oxygen in your lungs.
Now that you've caught your breath, shall we remind the rest of the class about why a savvy writer always scrawls REQUESTED MATERIALS on a submission? The answer to this one's as easy as pie: so the requested materials can't possibly be mistaken for an unsolicited submission.
That, and so those pages the agent asked to see will end up on the right end of Millicent's desk — or, at a large agency, on the right Millicent's desk, period. As painful as it may be for aspiring writers to contemplate, submissions can and sometimes do get misplaced; good labeling renders that dreadful eventuality less likely.
(It's less painful for agented writers to contemplate, typically; most of us have already lived through the trauma of having a manuscript go astray. A certain agency that shall remain nameless as long as I remain signed with them not only lost one of my manuscripts back in my submitting days; it sent me another writer's rejected manuscript in my SASE. They were quite apologetic when I returned it to them, along with a note suggesting that the author might be a better recipient for it.)
Oh, did the implication that submitting electronically might require some different steps catch you off-guard? Let's rectify that with all deliberate speed.
Submitting your partial via e-mail
Caution: all of what I'm about to say in this section refers to electronic submission of requested materials, not unsolicited ones. For guidance on sending a query packet by e-mail, check each individual agency's website for specific guidelines. (Had I already mentioned that every agency has its own set of expectations and preferences?)
When submitting requested materials via e-mail — a route a savvy writer takes only when an agent specifically requests it; even at this late date, many agencies do not accept electronic submissions at all, even if they accept e-mailed queries — include your partial as a Word attachment. (As much as some writers may prefer other word processing programs, Word is the industry standard. For another workable alternative, please see helpful reader Jens' recent comment on the subject.) If you work on a Mac, make sure to check the Send Windows-friendly attachments box; most agencies operate on PCs, and not particularly new ones at that.
You want the agent of your dreams to be able to open your document, don't you? Millicent tends to be very, very cranky when she can't open an attachment, and even at this late date, few NYC-based agencies employ an in-house computer expert. So the sooner any writer gets used to the idea that any computer compatibility problems are likely to be considered the writer's problem, not the agent's, the happier your working life will be.
Speaking of difficulties opening files — or, as Millicent likes to call them, "what happens when writers don't know what they're doing" — it's also an excellent idea for those working on the newest generation of Word to send the document in an older version. Specifically, send it as .doc file (Word 97-2004), not as a .docx file (anything more recent). The Save As… option under the FILE menu will allow you to make this switch easily.
Yes, I know it's 2010. Try explaining that to a Millicent who's stuck working on a decade-old PC that's running a 2003 operating system — and trying to upload a submission onto her boss' 2009 Kindle. Make her life easier.
If you are submitting requested materials via e-mail, use the body of the e-mail for your cover letter, but include any additional requested materials as separate attachments. In other words, unless the agent actually asked you to combine elements or place the whole shebang into the body of an e-mail (rare, but it happens; agents are as reluctant to download viruses as anybody else), the author bio should not be in the same document as the partial, and Millicent should be able to open your synopsis without having to scroll through the first 50 pages of your manuscript.
The sole exception: include your title page in the partial's file, not as a separate document. Or, to put it another way, the title page should be the first page in the partial document, followed by the first page of text. Remember, though, that the title page should neither be numbered nor carry a slug line:
Unlike the first page of text — or any other page of text, for that matter:
Is that wheezing sound an indicator that those of you who meticulously constructed your title pages as separate documents have begun to hyperventilate? Not to worry — adding your title page to your partial file is as easy as copying it, pasting it into the beginning of the partial, and adding a page break. No fuss, no muss, and very little bother.
And yet the wheezing continues. "But Anne," a few of you gasp, "if I send the title and the body of the partial in the same Word document, won't the title page automatically have a slug line — and be numbered, too?"
Not necessarily — but there is a trick to it. Under the FORMAT menu, select Document, then Layout. Here, select the Different First Page option, then click OK. That, as the option's name implies, will give your first page a different header and footer than the rest of the partial. After that, it's simply a matter of placing the slug line in the header for the first page of text.
Before you have to waste breath asking, allow me to add: in order to prevent Word from counting the title page as page 1 and the first page of text as page 2, use the Format Page Number option under VIEW/Header and Footer to set the Start at… number to zero. Voilà! The first page of text is now page 1!
Hey, what did you mean, any additional requested materials?
Just as some agencies' guidelines call for pages to be included in a query packet and some do not, some partial-requesting agents ask writers to slip additional materials into a submission packet. Obviously (and I do hope that it is indeed obvious to you by this point in our discussion), you should not include any extra materials unless the agent asks for them — but it never hurts to have any or all of the following on hand at querying time, just in case somebody requests one or more of them.
To continue the lengthy tradition that I started a couple of days ago — ah, those were happy times, were they not? — let's run through the most popular additions in the order they should appear in a hard-copy submission packet:
3. The requested pages in standard format.
4. Synopsis, if one was requested, clearly labeled AS a synopsis.
Here again, terminology may not be the writer's friend. With fiction or memoir, when an outline is requested, they usually mean a synopsis, not an annotated table of contents of the kind one might find in a book proposal. For nonfiction, however, an outline pretty much always means an annotated table of contents.
Most of the time, though, what an agent will ask to see for any types of book is a synopsis: a 1-5 page (double-spaced) overview of the basic plot or argument of the book.
If you don't already have one handy, or if you're not happy with the one you have, make sure to turn back in on Thursday, September 23rd for the gala opening of Synopsispalooza! (Hey, you asked; I listened.)
5. Marketing plan, if one was requested.
These were all the rage a few years ago for both fiction and memoir, but since the economy slowed down, they seem to have fallen out of favor as a submission-packet request, especially for partials. But just in case you get asked to produce one, a marketing plan is a brief (2-5 pages, double-spaced) explanation of who the target audience is for a particular book, why this book will appeal to those readers, and what you — not the publishing house's marketing department, but YOU, the author — will do in order to alert potential readers to that appeal.
Sound familiar? It should –it's an expanded version of the target audience and platform paragraph of the query. There are also entire sections of the book proposal devoted to these very subjects. That's where fiction agents got the idea.
If a first-time novelist happens to have a terrific platform for the book she's writing — if she's the world's leading authority on drive-in movie theatres, for instance, and her novel happens to be set in one — an agent may well wish to tuck a marketing plan that talks about all the lectures on drive-ins (and in drive-ins) the author is going to be giving over the next couple of years.
As I said, though, it's largely fallen out of fashion for fiction. But let me turn it around to you: have any of you novelists been asked to provide marketing plans with your submissions lately? If so, let me know, and I'll run a brief series on how a novelist might go about pulling one together.
An author bio is a one-page (double-spaced) or half-page (single-spaced) plus photo account of the submitting writer's professional credentials. Typically, when an agent submits a manuscript or book proposal to editors, the author bio is the last page in the stack of paper.
Since author bios are far from easy to write, I always recommend that aspiring writers construct them well in advance, so they have a great one on hand to tuck into the submission packet. I suspect that I'm going to yield to those nagging voices in the ether and launch Authorbiopalooza immediately after I put Synopsispalooza to bed. Stay tuned.
7. A SASE big enough that everything you're sending the agent can be returned to you
Out comes the broken record again: always use stamps, not metered postage, for the SASE.
"But Anne," my formerly-wheezing readers point out, and rightly so, "isn't the whole point of this mini-series to address the specific challenges of the aspiring writer who hasn't been asked to send the entire manuscript? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the first three chapters of most manuscripts fit into a 10″ x 17″ Manila envelope?"
You are far from wrong, ex-wheezers: a nice, crisp Manila envelope is just the thing for submitting a partial. Fold a second envelope in half and poke it into the first as the SASE.
These days, even if a writer submits requested materials via regular mail, she will probably receive a positive response via e-mail. (That will probably be a form letter, too, but you'll mind it less.) However, if you want to send a second, business-size envelope SASE as well, to make it easy for Millicent to request the rest of the manuscript, place it at the bottom of the packet (and mention it in your cover letter.)
Since the vast majority of agencies are congenitally allergic to submitters calling, e-mailing, or even writing to find out if a manuscript actually arrived — check the agency's website or guide listing to be sure — it's also a fair-to-middling idea to include a self-addressed, stamped postcard for the agency to mail to you to acknowledge receipt of the manuscript. As I mentioned the other day, to generate a chuckle in a hard-worked Millicent, I always liked to send a SASP that looked like this — although with a stamp attached, of course:
Don't worry about this causing trouble; it doesn't, provided you do it courteously, and you will have proof that they received it. This is important, because as I MAY have mentioned, manuscripts do go astray from time to time.
Want to get the same information without running the risk that a witty postcard won't elicit a chuckle? Pay a little more at the post office for the Delivery Confirmation service; they'll give you a tracking number, so you may follow your submission's progress through the mail.
What you should most emphatically not do is send your submission via a mailing service that will require someone at the agency end to sign for the packet. Although this would obviously be the best proof, should you ever need it, that the manuscript did in fact arrive, signature-requiring packages fall under the rubric of Millicent's most notorious pet peeves — why, she reasons, should she (or the guy in the mail room) have to take time out of her (or his) busy day just because some writer is nervous?
9. Pack it all in your Manila envelope and write REQUESTED MATERIALS on the front.
Straightening up the stack of paper will minimize the possibility of in-transit mutilation, incidentally. If the envelope you have selected is a tight fit — snug enough, say, that the pages might get wrinkled in the stuffing-in process — for heaven's sake, find yourself a larger envelope. As we've discussed, it's in your interest for it to arrive pretty.
Oh, and while I have your attention, this seems like a dandy time to haul out the broken record player again. (You'd thought you'd seen the last of it, hadn't you?)
No matter how many pages or extra materials you were asked to send, do remember to read your submission packet IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN HARD COPY, and OUT LOUD before you seal that envelope. Lest we forget, everything you send to an agency is a writing sample: impeccable grammar, punctuation, and printing, please.
Tomorrow morning, we'll be wrapping up this discussion of partials via a quick tour of the major mistakes aspiring writers tend to make in constructing their submission packets. Meanwhile, adhering to our recent packaging/content post alternation plan, tonight's 8 pm PST post will be devoted to another round of examples of good and less-good queries.
Until then, slice that pie and pack it for traveling nicely; the extra time to package it professionally honestly is worthwhile. Keep up the good work!
Posted on September 11, 2010 - No Comments on Querypalooza, part XVIII: wrapping it all up and (not) tying it with a big, pretty bow
Querypalooza, part XVIII: wrapping it all up and (not) tying it with a big, pretty bow
Okay, I admit it: I'm being a bit inconsistent today. Last night, I got so carried away talking about how to write a query for a multiple-protagonist novel that I completely forgot that I would not have time this morning to polish off the example-rich follow-up post I had planned. So I woke up this morning with half a dozen entirely unrelated query examples, no framework in which to put them, no time in which to create that framework, and a significant other cheerfully calling out, "So you'll be ready to go in an hour, right?"
The result: this morning, you're going to see that I had originally prepared to run this morning. This evening, running-around schedule permitting, I shall be inundating you with lovely examples of good and bad queries, so you may gain a stronger sense of what it looks like when it all fits together well.
Try to think of it as cross-training.
To our muttons. Before I decided to plunge back into the nitty-gritty of query composition, we were chatting about how to put together query packets, as well as their more illustrious cousins, submission packets. Even in these mercurial days of e-mailed queries, electronic submission, and Hubble telescope photographs of far-flung celestial bodies (I'm a sucker for a nice snapshot of Jupiter), most agencies still prefer paper submissions. Heck, many still insist on mailed queries as well.
Why? Well, fear of computer viruses, for one thing. But even more important: it's so much easier for an electronic submission to get lost.
Hey, when Millicent gets on an online submission screening roll, she hits the DELETE key more than any other. Not too surprising that her finger would slip occasionally, is it? Force of habit, really.
For reasons both of tradition and prudence, then, a lot of writers are going to be in the market for shipping containers for their manuscripts in the months to come. Yet as insightful long-time reader Jen wrote in to ask some time back:
This is an excellent question, Jen: many, many aspiring writers worry that a simple Manila envelope, or even the heavier-duty Priority Mail envelope favored by the US Postal Service, will not preserve their precious pages in pristine condition. Especially, as is all too common, if those pages are crammed into an envelope or container too small to hold them comfortably, or that smashes the SASE into them so hard that it leaves an indelible imprint in the paper.
Do I sense some readers scratching their heads? "But Anne," some of you ask, "once a submission is tucked into an envelope and mailed, it is completely out of the writer's control. Surely, the Millicents who inhabit agencies, as well as the Maurys who screen submissions at publishing houses and their Aunt Mehitabels who judge contest entries, are fully aware that pages that arrive bent were probably mangled in transit, not by the writer who sent them. They can't blame me for mashed mail, can they?"
Well, yes and no, head-scratchers. Yes, pretty much everyone who has ever received a mauled letter is cognizant of the fact that envelopes do occasionally get caught in sorting machines. Also, mail gets tossed around a fair amount in transit. So even a beautifully put-together submission packet may arrive a tad crumpled.
Do most professional readers cut the submitter slack for this? Sometimes; as I've mentioned before, if Millicent's just burned her lip on that latté that she never seems to remember to let cool, it's not going to take much for the next submission she opens to annoy her. In the case of contest entries, I don't know Aunt Mehitabel personally, but I have heard contest judges over the years complain vociferously to one another about the state in which entries have arrived on their reading desks.
All of which is to say: appearances count. You should make an effort to get your submission to its intended recipient in as neat a state as possible.
How does one go about insuring that? The most straightforward way, as Jen suggests, is to ship it in a box designed for the purpose. Something, perhaps, along the lines of this:
Just kidding; we're not looking for a medieval Bible box here. What most professional writers like to use looks a little something like this:
This is the modern manuscript box: sturdy white or brown corrugated cardboard with a lid that is attached along one long side. Usually, a manuscript box will hold from 250 to 750 pages of text comfortably, without sliding from side to side.
In practice, any clean, previously-unused box large enough to hold all of the requested materials without crumpling them will work to mail a submission.
Some of you are resisting the notion of using just any old box, aren't you, rather than one specially constructed for the purpose? I'm not entirely surprised. I hear all the time from writers stressing out about what kind of box to use — over and above clean, sturdy, and appropriately-sized, that is — and not without good reason. In the old days — say, 30+ years ago — the author was expected to provide a box, and a rather nice one, then wrap it in plain brown paper for shipping. These old boxes are beautiful, if you can still find one: dignified black cardboard, held together by shining brass brads.
For sending a manuscript, though, there's no need to pack it in anything extravagant: no agent is going to look down upon your submission because it arrives in an inexpensive box.
In fact, if you can get the requested materials there in one piece box-free — say, if it is an excerpt short enough to fit into a Manila folder or Priority Mail cardboard envelope without wrinkling — go ahead. This almost always will work for the briefer stack of materials acceptable to send in a query packet.
Remember the Sanitary Author's advice about printing all of your query and submission packet materials on bright white 20 lb. paper or better? This is part of the reason why. It honestly is penny-wise and pound-foolish to use cheap paper for submissions; not only does heavier paper ship better, but it's less likely to wilt over the course of the multiple readings a successful submission will often see at an agency. (Good rule of thumb: if you can look at a stack of printed pages and see even a vague outline of page 2 while you're examining page 1, your paper isn't heavy enough.)
Look for a box with the right footprint to ship a manuscript without too much internal shifting. In general, it's better to get a box that is a little too big than one that's a little too small. To keep the manuscript from sliding around and getting crumpled, insert wads of bubble wrap or handfuls of peanuts around it, not wadded-up paper.
Yes, the latter is more environmentally-friendly, but we're talking about presentation here. Avoid the temptation to use newspaper, too; newsprint stains.
Most office supply stores carry perfectly serviceable white boxes — Office Depot, for instance, stocks a perfectly serviceable recycled cardboard variety — but if you live in the greater Seattle area, funky plastic toy store Archie McPhee's, of all places, routinely carries fabulous red and blue boxes exactly the right size for a 450-page manuscript WITH adorable little black plastic handles for about a buck each. My agent gets a kick out of 'em, reportedly, and while you're picking one up, you can also snag a bobble-head Edgar Allan Poe doll that bears an uncomfortably close resemblance to Robert Goulet:
If that's not one-stop shopping, I should like to know what is.
Your local post office will probably stock manuscript-sized boxes as well, as does USPS online. Post offices often conceal some surprisingly inexpensive options behind those counters, so it is worth inquiring if you don't see what you need on display.
Do be warned, though, that the USPS' 8 1/2" x 11" boxes only LOOK as though they will fit a manuscript comfortably without bunching the pages. The actual footprint of the bottom of the box is the size of a piece of paper, so there is no wiggle room to, say, insert a stack of paper without wrinkling it.
Trust me, that's not something you want to find out after you've already printed out your submission.
Yes, yes, I know: the USPS is purportedly the best postal service in the world, a boon to humanity, and one of the least expensive to boot. Their gallant carriers have been known to pursue their appointed rounds despite the proverbial sleet, hail, dark of night, and mean dogs. But when faced with an only apparently manuscript-ready box on a last-minute deadline, the thought must occur to even the most flag-proud: do the postal services of other countries confound their citizens in this way?
What do they expect anyone to put in an 8 1/2" x 11" box OTHER than a manuscript? A beach ball? A pony? A small automobile?
All that being said, far and away the most economical box source for US-based writers are those free all-you-can-stuff-in-it Priority Mail boxes that the post office provides:
Quite the sexy photo, isn't it, considering that it's of an object made of cardboard? Ravishing. If you don't happen to mind all of the postal service propaganda printed all over it, these 12″ x 12″ x 5 1/2″ boxes work beautifully, with a little padding. (Stay away from those wadded-up newspapers, I tell you.)
As dandy as this recycling is for birthday presents and the like, it's not appropriate for shipping a submission. It's unprofessional — and if there's ever a time when you want your work to be presented as professionally as possible, it's when you're submitting it.
Think about it: do you really want your manuscript to arrive looking as if you just grabbed the nearest cardboard container? Or to prompt an allergy-prone Millicent to mutter between sneezes, "Why does this submission smell of fabric softener?" (One drawback of nicer paper: it soaks up ambient smells like a sponge. My memoir editor evidently smoked a couple of cartons over my manuscript, and even now, years later, the marked-up pages still smell like the employee handbook in a Marlboro factory.)
"But wait!" I hear the box-savvy cry, "those Amazon boxes are about 4 inches high, and my manuscript is about 3 inches high. It just cries out, 'Stuff your manuscript into me and send me to an agent!'"
A word of advice: don't take advice from cardboard boxes; they are not noted for their brilliance. Spring for something new, and recycle that nice Amazon box for another purpose.
And you do know, I hope, that every time you send requested materials, you should write REQUESTED MATERIALS in great big letters in the lower left-hand corner of the submission envelope, don't you? (If you have been asked to submit electronically, include the words REQUESTED MATERIALS in the subject line of the e-mail.) This will help your submission to land on the right desk, instead of in the slush pile or recycling bin.
Yes, readers who have had your hands raised since this post began? "This is all very helpful, Anne, but a bit superficial, literally. I want to know what goes INSIDE that manuscript box and in what order."
Okay, let's pretend for a moment that you have just been asked to submit materials to the agent of your dreams. To be absolutely clear, I'm talking about REQUESTED materials here, not just sending pages to an agency that asks queriers to include the first chapter, a few pages, or a synopsis with a query — all of these would, in the industry's eyes, be unsolicited pages.
I know, it's a trifle counter-intuitive that a blanket statement on a website, in an agency guide, or from a conference dais that a particular agent would like to receive these materials from all queriers doesn't constitute solicitation, but it doesn't. The logic runs thus: guidelines that recommend submitting extra material with a query are generic, aimed at any aspiring writer who might conceivably be considering sending a query.
By contrast, a solicited submission, a.k.a. requested materials, is one that an agent is WAITING to see because she has asked a particular writer to send it following a successful pitch or query. Because the agent expressed positive interest in seeing those pages, the lucky requestee is fully justified in scrawling REQUESTED MATERIALS in letters two inches high in the lower right-hand corner of the envelope or shipping box, just to the left of the address, to assure that the submission lands on the right desk instead of the slush pile made up of, you guessed it, unsolicited manuscripts.
Just as generic requests vary in what agents ask queriers to send, so do requests for solicited material. While every agency and small publishing house seems to have a slightly different idea of what constitutes a standard submission packet (word to the wise: read those requests CAREFULLY), here are the most commonly-requested constituent parts, in the order in which they are generally expected to appear in the packet:
You HAVE been sending cover letters with your submissions, right? Just sending a manuscript all by itself is considered a bit rude, as well as strategically unwise.
"Oh, please, Anne," the submission-weary murmur. "Rude? What do you call making a querier write ANOTHER letter to an agent who has already agreed to read my work?"
I sympathize with the submission fatigue, oh weary ones, but don't get your hackles up. In the first place, there's no need for a long-winded missive — a simple thank-you to the agent for having asked to see the materials enclosed will do. It's hardly onerous.
In the second place, the submitter is the one who benefits from including a cover letter — all the more so because so few writers remember to tuck one into their packets. An astonishingly high percentage of submissions arrive without a cover letter, and often without a title page as well, begging the question: what makes these submitting writers so positive that the requesting agent will still remember their queries well enough to render page one of chapter one instantly recognizable?
I'm not going to depress you by telling you just how unlikely this is to be the case. Suffice it to say that it's in your best interest to assume that the person who heard your pitch or read your query won't be the first person to screen your submission, for the very simple reason that it is, in fact, often a different person.
It doesn't really make sense to presume that everyone who sets eyes on your manuscript will already be familiar with who you are and what you write. In fact, you should assume precisely the opposite. (Why do you think a properly-formatted manuscript has a slug line identifying the author on each and every page?) The poor strategic value of not being polite enough to identify your work and thank the agent for asking to see it aside, though, it's very much in your self-interest to include a cover letter.
Does anyone out there want to take a guess at the practical reason omitting both a cover letter and a title page might render a submitter less likely to get picked up?
If you instantly cried, "Because it renders the agency's contacting the submitter substantially more difficult!" give yourself a gold star for the day. Like a query letter and a title page, a good cover letter should include all of the sender's contact information — because the last response you want your submission to generate is a heart-felt, "Oh, it's too bad we have no idea who sent us this or how to contact him or her; all we have is the author's last name in the slug line. This saddens me, because I really liked this manuscript!"
Yes, that little piece of dialogue is pretty lousy, now that you mention it. But you get my point, right?
"Okay, Anne," the former head-scratchers concede, "I should include a cover letter. What does it need to say?"
Glad you asked. Under most circumstances, all it needs to say is this:
Seriously, that's all there is to it. Like any other thank-you letter, the courtesy lies more in the fact that the sender took the time to write it, rather than in what it actually says.
A couple of caveats:
(a) If you met the agent at a conference, mention that in the first paragraph of the letter, to help place your submission in context. As crushing as it may be for the writerly ego to contemplate, an agent who spent days on end listening to hundreds of pitches probably is not going to remember each one. No need to re-pitch, but a gentle reminder never hurts.
While you're at it, it's not a bad idea to write the name of the conference on the outside of the envelope, along with REQUESTED MATERIALS. Heck, it's a very good idea to write the conference's name on the outside of a query to an agent one has heard speak at a conference, too, or to include the conference's name in the subject line of a query e-mail. The point here is to render it pellucidly clear to the agent why you're contacting her.
(b) If another agent is already reading all or part of the manuscript you're sending — or has asked to see it — mention this in your cover letter. No need to say who it is or how long s/he has had it; just tell the recipient that s/he's not the only one considering representing this book. Unless the agency has a policy forbidding simultaneous submissions, withholding this information will only generate resentment down the line if more than one agent wants to represent your book.
Yes, even if that agent to whom you submitted 9 months ago has just never responded. Actually, it's in your strategic interest to contact that non-responder to let her know that another agent now has your manuscript.
(c) Make sure ALL of your contact information is on the letter, either in the header (letterhead-style, as I have shown above) or under your signature. Again, you want to make sure that the agent of your dreams can call you up and rave about how much she loved your submission, right?
(d) Make absolutely certain that the letter includes the title of your book, just in case the letter and the manuscript end up on different desks. (Yes, it happens. Don't ask; just prepare for the contingency.)
Everyone comfortable with the cover letter? For more tips on how to construct one with aplomb, please see COVER LETTERS FOR SUBMISSIONS (where do I come up with these obscure category titles?) on the list at right.
ALWAYS include this, if any manuscript pages have been requested — yes, even if you have already sent the first 50 pages, and are now sending the rest of the book.
Also, like the cover letter, a properly-constructed title page renders it easy for an agent to track you down. Believe me, if the agent of your dreams falls in love with your manuscript, you're going to want to hear about it right away.
Actually, in this instance, you should send only the first 50 pages even if they do not end in a period. Even if the designated last page ends mid-sentence, stop there.
As to sending pages in standard manuscript format, please, it's impossible to over-estimate the desirability of sending professionally-formatted submissions. If you're brand-new to reading this blog or have somehow avoided my repeated and vehement posts on standard format for manuscripts over the last five years, please see the HOW TO FORMAT A MANUSCRIPT and STANDARD FORMAT ILLUSTRATED categories on the list at right.
For the benefit of those of you who are going to blow off that last piece of advice because you're in a hurry — oh, I know that you're out there — allow me to add something you would have learned from those posts on formatting: a manuscript intended for submission should not be bound in any way.
With fiction, when an outline is requested, they usually mean a synopsis, not the annotated table of contents appropriate for nonfiction. For nonfiction, an outline means an annotated table of contents.
Most of the time, though, what an agent will ask to see for either is a synopsis. As I mentioned last time, I haven't done a synopsis how-to in a while, so if you would like me to run a Synopsispalooza, drop me a line in the comments. For those of you in a greater hurry, please check out the HOW TO WRITE A SYNOPSIS category at right. (How do I come up with these category titles?)
An author bio is a one-page (double-spaced) or half-page (single-spaced) plus photo account of the submitting writer's professional credentials. Typically, when an agent submits a manuscript or book proposal to editors, the author bio is tucked immediately at the end of the manuscript or sample chapter. (Authorbiopalooza, anyone?)
This should be automatic by now, but to recap for those of you who will read this weeks or months from now in the archives: that's a self-addressed, stamped envelope, for those of you new to the game, and for a submission or query packet, it should be large enough to send back every scrap of paper you're mailing to the agency.
Well, it would be impracticable to fold up another box inside. If you have been asked to send so many pages that you need to pack 'em in a box, paper-clip a return mailing label and stamps to your cover letter, along with a polite request that the agent would affix both to the shipping box in the event of rejection.
To be on the safe side, explain HOW you want them to reuse the box: peel the back off the mailing label, stick it over the old label, affix new postage, and seal. (You didn't hear it from me, of course, but sometimes, they evidently have trouble figuring it out.)
If you're getting the manuscript back, it's because Millicent's rejected it. Who cares if the pages show up on your doorstep bent?
It's also a good idea to include a self-addressed, stamped postcard for the agency to mail to you to acknowledge receipt of the manuscript. To generate a chuckle in a hard-worked Millicent, I always liked to send a SASP that looked like this — although with a stamp attached, of course:
Don't worry about this causing trouble; it doesn't, and you will have proof that they received it. This is important, because manuscripts do go astray from time to time. You can also have the post office track the box for a low fee.
Why, this suggestion seems strangely familiar, somehow…oh, yes, we spent the top half of this post talking about it.
And that, my friends, is the low-down on the submission packet. Don't forget that EVERYTHING you send to an agency is a writing sample: impeccable grammar, punctuation, and printing please. No smudges or bent corners, either. Make it all pretty and hope for the best.
This evening — that's 7 pm PST, for those of you new to Querypalooza — we shall be plunging back into the murky world of query creation. Have a nice Saturday, and keep up the good work!
Posted on September 10, 2010 - No Comments on Querypalooza, part XVI: the logic — and illogic — behind the SASE, or, how to be prepared if something falls on you from a zeppelin
Querypalooza, part XVI: the logic — and illogic — behind the SASE, or, how to be prepared if something falls on you from a zeppelin
I have a few more insights into query-construction, campers — hard as it is to believe that I left anything out over the last week, I've just realized that I had yet to address the problems inherent to writing a query for a multiple-protagonist, multi-perspective, and/or multi-voiced novel. I shall be addressing those burning issues tonight, never fear.
And yes, it was in poor taste to use the phrase burning issues immediately below a photo of a zeppelin, now that you mention it. Sorry about that, but as it happens, the matters I shall be tackling this morning are ones notorious for blowing up in aspiring writers' faces when they least expect it.
Last time, I began talking about the infamous and ubiquitously-requested SASE, industry-speak for the Stamped, Self-Addressed Envelope (get it?) that should accompany EVERY mailed query letter and/or submission packet. (E-mailed queries and submissions cannot include them, obviously, as these forms of communication have no temporal heft to them.)
Forgetting to include a SASE is an instant-rejection offense at most agencies, and with good reason: if the agent decides to pick up the manuscript, the writer's having included the expected SASE demonstrates a pleasing ability to follow directions, and if the agent decides to pass, s/he may return rejected pages at the writer's expense. Yes, I know: it's annoying to be underwriting one's own rejection, but there actually are some benefits for the writer in this arrangement.
To name but one: finding out that your query or submission has in fact been rejected, rather than gnawing your fingernails in perpetual worry for a year or two.
Contrary to popular opinion, a SASE shouldn't always take the form of a business-size envelope; it varies according to what was sent in the first place. For a query, it's usually letter-sized, but should you happen to be querying an agency whose guidelines call for writers to include more than five pages of additional materials (e.g., writing sample, synopsis, author bio, book proposal, a chapter or two), you'd be sending that in a Manila envelope, right? In that case, the SASE would need to be a second Manila envelope, stuffed inside the first, carrying sufficient materials to ship all of those additional materials back to you.
Why? Because the point of the SASE is to ensure the safe return of whatever a writer sends to an agency; you should always include enough postage on your SASE that everything you submitted may be popped into it and mailed. The basic rule of thumb is to include a container and enough postage for the recipient to be able to ship any materials you may have submitted back to you.
Probably the latter, I'm guessing, because I'm constantly meeting aspiring writers who are unaware that a SASE should also accompany a manuscript submission. And I'm not just talking about the stamped, self-addressed #10 envelope one would send with a mailed query letter: I'm talking about a package with enough postage to get all of those requested pages back to the writer in one piece.
It can get cumbersome, once the time comes to pack it all up. Not to say expensive, especially for writer submitting to US-based agencies from outside the country, who not only have to figure out what the return postage would be in dollars instead of their local currency, but have to wrap their eager fingertips around some US stamps.
The expectation that an aspiring writer will ALWAYS include a SASE with any kind of paper query or submission is universal, at least among U.S. agencies and publishers, so much so that I've noticed that many agencies don't even explain what it means on their websites or listings in the standard guides anymore. It's become one of those secret handshake things — you know, a practices that the industry just assumes that any writer who is serious about getting published will magically know all about without being told.
SASE logic seems to be counterintuitive for many aspiring writers. I'm constantly barraged with questions from readers about why, in the age of fairly universal paper recycling and cheap, high-quality printers, a writer shouldn't just ask an agent to recycle a rejected manuscript. Quoth, for instance, clever reader Melospiza:
Oh, would only that were possible, Melospiza, but there's a rather basic, practical reason to include the SASE for safe return of the manuscript: as with a SASEless query, NOT including a SASE in a submission is usually an automatic-rejection trigger.
The owners of all of those eyebrows are clutching their heads now, aren't they, thinking of all of those SASEless submissions — or, more likely, submissions accompanied by only a #10 SASE, rather than one with sufficient postage for the manuscript's return — they sent out in the dark days of yore. "Okay, I can understand why Millicent would reject SASE-free queries without reading them," these head-clutchers cry, "but why, in heaven's name, would an agent who asked to see pages reject them unread?"
Good question, oh retrospective panickers. The short answer: because it's obvious to Millicent that a writer who submits without a manuscript-size SASE doesn't know the secret handshake.
The longer answer is hardly more comforting. In the publishing industry, it's considered downright rude for a writer not to include a SASE both large enough and loaded down with enough pre-paid postage to send EVERYTHING enclosed back to the sender. Which means, in practical terms, that if the agency is going to keep its side of the tacit agreement allowing it to read a writer's unpublished work, IT is going to have to shell out the dosh to mail the rejected manuscript back.
Ditto with a query letter that arrives unaccompanied by a SASE. The result in both cases is generally a form-letter rejection — or no response at all. (Yes, even for a submission. Pages often go bye-bye.)
I implore you, no matter how little you want to see that manuscript again, do not omit the SASE for the return of the manuscript — UNLESS the agency's website or listing in one of the standard agency guides says specifically that they will recycle rejected manuscripts. (Practically none of them do, but check anyway.)
Okay, before the disgruntled muttering out there becomes too deafening, let's voice it: "You must be pulling our collective leg, Anne," I hear some of you saying. "Okay, maybe SASEless queries do tend to get rejected unread, but I can't believe that it happens to submitted manuscripts or book proposals. By the time an agent is sufficiently interested in you to want to see actual chapters of your book, your foot is too firmly in the door for your submission to be tossed aside unread for a reason as unrelated to the quality of the writing as not including a SASE. I mean, really, what purpose would being that touchy serve?"
A fairly tangible one, actually: it would be one less manuscript for Millicent to read. Remember, it's her job to reject 98% of what crosses her desk; even a very successful agent at a giant agency seldom picks up more then 5 or 6 new clients per year, even including ones poached from other agencies. (Which happens all the time, by the way. It would astonish most aspiring writers to know just how many of us agented writers are unhappy with our current representation. As I say early and often, you don't want just any agent to represent you — you want a well-connected, engaged agent who loves your writing and will defend it to the death.)
Thus every submission that disqualifies itself on technical grounds is another step toward that ongoing goal of thinning the pack of contenders. Do you really want to volunteer your precious manuscript for that particular kamikaze mission?
Admittedly, from the submitter's point of view, a good argument could be made that this practice inevitably leads to, as Melospiza rightly points out, a big ol' waste of money, not to mention trees, without really providing much benefit to the people who actually pay for the return postage. After all, from the writer's perspective, a SASE included with a submission is only going to be used if the news is bad. If the agency likes the MS, they're going to ask to see the rest of the manuscript — which means your initial submission will get filed, you will send another packet (with another SASE), and your first SASE may well end up in the trash.
If they don't like it, all you are doing by providing the postage is paying to get the news that they're turning you down in a way that will make your postal carrier's back ache, rather than via a nice, light #10 envelope. So why not just send the manuscript along with a business-size SASE, and be done with it?
Because that's not how the industry works, that's why. (See commentary above re: secret handshakes.)
If you're willing to risk it, you could always include a line in the cover letter, POLITELY asking the agency to recycle the manuscript if they decide not to offer representation and mentioning the business-sized SASE enclosed for their reply. Do be aware, however, that this strategy sometimes backfires with screeners trained to check first for a manuscript-sized SASE: it's not unheard-of for the Millicents of the world to toss aside such a manuscript to be tossed aside without reading the cover letter.
As I believe I may have mentioned before, I don't make the rules of submission; I only try to render them comprehensible. Let's all pray that when Millicent does engage in the summary rejection of the SASEless, she flings that precious ream of paper into a recycling bin.
Originally, the whole paper-wasting arrangement was set up this way in order to PROTECT writers. The sad thing is, though, the logic behind this one is so pre-computer — heck, it's pre-recycling, if you don't count Abe Lincoln scrawling the Gettysburg Address on the back of a used envelope — that it's likely to be counterintuitive to anyone querying or submitting for the first time today.
Return with me now to those thrilling days of yesteryear, when books were widely read, writers didn't need agents because publishing houses still read through their slush piles, and the photocopier had not yet been invented. Prior to personal computers (and nice laser printers in workplaces that might be accessible after the boss goes home for the day), you could not print out spare copies of your precious manuscript to submit to every Tom, Dick, and Random House in the biz, obviously. Nor could you attach a Word document to an e-mail and send it off via Pony Express.
Equally obviously, no sane human being would send out his only copy. So how did writers reproduce their work to submit to several publishing houses simultaneously?
They retyped it, that's how. Every single page, every single syllable, every single time.
Think those hardy souls wanted to get their rejected manuscripts back? Darned tootin'. It might save them weeks of retyping time.
My long-term readers will have heard my favorite concrete example of how these returned manuscripts helped writers before, but it's a terrific illustration of just how much the SASE used to assist the average aspiring writer. Back in the far-away 1950s, my mother, Kleo, was married to Philip, a struggling science fiction writer. While she toiled away at work and went to school, Philip spent his days composing short stories.
As writers did in those dark days prior to e-mail, Philip and Kleo stuffed each of those short stories into a gray Manila envelope with a second envelope folded up inside as a SASE and sent them off to any magazine that had evinced even the remotest interest in SF or fantasy. (Except for the ones that Kleo hand-sold by taking to a magazine editor, which is actually how Philip got his first story published. She was, in effect, his original agent. But I digress.)
Each time a short story was rejected — as, in the beginning, all of Philip's and Kleo's were — and landed once again in their mailbox with the accuracy of a well-flung boomerang, they acted as professional writers should act: they submitted the rejected story to another magazine immediately. To minimize retyping, they would iron any pages that had gotten bent in the mail, slip the manuscript into a fresh envelope (yes, with a fresh SASE), and pop it in the mail.
(Which reminds me to nag those of you sending out manuscripts in the computer age: when was the last time you made a back-up of your manuscript? If, heaven forfend, a gigantic anvil fell from one of those anvil-toting zeppelins we're always seeing overhead these days onto your main writing space, would it crush both your computer and your back-ups? I don't want to see you crawling about in the ashes, frantically trying to find the remnants of your hard disk.)
One day, the young couple opened their front door to find 17 rejected manuscripts spread all over their miniscule front porch. Their tiny mailbox apparently hadn't been able to hold that many emphatic expressions of "No!"
So what did the aspiring writers of yesteryear do when faced with 17 rejections on the same day? Did they toss all of that paper into the recycling bins that had not yet been invented? Did they rend their garments and give up writing forever? Did they poison their mail carrier for bringing so much bad news all at once?
Lest you find the story depressing, the science fiction writer was Philip K. Dick, and I have it on good authority that one of those stories was THE MINORITY REPORT. Which a director who shall remain nameless (because he changed the ending in a way that would have caused any author's resentful spectre to dive-bomb LA, howling) made into a rather lucrative movie, decades later.
Admittedly, it was not the most comforting lullaby to have sung above one's cradle, but she knew whereat she spoke — and it's as true today as it was five decades ago, when there were no photocopying machines, no computers, and no guarantee that the copy you sent would ever be retrievable if it went astray in some publisher's office.
I know; creepy even to consider. But think about it: is it more or less likely than something falling on your house from a zeppelin?
Good question, Rachel. Before I answer it, let's clarify the situation by reiterate the difference between a query packet's SASE (i.e, a missive containing the query letter + any unsolicited materials an agency's website said were permissible to send with it) and one tucked into a submission (requested materials).
When sending a query, including a SASE is pretty straightforward: the writer takes a second envelope, writes his own address on it, adds appropriate postage, folds it, and stuffs it — neatly, please, as becomes a Sanitary Author — into the query envelope. (Oh, like you've been able to get the SA out of your mind.)
When sending a submission packet, the process is similar, but the packaging is different. If the agent only asks to see 50 pages or a chapter or two, few enough that they could be comfortably placed in a Manila envelope without wrinkling them (the Sanitary Author deplores crumpled pages; so do many agents), all you need to do is take a second Manila envelope, self-address it, affix the same amount of postage you're going to use to send the whole packet to the agency, fold it, and place it neatly within the submission envelope.
(Don't worry; I shall be devoting part of this coming weekend about how to handle a request for a partial. I wouldn't leave you hanging.)
SASE-wrangling becomes a bit trickier if you've been asked to send the entire manuscript, because that generally entails using a box. (For a detailed explanation of what types of box should and shouldn't be used, complete with glamorous photographs of cardboard in its various manifestations, again, tune in this weekend.)
Obviously, it's going to be unwieldy to stuff a second box inside the first, so it's completely acceptable just to include a self-addressed mailing label and postage. (Be sure to mention both in your cover letter, so they won't get lost on the agency end; I'll be talking about how to pull off including such necessary-but-prosaic details gracefully, you guessed it, this weekend.)
Equally obviously (but I'm going to mention it anyway, just in case), the stamps on the SASE need to be US stamps, if the agency is US-based. That requirement means that SASEing is invariably a great deal more challenging — and expensive — for writers in foreign climes querying or submitting to US agencies; the far-flung are not exempt from the SASE expectation, I'm afraid, which can make e-mailed querying a more attractive option.
Good news for the far-flung: the US Postal Service's website sells stamps at face value, rather than at the exorbitant mark-up one frequently finds for them abroad. The USPS more than happy to ship 'em to your doorstep in exotic climes so you may stick 'em onto your SASE before popping your submission into the mail.
The last few years have indeed seen some changes in how agencies handle packages, but actually, most of them date from before 9/11, back to the anthrax scare. Before that, virtually no agency accepted electronic submissions, for instance; they may not pay their Millicents much, but the average agency certainly doesn't want its screeners to get sick from opening a poisoned query envelope.
Or not; since the USPS changed its regulations in this respect, many agencies have side-stepped the return mail problem by ceasing to return submitted manuscripts to their writers at all. Check policies before you submit. (Interestingly, agencies that operate this way virtually always still expect submitters to include SASEs with their submissions.)
The moral: unless you are querying or submitting electronically OR an agency specifically says it doesn't use SASEs, you should always include one.
And always use actually stamps on it, rather than metered postage. It's called a STAMPED, self-addressed envelope for a reason, you know.
Despite the changes I mentioned above, the imperative to use stamps on a SASE has never wavered: the goal here is not convenience in mailing, but the submitter's paying for his own manuscript's return. Regardless of whether that means tossing it into the nearest mailbox (which would still be possible for most partial manuscripts) or assigning Millicent to do it, stamps have always served the purpose best.
Which means that buying a more expensive stamp or a cheaper one to affix to the SASE is entirely up to the writer. Like overnighting requested materials vs. sending them regular mail, whether a submitter elects to pay a shipper extra money to convey a manuscript from point A to point B is generally a matter of complete indifference to the agent receiving it, as long as it gets there in one piece.
("And looking pretty," adds the Sanitary Author. "None of those pesky wrinkles. And print your manuscript on nice, bright-white, 20-pound paper while you're at it, please. It's aesthetically more pleasing than the cheap stuff.")
And that, my friends, is the information that most agencies' listings in the standard agency guides and websites compress into the terse advice Include SASE. Apparently, somewhere on earth, there lurks a tribe of natural-born queriers who realize from infancy precisely what that means, so it requires no further explanation.
I'll bet our old pal, the Sanitary Author, is one of that happy breed. For the rest of us, learning how agencies work requires a bit of homework — and the asking of good questions.
Tune in at 7 p.m. PST tonight for a few more thoughts on query construction. In the meantime, keep up the good work!
Posted on September 9, 2010 - No Comments on Querypalooza, part XV: nicely stamping your SASE and other Millicent-pleasing habits of the sanitary author
Querypalooza, part XV: nicely stamping your SASE and other Millicent-pleasing habits of the sanitary author
I'm not much given to double-takes, campers, but I must admit, I did a lulu when I spotted this sign standing by the side of a two-lane highway in unincorporated Neskowin, Oregon. To the casual observer, Neskowin is a blink-and-you-miss-it collection of buildings, but to the observant tourist, it is fraught with enigma: its population is 170, according to its ostensibly unofficially municipal website — a human density which renders the two golf courses located there, well, surprising. Who is playing golf in such high numbers that a lone course wasn't deemed sufficient for local needs? Bears? Sea lions? Migratory Scots with an affection for Pacific Rim cuisine?
All of these legitimate wonders pale, however, next to the enigma of the Sanitary Author.
What makes him or her so darned clean, the passing motorist is left to speculate, and why is the population of Neskowin so proud of that particular resident's hygiene habits that the non-city fathers saw fit to erect a sign to commemorate the SA's immaculate practices? Did s/he win some sort of international award for cleanliness, a plaudit akin to the Nobel prize, in order to raise him or her so very high in the town's esteem?
Not, obviously, as high as videos, coffee, or ice cream, but still, it's more recognition than most authors get.
Does the SA reside in remote forest because such cleanly writing practices would not have been feasible within the confines of a large city like New York, Los Angeles, or even charming and nearby Portland? More importantly from the point of view of fellow authors, how does being so sanitary affect the quality of the SA's writing — and if it has a net positive effect, should we all be beating a path to Oregon, demanding to follow in the SA's spotless footsteps?
And should we be worried about all of the unsanitary authors running around out there?
Oh, I know what prosaic types out there are likely to tell me: since the period after AUTHOR would tend to indicate an abbreviation, this sign probably only refers to the local sanitary authority, the fine municipal employees who look after water quality and maintain the local sewer system. So much for impenetrable ambiguity, the literal would doubtless conclude. Just ignore that sasquatch strolling by; there's nothing to see here.
But look closely at that sign: there's a period after SANITARY, too. Complete words are seldom abbreviations, I find.
So the mystery continues. I shall make a valiant effort to wrest my mind away from the Sanitary Author and concentrate on the matter at hand: queries and the things that accompany them.
Oh, it's no use: the image is burned into my brainpan. A psychologist friend of mine once told me that recent research demonstrates that the brain can respond as dramatically to recalled memories as to present life; sometimes, she says, the mind will experience flashbacks AS current events. I'm fascinated by this, not only as a memoirist (and yes, the memoir that was supposed to come out a few years ago is still tied up in legal knots; thanks for asking), but as a novelist.
The writer's descent into a creative trance is one of the least-understood of human phenomena, isn't it? Don't know what I'm talking about? Ask your kith and kin what you're like during periods of intensive writing.
Personally, when I'm in mid-chapter, I lose most of my sense of the passage of time. If my cats didn't remind me occasionally that they do not possess opposable thumbs or the ability to open cabinets (well, okay, MOST cabinets), they would probably be forced to start nibbling on my toes under my desk to stave off imminent starvation.
I'm inclined to blame this on the way that the creative process colonizes the writer's brain. The cats seem inclined to blame it on me, which I suppose amounts to more or less the same thing: if it can't wait until I polish the scene in front of me to a high gloss, it's probably not going to happen.
You may be unusually good at jumping back and forth between the creative and observational parts of your brain, but if you're writing on a regular basis, I'm betting that those who have the good fortune to live and work with you have built up a stockpile of anecdotes about how you space out on the minutiae of quotidian life when you're writing hard. Or — and I honestly am getting around to the point of our series again — when you are embroiled in sending out a flotilla of queries.
Oh, you thought you were the only one who spaced out? Far from it. Little things like laundry, taking vitamins, watering plants, and checking e-mail seem to slip unnoticed out of the working writers' consciousness in the middle of a querying binge or writing jag — and don't even get me started on how the amnesia about practicalities can intensify in the face of an imminent deadline or, heaven help us, immediately after an agent asks to see a partial or full manuscript.
(I'm going to be talking about those last two contingencies this weekend, by the way. Delving into the practicalities of submission seemed like a natural way to round out the ten days of Querypalooza.)
I suspect that this checking out from the everyday world is a necessary side effect of the alchemy of creation. Because, really, in order to render our characters' lifeworlds gripping on the page, we writers have to create them in our minds every bit as vividly and in all of the detail of a vitally important memory. That's a pretty absorbing task, isn't it?
With a pretty gratifying payoff, potentially: if we do our job very well indeed, we might create a story, a situation, a character that seems to the reader to have stepped straight out of real life. Only better.
Is it that same is-it-real-or-is-it-Memorex trick of the brain, I wonder, that would allow a reader to fall in love with a character in a novel? As Mario Vargas Llosa wrote in THE PERPETUAL ORGY:
A handful of fictional characters have marked my life more profoundly than a great number of the flesh-and-blood beings I have known.
He's talking about a literary orgy, incidentally, not a physical one: quite a lot of the book is about his passionate decades-long love affair with the entirely fictional Emma Bovary. And who can blame for falling in love with her, really? She's a pretty absorbing character.
Do I sense those of you who intended to get queries and/or submissions out the door now that the annual post-Labor Day return of the publishing world to New York has arrived becoming a bit restless in the face of these musings? "I'm as fond of the creative haze as anyone else," I hear some of you stalwart souls say, "but right now, most of my writing time is getting eaten up by the process of trying to find an agent. So if you don't mind my asking, what does any of this have to do with the very practical concerns we've been discussing for the last week?"
A couple of things, actually. First, in the throes of agent-seeking, it can be pretty easy to forget that Millicent and others like her who screen queries actually are looking to fall in love with some writer's work.
The querying hurdle is, at least in principle, set in place to maximize the probability of discovering the next Great American Novel — or memoir, or nonfiction book — by freeing agency staff from the necessity of reading pages from every ambitious soul currently writing in English. That way, the theory goes, Millicent can concentrate on deciding amongst the crème de la crème.
Your mind is still focused on the paragraph before last, isn't it? Yes, you read that correctly: even the most virulent rejection-generator is usually eager to discover a novel that pulls him immediately into its lifeworld, or a memoir that wrings his heart, or the next Emma Bovary. I don't think it's at all coincidental that agents and editors so often describe their first responses to submissions in the language of attraction: you're going to love this book, it's a sexy topic, it didn't grab me, I can't get this book off my mind, I just didn't fall in love with the protagonist.
Set those to music, and you've got a pop song. As hard as it may be to believe, Millicent is waiting to be swept off her feet.
Which is why, in case any of you fine souls out there have been wondering, I tend to discuss querying and submission in romantic terms: the query letter is a personal ad for your book; you want attract not just any agent, but the one that's the best match for you and your work; the first page needs to seduce Millicent into wanting to read on; the chemistry between an agent and a book matters deeply. Ditto between a book and an editor. So in addition to everything else we writers are trying to create, our writing also need to inspire love.
The interminable and annoying querying/submission process sounds substantially more noble put that way, doesn't it? Feel free to use this argument the next time some non-writer gapes at the amount of time you've invested in trying to land an agent; generating love can take some time.
My second reason for bringing up this high-falutin' topic is, I'm afraid, disappointingly prosaic. I meant to begin this post by talking about SASEs (Self-Addressed Stamped Envelopes), and I seem to have gotten sidetracked.
I can only plead that I was absorbed in my writing. Excuse me a moment while I feel my languishing cats.
Or perhaps I zoned out because, let's face it, SASEs are not the most thrilling of topics. But they are absolutely vital to discuss within the context of Querypalooza, because a mailed query unaccompanied by a SASE will get rejected automatically at virtually every U.S. agency. Almost invariably without being read.
And if Millicent doesn't read your query, it's literally impossible for her to decide to request your manuscript, and therefore impossible for her to fall in love with your writing. Which, in turn, renders it impossible for her boss, the agent, to fall in love with your writing, for the agent to convince an editor to fall in love with your writing, for the editor to convince an editorial committee to fall in love with your writing, and for the publishing house's marketing department to convince readers to fall in love with your writing.
So omitting the SASE isn't just a technical gaffe; it's the catalyst in a tragic tale of lost love.
That's the writer's opportunity cost of neglecting to include a SASE in your query packet, but there are costs on the agency end as well. Think about it: having the SASE arrive in the same envelope with the query means that Millicent can grab either a form-letter rejection or please-send-us-pages note (oh, didn't you realize that both were boilerplates?) the very instant after she makes up her mind which is appropriate.
It takes very little time, and the writers themselves are providing the resources. What's not for the agency to like?
In fact, they like it so much that that most agencies have standing policies against SASE-free queries at all. Providing an envelope and a stamp to reject a single forgetful writer may seem like a negligible expense — but multiply it by the 800-1500 queries the average agency receives every week, and we're talking about a considerable investment in writers whose work they've already decided not to represent.
So if you didn't hear back on that last raft of queries — you know, the ones where you glibly told Millicent to contact you via e-mail if she wanted to see pages — that's probably why.
Yes, in answer to what half of you just thought so loudly, answering your mailed query via e-mail would have been costly for the agency, too, although obvious, not as much so as hauling an envelope from the supply cabinet. The Millicent charged with opening all of those envelopes and scanning the paper queries would have to stop what she was doing, carry your query — and only yours — to a computer, open the agency's e-mail server, type in a rejection (which would probably be identical to the form letter she's been stuffing in SASEs all day), send it, then go back to work.
Multiply that by every querier who thinks he's being clever, considerate, and/or paper-saving by insisting on this, and it would add up to a lot of unnecessarily expended energy over the course of a year. Far, far cheaper for the agency just to tell its Millicents to toss any query unaccompanied by a SASE into the recycling bin.
Although if she does decide to ask for pages, she will probably let you know via e-mail, rather than by sending a reply in the SASE you so thoughtfully provided. I like to think of this as the SASE Utility Paradox: the rejected writer must pay for the postage and envelope that carry the bad news; the accepted writer must offer the stamp and envelope as a sacrifice to the gods of querying.
Either way, you're going to be buying some envelopes and stamps. (Don't forget to keep receipts; if you file a Schedule C for your writing business, you may be able to deduct the cost of both as a promotional expense. Talk to a tax expert with experience handling writers' returns — which I am not –before you deduct anything, however, because the IRS rules governing writers are both strange and different than those applicable to other kinds of artist.)
Believe it or not, part of the SASE's original purpose was not just to save agencies the cost of postage, but to render the querying and submission processes cheaper for the writer: it was substantially less expensive than if the agencies sent back manuscripts with postage due. (Which used to be the alternative.) It was also intended to preserve copyright by allowing the writer ostensible control about whose grimy paws were on the manuscript when.
Writers tend to forget this in the cyber age, when huge chunks of writing can be transferred from one end of the planet to the other with the simple push of a button (yes, of course I know that the world is not as flat as that image implies. Don't quibble at me now; I'm on a roll), but technically, in order to prove copyright over unpublished writing, the writer needs to know at all times where all the extant copies are, saying who can and cannot read it. Writing I post on this blog, for instance, is under my control, since I dictate where people can view it; I could disable RSS feeds, if I wanted. (Oh, the power! The power!) If I sent the same posts out via e-mail, they could end up anywhere, forwarded far beyond my knowledge.
That's why, in case any of you had been wondering, writing posted online is technically published. It makes it easier for writers to prove that they were the original authors of their online work.
The control-who-reads-it doctrine still governs how agencies operate. When you send previously unpublished material off to an agency — to a credible one, anyway — you are both operating on the tacit assumption that no one on the other end will reproduce your work without your permission. You are not, in effect, authorizing them to show it to anyone else until you sign a contract that explicitly grants them the right to do so.
(Which means, by the way, that you should be very wary of an agent who implies, as some have been known to do in order to edge out the competition, that she has already shown submitted materials to an editor as an inducement for you to sign with her. Technically, she cannot market your writing to anyone until you give her explicit permission to do so — but a writer who has just won a literary contest and is juggling manuscript requests from several agents might not be aware of that.)
When you send a SASE with a submission, you are implicitly asserting your right to control where your work is sent next. It conveys an expectation that if they reject it, they will mail it back to you, rather than forwarding it to the kind of pirate press that is currently cranking out the 8th, 9th, and 10th installments in the Harry Potter series.
I hear the one in which Harry fights a dragon actually isn't bad.
As I believe I have mentioned seventeen or eighteen hundred times before, this is a tradition-bound industry; it has historically been slow to change. No matter how good the logic against some of its long-held norms, this one did not change at all until there were some very tangible benefits on the agencies' end to altering it.
For example, the anthrax scare convinced some agencies to accept e-mailed queries and submissions; prior to that, virtually none of them did. (Some still don't; double-check before you press SEND.) And the post 9/11 requirement to tote heavy packages to the post office prompted some agencies to start recycling rejected manuscripts, rather than having the lowest intern on the totem pole wheel a paper-loaded dolly up out of the building.
But practice, most agencies still adhere to the old norms. Don't believe me? Thumb through any of the standard agency guides, and count how many agencies mention that they recycle.
Spoiler alert: your thumb is probably going to get pretty tired before you find even one. Yes, even in 2010.
Like so many other aspects of the querying and submission process, at one time, the use of the SASE carried greater benefits to the writer than it does now, but time has hardened courtesies into demands, and habits into traditions. Today, if you do not include a SASE with your submission, you may well be perceived as thumbing your nose at the traditions of people you are trying to impress.
As satisfying as that may be, allow me to suggest that it might not be the best way to convince Millicent of your Socratic intellect and lamb-like willingness to take direction. So while my long-standing affection for writers, trees, and the printed pages both work to produce would LOVE to be able to say dispense with the SASE, it would not be in your best interest to fling away the old norms.
Knowing the likelihood of those norms changing anytime soon, I feel as though I should go off and plant a tree now. Or perhaps reread MADAME BOVARY. Instead, I'm going to be intensely practical for a few moments and tell you PRECISELY how to play the SASE game correctly.
When you send a paper query (as opposed to the e-mail variety), include a stamped (not metered envelope addressed to yourself. Do this EVERY time, regardless of whether the agency you're querying actually asks for a SASE on its website or in its blurb in the standard agency guides.
If you are sending more than 4 pages of text along with your query — if the agent asked for an author bio, for instance, or a synopsis — make sure that the postage on your query's SASE is sufficient to get all of those pages back to you. A #10 (business-size) envelope is the norm to accompany queries, and stamps are universally preferred over metered postage.
Since the agency will be popping the returned materials into the nearest mailbox, the stamps you use should be those currently in use in the AGENCY's country of residence, not yours. This means that if you are submitting to a US-based agency or publishing house from outside the country, you will need to dig up some US stamps. Since foreign post offices often sell these at a considerable mark-up, you can save a lot of money if you buy the stamps directly from the US Postal Service online.
When you send requested materials via mail (again, as opposed to e-mail submissions), include in your submission packet an envelope or box addressed to yourself, along with sufficient postage for the safe return of EVERYTHING you have submitted. If you want to be really considerate, you may also include a #10 SASE, so the agent may contact you to ask for more pages, but in the age of e-mail and relatively inexpensive long-distance calling, that particular request is unlikely to come via regular mail.
Again, do this EVERY time, regardless of whether the agency (or publishing house) to whom you are submitting has actually asked for a SASE. Omit it only if the agency specifically asks in its guidelines that you not include it. (I know of only one agency that currently makes this request; need I remind you to read each and every agency's submission guidelines, in case they differ?)
If the requested pages fit in a Manila envelope, it's perfectly acceptable to fold a second one in half, stamp and address it, and tuck it in the submission packet. If you have been asked to send so many pages that you need to pack 'em in a box, paper-clip a return mailing label and stamps to your cover letter, along with a polite request that the agent would affix both to the shipping box in the event of rejection.
You HAVE been sending cover letters with your submissions, right? Just sending a manuscript all by itself is considered a bit rude.
Relax, those of you who just clutched your chests: I'll be talking about how to put together a cover letter for a submission packet as soon as I polish off this series on SASEs. Who knew there were so many different things that needed to go into a submission packet, eh?
Next time — that's 10 a.m. PST tomorrow, for those of you keeping track — we'll delve a bit deeper into the practicalities of submission. You wouldn't want to be caught unprepared if your query is successful, would you? Keep up the good work!
Posted on July 1, 2010 - No Comments on Naming names, part III: hey, I don't make the rules
Naming names, part III: hey, I don't make the rules
Happy Canada Day, neighbors to the north! Way to combine those provinces and keep them together!
At the risk of sounding trite, my most memorable Canadian experience actually was Mountie-related. I was leaving an exhibit of ancient Egyptian artifacts in a museum in Victoria, I thought the sudden transition to bright sunlight had done something terrible to my eyes: everywhere I looked, I saw blaring red. Every square foot of public space was filled with Mounties in uniform — scarlet jacket, shiny black boots, the works — chatting with friends and relatives. Hundreds, at least, a veritable red sea.
The sight was, I need hardly say, staggering. I felt as though I had accidentally stumbled into a recruitment poster.
Back to business. In the roughly 24 hours since I wrote my last post on name selection, I have sensed a certain amount of reader bewilderment. (Never mind how I know that. Blogging imbues one with super-sharp sensory perceptions.) At least a few hands, I suspect, are still raised from Wednesday. Not too surprising, I suppose, since I have been writing all week about how to avoid confusing readers.
For the last couple of posts, I have waxed long on the Cast of Thousands phenomenon, manuscripts that name every character, no matter how minor, down to the dogs and the goat tethered in the back yard in Chapter 3. "Who," the befuddled reader cries helpfully, "are Ernest, James, and Algernon, and what are their respective relationships to Delilah, the character I have been caring about for the last hundred pages? Have they been mentioned earlier in the book, and I have simply forgotten them, or is this their first appearance?
Don't dismiss this cri de coeur as the just punishment of an inattentive reader, my friends — from a reader's perspective, manuscripts afflicted with COT can get overwhelming pretty fast. Especially, as we have discussed, if the COT members have similar names, either beginning with the same capital letter (to which the skimming eye is automatically drawn, right?), ones that replicate letter patterns and sounds, or — and we have not yet talked about this much — are too like the other proper names in the book.
Still in doubt about the eye-distracting effect of all of those capitals? I wouldn't want you to have to take my word for something like that — cast your gaze over this sterling piece of prose.
See the problem? No? Okay, get up from your desk chair, take two giant steps backward, and look at it again. Notice where your eye is drawn first?
Even when the names don't look anything alike, introducing too many of them in one fell swoop can prove equally frustrating to the reader. Again, take a gander:
An avalanche of characters on page 1, in particular, before the narrative has established a context in which they might be understood, tends to have a character-blurring effect.
"Who are all these people?" the reader muses. "And why are they all dressed in the quite striking uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?"
Either variety of confusion, it pains me to say, causes readers to cast otherwise well-written books aside, it pains me to report. If that's not a strong enough reason for a writer self-editing a Frankenstein manuscript to say, "Hmm, perhaps I should devote a few hours of my precious revision time to weeding out some of the extras lurking in the corners of my story," here's another: our old pal Millicent, the agency screener, tends to become impatient when characters pile up.
As, indeed, do editorial assistants, contest judges, and other professional readers; just because it's their job does not mean that they possess a magical ability to absorb 23 names in a single page without mixing them up. "How," the hapless peruser of a COT-riddled manuscript wonders, "am I supposed to keep all of these characters straight? Is this writer planning to market this book with a program, or perhaps dress the background characters in numbered jerseys, so the reader can possibly tell the individual members of this mob apart?"
Or, as Millicent likes to put it, "Next!"
Ooh, the notion of the pros not putting in the necessary effort to keep track of all of your characters ruffles a few writerly feathers, doesn't it? "Wait just a minute" I hear some of you murmuring indignantly. "An ordinary reader may not have options if s/he forgets who is who, but Millicent does. If she finds she's forgotten who a character is, she has a perfectly easy way to find out — her boss asked that I send a synopsis along with my submission. All she has to do is flip to the back of the packet. Or are you saying that if I have a lot of characters in my opening scenes, I should place my synopsis first in the packet?"
To take the last question first, no — at least, not unless an agency specifies in its submission guidelines that it prefers to see submissions packaged that order. Why is it in your interest to pay attention to such minor niceties? Long-time readers, chant it with me now: a submitter should always send a requesting agent PRECISELY what s/he asked to see.
No more, no less. Yes, even if she asked for the first 50 pages and your chapter ends a paragraph into page 51. No fudging.
And please trust a frequent literary contest judge (hey, I don't spend all of my scant leisure time wandering around Canadian museums) when she tells you that rule applies to stated length restrictions in contest rules, too. Part of what you are demonstrating by your submission or entry is that you can follow directions, after all. Professional readers tend to harbor great affection for writers who pay attention to the details of requests; it's so rare. Writers who start printing out pages after reading only the first line of a request for materials seem to be the norm, unfortunately, not the exception.
That giant tsunami-like rush of air you just heard was every agent, editor, and denizen of every publisher's marketing department sighing in unison. They honestly do have a reason to be cranky on this point.
But enough of their pain — I'm sensing more conceptually-based disturbances of the ether out there, especially from those of you just on the cusp of stuffing synopses into submission envelopes. "But Anne," the more literal-minded ether-rockers cry en masse, "I just read a blog by an anonymous agent/heard an agent say at a conference/happened to be eavesdropping in that bar that's never more than 100 yards from the dais at any writers' conference, and this guy said he didn't care about exact page count in requested materials; he just wanted the first three chapters. So aren't you, you know, wrong about the importance of sticking to 50 pages?"
Actually, literal rockers, you've provided evidence in support of my point, not against it. Remember, no matter how much aspiring writers would like for there to be an absolutely uniform set of expectations for submissions — and a well-publicized one, at that — individual differences do exist. So once again, long-time readers, please take out your hymnals and sing along: if your submission-requester says he wants to see something specific in your submission packet, for heaven's sake, give it to him.
Ditto with contest rules, incidentally. General submission or entry guidelines only kick in when the requester doesn't ask for something different — which is to say, the vast majority of the time. (As always, if you're unfamiliar with how professional manuscripts differ from printed books or other commonly-scene formats, I implore you to check out the STANDARD FORMAT BASICS and/or STANDARD FORMAT ILLUSTRATED categories on the list at right. Actually, I would strongly recommend any reader new to this blog to take a gander at those categories first.)
Which is to say: if the agent you overheard wants four chapters, you should send four chapters. If she asks you to give your pitch in mime while juggling seventeen oranges, you should consider doing that, too, because she's the one who is going to be deciding whether she wants to represent you or not.
That being the case, is your first professional contact with her truly the best time to say (at least implicitly), "Look, I know what you said you wanted to see, and that request was based upon your far greater knowledge of both how the publishing industry works and how you like to read, but I'm just going to assume that I'm right and you're wrong. Got a problem with that?"
I can tell you now: she will. So will her Millicent and any contest judge you might see fit to treat in a similar fashion.
That being said, don't revere such requests so highly that you fall into the extremely common trap of generalizing any such quirky individual preferences into industry-wide expectations. Writers brand-new to the biz make this mistake all the time, learning only through hard experience that such extrapolations seldom pay off. Just because one agent, small publisher, and/or contest has a wacky preference doesn't mean that any other agent, small publisher, and/or contest will share it.
Or, to express it in mathematical terms, 1 agent's preference ? every agents' preference.
Bear that in mind, please, the next time you find yourself confronted with the latest panicky iterations of "Oh, my God, I heard an agent speak last week, and submission standards have completely changed!" that trouble the literary world in the wake of every conference season.
Whenever you encounter any hyper-specific submission guidelines that deviate sharply from the rules of standard manuscript format that an agency might post on its website or an agent might specify at a conference — like, say, specifying that submissions may only be in Helvetica or that they should be bound, both usually no-nos — should be treated as applicable to THAT REQUESTER ALONE, rather than to every authors' representative currently walking the earth.
Everyone clear on that? Good.
Back to the original question, and thence to my argument already in progress: why wouldn't a professional reader who got a large character list mixed up simply fish out the synopsis for reference? And if helping a busy Millicent keep the characters straight is a legitimate purpose for a synopsis, shouldn't it come first in the packet?
In a word, no. If you put the synopsis at the front of your packet, Millicent is just going to toss it aside and go straight to the first page of your manuscript. If dear Millie reads all the way through your submission and likes what she sees, THEN she will read the synopsis.
You're hoping that I'm kidding, aren't you? Bizarre but true, that synopsis you slaved to make short enough is not always considered at the submission stage. Reading the synopsis is often not necessary to determining whether to ask to see the rest of the book — and why would Millicent bother to read the synopsis of a manuscript she has just finished reading in its entirety?
Seriously — ask at the next writers' conference you attend. There's a certain logic to this, at least for fiction. After all, if a book made it to the submission stage, presumably, the novel's premise was deemed acceptable by the query screener or the agent to whom the writer pitched it. The only reason to read the synopsis at the submission stage, then, would be to find out what happens after the last page of the submission.
Try not to waste any energy being annoyed about this. If Ernest, James, and Algernon appearance in Ch. 2 was brief enough, chances are that they wouldn't have shown up in the synopsis, anyway.
While I'm apparently free-associating about any and all topics related to character names, and since this contest entry season, this seems like a dandy time to talk about character name choice that could get a writer into a whole lot of trouble. Yes, Virginia, I'm talking about that pesky but oh-so-common literary contest rule that forbids entrants from mentioning their own names anywhere in a submission.
Kind of inconvenient for memoirists and other writers of the real, isn't it? In practice, this ubiquitous rule means that entrants in memoir and personal essay categories, not to mention those many fiction writers who like to blur the line between fiction and nonfiction by making themselves characters in their own narratives, have to select new monikers for themselves.
Stop laughing, oh writers of thinly-veiled autobiographies passing as fiction. For a writer who has embraced the unique difficulties of thinking of herself as a character in a book, renaming himself can be a genuine chore. Novelists attached to their characters' names should be sympathetic to that: if it's trying to track down and change every mention of Monique to Madge when she's your creation, imagine the emotional difficulties involved when Monique has to rechristen herself.
That's not to say that the no-name rule itself is objectionable. However annoying renaming may be to contest-entering writers of the real, it exists for a very good reason: for a contest to be worth its salt, it must be able to claim that its judging procedures are not biased; the first step to assuring lack of personal bias is to institute blind judging, where no judge knows the name of any given author. Admittedly, some competitions are only apparently unbiased, but for the most part, contest organizers take authorial anonymity very seriously indeed.
So no, finding a clever way to get around the rules is not going to endear you to them. Not at all.
Which is why I am about to turn very hard-line: if you are submitting a memoir entry, FOLLOW THE RULE ABOUT NOT HAVING YOUR OWN NAME APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE MANUSCRIPT. And do bear in mind that this rule applies to not only your entire name, but either your first or your last appearing alone as well.
That may seem like rather redundant advice — every contest entrant everywhere should follow all the rules in the contests he enters, right? — but this is the single most common way memoir entries get themselves disqualified. For a memoir entry, you should never just print up the opening chapter of your book and send it in; check the rules very carefully and apply them to your pages first.
You could, of course, sidestep the issue entirely by not entering a piece of writing in which dear self is a character — which is, again, a trifle difficult for memoirists and other habitual writers of the real. The second-best way that I've found is to christen oneself anew with the name that you wish your parents had had the wit and wisdom to give you in the first place.
Come on — none of us had the name we wanted in junior high school. Pick the one you believe would have made your life lovely and do a search-and-replace.
Obviously, you're going to want to make a duplicate document of the chapter or essay you're planning on entering in the contest before you perform this bit of minor surgery — as I said, it's never a good idea just to print up the requisite number of pages from your already-existing manuscript and send off to a contest. (Your slug line in your submitting-to-agents version will have your name in it, for one thing.) Perhaps less obviously, you're going to need to perform the search-and-replace function for both your first and last name, as well as any nicknames you might have incorporated into the manuscript.
Even when you've gone to all the trouble of using a pseudonym, it is a good idea to add a note on the title page, saying that since the contest forbids the author to mention his own name, you will be using "Bobby" (not your real name) throughout.
Why take that extra precaution, you ask? Because it's practically impossible not refer to yourself by name in the story of your own life. Since judges are aware of that, and become accordingly eagle-eyed.
And don't think being coy about it will help you evade their scrutiny, either. Make yourself comfortable; I'm going to tell you a little story.
I went to college with Danny, a very clever, very ambitious writer who eagerly contributed pieces to the on-campus humor magazine. (As those who happened to be hanging around Harvard at the time would no doubt be quick to point out, I use the term humor loosely here: the magazine was seldom actually funny to those who were not in the writers' clique, but bear with me.) Danny had every reason to try to get his articles published: the magazine had long ago spawned an extremely profitable off-campus humor magazine, so a successful Lampoon piece could be a stepping-stone to a career as a comedy writer.
Despite or perhaps because of these articles' worth as resume-candy, it was the practice of the magazine to publish all of its pieces without bylines, to encourage collaboration amongst members of the writing club. But as I said, Danny was ambitious: he, like many of the other writers in the club, was anxious to graduate with clippings he could use to promote his work later on. So Danny did something exceptionally crafty: he inserted his own name into every ostensibly anonymous piece he wrote, much as Jerry Lee Lewis used to refer to himself in his own lyrics, so radio listeners would know who sang the song.
His favorite way of doing this was to insert an imaginary conversation with himself into the text, so an alter ego could address him by name, as in, "Danny boy, you're really in trouble now!" Occasionally, he would vary it by having an authority figure yell at his narrator: "Wilson, you're out of line!" (Because Danny is now a fairly prominent magazine writer, I should say straight away: to protect his identity, Wilson is not Danny's actual last name. See me practicing what I've been preaching?)
Now, as my parenthetical aside just told you indirectly, Danny's little stratagem actually did help him generate the clippings he coveted, but he was relying upon his club's editorial indulgence to let him get away with breaking the rules. In a contest, however, this practice would have gotten him disqualified immediately.
I bring this up not because I suspect that there are legions of Machiavellian-minded rule-breakers out there, but because I have seen so many contest entrants apparently doing inadvertently what Danny did on purpose. Within the first-person narrative common to memoirs, narrators tend to talk to themselves all the time, à la Hamlet: "Danny, you get ahold of yourself, now." And that single reference, to a judge who was looking to pounce upon contest rule violations, could get a memoir entry disqualified.
Yes, Virginia (if that's even your real name), even though it would be highly unlikely, without the judge's having the list of memoir entrants by his side for first-name cross-referencing purposes, for the judge to guess the author's identity. Simply the implication that the author might have referred to himself can appear to be a rule violation.
So a word to the wise: innocent naming mistakes can knock your entry out of competition. It would behoove you, then, to prepare your entry, like your queries, under the assumption that the judge who is going to read it is the nastiest, most curmudgeonly nit-picker since, well, me.
"But Anne," I hear you cry, quite rightly pale at the prospect of encountering yours truly as a contest judge, "if this mistake is usually made inadvertently, how can I hope to avoid it?"
Well asked, oh fearful trembler. Experience sharpens the editing eye. Rest yourself upon the judge's reading couch for a moment, and take a look at where these slips most commonly occur.
Let's say the memoir's author is named Biddy MacAlister-Thames, not a name anyone's eye is likely to encounter on a page without noticing. Even if Biddy has had the foresight to rename herself Libby McPherson-Seine and do a search-and-replace accordingly, she should double-check her entry especially carefully in the following places:
(1) When another character directly addresses the narrator: "Biddy, have you seen the our pet tiger, Max?"
(2) When another character is talking about the narrator behind her back: "Ward, I'm worried about the Beaver. He's paying too much attention to that Biddy next door."
(3) When another character refers to the narrator by an abbreviation that a search-and-replace might not catch. "I'm talking to you, Bid," is substantially less likely to get changed automatically than, "I'm talking to you, Biddy."
(4) And, in the VAST MAJORITY of childhood memoirs, when the narrator gets in trouble, some adult shouts some version of: "Elizabeth Deirdre MacAlister-Thames, you come in this house this instant!"
Remember, in order to violate the rule, even if a character other than the author appears with the author's last name, it can cost you. So keep our Biddy should keep her eye out for these kinds of situations, too:
(5) When a third party addresses a family member: "Mrs. MacAlister-Thames, your daughter is under arrest."
(6) When the narrator refers to her family collectively, or to a possession as theirs: The Easter Bunny had been unusually generous to the MacAlister-Thames family that year.
Remember, as I pointed out above, self-references to either your first or last name, not just to both together, count as rule violations. So Biddy would be wise to do a search-and-replace for BOTH her first AND last names in her entry before she printed it up, would she not?
Yes, it's a tedious thing to have to do, Biddy (or whatever you're calling yourself these days), and yes, you have my sympathies for having to do it. But frankly, I would rather see you annoyed and on the finalist list than not proofread and disqualified.
I'm funny that way, at least since I was partially blinded by a Mountie convention. Keep up the good work!
Posted on June 5, 2010 - 13 Comments on The dreaded Frankenstein manuscript, part VI: the phrase so nice I used it twice, or, hey, look at what I can do!
The dreaded Frankenstein manuscript, part VI: the phrase so nice I used it twice, or, hey, look at what I can do!
Have these last two series on self-editing been keeping you up at night, campers? Now that you're starting to gain a sense of just how closely professional readers (like, say, agents, editors, and people like Millicent who screen submissions for them) peruse pages, have you found yourself gnawing your fingernails up to the elbow, worried about that manuscript you sent out last month? Speculating on just how deeply Millicent's X-ray eyes will bore into your page 1, are you?
And now aren't you glad that I spared you a picture of X-ray eyes to top this post? Enjoy the chipper photo of the Nicholas brothers! (Which doesn't really do that remarkable dance team justice, I must say. If you are even remotely interested in the dance, do yourself a favor and check out any of the many movies from the 1940s that they enlivened.)
Not that I'm in a position to soften how the pros read, but I do worry about the effects of these blogs on you fine people, you know. Knowing the score can be stressful — although I continue to believe that in the long run, having a realistic understanding of how books do and do not get published is actually quite a bit less stressful than the far more popular route of just assuming that any well-written book will inevitably attract an agent and get published.
Presumably, the moment a truly gifted writer types the last word of her first manuscript, an air-raid siren goes off somewhere in Manhattan, alerting agents to swarm. That must be the case, because when the writer sends out her first (and only, doubtless) query, the lucky recipient knows to snap it up right away, regardless of whether that agent happens to represent that kind of book or not.
Or perhaps the Manuscript Fairy makes the introduction. Whatever the magical mechanism, the writer is signed with an agency with a week, sells her manuscript for a six-figure advance within a month, and is smilingly chatting about her newly-published book with Oprah in less than the time it would take to grow nasturtiums from seed to flower.
For the non-gardeners among you, that's not all that long.
The trouble is, there is no Manuscript Fairy, and good writing often has an exceptionally difficult time finding a home. Believe me, it's far better for you to know all that before you submit; realistic expectations have kept many a fine fledgling writer from giving up in despair after just a few tries. (Hint: if you can still name every agent you have queried with your latest book, your query list is probably quite a bit too short, given the current market.)
But before I sit you down for some straight talk about Santa Claus, let me hasten to add that the vast majority of submitted manuscripts disqualify themselves from serious professional consideration — and often for reasons that would not even occur to their writers as important to consider. Like, say, how often a particular sentence, image, or insight appears in a manuscript.
Hey, we were just talking about that, weren't we? And with good reason: as I pointed out last time, professional readers are trained to seek out and deplore redundancy.
Unfortunately, writers — especially those who do not take the time to re-read their manuscripts IN THEIR ENTIRETY, IN HARD COPY, and OUT LOUD prior to submission — seldom catch repetition of their favorite phrases and ideas. Heck, they're frequently unaware that they're leaning on some verbs harder than others…or that Millicent regularly gnashes her teeth over the fact that such a high percentage of submitters apparently all attended the same school of leaning.
Why, just a month or two ago, I was chatting with Teresa (not her real name, of course, but a cunning pseudonym), an aspiring writer of some promise who'd just had her first run-in with an editor — and thus with the X-ray vision a savvy writer associates with professional readers. "He yelled at me for writing too much in the passive voice," she fumed. "In fact, he told me that any sentence with the verb to be in it was bad writing."
I laughed, as I often do at writing rules apparently constructed out of the chewed-up remains of seven or eight genuinely solid pieces of literary advice. "That was a rather common high school English assignment in the 1980s: write an essay or story without using to be even once. It was designed to broaden the array of verbs students were using, not to criminalize was."
Teresa thought about that. "But he said it was a rule!"
"Matters of style are not really conducive to one-size-fits-all rules. However, I can easily imagine an editor — or any professional reader, for that matter — getting so tired of seeing a particular word or phrase repeated in a manuscript that he would say, 'As far as I'm concerned, you may never use look again in writing. Heck, I would be relieved if you never used a seeing verb again, because in this manuscript, you have used up your lifetime supply.' But that doesn't make it a rule every writer should follow."
I chose look advisedly, because in this TV-, movie-, and internet-saturated culture, seeing verbs are some of the most overused. After all, most people gain most of their information through their eyes; as a direct result, Millicent sees (see?) many, many submissions on any given day where sight and sound provide virtually all of the information to the reader. This tendency is so pronounced that if an alien from the planet Zarg who knew nothing of human life were suddenly to switch places with Millie (hey, she could use the vacation), it might easily conclude from reading all of those submissions that sight and hearing were the only senses that people possess on Earth.
Hands up if your immediate first response to that was to cry, "From this day forth, by gum, I'm going to gladden Millicent's heart by incorporating more smell, taste, and touch details into my writing! In fact, just as soon as I finish reading this blog post, I'm off to search through my manuscript for places where the narrative relies too heavily on visual descriptions, so I may mix up the sensory descriptors more," congratulations. You have already begun to think of revision in professional terms.
First-person and tight third-person narratives are particularly prone to over-reliance on visual detail — and are frequently riddled with seeing verbs. That's completely understandable: from the writer's perspective, reminding the reader that Our Hero is in fact seeing everything in the story makes perfect sense. It's true, for one thing — and at first glance, at least, it can make the protagonist seem involved in action he is in fact merely observing. But upon closer examination, that proves not to be the case:
I watched Billy tear through the contents of my locker, looking for his now-meaningless love letter. I cringed, seeing textbooks, rulers, my pointiest protractor fly over his burly shoulder. Periodically, he glared at me, as if daring me to stop him. Pointedly, I looked away.
I had the strange sense I was being observed. Removing my gaze from the destruction of nearly all of my school supplies, I discovered the source: my nemesis, Stacey, was staring at me from the other end of the locker bay, exchanging amused glances with her friends. Their contemptuous scrutiny made me burn with shame.
Surreptitiously, I eyed the diary hanging from Billy's back pocket, estimating the number of steps it would take me to rush forward, snatch it, and run away to read it in peace. The look in Billy's eyes made me hesitate, but having an audience watching me rendered me bold.
"Now see here," I began nervously…
See? The narrator is involved in the scene, certainly, but until the last line, she isn't actually an actor in it. Her only action involves looking at this or that. Oh, she's thinking up a storm for the reader's benefit, but to an outside observer of the scene, she would be merely passively watching what's going on.
"Aha!" rules-lawyering revisers of Frankenstein manuscripts will exclaim. "So that's your real objection here: the narrator is a passive protagonist. I agree that is a problem, but I thought we were talking about textual repetition. This example doesn't really show that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but each time Our Heroine (or anybody else, for that matter) saw something, the author used a different verb to describe it. How then is it repetitious?"
Good question, rules-lawyers. The repetition here is conceptual — all of that eye use — but to a veteran reader, all of those synonyms for sight might actually leap off the page as if they were all the verb to see. To Millicent's overworked eyes, it would look like this:
My point, should anybody have started to wonder if I had one, is this: if a writer is going to become a good self-editor, she needs to stop believing in the Manuscript Fairy, learn how to read her own work as critically as Millicent would, and take responsibility for every word in the manuscript. By definition, redundancy doesn't add anything new to a manuscript — so does it really need to be there at all?
The answer, since not all of you shouted it out in unison, is no — and that's as true for conceptual repetition like relying exclusively upon seeing verbs as it is for recycled metaphors and self-plagiarism. A redundant text is, among other things, predictable. At the sentence level, varying your word choices and sensory details is as important to keeping a reader guessing as providing good plot twists at the story level.
The trick to sifting through a Frankenstein manuscript, though, is not only identifying and pouncing upon repetition; it also involves learning how to spot, preserve, and highlight what works. That, alas, is a goal that all too often gets swept under the proverbial rug when a writer is suddenly hit with an apparently impossible-to-apply piece of editorial advice like never use the verb to be.
But good revision, like good feedback, isn't entirely about pointing out broken rules. It's also about — wait for it — style, and that means, often, that generic rules don't always apply. Oh, you're going to want to use punctuation correctly, and you're going to want to make the voice consistent throughout, but you're also going to want the to manuscript sound like you.
And that, my friends, is one of the grave dangers of blindly adhering to one-size-fits-all style formulae: there's no writing rule in the world that's going to tell you what your individual voice should be. Nor should it, because part of the charm of a great voice is that it is unique.
Was that giant bang I just heard the sound of everybody out there who wants to be handed an infallible set of directions for how to get published slamming the door on his way out?
In order to define and polish personal literary voice, it's vital to figure out what's the best part of your writing, so you may draw the reader's attention to it. That may not involve finding the best scene or paragraph, necessarily, or even your strongest sentence; it may mean identifying a particular strength in your writing. It can be something very general — a good ear for realistic dialogue, for instance, or a gift for helping the reader care about the protagonist — or something very specific, like being a magnificent describer of the interiors of automobiles or a world-class expresser of silent disgruntlement.
Whatever it is — or whatever they are; good writers often start off with many strengths, and build still more through practice — being aware of how it shows up in your text will render revision infinitely easier, particularly if you happen to be dealing with a Frankenstein manuscript. Think about it: without knowing what to emphasize, self-editing is a grueling process of ferreting out mistakes and correcting them. If you can play to your strengths as a writer, however, then revision is a matter of winnowing away anything that obscures them, so your best writing may shine.
Sounds like a whole lot more fun than yelling at yourself for a bunch of mistakes, doesn't it? Not to mention significantly gentler on the ego.
That's why, in case you'd been wondering, a huge part of being a good writing teacher or developmental editor — as opposed to a good copyeditor, who concentrates on making sure that the writing is clear and the sentences grammatically correct, bringing the work to the minimum standard for professional writing — involves not only checking for possible red lights that might lead to rejection, but also figuring out what a manuscript's strengths are, as well as why it will appeal to its target audience. (And no, Virginia, those three are not all necessarily the same thing, but that's a topic for another day.)
Aspiring writers frequently do need to be reminded, I've noticed, about what is good about their work, other than the fact that they themselves sat down and wrote it. Heck, many apparently need to be told what the selling points for their books are, if the typical responses to the perfectly straightforward questions, "Who is your target audience, and why will your book appeal to those folks?" are any indication.
As is the case for so many pervasive phenomena on the creative side of the submission process, there's a pretty good reason for this, at least from the writer's point of view. Throughout the writing process, it's awfully easy to start to think of the effort you've put into a book as its most important characteristic, isn't it? But realistically, books literally never get acquired and published simply and exclusively because someone went to the trouble to write them.
Okay, so books by celebrities and politicians occasionally do. I'm talking about works of literary merit here.
The vast majority of the time, manuscripts sell because of their strengths — you know, those marvelous things that I urged you earlier to take the time to track down and highlight in your work. This is not a business that gives As for effort, after all. In fact, should you ever happen to find yourself chatting about your book with an agent or editor, the length of time it took you to write a book is precisely the wrong thing to mention in a pitch — or in a query letter, for that matter.
Was that echoing collective gasp of horror a subtle indication that some of you would like to know why? As hard as it might be for any of us to accept, to Millicent and her ilk, the amount of effort that a writer put into a writing project doesn't really matter. What matters is what's on the page, not what Herculean efforts it took to get there.
Or, to put it another way, everyone concerned is perfectly aware that every book requires Herculean efforts to bring from conception to completion, much less to publication. So what agents and editors tend to conclude when writers rattle on about those efforts is not, "Gee, this book must be worthwhile," but "Heavens — if a single draft took five years, how long will it take this writer to make any revisions I may want?"
I know: it's unfair. In actual practice, how long it takes to write a book is not a particularly good indicator of how long it would take to revise. Or even how good the writing will be at the end of the process.
But as submitting writers are all too prone to forget, publishing is a business, not an art form. Agents and editors acquire books they believe are marketable, not just ones they believe are well-written. And, as I believe I have mentioned several hundred times before in this very forum, they do not — contrary to the hope of most aspiring writers — read the entire submission before making up their minds on either point.
Anyone care to tell the class at what point in the average submission Millicent stops reading? (Hint: it doesn't necessarily correlate to the number of pages her agent boss asked you to send. Not at all.)
How do the business orientation of agents and editors relate to the revision process, you ask, or to this series on Frankenstein manuscripts? Merely this; the swift judgments endemic to agencies, publishing houses, and yes, even contest judging mean that if you have limited revision time at your disposal, it's smart strategy to concentrate on the first 50 pages of your manuscript — the usual first request from an agent — or, in a pinch, the first five.
If, say, you were intending to comb your work for any of the many knee-jerk rejection reasons in the FIRST PAGES AGENTS DISLIKE category at right. Or even just to minimize any redundancy in the manuscript. From a submission perspective, investing your time in culling all of those synonyms for seeing out of your first chapter, then turning your efforts to making absolutely certain that the voice is consistent all the way through that chapter before you pop it in the mail, is better strategy than working and re-working Chapter 10 until it's perfect before you re-read the opening pages. Especially if the agent of your dreams has only asked to see Chapters 1-3.
Just make sure that after you've met your short-term deadline, you go back and implement those changes all the way through the manuscript. Lest we forget, that kind of spot-specific, I-want-to-get-this-in-the-morning-mail type of revision is quite conducive to producing a Frankenstein manuscript.
There, you have your homework: make your opening pages impeccable, then make the rest admirable. Well, my work here is done…
If you should find yourself shaking your head in the dead of night over your very own Frankenstein manuscript, try not to despair. What you have in front of you is not just an unevenly-written story or argument; it's also potentially a spectacularly rich source of information about what you do well as a writer. If you have the time — and I would urge you to make some, even if you feel as if you're up against a deadline; does that submission REALLY need to be e-mailed the day after that agent requested it? — it's well worth your while to cuddle up with your Frankenstein manuscript in a comfortable reading chair.
Who knows? You might just find gold. Or at least a promising site to pan for it.
Yes, in response to what you just thought: that's going to be a heck of a lot of work. One might even call it a Herculean task. Nobody ever said that writing a great book was easy.
Nobody who didn't believe in the Manuscript Fairy, at any rate.
Try to think of the work not as the value of the manuscript, but as the training and practice you need to become a master at your art. Contrary to popular opinion, there's more to this gig than just sitting in front of a keyboard and typing the darned thing. You have to figure out what you write well — which isn't necessarily what you like to read, right? — and use that skill to tell the story you were born to tell.
That's a tall order, but the results are worth it. Jumping off a staircase and landing in the splits isn't the kind of thing most of us can do on the first try, after all. Keep up the good work!