I'd never query an agent with a manuscript they'd already rejected. To me, that stinks of crassness and desperation.
There's a specific person at querytracker who continues to send out the same 2 manuscripts, 2 or 3 times to the same agents, every few months. I don't understand why, when they've said it's a no, she continues to pester them. It seems like a remarkably effective way to torpedo one's career right away. Because I'm sure they remember her name. And not in a good way.
But there's nothing that says you can't query them with a completely different (not renamed) project.
I agree with all this.
It's fine to requery if you're invited but otherwise, don't do it.
I'd not hesitate to send a query out to the same agency.
If the agency you're requerying doesn't have a "no from one is a no from us all" then you're fine. Otherwise don't do it.
Most tell us they don't have time, and send form letters. It would seem wrong to presume that they all took a hard look and concluded neither they, nor anyone else in their shop, had any interest. Besides, the turnover is also not exactly scant.
No, it wouldn't be wrong to presume that at all.
I know several literary agents personally, and I've seen how they work. They take great care and trouble with sorting through their slush piles, and don't reject work without making sure it's not what they want. It's where their money comes from, so why would they?
It's reasoning like this which has led to the "no response means no" from agencies and agents--and I don't think any of us like that policy, agents included. Why overload already-overflowing slush piles with books which have already been rejected? It's pointless and inconsiderate. Don't do it.
This is the thing. I'd love to query different agent in the same agency after a period of time. But I wondered how their offices are organized, whether each agent works separately from each other, or they work together at least know which authors the other colleague next room is signing with.
All agencies are different.
Some have a central reader who then sends the better queries to agents within the agency who she thinks might be interested. She'll know very precisely what each agent is looking for, and if they're taking on new clients: it's a system which works well. This is the sort of organisation which has a "a no from one is a no from us all" rule.
Some agencies filter unread submissions out to appropriate agents, for them to sort through for themselves.
Some agencies pass a whole week's worth of submissions to one agent, then the next week's worth to the next agent, and so on.
More then likely, all the agents in an agency work together as a team. So little chance that a rejected novel could be accepted by another agent in the same office? Please tell me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong. And you're right!
At some agencies the agents do work together. At others, they don't. But if one agent receives a submission which she decides to pass on but recognises that it might be of interest to one of her colleagues she will pass it on to them.
Well, I'm beginning to think too much, as I also think that there could be a difference between an outright email rejection and a silence without a verbal rejection. The latter might imply that you can still query us after a certain period of time passed?!
There's no difference between an email rejection and a silent rejection: they're both a no.
If the agency's guidelines state that you can requery after a period of time then do that. If they don't, then you can't.