Note: I am no longer a literary agent, this is a blast from the past.
I’m going to break out the honesty today. Weak of heart, cover your eyes. This truth can hurt.
So….. no disrespect to anyone who reads the blog and has queried me recently (I’m sure your query was good), but I’ve really noticed two things over the past couple of weeks:
1) I’ve been receiving way more queries than usual
2) The quality of these queries, on average, is WAY below normal.
Obviously there have been some pleasant exceptions and, if you read this or other agent blogs, even if I passed on your project the overwhelming odds (because you’re awesome and doing your research) are that yours was one of the good ones. But on average, these queries I’ve been receiving lately are way way way worse than normal, like a train wreck on top of a volcanic explosion of cow dung (yay similes!)
What’s going on out there?
On the agent panel at the San Francisco Writer’s Conference we talked about how e-queries, because of their relative ease of use, have an unfortunate tendency to inspire some people to spend less time perfecting their query, somehow leads them to think it’s a good idea to blast the entire industry with one e-mail, and/or prompts them to write a five hundred page query letter (I guess because they don’t have to pay for the paper).
And unfortunately, it’s exactly the type of person who doesn’t take the time to read blogs or research how to write a good letter who sends these frivolous queries, so they’re beyond help. I have no way of reaching these people, via the blog or otherwise. Even if I SHOUT REALLY LOUDLY. “HEY!! PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE NOT READING AGENT BLOGS!!! SHAPE UP YOUR QUERIES!!!” … … … … … See? Nothing.
I’ve even had people ask me for help, I send them a blog link, they refuse to read it and send me a bad query anyway. I had someone today brag that she hadn’t read my blog.
So now I’m in a position where I have to spend a huge amount of time wading through really bad queries to get to the good ones. This has always been a mainstay of the query-reading process and I still like queries (mostly), but the ratio of bad to good these first few months of 2008 has been widening and widening, with no uptick in sight. I have to be out there on the Internet so I can attract the good ones, but I’m drowning in haystacks as I search for needles.
Anyway, meandering post for a Monday. I have no answers! But I’m getting exhausted spending the first several hours of my day wading through a morass of bad query letters. I’m still going to adhere to my policy of responding to everyone who queries me, but anyone who complains about agents not responding to queries should really spend several hours reading through 100+ queries every Monday morning.
R.C. says
Are you re-thinking your stance – when in doubt, query me?
As a querier from last week – sorry!
Nathan Bransford says
R.C.-
No apology necessary at all, and thank you for querying me.
And it’s funny — anyone who has heard my advice “when in doubt query me” is someone I want querying me. It’s the people who just find me on the Internet somewhere and fire off a bad query who are really taking up my time.
Josephine Damian says
I’ve seen several agent websites that stated they were switching from e-queries back to snail mail queries.
I think the trouble with e-queries is that there’s no limitation on the page size/amount of content – writers are not forced by space constrainsts to tighten up their letter in an e-query as they are in a strict one (paper) page limit.
I think people overall do more sloppy, less formal writing online than in a traditional paper letter.
I think when you say “query me first” – you’re seeing first drafts of queries as oppoosed to those who sent out a first version, got a lot of rejections, and then went back to the drawing board for a query re-write; I think by insisting on being first, you’re seeing a lot of failed first tries at querying a particular project.
Did you see Jonathan Lyons is now forcing people to use a form on his website? (maybe you were too busy reading bad queries to notice?) With a 500 word limit on the body of the query? I think imposing a word limit is the best way to ensure at least a tighter, less rambling query. I thought it was a really good idea.
Josephine Damian says
PS: I think you can post all the query advice you want, but there are always people who fail to follow instructions, or who don’t read the blog at all (and just say they do).
I understand your wanting first crack at a potentially great project, and don’t want to re-think your “query me first” mantra – but I think forcing people to stick to a word limit might at least cut back on some of the really bad queries.
Adaora A. says
Wow Nathan.
Out of interest, how did you know they bragged about NOT reading you blog? Did they actually fully tell you they’ve never read it? How does that look good for them to admit it. I’m trying to understand this outrageous reasoning.
About the slew of clearly mass – badly done – queries you’ve been recieving I have a theory: It’s because there are a lot of authors out there who want to be represented out there by anyone
and they haven’t done the research to figure out which agent(s) out there would be a great fit for them. It’s nice to see the agent point of view in cases like these though.
Ulysses says
You have my sympathy.
The internet has really caused a communication explosion. Unfortunately, some people get caught in the blast.
Between regular mail, phone calls, text messages, faxes, cell phones, e-mail, blogs, news groups and video conferencing, we have a myriad of different ways to say things.
Now, I’d really like someone to come up with a filter that cuts it all down to the stuff worth hearing.
benwah says
Ouch. I likewise queried you last week. Hello tailspin. Oh wait, there’s a bottle of bourbon in the back of the plane. Not to worry.
I kid. I think the e-query can suffer from the same problem as e-mail: it encourages an undue familiarity or lack of formality.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have addressed my query to you as “Yo, Nate.”
I’m in the habit of writing my queries as business letters, complete with address, and then cutting and pasting into an email to send. One agent online (Janet Reid maybe?) makes the point on her blog that she dislikes such a practice because it’s too formal. Ah well. It behooves us to research the agents’ particular preferences.
Heidi the Hick says
“drowning in haystacks as I search for needles.”
gah, that is good!
Sorry you’re so bogged down. There are a lot of people who don’t listen, and not just in this business…
I wish so hard I’d waited 6 months to fire off my query. And yes, you were the first on my list.
jjdebenedictis says
*pets Nathan sympathetically*
Probably what has happened is someone, somewhere, has added your name to an online list of literary agents.
Which means you’re now catching a surge of letters from people who do their research by Googling the phrase “list of literary agents”. Eek.
Whatcha need to do is set up a webpage called “List of literary agents” and then arrange for the first thing a random Googler to see when they load the page is the phrase “YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.”
(This should be followed by sage advice on how to do it right, of course.)
Laurel Amberdine says
Would it be possible for you to take advantage of some kind of unpaid intern-type assistance for first pass screening?
(BTW, let me know if I can help; I’m already on call for slush overflow for an agent friend of mine… though I suspect you have plenty of local help available.)
I’m sorry to hear about all the clueless queries. It’s a shame that you being so polite, accessible, and prompt gets punished like this.
K.R.Stewart says
Does that mean if I send you a good-but-not-great query letter in the near future, it will somehow seem more impressive next to all those utterly horrible ones? =P
D. Robert Pease says
Why not put some kind of “secret only if you read my blog” code out for us. Like anyone that queries start “Dear Nathan, sick of horrific queries, Bransford,” will automatically be flagged as someone who has at least perused your blog.
Nathan Bransford says
d. robert pease-
I would love to limit queries to just blog readers, but then, every now and then a brilliant author comes along who doesn’t read my blog, and I can’t afford to miss out on writers like that.
Honestly the first thing to go would be my system of responding to everyone who queries me. I’m not there yet, but I really do feel that it’s a privilege to hear from an agent, even if it’s a rejection, rather than a right. Our Inboxes are only getting crazier.
It’s not people like you guys who are making our lives difficult, it’s those other people out there who are firing queries from the hip.
Adaora A. says
REMEMBER THE ALIMO!
Brigid says
I think your contest drew in all the crazies. You probably have a slew of people who think they were on the bubble (thanks to my husband for the poker term), and this is the best way to get you to read on. I’m betting that queries will go back to normal in another few months or so.
sex scenes at starbucks says
I had someone today brag that she hadn’t read my blog.
Oh my.
sex scenes at starbucks says
Question for you, Nathan. I have a friend (yes, actually a friend, not me) who used a query service to pretty much spam the industry with her query. I think 200 went out on one day. The service doesn’t diffrentiate between what agent takes what, so of course she’s gotten lots of rejections saying “please read my guidelines.”
Be that as it may, it’s a good query and book (it oughta be–I critiqued it!) and she’s had requests for THIRTY partials and TWO fulls so far. All this in a matter of a couple of weeks.
I’m wondering your take on this, given her fairly remarkable success at getting some attention. And FYI, no, I’m not planning on paying for such a service myself, I’m just curious from an agent’s standpoint.
Nadine says
Wow, sorry to hear that!
Hopefully after this post, things will shape up!!
And I really wonder what went through that writer’s mind when she braged that she didn’t read your blog. Did she honestly think that would help?
It’s like when a guy yells out “hey sexy” from a car window. It doesn’t increase their chances, it lowers them.
Nathan Bransford says
ss@s-
Most times query blasters are a waste of time, but if you have a good project I suppose it could be a way of shortening the process. I pretty much never request even a partial from these because I know that even if the project is good 30 other agents are also going to be requesting manuscripts, and a feeding frenzy is unappetizing.
christi_r_suzanne says
I really enjoy reading your posts. They are very helpful. I just finished the first draft of my first novel and am taking in as much advice as I can. I don’t want to over-edit my draft, but I do want it to be in the best shape it can be in. It helps to know that creating a good query is the best way to get your foot in the door etc. I can’t imagine why people think otherwise!
HubPages Profile
Jared X says
My day job is in the world of consulting. There is a generally accepted ratio in the consulting world that 10 initial sales meetings will lead to 1 new client. That means 9 meetings, each of which required days of preparation, and travel, and general effort, go for naught.
In the world of talent-finding, I understand the ratio is a lot worse. You need hundreds (or thousands) of queries to yield a single profitable client. But in the time it takes me to prepare for one meeting, you can reject dozens upon dozens of queries, so the numbers even out a bit.
As I need 10 meetings to get one client, you need all of your queriers, even the bad ones, to be successful in your business. On that ground alone, I believe that we, the masses, are in fact owed a response when we query.
HOWEVER, given the effort you’ve put in to tell us, the masses, what you’re looking for, it is on us, the masses, to do our due diligence and query you properly. That means people who begin a query to Nathan Bransford with a rhetorical question aren’t response-worthy. Nor are queriers of screenplays. Nor are people who pack similes like sardines into their query letters (see what I did there?).
If you just responded to the queriers who acted professionally in submitting their queries, you might find a glorious middle ground between being eternally swamped and ignoring everyone. You also might have the next John Grisham query you with “The Firm” after you politely rejected his “A Time to Kill.”
Kaleb says
I am beginning to think that agents deserve a certain fund from the government that is taken from the tax on pencils, typewriters and paper. This fund would go towards psychiatrists who will attempt to keep literary agents sane after all the misery these writers inflict on you by simply ignoring very obvious instructions that are plastered in every single writing book and website in the world.
How simple can it be? It’s not like this information is hiding in the bushes. When people ask me to proofread their query and it starts on the first line with ‘Dear Sir or Madam’, I can’t tell you how close I am to popping; and you agents have to put up with it every day.
Anonymous says
Please, please, someone tell me to go thru the process of intelligently querying select agents and not just take the first offer I got from a small publisher for a n/f book/anthology project. Gut instinct is to take the offer and run. Little voice inside my head (one of many) says there’s a better deal out there if I go through the trouble of finding an agent who can snare a better publisher… but I don’t want to bog down folks like Nathan…
Emily says
Poor Nathan. All the new queries are probably the result of a new year. Everyone’s still trying to stick to their resolutions and I’m betting half of America decided that 2008 was the year they’d finally get a book published. And then they all rushed off, scribbled up a query letter and sent it out to millions.
I give it another few months. The frenzied rush of 2008 will wear off. Hopefully.
La Gringa says
I’ve noticed that the best e-queries I’ve been getting come from people who take the time to read my submissions guidelines (I can tell because I ask them to put a specific couple of words in the subject line).
Some of the worst have been from MFAs and previously published authors.
Just weird.
Anonymous says
I go e-query whenever I can–not because I feel it somehow changes the content of what I can write (more space?!?!?! weird!), or beause it lets me query more widely than I otherwise would (I just sent 10 queries, and when a reject comes in, I replace it by sending out a new query so that there are always 10 outstanding–e-query or snail mail doesn’t matter), but simply because i’ts faster AND more convenient. IF the agency says they accept e-queries, or if they have no preference–then I send an e-query, but it’s the same, customized letter I would have sent snail mail (even down to the business and return addresses at the top of the letter).
Anonymous says
Sex Scenes–my guess that if your friend’s manuscript is as good as her response rate, she could’ve gotten a similar response without spamming the industry, possibly alienating the agent who might have been her best match, and saved herself, what? a couple hundred bucks? I don’t think the letter someone else wrote did it–I think the book did it. And if the book isn’t good after all, those partials and fulls will get a no (the same no they would’ve gotten with her own letter–maybe from the get-go).
Chumplet says
Somebody must have linked your blog to a new bunch of writers who haven’t yet learned to RESEARCH!
It wasn’t me. I’m between books right now.
Yapping About YA says
Oooh. Morass. SAT word of the day! Awesome!
Furious D says
Perhaps you need e-query guidelines?
Set rules for length, and such, and suggest that they write rough drafts of the query first, and edit them ruthlessly, something every real writer will understand.
Brevity is the soul of wit, and if you can’t do it in 200 words, you’re not going to be able to do it in 80,000.
pjd says
For those agents returning from the e-world to the real-world for query acceptance, the definition of a 42-cent stamp is “statement of sincerity.”
e-querying reduces barriers. When you reduce barriers, more of the unwashed masses stumble in.
I wonder how the dynamic would change if a micropayment were instituted on queries to agents. Say, every e-query you send, you automatically donate a dollar (cost of postage, paper, ink) to a predetermined charity. One of two things would happen: Either money to charity goes up (a Good Thing) or the number of awful e-queries goes down (also a Good Thing).
I’ve got my flame-retardant shorts on today, so I’m prepared for the onslaught of author opinions on that idea.
Anonymous says
Ouch. I’m sorry, Nathan. I don’t know if it helps or not (probably not) but I owe you a lot of thanks for your helpful posts on queries. I never queried you — I don’t think you deal with my genre — but other agents were probably spared horror and headaches because I was able to benefit from your advice.
So thanks on their behalf and mine. It’s not wasted effort!
Marva says
How about agents responding with the reason other than “not right for me?” I think my query is relatively good. I even think my book is sellable. How will I ever know why my query doesn’t work for an agent? Let’s go back to the checklist:
__ Lousy query
__ Lousy book concept
__ Not my genre
__ Really, it sounds okay, the query is decent, but it’s just not right for me (but that’s what I tell all the writers and how would they know the difference?)
I understand agents not wanting to get hate mail, but the fact of the matter is that unless they’re honest about why they’re rejecting a query, then how will they ever stop the influx? After all, hate email is easy to erase.
Go ahead and tell me (if/when I query you again) whether my query sucks or the book sucks. I’m willing to learn and I promise not to send a nasty followup message. Have I ever? (except for this comment, that is, which I admit to a certain whiny undertone).
Ello says
I think Josie is right – it is statistically proven that people are sloppier and less professional on email than in a written letter format.
Nathan – if going to snail mail is too painful for you to contemplate, then why not put in an online submission process which makes people think about how to apply to you instead of just being able to fire an email off. I agonize over every email query I sent, AND YET those agents with online submission forms made me sweat even more.
Just a thought.
Nathan Bransford says
marva-
I like your ideas in theory, it would be very helpful for authors, but in practice I would have to have multiple rejections that I had to copy in, which would take even more time, of which I have very short supply. And I don’t see how it would reduce queries.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that for the frivolous queries that don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hades I tell them that they should really give up and stop querying. How many people do you think would listen? I’m guessing zero.
Heather Wardell says
Marva, the problem is the volume. I too would love more than a “not right for me” response, but Nathan says he reads a hundred queries a day. There’s no way he can personalize responses to each, especially since a lot of times the reason for rejection does fall into a category. And yes, you can handle the honesty, and so can I, but lots can’t, and so he can’t even state the category (“reads like your cat wrote it”, “not my genre”, “no apparent plot”, etc.) without upsetting people and getting even more hate mail.
Nathan, have you considered an auto-responder email that says something to the effect of, “I have received your query. If I do not respond within thirty days, I do not feel the book is right for me.”? This would a) let us know you DID get the query (an issue with the flat-out “respond only when interested” agents) and b) still let you respond to the ones that are good even if not quite for you.
I’d hate to see you forced into the “respond only when interested” camp by the terrible queries. If I personalize a query and make sure it’s going to an agent who is likely to be interested in my work, it does bother me when I don’t get even a form rejection.
I hope the train wreck surfing on the cow dung settles down soon. 🙂
Nathan Bransford says
heather-
Yeah, I think if I did get forced into the “respond if interested camp” I would probably just have a separate e-mail address for queries and if you don’t hear from me in two weeks you have your answer.
I’m not there yet and I’m hoping this is just a January/February thing, but I also want to give a sense of how it is in the trenches so people are (hopefully) understanding when agents either don’t reply or give annoyingly vague responses when they send a rejection. It’s not you guys that force agents into these things — it’s the people who don’t have a chance but still gum up the works.
Jessica says
Another one chiming in with an apology for being one of those who queried you last week!
I hear you, Marva. It would be fantastic to get feedback like that, to know if the problem was the letter itself, the sample pages, the storyline, etc. Then I’d know if it’s me and my story or if it’s that the agent isn’t right for this. BUT I totally understand why an agent can’t give feedback like that to the deluge of queries they receive.
I hope that everyone doesn’t start moving back to snail mail queries. E-queries are a godsend to those of us who live overseas!
Chin up, Nathan! There’s a masterpiece in there somewhere.
Other Lisa says
I think what Heather suggests is a really good compromise. What would make me crazy about the lack of response isn’t that I don’t get feedback (it’s unreasonable to expect that) but the nagging fear that maybe my query ended up getting caught in the spam filter or something, and also, not being able to just cross the agent off my list after a defined amount of time.
Getting an auto-response with a timeframe on it solves both those issues.
I don’t know what to suggest doing about people who don’t follow directions though…
Just_Me says
Oh no! My evil plot backfired!
Nathan, I confess, I hired a bunch of hack jobs to flood your office until I polished my manuscript so that when you read my query it will stand out like a glowing beacon of hope.
I see now the error of my ways. I’ll bribe the monkeys away from the typewriters with bananas. You have my sincerest apologies. In the future I’ll remember that overwhelming an agent with bad queries won’t make them like mine any better.
Elyssa Papa says
Well, Nathan, let’s do something more positive with this: start a drinking game…
Query starts off with a rhetorical question (1 shot)
Query makes an inane–but sadly missed–tempt at humor (1 shot)
Query claims not to read your blog and brags about it (2 shots)
Query doesn’t do any research about you as an agent (3 shots)
Query makes you wonder WTF is going on (drink the whole damn bottle)
It works in dulling the pain and numbing your senses. I’ve developed a My Query is Rejected drinking game.
You’re probably right in that there’s people who should just stop. But have there been people you’ve rejected that has simply been because you really weren’t right for the project? (Or is this a stupid rheotorical question)? *g*
But on a more serious note, what makes you want to request more from an author? What makes reading tons of “bad” queries sort of worthwhile for that one “good” query?
Elyssa Papa says
Grrr. Attempt not tempt at humor.
Arwen says
As a lurker who hasn’t queried you, I would like to offer thanks. Your blog has been stupidly beneficial in helping me work on my query, and if you’re not seeing an overall increase in querying ability, you’ve certainly done a mitzvah to the inboxes of those I’ll be querying. My first letter out there was a collection of neurotic What Not To Do query traps.
Learning to write pitches is a hard skill for me, exactly because I’m not a reader of pitches – I don’t have a library of examples to draw on.
So thank you, and know your lessons and examples have made a difference, even if you’re not always seeing it.
Arwen says
Oh, look. Another anonymous commenter said the same thing as I did more efficiently. So that makes 2 of us, and I bet we represent many more.
Marilynn Byerly says
Bad queries tend to show either poor writing skills or cluelessness about the business of writing.
Think of those horrible queries as a fast way to avoid bad manuscripts and unprofessional writers.
It’s the queries that offer visions of bestseller paradise, but the manuscript is dreck, that are heartbreakers.
Sam Hranac says
Nathan wrote: “…I also want to give a sense of how it is in the trenches”
And we thank you for helping us understand.
Nathan wrote: “It’s not you guys that force agents into these things — it’s the people who don’t have a chance but still gum up the works.”
Sigh. The double edged sword of word processors and cheap computers. It’s too easy to churn out volume these days. Still, I’m glad I don’t have to re-type entire chapters in order to pull off minor updates.
Anonymous says
I believe authors query blogging agents as a test drive, quite frankly.
Anonymous says
Nathan, you are the king of blogs. And what did other agents do before agent bloggers came along? It must have been just awful.
Riley says
This is probably a stupid idea, but you could probably weed through the bad queries by telling us to put a certain word in the subject line of the query, and just not reading the queries that don’t have that word in the subject line.
Diana says
I am sure I’m not alone in saying I feel your pain when it comes to receiving crappy, poorly written e-mails whose only clear message appears to be “You are not worth the time and effort to reread or edit this text.”
If you wanted to get wild and crazy, you could suggest a limited word count on your e-queries, since page numbers don’t really apply unless you print it out, and then the length depends a great deal on how your e-mail system formats the e-mail. Of course, that gets us back to the fact that your query-ers (sp?) aren’t reading your blog anyway.
I really like getting some sort of reply, but for me, I most want to know if you received it at all. Some spam filters are more vicious than others. Maybe, if you’re feeling that the rejection process is too much, you could set up your account to automatically send out a message that says, “I received your e-query, and I will get back to you if it is a good fit.”
Or, you could come up with a generic “Your query was so awful, this is all you get from me. I have blocked you from my inbox.”