I received an email from an agent who said this. That they were busy, had a full book list, etc. I noticed this is a recurring note in some of the rejections I'm having as of late. Because of this, I cannot tell if this is a form rejection or an actual rejection where they are giving a reason why. What do you writers think? Have you received rejections like this?
"Sounds Interesting but I'm Swamped" - New Type of Form Rejection?
- Thread starter BlossomQueen
- Start date
- Status
Unless they say something specific about your individual submission, you may safely assume it is a form rejection.
caw
caw
I don't think it's a new kind of form rejection but often they just like to send writers something a tad friendlier, a couple words more than the abrupt "No thanks," "Not for us," or "We're closed to submissions." But, who knows if he'd have suddenly found himself less swamped if a manuscript arrived that knocked his socks off, right? However, if he said he thought it sounded interesting then I guess there's no reason to assume he didn't think it sounded interesting.
I don't really do the shades of rejection thing, though. No means no, regardless of why, so I dislike all rejections equally!
I don't really do the shades of rejection thing, though. No means no, regardless of why, so I dislike all rejections equally!
Last edited:
It's been common forever. Sometimes they really are full up, and sometimes it just a standard rejection slip. Either way, it just means, "No, thanks."
I used to get those all the time. It's not the most common form response, but about 1 in 10 or so agents use that formula.
It's just a "no" and doesn't mean anything. Unless the agent mentions specifics about your novel you can bet money it's a form response.
That's interesting. I've seen folks on QueryTracker post "I'm swamped, sorry" responses from agents that were apparently open to queries. It didn't occur to me that it was another kind of form rejection. (I just thought, "Eep! I guess I shouldn't have queried them!")
All rejections mean the same thing. No. It doesn't matter how they are phrased, it all means no. Trying to find a reason for the no if they don't volunteer it is just going to drive you crazy.
I got one of those today, too, by the way.
I got one of those today, too, by the way.
Sure, they're 'swamped', any good agent is, but they'll find the time for a really promising manuscript. Worst-case scenario, if they love it but truly are swamped, they'll recommend another agent who has room in their roster.
Bottom line, though, if they didn't have time to take on new clients, they wouldn't be reading queries.
I'm sure that's technically true, but looking at the statistics on Querytracker it seems like some agents are a whole lot more eager to find new clients than others. I mean, there are agents listed on QT who claim to be taking new clients but haven't requested pages once out of 500 or even 1,000 queries. Contrast that with other agents who request material off 10% or more of the queries sent to them and you have to conclude some agents are devoting a lot more time to seeking new clients than others.
My gut tells me Chasing is right, and there's a certain (small) value in targeting agents who check the "actively seeking clients" box on Agent Query. Of course, that doesn't guarantee they won't happen to be "swamped," or say they are, when you query them. (I'm guessing all but the newest agents are swamped with queries at all times. Plus, the agent who checked "actively seeking clients" five years ago may have a full list today. Which doesn't mean she isn't still responding to queries she really loves, just that the bar is higher.)
Caveat: Make sure every agent you query is reputable and has a sales record, even if they fall in the "newish and eager for clients" category.
Caveat: Make sure every agent you query is reputable and has a sales record, even if they fall in the "newish and eager for clients" category.
I've had a few "we're closed to queries" replies. I take them at face value ... and stalk them later;^) They open when they open. It's no big. Just keep looking and, if you don't get a bite from anyone else, follow up.
From my experience, and agent who is requesting queries is looking for new writers, but they can't all want the same number of clients. Not all agents are any good at all, some are just starting out and have no stable, and others are extremely good, and may be looking for only one or two new writers.
Whether it's a solo agent or a big agency, there's a limit on how many writers they can take on, and they know that limit. A good agent has a lot of selling writers in her stable, and usually quoite a few writers who haven't sold anything. Such an agent make be able to take on one or two writers, and that's it. When this is the case, the agent is extremely picky about requesting material.
At the otehr end of the spectrum is the brand new agent who just hung out a shingle, and likely has no stable at all. This agent will usually request material from an immense number of queries in an effort to build a stable quickly. So, sure, some agents are much more eager to find new clients. This is not always a good thing, and it's how too many writer land an agent who, at best, is unproven.
Publishers do not treat all agents equally. Like writers, agents have to prove they can deliver quality material on a consistent basis. Until and unless an agent proves this, she's just someone the publisher never heard of who is sending him material he may hate.
OT numbers are often highly misleading, but if the numbers there were all I had to go on, I'd go for the agent who very seldom requests material every time.
This is true, if you check that agent out carefully, and make sure he or she has the credibility you need in an agent. Actively seeking clients is good, if it's an agent with some good sales to top publishers, but usually bad, if it's an agent who just hung out a shingle, and who has no really experience in publishing. The one thing far worse than having no agent is having a poor agent who isn't respected by editors.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,128
- Reaction score
- 10,900
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Sounds like a polite form rejection. If they are really turning down all promising work because of being swamped, wouldn't they close to subs for a while?
On the other hand, some swamped agents probably remain officially open, just in case that one special project crosses their desk, so they reject stuff they might have considered when they more actively growing their client list. Maybe that particular form rejection is a genuine reflection of an agent's current state of mind, or something they send to ones that made it past the initial glance at the query stage of screening but didn't grab them enough to request more pages.
But it's probably good not to read too much into short, polite rejection letters.
And per JAR's comments, I'd certainly check publisher's marketplace and so on to make sure the agents you're querying (or the agency they work for if they're new) have made some sales to big six imprints, preferably in your genre. I've been told a newer agent can be a good thing, as they may have a smaller stable of clients and therefore be more available to work with you on polishing your manuscript. But I'd be really leery of one who's hung his or her own shingle out instead of working in a more established firm with a strong sales record. I've run across a couple like that on querytracker while researching: no partners, no clients who have published books listed, no verified sales (or only sales to small presses that don't even require agents or give advances), no membership in professional associations, no verifiable history of experience in publishing industry. Maybe they're not a crook or charlatan. Maybe they're the nicest, most well meaning person in the world, but that doesn't mean they could sell your manuscript.
On the other hand, some swamped agents probably remain officially open, just in case that one special project crosses their desk, so they reject stuff they might have considered when they more actively growing their client list. Maybe that particular form rejection is a genuine reflection of an agent's current state of mind, or something they send to ones that made it past the initial glance at the query stage of screening but didn't grab them enough to request more pages.
But it's probably good not to read too much into short, polite rejection letters.
And per JAR's comments, I'd certainly check publisher's marketplace and so on to make sure the agents you're querying (or the agency they work for if they're new) have made some sales to big six imprints, preferably in your genre. I've been told a newer agent can be a good thing, as they may have a smaller stable of clients and therefore be more available to work with you on polishing your manuscript. But I'd be really leery of one who's hung his or her own shingle out instead of working in a more established firm with a strong sales record. I've run across a couple like that on querytracker while researching: no partners, no clients who have published books listed, no verified sales (or only sales to small presses that don't even require agents or give advances), no membership in professional associations, no verifiable history of experience in publishing industry. Maybe they're not a crook or charlatan. Maybe they're the nicest, most well meaning person in the world, but that doesn't mean they could sell your manuscript.
Last edited:
I sometimes use this, and it's not a form rejection. It means "hey, this sounds interesting, but I have no bandwidth right now."
If you're not sure whether something is a standard rejection or a more personalised one to reflect the fact that an agent is very busy, try googling key phrases in quotation marks. Almost always, someone else has posted their rejection online and you can compare.
Then move on. ;-)
Then move on. ;-)
- Status