When they accept either, do you email or snail mail?

[HFgal]

In a way, it's nice when the agent only accepts one format - makes your decision for you.

But when they accept both (and you can't find evidence that they prefer one over the other), what is your approach?

Here are my thoughts so far:

PRO EMAIL:
- It's fast, so in theory their response should be faster.
- Most agents that accept both seem to accept way more email - demonstrates a de facto preference?
- Eco-friendly
- Free

PRO SNAIL MAIL:
- No worries about email mangling the format of what you submit
- Able to use nice stationery - classy!
- If you are an HF gal like me, is email sort of anachronistic?
- Email: So easy to delete. Too easy.
- Since snail mail is less common, makes you stand out more?

Thoughts?

[EMaree]

E-mail is faster, easier and cheaper, so I'm pro-e-mail all the way.

Since snail mail is less common, makes you stand out more?

I've heard this argued before, but it never feels right to me. Maybe it's because I keep my e-mail inboxes organised, but mail is easy for me to toss to one side and forget.

[Putputt]

I hate having to deal with snail mail. Going to the post office and standing in line, not to mention the costs...blargh. When I was subbing to agents, any agency who required snail mail was immediately crossed off my list. At this day and age, I do not wish to be repped by an agent who isn't tech-savvy enough to accept e-queries.

But that's just my personal preference. There are plenty of fine agents out there who prefer snail mail.

Speaking of using "nice stationery", I wouldn't recommend going for anything out of the norm. No eggshell-colored paper or letterpress envelopes.

ETA: I find physical mail easier than e-mail to throw away, actually. I have a recycling bin right next to my desk and most of my mail ends up in there.

[Susan Littlefield]

There is no choice for me. It's email unless they say no email. Done.

[Cyia]

Email's right there where they're working. An agent can click over during lunch or on a quick break without having to deviate from what s/he's doing. Physical letters sit in a pile. They look like work and they have to be picked up. It's more effort to get to them.

IMO, go email if you can.

[leahzero]

I don't think "standing out" or any similar factors should be part of the equation. They're either going to be interested or not, and a minor difference like reading a query on paper vs. on a computer screen won't sway anyone (and if it does, I question that person's judgment in the first place).

[HFgal]

Originally Posted by leahzero

I don't think "standing out" or any similar factors should be part of the equation. They're either going to be interested or not, and a minor difference like reading a query on paper vs. on a computer screen won't sway anyone (and if it does, I question that person's judgment in the first place).

That's a really interesting point - and in conflict with some of what you can read out on the web. I would like to believe that it is the words in your query letter (and synopsis, and excerpt) that sell you, not the format (although if you have sloppy format, that's gotta count against you).

I guess the best thing you can do is just have a testicle-grabbing first sentence and first paragraph in your query letter.

[ARoyce]

Originally Posted by leahzero

I don't think "standing out" or any similar factors should be part of the equation. They're either going to be interested or not, and a minor difference like reading a query on paper vs. on a computer screen won't sway anyone (and if it does, I question that person's judgment in the first place).

Exactly. Given the hundreds of queries an agent receives per week (or even per day), things like stationery seem minor. The query itself should stand out, whether it's delivered by email or snailmail.

Personally, when I queried, I always used email, unless an agent specified otherwise. It's environmentally friendly, convenient, and easy to store for future reference.

[itsmary]

Unless they prefer e-mail over snail mail (or unless they require you to send the first 50 pages with your query), I send snail mail. Just a personal preference.

[NicolaD]

An electronic version they can read on the subway, at the gym etc...lot harder and more annoying to lug around a 300+ pg manuscript...

[FCameron]

Many agents convert the electronic submissions of manuscripts to their e-reader. I've noticed several on Twitter talk about reading full ms on their Kindles.

BTW--when I "proof" my manuscript, I convert the document to e-pub and read it in iBooks when I'm traveling. iBooks allows me to highlight and make notes. It's a great way to catch things because you're reading only a paragraph at a time on something small like an iPhone.

[Phaeal]

Originally Posted by Putputt

At this day and age, I do not wish to be repped by an agent who isn't tech-savvy enough to accept e-queries.

My agency accepts only snail queries, but every communication following that query is by email or phone, so, yeah, they're tech savvy. Why they want paper to start, I don't know. My reason would be to cut down on the query avalanche, especially from impulse queriers.

When I was querying (and with short story subs), I never noticed any significant difference in response rate, response time, and requests for more material between email and snail mail. Given a choice, hey, I'll save a stamp, but I don't mind going to the post office, either. Good place to people watch.

[blacbird]

My experience is that they don't accept either method, with admirable equality.

caw

[Chris P]

I like email, and always have. I think it just makes things easier all around, although I can see how an agent would use snail only as a first-line defense against slush.

But since it costs about $1.25 to mail a letter to the US from here, I can't imagine what an 80K word double spaced manuscript would cost to mail.

[Katrina S. Forest]

E-mail, unless there's a strong implication on the agent's website that they prefer snail mail.

Ditto Phaeal. I don't think of the agents who only do snail mail as non tech-savvy. I think it just makes less queries to read.

When I did get a request from a snail mail submission, it was a direct e-mail asking me to send the ms as an attachment. All our communication was via e-mail after that.

[Putputt]

Originally Posted by Phaeal

My agency accepts only snail queries, but every communication following that query is by email or phone, so, yeah, they're tech savvy. Why they want paper to start, I don't know. My reason would be to cut down on the query avalanche, especially from impulse queriers.

Ahh, I stand corrected then!

[Lycoplax]

My thoughts are email all the way unless they specifically ask otherwise. I've had too much misdelivered/lost mail in my relatively short life to trust the postal system with my brainchildren.

[EMaree]

Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie

I also know how incredibly easy it is to delete a couple of thousand e-mail queries when you realize there's no way in hell you have the time to read them all, and still get anything else done.

And while it's a different arena, I also know that as a writer, I get much better results, a much higher percentage of go-aheads, by submitting article queries through snail mail.

I'm sorry James, but I have to disagree with the thoughts behind this. If any agent is callous enough to delete an inbox of e-mail queries unread, they won't think twice about shredding their snail mail query pile either.

I would also consider any agent who'd bin queries unread to be a bad agent.

When you open to unsolicited queries, you're commiting a chunk of your time to read through those queries. When you open to e-mail queries, you're commiting to an even bigger chunk of time. But either way, the agent has commited to read unsolicited queries, and they shouldn't be deleting or binning anything unread.

If they can't handle the amount of incoming queries responsibly then they need to change their process, get an assistant, or close to unsolicited queries. A writer shouldn't have their publishing chances affected just because an agent's overloaded themselves with work.

[WarnerB]

I'm interested in this thread since I have a trail of computer glitches behind me and have more faith in the postal system than cyber-space.

I once asked an author if given the choice by an agent to snail or e-mail, he replied that when a choice is offered, snail mail looks like the work of amateur. (Huh. Even though they accept both.)

I like James Ritchie's reply: snail all the way. (That's right in line with Vonnegut's thinking...because it got him out of the house, he was out of his wife's hair, and he got to flirt with the cute postal office girl, etc....all part of his process.)

If agents are out to make their hectic lives easier, assuming e-subs make that happen, why offer both? And why would hard-copy look like the work of an amateur?

[benluby]

I personally believe the answer is as varied as all the answers we see on this topic. Some will be more impressed to see a bundle of papers on their desk with nice paper, others will view that as something that they have to dispose of.
It's really going to come down to each particular agents preference as to what they like to see and what may interest them.
What may have one actually giving your MS a chance may have another hitting delete/shoving the ream plus of paper into the circular file.

[Old Hack]

Originally Posted by benluby

I personally believe the answer is as varied as all the answers we see on this topic. Some will be more impressed to see a bundle of papers on their desk with nice paper, others will view that as something that they have to dispose of.
It's really going to come down to each particular agents preference as to what they like to see and what may interest them.
What may have one actually giving your MS a chance may have another hitting delete/shoving the ream plus of paper into the circular file.

Agents accept work by post or by email in order to make it easier for the writers whose work they've requested. It's not a question of their being more impressed if you send your work in by post.

They certainly don't see paper submissions on their desks as "something that they have to dispose of", and suggesting that they do is insulting to agents and patronising to the writers who send in their paper submissions.

Literary agents are people first, agents second. They want to find good writers in their slush piles; they want writers to succeed. Let's not suggest that they're tyrants, out to squish us. Please.

[Ken]

... sometimes depends on how they phrase it.
Some say both, but still rather mean one.

"EMAIL ME! But if you must make a nuisance of yourself then I suppose you might be a stupid son of a gun and snail mail me." Or vice verca.

They don't say so in so many words, but that's the general impression you get.

[benluby]

Originally Posted by Old Hack

Agents accept work by post or by email in order to make it easier for the writers whose work they've requested. It's not a question of their being more impressed if you send your work in by post.

They certainly don't see paper submissions on their desks as "something that they have to dispose of", and suggesting that they do is insulting to agents and patronising to the writers who send in their paper submissions.

Literary agents are people first, agents second. They want to find good writers in their slush piles; they want writers to succeed. Let's not suggest that they're tyrants, out to squish us. Please.

Not suggesting their tyrants, Old Hack, and if I gave that impression, apologies. My point was that trying to decipher which an agent preferred if they list both on their site in submission guidelines is really a crapshoot.
I personally believe it's a case of that particular one doesn't care. They, much like you say, just want a good story and writer.
Others? If they specify email only, they probably are quite serious about it. Same for those that want MS on a ream of paper.

[Old Hack]

Originally Posted by Ken

... sometimes depends on how they phrase it.
Some say both, but still rather mean one.

"EMAIL ME! But if you must make a nuisance of yourself then I suppose you might be a stupid son of a gun and snail mail me." Or vice verca.

They don't say so in so many words, but that's the general impression you get.

You're reading too much into things, Ken.

If agents are happy to take both email and postal submissions then they'll say so.

If they're not, they'll say so.

They offer to accept submissions in the ways that they do in order to help writers submit their work in the best way possible; and in order to ensure that they, they agents, can work their way through those submissions as speedily and thoroughly as they can.

Agents certainly don't say these things as part of an elaborate ploy in the hopes of trapping the writers who might dare to submit exactly according to the agents' guidelines and therefore reveal themselves as potential troublemakers. That would be ridiculous.

[Old Hack]

Originally Posted by benluby

Not suggesting their tyrants, Old Hack, and if I gave that impression, apologies. My point was that trying to decipher which an agent preferred if they list both on their site in submission guidelines is really a crapshoot.
I personally believe it's a case of that particular one doesn't care. They, much like you say, just want a good story and writer.
Others? If they specify email only, they probably are quite serious about it. Same for those that want MS on a ream of paper.

There's no point trying to decipher these things: it's like trying to work out what exactly an agent meant by, "sorry, not for us". All you need to know in that case is that the agent has said no. Similarly, if an agent says they'll accept both email and postal submissions then submit in the way you prefer.

If they do specify email only, though, then of course don't send them a postal submission. If you do, your submission will probably be rejected unread. And why would you want that to happen? Don't go out of your way to give an agent a reason to reject you: write an excellent book and a good query, and submit it to the right agents in the ways that they ask. Simple!