If you familiarize yourself with the best practices of writing a query letter, use your best judgment, and act in good faith and send the best query you can you’re going to be fine and there’s no need to sweat the tiny details.
Don’t believe me? Here’s a nearly identical post by agent Michael Bourret.
It’s not about the details.
Only…. it kind of is.
I mean, it is and isn’t.
UPDATED 5/29/19
The details that matter
It isn’t about the details in the sense that there really is no such thing as an instant rejection if you make a query faux pas. Literary agents are going to take everything into account when making a decision, and just because you, say, started with a rhetorical question doesn’t mean you will automatically be rejected.
It is about the details in the sense that literary agents are making a decision based on a short letter and maybe some sample pages and so of course it’s about the details.
But which details to sweat and which details to not sweat?
Here’s my sweat list.
Overall look
Around the right length, a reasonable font at 10 or 12 points, broken into reasonable paragraphs, no fiddling with margins, pictures, indenting, colors, etc.
Just a clean, professional-looking letter.
Don’t sweat if it’s a little long or a little short, and definitely do not start messing around to try and make it look creative or different. When it comes to letters, “creative” tends to look “insane.” It’s like showing up to a job interview in a clown costume. When you’re formatting your query: wear a boring suit.
The description of your work
Get it right. Get it right, get it right, get it right. Get it right. Sweat this. This is what we care about. We’re looking for a good story idea and good writing, and you want both to jump out in the query.
That’s it
Annnnd, we’re done!
All that other stuff like credits, genre, word count, series, etc. etc. etc.? Sure, great if you can sort through an agent’s pet peeves and get yourself in the ballpark of the right genre, and every little bit helps if you can show that you’re cool and professional and know what you’re doing.
But when it comes down to it: use your best judgment and get the big stuff right. All the rest is gravy.
Need help with your book? Iām available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and coaching!
For my best advice, check out my online classes, my guide to writing a novel and my guide to publishing a book.
And if you like this post: subscribe to my newsletter!
Art: Looking Up the Yosemite Valley by Albert Bierstadt
Sharon Mayhew says
Nathan, while you're explaining all the rules could you answer this for me? Is a personal hand written rejection a good thing? Out of the last five stories I've sent to editors, I've gotten four completely hand written rejections and one form rejection with a note written on it. My writing buddies say these are good rejections…I'm skeptical.
SFixe says
So let me get this straight, all we need to do is get it right. Right?
Just one more question…How is it that we get it right again? ;P
Great post Nathan, and just kidding–Just get it right, of course, now let me go work on that…
Anonymous says
Nathan
Apologies in advance, I have a question about one of your earlier posts – can anyone with enough practice be a good writer?
How much emphasis do you place on technical skill when you read a partial or manuscript v's how captivated you are by the story?
Would you reject someone if, say, they were not technically proficient in spite of their story holding great appeal, or would you take a chance on that person and work with them to iron out the rough spots?
Apologies again if you have already answered this question somewhere else and I missed it.
Thanks
Steve says
It seems to me that it is a good idea to target your level of nit-pickiness in a query to the level you would be comfortable with in an agent with whom you would be working.
If you are a perfectionist, you will probably be most comfortable with a very picky perfectionistic agent. If you're more laid back you almost certainly would prefer an agent that does not sweat the small stuff.
If you are a laid back individual, let your query be a bit relaxed, as Nathan seems to be suggesting. You may well get some semi-automatic deletes from very fussy agents. And that's probably all for the best.
-Steve
Erastes says
Great post, thank you, Nathan.
The trouble is – that so often we see the question approach working!
Catherine Hughes says
Oh this is weird. I won a guest blog competition on strictly Writing and my subject was how I don't believe agents are as scary as we're led to believe.
https://strictlywriting.blogspot.com/2009/11/agents-do-not-breathe-fire-by-guest.html
It's not quite the same topic but it seems lots of people are thinking along similar lines!
bigwords88 says
I don't own such a thing as a boring suit… If in doubt, go with the Mark Twain-inspired white suit.
Or jeans and a t-shirt.
GhostFolk.com says
Given it is unlikely that people who cannot write well will write a query letter well, isn't it the book behind the query that is of interest to the agent?
Devil's Advocate: Isn't it up the agent to develop the skill to see the book behind the query?
I don't understand why any agent would want authors to focus on writing the perfect query.
You're going to find that a lot of people incapable of developing fascinating character, compelling conflict, fresh concept and interwoven story arcs, can, indeed, learn to master a one-page query letter.
What does that get you? A bunch of really good query letters for a bunch of poorly executed books.
It's the book behind the query that matters and it is up to the agent to learn to see it.
And should an agent miss a highly marketable novel or two, it is easy to blame the author for not having done the query correctly. I'd consider blaming the agent for not having read the query correctly.
It is easy to say that it is a matter of taste what an agent chooses to read and/or represent. Sometimes. Maybe. I think it is a matter of the agent's professional skill to see a good book behind a query, to admit they miss a few (and not blame it on subjective tastes in every instance), and to, please, stop teaching query nuance mechanics.
The one thing I have noticed the "successful" queries (that are posted now and then online) have in common is that a highly marketable book was behind each one of them.
If you want to be published, you need to write that book. Query a dozen agents simultaneously and let those who can't see the book behind the query pass on it. The best agent(s) will see the book behind the query and contact you.
It's your job, Nathan, to find good work among the submissions. It is my job to produce a book that will sell. If an agent passes on reading my Ms because of 6 query flubs, I'll go with another agent, thank you. And I will make them money for their trouble.
Authors who have work that is ready to sell are in the market for agents for only a short time. Often only a week or two.
Again, it is the agent's job to see the marketable book behind the query. And, fellow authors, if you don't write that book, it really doesn't matter how well your query is executed.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why one agent online has potential authors revise (often more than once) their query letters to her specifications and, when they finally get it right, she agrees to read and consider their manuscript for representation.
Uh, isn't it the same book?
Anne Lyken-Garner says
This post has given me a lot to think about. The posts I've read recently which have been written by literary agents presented a circus freak show, where writers were the performing artists.
It was a 'given' that we are up here, you writers are waaaayy down there. Obviously, this annoyed me greatly.
Yours is a sensible approach that makes more sense. It seems to represent a professional, working relationship, which is nicer than the norm.
Jason says
Great post Nathan…something I personally needed to hear. With some of the emphasis on agent blogs I've read it almost like we're having to walk on egg shells for fear of saying/doing something that gets us forever blacklisted.
You're a cool dude…maybe it's the California sun???
Word Verification: canize–act of preserving and packaging old vegetables.
Scott says
Rule #1: have an idea that lots of people will want to read a story about.
Rule #2: express it clearly in a letter to an agent.
Rule #3: mail.
Terry says
GhostFolk, Thoughtful comments. I know of an agent, who doesn't even ask for a query. Also, I read an interview with another, who asks for one, along with the first so-many pages. But she admitted she goes straight to the work, because that's the most important. If she doesn't like that, apparently the query doesn't matter.
Agents seem to differ in their approach. I read as many agent interviews as I can, to get to know how they work as well as their likes and dislikes.
Gordon Jerome says
Hey Ghost Folk,
I think you're right. In fact, it can't be the case that query-letter specifics even matter. I mean, I'm not an agent, but if a good idea (something I could sell) came in on a napkin, I would want to know about it. Wouldn't you?
I think the idea is just to keep wannabes strung along so they provide an audience whereby the agent can be scene as mentor and teacher in their respective blogs or in the books they write–and why? So that those who have the great ideas will send their napkins to them instead of some other agent. I could be wrong, but that's sure how I'd play it if I were an agent.
By the way, I had a terrific idea for a literary horror story while writing this. I almost posted it as an example of what I'd read if it were on a napkin, but then I thought, "No, that might make a really good novel. I think I'll just tuck that one away for now."
So, thanks for posting a post that inspired me in that way. I have a feeling if the idea hasn't been done before, that it will be my third novel. I'm currently working on my second.
Thanks Ghost Folk
Malia Sutton says
I had my Poutine last night and loved it.
Ink says
Malia,
Congrats! You can be an honorary Canuck now. And tonight you can have some Canadian bacon with maple syrup on it… Mmmmmm.
Giles says
Nathan,
If I'm working on the sequel to the book I'm querying about, is that a good thing to mention in my letter, or a bad thing?
Carolyn V. says
Boring suit, get it right. Sweet. Thanks for the info.
ryan field says
It took me years to get what you wrote in one simple post. I wish I'd read this in college.
Nathan Bransford says
ghostfolk-
I addressed this in a post a while back.
I partially agree that it's important for an agent to look past the query, but it's asking a whole lot to think that an agent is going to see good writing in a poorly written letter.
It's not a matter of just writing a good book and sending it off into the ether with a scribbled off query and watching it succeed. Getting an agent and a book deal is way more complicated than that and there's a lot more luck and chance involved. It's an odds game – you have to connect with the right people along the way.
Sure – the most important thing is writing a great book, you won't see any disagreement from me. But you're hurting your odds of having that spark happen if you try and leave the query part to fate.
I know different agents have different systems, but everyone makes a decision on a short excerpt, whether that's the query or the first page of the manuscript. If it's sloppy you're hurting the chance that an agent is going to see what's good about it.
SZ says
Good morning,
Good post and information to know indeed.
I was hoping for a response from Nathan, or anyone in the know, regarding the post from anon. 11/10 1:47 please.
in part:
Tangential question, sorry. If you have used something in your mauscript for which you might need permission or their might be a legal issue, at what stage is this addressed? Song lyrics for one. … Does an agent worry about this kind of thing and would the potential hassle be enough to make him reject?
November 10, 2009 1:47 PM
ninidee.wordpress.com says
Very valuable information. There is one thing I wonder about regarding queries. What if everything is right but you are a newbie and don't have anything other than a few magazine's under your belt? Will this be reason enough for an agent to reject you because they fear taking a chance on someone unkonwn?
Maribeth:)
Ink says
ninidee,
All the agents really care about in terms of experience is a great book. Every great writer starts somewhere, and many great books were written by people with no publishing history. Newbies get deals all the time. Well, as much as "all the time" can apply to the publishing industry. š
GhostFolk.com says
Oh lordy, yes. I didn't mean to disagree with ANY of this:
I know different agents have different systems, but everyone makes a decision on a short excerpt, whether that's the query or the first page of the manuscript. If it's sloppy you're hurting the chance that an agent is going to see what's good about it.
All quite true (and helpful).
And I certainly take note of your own REASONABLE approach to what a query letter should contain.
I was just fretting that this online RABID emphasis on the perfect query letter was missing the point of an author's charge (if seeking commercial publication) to write a saleable book to begin with.
And, conversely, it seems that agents who participate in training not-ready-for-prime-time writers to compose a perfect query letter are, in fact, going to be reading a lot of short-of-the-mark material that follows an otherwise dynamic query.
As someone else noted (again, thank you, someone else!), most truly crummy queries are such because they describe a crummy book and/or demonstrate the author has not yet mastered the sentence.
Here's what I have found helpful about spending a few weeks in my spare time studying the species Query letter (aside from recommending the book THE PERFECT PITCH.):
The solid query letter can be used as a general guide to composing a good novel. Yes, it can. Cross my heart.
So can a tagline. In short, it makes sense to me to write the query letter first then design the book to uphold everything the query promises… without straying.
P.S. I also know you cheerfully allow dissent on your blog so I thought I would fiddle with a little harmless counterpoint. It's just one of those days when I wish I actually knew something about anything.
Liz de Jager says
Absolutely fantastic post – terrifically real and upbeat at the same time.
…and breathe…
Nathan Bransford says
ghostfolk-
I think all of your points are really good, and I think your first comment is a great reminder of how important it is to first write a book that an agent can sell. And I also would argue that how you think agents should read queries (looking past the query at the underlying work) is how we try to go about it. So looks like agreement all around.
margaretdilloway.com says
I met an agent at a conference who listened indifferently to my pitch, but laughed with glee at my first page. She said what it came down to was the writing, and only the writing, because some authors are terribly shy.
So, what about just sending the first page, no matter what?
Missing Person says
A great title always gets me.
hollywoodclown says
Thanks for the links to Holly and Michael's post. Now that I've read them, as well as yours, it's like a trifecta of warm fuzzies that prove agents are NOT the monsters writers tend to think they are.
By the way, you don't have to be dressed like a clown to get a job as a clown. You just have to seem "insane" on the inside.
I once interviewed to be a clown for kids birthday parties here in Los Angeles. I was not dressed as a clown but did get the job. And guess what? Yup, that's right I wrote a book about it.
Thanks again Nathan,
Hollywood Clown
Cher'ley says
I am so scared and so nervous. I'm doing a pitch this weekend and I so much do NOT want to fall on my face. I feel I have to worry over the little things, I want you to want my novel and I don't want to do one tiny little thing that puts me behind another MS.
Thanks, I have been really concentrating on "Get the story out". Let the agent see the story. Don't sound boring or not excited enough. LOL.