Is this now normal? Am I that old?

Old Hack said:

I looked at every submission I received, and gave every single one my full attention--for as long as it held it. So did all the other editors I worked with.

My friends who are agents are all very respectful of the submissions that they receive, and pay attention to every single one. My neice, who was recently an intern at a major London literary agency, was briefed very carefully on how to assess the submissions she was asked to filter. By suggesting that dealing with submissions is a random, confused process you're making assumptions which in my experience are neither safe nor true.

Click to expand...

I don't have a particular hatchet to grind. I've done considerably better than I expected to knowing something of the industry from editors, former editors and agents.

But there's a fascade of professionalism and seriousness in the industry that hides the fact that much of the process is random. I've been writing articles for decades and I find it hard if not impossible to second guess which ones will strike a chord with editors and readers. True, I'll know a bit better than someone stepping in off the street, but even with my very long experience I often find a wet finger in the air to be as good a barometer as any.

Anecdotes of what ultimately prove to be very successful books being rejected by number of agents or publishers, or of award winning books being resubmitted under a different title and being rejected (see Kosinki's "Steps" for instance), or of huge advances that end up being busts (Yann Martel's latest for one) all suggest to me a significant degree of randomness in the industry.

That's not to say a consensus about a hopeless manuscript is wrong. And maybe some consensus would form around a perfect bit of literature. But there's plenty in-between.

As William Goldman once said of Hollywood, "nobody knows anything." Though, of course, some people know even less.

Mark Thyme said:

... or of award winning books being resubmitted under a different title and being rejected (see Kosinki's "Steps" for instance)....

Click to expand...

That particular example is less than meaningless. What should someone who submitted a renamed award-winning or classic novel get other than a form rejection letter? After all, editors and agents don't have time to waste writing something in response to that. Slap on a form rejection and off it goes.

areteus said:

It sounds like what agents need is more help in filtering out the submissions... for a reasonable wage, I'll do it for you...

No, seriously, I am that desperate for a job...

Click to expand...

Ha! You'll be lucky. Most agents and publishers--good and bad--have a surplus of people willing to do the work in return for the experience it gives them. I'm not happy about it: I think a lot of interns are exploited (not my neice, though, as I knew the agency she worked at). You're very unlikely to get paid to do the work, although you might get expenses if you're really lucky.

Mark Thyme said:

But there's a fascade of professionalism and seriousness in the industry that hides the fact that much of the process is random.

Click to expand...

I think you and I must be working to a different definition of "random".

Anecdotes of what ultimately prove to be very successful books being rejected by number of agents or publishers, or of award winning books being resubmitted under a different title and being rejected (see Kosinki's "Steps" for instance), or of huge advances that end up being busts (Yann Martel's latest for one) all suggest to me a significant degree of randomness in the industry.

Click to expand...

But that's because anecdotes are often inaccurate, or untruthful; and because almost all books get rejected by someone, and a rejection doesn't automatically mean "we think this book is dreadful"; it can mean, "we don't publish this genre", or "we've just signed a similar book so can't take this one too", or "we don't have the expertise to edit this title appropriately". And as for award-winning books being submitted under a different title and being rejected: there are several threads here (in Round Table, I think) which discuss those submissions. They don't prove a thing about publishing, or the submissions system: the only thing they prove is that the person who ran the prank doesn't know much about publishing.

The "Steps" (retitled and given a different author's name) prank was done during the late 1970s by Chuck Ross, so pre-Google. It was rejected by 14 publishing houses and 26 agents, none of whom seemed to recognize it, though Kosinski's publisher compared it unfavorably to Kosinski. As far as I know about the experiment, all gave it serious consideration.

I use the term random in its statistical sense, which is to say "unpredictable".

Old Hack said:

Ha! You'll be lucky. Most agents and publishers--good and bad--have a surplus of people willing to do the work in return for the experience it gives them. I'm not happy about it: I think a lot of interns are exploited (not my neice, though, as I knew the agency she worked at). You're very unlikely to get paid to do the work, although you might get expenses if you're really lucky.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know it And I am far too old and crotchetty (and hideously overqualified) to be an intern... which is why I would never accept anything less than head of the board of directors of the agency in question

At the moment I am sticking with trawling the job pages for teaching jobs that aren't agencies or scams... though I did apply for a proofreading job today...

The main issue I see with the 'no reply' system is that it can leave authors hanging, unsure whether to submit elsewhere. However, as most writers will have submissions out to several agencies, its less of a problem. Just keep sending them out until one bites then inform all the others that you have an offer and see if they want to make a counter offer...

Mark Thyme said:

The "Steps" (retitled and given a different author's name) prank was done during the late 1970s by Chuck Ross, so pre-Google. It was rejected by 14 publishing houses and 26 agents, none of whom seemed to recognize it, though Kosinski's publisher compared it unfavorably to Kosinski. As far as I know about the experiment, all gave it serious consideration.

Click to expand...

It's been done since, many times, with many different books, so there's plenty of discussion about such pranks online. Jane Austen's novels have been sent out; Nobel Prize-winners; high-selling commercial fiction; all sorts.

Honestly: all it does is show up the people behind the submissions. It doesn't prove anything about publishing, apart from how little most people know about it.

I use the term random in its statistical sense, which is to say "unpredictable".

Click to expand...

So it's your belief that publishers pull books out of their slush piles at random and offer their authors publishing contracts? Really?

Clearly they don't choose manuscripts at random. A great majority in the slush pile are unpublishable.

But I think that within the narrow spectrum of decently written books (10%, 5%, 1%?), in other words books that exceed a hard to define threshold, the process becomes random (unpredictable) if the author is unknown, unless it is a very rare product of genius.

Now you can corner me and say "define the threshold" and I'd have a hard time doing it. Ultimately it becomes self referential. The threshold is defined by the very worst book that some publisher will accept and pay to produce, though I suspect there's a fairly broad band of uncertainty around that threshold.

As for those pranks only showing up the people behind the submissions, I'd beg to differ, certainly on the Kosinski example. I remember the debate it generated at the time (yes I'm a pretty old hack too).

Anyway, I enjoyed the Making Light link. And I'll have a look at How Publishing Really Works.

I've actually been noticing more and more responses to my work as time has gone on. It used to be that I heard very little (probably because my writing and query letters were that much shittier), but now I get responses fairly quickly. If I send out ten queries in one day, I'll often get 4-5 responses by the next day. I've had the 20-minute rejection, but I've also gotten the 6-hour request for a full.

That doesn't mean some aren't slow. It always feels funny to get a response 8 months after the fact.

I got two rejections this week from queries that were dated Oct. 13.
I've noticed a lot of that -- six- or seven-week response times.

I guess I'm old fashioned. I find 'no response is no' to be rude. You can set up buttons in your email program, one for 'yes' and one for 'no'. The yes will send a form request and file the email, the no will reply with a form reject and delete the email. This is no more time consuming than hitting the delete button. The only cost in time is setting up the buttons. Perhaps courtesy isn't worth that time.

It is what it is. I doubt an agent will ever complain if I don't respond to them, but I don't update no response agents. Why should I? They've already said 'no' the instant I hit send.

I wonder as writers if we're taking the "no response is a no" lying down. Of course, this opinion is coming from someone who has not queried an agent since he was in high school and all the queries to literary journals have been rejections....but bare with me and tell me if I'm wrong.

I'm fine with being wrong. Really, I am. Especially since I am about to do some actual real agent querying very shortly (novel almost finished! --yea)

One of the purposes of an agent, as I understand it, is to navigate those pesky author/publisher contracts. Would you ever consider sending out queries to publishers and agents at the same time? And then, if you get a bite from one of the publishers, send out additional agent queries, mentioning that so and so publisher is interested already....or would this be bad form?

Is there an issue if you set up a personal web site promoting yourself before you are published/agented--but don't actually make the site live on the Internet, and then advertise to the agent that you have a web page and give him/her access to look at in addition to the book.

Besides hooking the agent with the book, how much of a good idea would it be in the query letter to hook the agent with yourself? Would this tactic up your response rate, or would it just totally annoy those you queried and get you shortlisted into the rejection bin?

...anyway, just kind of some thoughts I've been having as I finish up my novel and get ready to query agents. So, this has been a very timely thread, indeed.

darkelf said:

I guess I'm old fashioned. I find 'no response is no' to be rude. You can set up buttons in your email program, one for 'yes' and one for 'no'. The yes will send a form request and file the email, the no will reply with a form reject and delete the email. This is no more time consuming than hitting the delete button. The only cost in time is setting up the buttons. Perhaps courtesy isn't worth that time.

Click to expand...

Considering a submission takes a lot longer than hitting one button or another: there's reading to be done, and considering the book in the context of the market and so on.

I've spoken to two agents (at different agencies) about the "no response means no" issue and while they were both very sorry to impliment it, they each felt they had no choice. Their agencies get more submissions every month, and the overall quality of them is very poor; if they send a form rejection then some writers respond and insist that they couldn't have read the submission because the form rejection doesn't mention anything to do with their book; or writers just resubmit the book, perhaps with a different title, and think they'll get a different answer this time.

And then there are the writers who respond to those form rejections with rudeness and abusive messages. You have no idea how bad some of those responses can be: how threatening, insulting and vile. It's not uncommon for agents to have to involve the police in these instances.

What's interesting is that simply not responding to unwanted submissions cuts down on the numbers of threatening responses received. It seems that a rejection is sometimes taken as an invitation to enter into a conversation.

Yes, it's miserable that a few nutjobs should make things more difficult for those of us who do know how to behave professionally: but there you go.

It is what it is. I doubt an agent will ever complain if I don't respond to them, but I don't update no response agents. Why should I? They've already said 'no' the instant I hit send.

Click to expand...

And this bit I don't understand. Why do you think agents reject your work the instant you send it in? If that's the case, why bother submitting? Why get involved with agents at all?

Ses said:

I wonder as writers if we're taking the "no response is a no" lying down.

Click to expand...

What do you suggest we do about it? Write to the agents concerned and tell them we won't put up with it? How do you think that would change anything?

One of the purposes of an agent, as I understand it, is to navigate those pesky author/publisher contracts. Would you ever consider sending out queries to publishers and agents at the same time? And then, if you get a bite from one of the publishers, send out additional agent queries, mentioning that so and so publisher is interested already....or would this be bad form?

Click to expand...

If you've already shopped your book round all the best publishers, an agent isn't going to be able to resubmit it for you. Once a publisher has rejected it, that's it. Now, you might have sent it to an editor who wasn't a good fit with your book, because you don't know the editors or their preferences. A good agent, however, would know who would be a good fit. But because the book has already been rejected by that publisher the agent can't send it out to the more appropriate editor.

You're far better sending your work out to agents first and if you don't find representation, consider approaching publishers yourself.

Is there an issue if you set up a personal web site promoting yourself before you are published/agented--but don't actually make the site live on the Internet, and then advertise to the agent that you have a web page and give him/her access to look at in addition to the book.

Click to expand...

By all means have your own website but don't expect an agent to go looking at it as part of your submission. They only have the time (and inclination) to look at your query. That's why they tell you how they want you to query.

Besides hooking the agent with the book, how much of a good idea would it be in the query letter to hook the agent with yourself? Would this tactic up your response rate, or would it just totally annoy those you queried and get you shortlisted into the rejection bin?

...anyway, just kind of some thoughts I've been having as I finish up my novel and get ready to query agents. So, this has been a very timely thread, indeed.

Click to expand...

Go take a look at Janet Reid's Query Shark blog. It's great and I think you might find it very helpful.

Ya know, this is the way things are done now, for whatever reasons you want to come up with. For many agencies no response = no. Deal with it. You can't change it. Or if you think you can, make a banner and protest in the streets with other like-minded writers and would-be writers.

I have too much writing to do to worry about things I can't change.

Back five years ago w/ my first query-go-round, I remember about 50% of my SASEs not coming back to me at all. That was a lot of money, with stamps, envelopes, paper, and ink wasted. And time wasted from standing in line at the post office.

I'm finding it's about the same now--about 50% no response (though it's now mostly emails). I just wait three months then submit the query to another agent on my list, always having about ten queries or requested partials out there. At least I'm not wasting money or my time.

I dislike not getting a response to my queries, but I appreciate that agents are busy. I really get annoyed however, when agents can't be bothered to respond to a full request. Increasingly, that seems to be the case. At least a form rejection is closure.

Ses said:

....but bare with me and tell me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't know you nearly well enough to bare with you.

Ses said:

Besides hooking the agent with the book, how much of a good idea would it be in the query letter to hook the agent with yourself? Would this tactic up your response rate, or would it just totally annoy those you queried and get you shortlisted into the rejection bin?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I'm not clear on what this means. How would you "hook the agent with yourself?"

The agent isn't particularly interested at the query stage in your sparkling personality. They just want to see if you can write. All the interesting factoids about yourself in the world won't hook an agent if you can't.

Lady MacBeth said:

I dislike not getting a response to my queries, but I appreciate that agents are busy. I really get annoyed however, when agents can't be bothered to respond to a full request. Increasingly, that seems to be the case. At least a form rejection is closure.

Click to expand...

By the end of my querying process, I'd long ceased to worry about query non-responses. I did continue to think nonresponses to fulls (and partials) was rude, especially after I'd gone to the expense in two cases of snail-mailing the whole MS.

I don't think expecting at least a form response to requested material is unreasonable. But oh well. Myself, I nudged at three months and six months (no responses), then made my notes and shrugged the silence off.

The most amusing thing for me was that when I chose an agent and informed the long-time nonresponders that I was withdrawing my submissions, I got immediate responses (and congrats) from all of them.

Old Hack said:

And this bit I don't understand. Why do you think agents reject your work the instant you send it in? If that's the case, why bother submitting? Why get involved with agents at all?

Click to expand...

My point here is that I have no idea when the agent has read and rejected the work. Some agents can reply in minutes or hours instead of weeks or months. Why bother an agent with information about something they've already passed on? If a particular agent is a 'no response' agent, I hit send then update my spreadsheet to no. I only need to change that status if I get a yes. Since that agent is no in my spreadsheet, no further correspondence is necessary, and so no updates for them. (I know, they don't care, it's petty too. But it makes me feel better, less like I'm talking to an empty room and more like I'm ignoring the person ignoring me. I'm not powerless that way.)

I understand about the nutjobs, stalkers, and other crazies. They aren't limited to publishing either. But not responding to requested material?

Agents are necessary to sell work to most houses. It's a required part of the business if you intend to be commercially published, particularly if you have no previous experience. If it weren't for agents, I imagine we'd all be complaining that editors don't respond anymore... (perhaps agents ARE bemoaning that somewhere...)

Shrug. It is what it is. My opinion isn't going to affect anything.

well, there's the problem

How can someone be "briefed" on how to read a query? Please, how long was this briefing?

How many thousand books has your niece read? What are her qualifications? How have her publishing instincts been developed?

Now I can see part of the problem. You have interns judging queries based on a "briefing." How much work went into the novel and query? How much work went into the briefing? If only your niece would publish her briefing we could all write our queries to match and be assured of success.

I once sent a query to a major agent, who asked for a full. When I responded with the full I forgot to change the email subject line. My "query" that was in response to a request for a full was rejected by an intern who didn't bother to read the body of the email. That alone tells me how much time assistants and interns spend reading emails.

Old Hack said:

My neice, who was recently an intern at a major London literary agency, was briefed very carefully on how to assess the submissions she was asked to filter. By suggesting that dealing with submissions is a random, confused process you're making assumptions which in my experience are neither safe nor true.

Click to expand...

it is now normal......and I wish it wasn't.

as for the complaining about it, well, it is what it is. And to some degree, it is a "you can't have your cake and eat it too" proposition--I happen to like the fact I'm not mailing everyone when it is time to query, that is a huge convenience for me. In return, I get the inconvenience of them being deluged by writers, including myself, who find it easier to send and send and send some more. e-mail made subbing easier, but it also made it easier for folks to do en masse, and I strongly suspect if anyone dug out the numbers, they could show very quickly that the volume of queries at an average agent's place increased quite a bit with the ease of e-querying.

I've said before in other threads, but agents aren't exactly money-averse--if they think your book has potential, they'll find you, and if not, well, "no" means no, and no response after say six weeks means "probably no" but that's just how it is.

One solution, of sorts, that I've seen a few agents use, is to make it a little more difficult for writers to query by having a form on their website that writers fill out. The form requires writers to answer questions and provide specific information that is probably not in a standard query. I imagine this greatly reduces the amount of haphazard, unsuitable queries received and thereby allows the agent time to respond to writers who have put in the time and thought to "jump through the hoops."

tko said:

That alone tells me how much time assistants and interns spend reading emails.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It tells you what that one person did in that one instance. Have you considered that the intern made an honest mistake? (Do you never make mistakes at work?) You don't even know whether the intern was a sloppy intern or just made, yanno, a mistake.

And to extrapolate a single instance to the wider population of assistants and interns is ridiculous.

tko said:

How can someone be "briefed" on how to read a query? Please, how long was this briefing?

Click to expand...

The length of such a briefing isn't an issue here.

One can be briefed like this:

"We only represent writers of romantic fiction here, so send all non-fiction a form rejection. We can't sell collections of short stories or poetry, so send those a form rejection too. Any fiction which isn't romantic fiction--form rejection. In fact, send a form rejection to anyone who has submitted anything which is not romantic fiction."

The intern follows these instructions and sends form rejections to about 80% of the submissions.

She then returns to the agent and asks what to do with the rest and this is the briefing she gets now.

"We only represent writers who readers can understand and enjoy. Send form rejections to all submissions which are incoherent, unreadable, or so badly written that the author seems to lack even a basic understanding of grammar, punctuation or spelling."

The itern follows these instructions and sends form rejections to three quarters of the remaining submissions, leaving her with 5% of the original pile.

She then returns to the agent and asks what to do with the rest and this is the briefing she gets now.

"Hand those over to me, and I'll deal with them."

How many thousand books has your niece read? What are her qualifications? How have her publishing instincts been developed?

Click to expand...

None of that is any of your business. But she had to apply for the position, detailing her qualifications, her work experience, and her interests, and wouldn't have been given the placement had the agency not felt she had appropriate skills.

Now I can see part of the problem. You have interns judging queries based on a "briefing." How much work went into the novel and query? How much work went into the briefing? If only your niece would publish her briefing we could all write our queries to match and be assured of success.

Click to expand...

The amount of work that went into the novel is immaterial if it's a dreadful novel or query, or if the writer sent it to the wrong agency; I've just explained to you what form these briefings take; and no, we couldn't.

I once sent a query to a major agent, who asked for a full. When I responded with the full I forgot to change the email subject line. My "query" that was in response to a request for a full was rejected by an intern who didn't bother to read the body of the email. That alone tells me how much time assistants and interns spend reading emails.

Click to expand...

Funny, that's not the message I get from that story. It suggests that you were slapdash in your approach, you didn't do what you were asked to do, and the agency rejected your submission as a result.

Did you resubmit in the correct format and explain the problem? If so, what was the result? and if not, why not?

Agents and their well-briefed interns have very little time to spend reading submissions. Mistakes do happen, but if you went into the querying process with the defensive, somewhat confrontational attitude I think I'm seeing here (and if that's not what you meant, I apologise: it is often difficult to correctly judge the tone of online communications) then I'm not surprised your work was rejected. Agents don't want to work with people who look like they might be difficult: they want to develop rewarding, positive relationships with their author-clients.

inspiredbymusic said:

One solution, of sorts, that I've seen a few agents use, is to make it a little more difficult for writers to query by having a form on their website that writers fill out. The form requires writers to answer questions and provide specific information that is probably not in a standard query. I imagine this greatly reduces the amount of haphazard, unsuitable queries received and thereby allows the agent time to respond to writers who have put in the time and thought to "jump through the hoops."

Click to expand...

Regarding the bit I bolded there: sadly not.

As for the text I italicised: again, not really. Agents are primarily responsible to their existing clients. Even if the number of submissions that they received were cut by 90% it's still unlikely that they'd be able to give personalised rejections to every one they received. It comes down to this: dealing with submissions does not generate income for agents; dealing with their author-clients does.