It’s that time again! Yes, it’s that semi-regular blog feature wherein I ask people to rule on the pressing questions of the day, or at least the questions that I have randomly alighted upon and deciding they are pressing.
This question is a simple one. I thought I would poll the authortariat with a rather basic question. Agents across the land have decided upon a system whereby authors may send a brief description of their work to agents, who then decide whether or not they would like to see more.
No one much likes it, nearly everyone, at some point, has to go through it if they want to be published (including me).
Do you ultimately have faith in the query system? Do you think it works? Do you think it succeeds more than it fails? Do you think there is a better way?
Here be the poll (e-mail and feed reader subscribers will need to click through to see it):
Rick Daley says
It's worked for me so far, I have an agent and a manuscript on submission (and fingers crossed).
ryan field says
I voted yes. I think it does work.
And the only alternative I can think of would be if writers just submitted sample pages with contact info and a list of publishing credits. But that would be so impersonal.
Francis says
It works because it's fair.
Everyone is playing on the same level, everyone has a chance.
All of us is allowed a one minute chance to get published. It might not be the ideal for the writer himself, but the system is completely unbiased.
So the answer is yes.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
Um. Do you think 1967 was the last time a book was published due to the query process?
Megan Van Eyck says
It can be confusing. Take an entry from the Query Shark:
https://queryshark.blogspot.com/2010/04/153.html
and compare it to this one from Rachelle Gardner.
https://cba-ramblings.blogspot.com/2010/04/query-critique-franklins-ladder.html
This is all very confusing and makes me wish for form letters…fill in the blanks or mad libs.
Kristin Laughtin says
From an outsiders' perspective, I say yes for the majority of cases. I'm sure there are some fine books out there that could have been published and loved, but the author just couldn't figure out the query thing. Does this mean there aren't frustrations? Of course there are! Writers want the process to move faster, agents want fewer poorly-written or ill-researched queries, and writers don't want to live in fear that 200 words could make or break their chance of getting published.
That said, my perspective could change once I start querying. I've done my homework, though, so I hope I'll be successful without too much fuss. (Who wouldn't want that?)
I don't know what a better system would be, though, unless a magic device was invented that allowed agents to actually read all the manuscripts in the normal time they devote to queries.
Anonymous says
Let me just state for the record that I know for a fact that those 3anon posts with the 1967 Outsiders one in the middle were not all by the same poster.
Anonymous says
Is Amazon the new query system? Sell enough there on your own (say 10,000+ copies within a year) and be selected by the bigs?
Seems like new writers have more options these days, and that, yeah, if you rise high enough, you'll have–and need–an agent, but the agent isn't the only way to break in anymore.
Mystery Girl says
I'm voting no.
This is my experience of using the current query system.
It generated requests for a couple of full ms and about five or six partials. The first full was rejected with comments the second the agent's intern lost it and after re-submitting it nothing happened. I have a file full of rejection letters and some queries that just vanished into the ether – some of them snail mailed with SASEs. Nathan you rejected my query but at least I know you saw it and you replied that day.
I think luck plays a huge part in getting an agent. That and being in the first ten or so queries an agent reads.
Kathryn Packer Roberts says
I'm still new at it, like others, but I have always hated the idea of becoming a 'sales person' for my work. Isn't that the agent's job?
If agents are supremely gifted at picking out a good story just by the first line, or paragraph, shouldnt' we then just send the first page? They should be able to, from that,(and maybe a post saying what kind of book it is:paranormal, romance, historical fiction, etc.) tell if it is good enough to sell…right??
Also, since we are using e-mail, how hard is it to simply send the entire book? Then the agent can continue reading if he/she likes what they have read so far, cutting out the middle part of saying 'I like it, send more'.
Just a thought. I really do hate queries. But I am willing to sacrifice my comfort for the ones (agents) I love. *sniff sniff, smile*
Peter Dudley says
The query system succeeds for publishers, but it fails as a system.
The theory is that it allows authors and agents to connect in order to sell a quality manuscript to a publisher. That does happen, and the publisher never has to sift through mounds of crap. But a system should also work efficiently.
The query process actually encourages the exponential proliferation of crappy writing. What is the most repeated advice about querying? "If you get a rejection, it's a step closer to an acceptance! Send it out again!"
Agents complain about the abysmal quality of the majority of the slush pile. They also complain about how much slush they get each week. Yet rejections are, by and large, form letters without usable advice to the author… and most of those form rejections say something like, "it's not right for me, but it might be right for someone else." So the crap not only gets into the system at the front end–it's encouraged to multiply once it's in.
How to fix it? I don't know. But I believe it's generally a poor system.
Anonymous says
Mystery Girl,
Yes, luck plays a part, but the luck evens out when you query over time. If you keep re-querying, especially when you don't get a response, eventually you'll be one of the Q's the agent gets with fresh eyes (or whatever it is you think makes a difference).
Persistence is key. the approach is imporatnt too. Don't blow your wad, so to speak by sending queries all at once to your A-list. Have an A-list, B-list and C-list (say with 10 agents or so per list), and query in waves of 10 with about 3 agents from A, 3 from B, and 3 from C. That way, in case you realize a cpuple months later that you can make the Q better, you haven't already blown it with your top guns.
Also, never forget that no response does not equal no. Onyl no means no. Keep querying until you get a response. Don't be rediculous about it, and never call them, but hey, if 6 weeks go by and you've heard zilch, send it again. Every 6 six weeks. You'll get a response.
So how you go about the process can make a difference.
But more and more I think new writers don't even need an agent. An agent to do what? Handle all those massive sales and deal inquiries that are flooding your inbox? lol
Anne Pfeffer says
Nathan:
Have you spent any time looking at Inkpop.com? I think the folks at Harper Collins are geniuses. They have created what is a essentially an online slush pile. It is the most exciting thing to happen to publishing in a long time, and it's going to replace the query system.
A number of agents turned down my manuscript LOVING EMILY because they thought the story was unmarketable and they didn't think girl readers would relate to a male protagonist. But I knew, if I could just get my book out there to girls, they would love it.
So I put it on Inkpop, and in two days it went from # 18,600 in the rankings to # 137. Now, it's at #62 and climbing daily. I have a growing fanbase and a pile of comments from readers telling me how much they love my male protagonist and my book. And I can contact any of them any time I want. My readers are my friends.
Inkpop is the best thing that ever happened to me as a writer. I think I could even self-publish and sell directly to my fanbase, without going through an agent and publisher. Check it out! And check out LOVING EMILY! Cheers, Anne Pfeffer
J. T. Shea says
That blurb for THE ROAD would have intrigued me even if I'd never heard of Cormac McCarthy.
Vincent Kale says
The query process seems like a fair way of weeding out people who haven't done their homework or can't follow formatting instructions. If you've got a good premise that resonates with the agent and your writing is strong, odds are with you.
On the flipside, I really appreciate the agents that share the specific projects they would love to see come across their desks. Oh and of course the agents who blog regularly (brownie point!)
WriterGirl says
I voted yes. Not because I think it's infallible, it's clearly not- we're always hearing stories about how the likes of JK Rowling was rejected a bazillion times or whatever but I simply don't see another realistic way of tackling all the would be novelists out there. I'm sure that if you have talent and you persevere (and you're open to looking at what might be wrong with your query) then eventually you'll get somewhere. It might not be easy to get published but the Query + 5 pages process really isn't so overwhelming? Admittedly I'm not at the querying stage so maybe my opinion isn't worth as much but the thought of querying doesn't bring me out in a cold sweat the way it seems to for the many many people who complain about it.
Anonymous says
The art of the blurb is indispensible, especially down the line when you're established and need to send proposals for possible new books to editors. You don't want to have to write the whole thing out in order to find out if they'll buy it. There's no time for that–yo've got bills to pay, kids to feed, politicians to pay off…
How 'bout this 1-liner:
============================
A down-on-her luck history professor sees a chance to redeem herself when a serial killer with a penchant for participating in civil war renactments using live ammunition terrorizes the south.
============================
Do you really need to read the whole thig to 'get it'? Especially when accompanied with the word "thriller" in the query?
Anonymous says
I think it used to. That is, I've sold novels by querying publishers.
Doesn't work with agents, though. I queried damn near every agent on the planet, yourself included, and got nothing but rejections. I finally got an agent when a friend recommended me to hers.
Beth Terrell says
I voted yes, but I do think the process would be more effective if all queries could be accompanied by at least the first few pages of the manuscript.
Kimber An says
I voted 'No,' but I actually really don't know.
I can tell you this. I've worked myself into a wicked case of Tendonitis learning how to write the very best book I can and learning to toe the genre line.
I've cranked out FOUR novels in four years.
My fourth one was my best, of course, after all that hard learning. However, I queried it AFTER the economy crashed.
***READ Mr. Bransford's 'Stepping Up Your Game' post. Read the line about publishers wanting 'the surest of the surest thing.'***
I got a truckload of requests for pages on all three of the previous novels, including tons for Fulls and received personal feedback.
This time I've received ONE request for a partial, no feedback.
Now I'm having a hard time believing the Query process will work for *me* and I really do not want to put in all those hours of research and such for a snowball's chance in heck at publication.
My hands hurt.
Time's they are a-changing and my stories are too wierd for New York. I am not a 'sure thing.' So, now I'm looking for ways to adapt to that fact.
ePublishing!
Chocolate!
Kittens!
Adapt or die.
Anonymous says
I like Johnaskins idea of a checklist for filtering queries such as right genre for that agent, is ms finished, length, whatever that agent deems important – I really hate the no reply unless we're interested thing – I'd rather an auto reject than suffer that!
Francis says
Jennifer Jackson, two months ago, posted some of her query stats. She works for the Donald Maass agency which isn't small. She probably gets 500 queries each month if not more.
Do you know what the percentage of people that followed the guidelines were? 48%.
MORE than half of the people who queried her for that period couldn't even follow a simple list of guidelines. How difficult can it be?
I've been following Nathan's blogs, among others, for months. I'm officially following him and others with my blogger account, but I choose to post anon because I don't want people to click my profile and head to my website just yet.
Why? I feel it's not polished enough, and I'd rather they not see it until I feel it is 101% polished.
A lot of people complain about rejections, but if 52% of those couldn't follow guidelines, it ain't the system that's broken!
Here's the blog entry in question for those interested:
https://arcaedia.livejournal.com/221529.html
Sissy says
I find the process to be frustrating and a little overwhelming. Everyone wants something different, from just a letter, to five pages to fifty pages. And I know everyone admits up front that the publishing business is subjective, but so much plays into it that we have no control over. But I guess that is life. What's a girl to do?
Francis says
Forgot to add something…
Rachelle Gardner recently blogged about the query system and there were many comments. Many believed that the sheer load popular agents have to deal with makes it impossible for them to give the same consideration to each query they received.
It's probably so, but the same is true in all professions. When I was a med student we were taught that each patient must be treated equally and fairly. In practice, we all knew this wasn't possible… you're not gonna have the same level of energy, or patience, after a 8 hours shift. We're human beings, not cylons… we are imperfect.
Erik at Pimp my Novel also blogged about how luck plays a HUGE role in a writer's success. If you query an agent who just signed his divorce papers this morning, he might not be receptive to a romance manuscript… what can you do about it? Nothing.
The truth of the matter is, we all want to be published, but the space is limited. Would we be more happy if we absolutely needed a referral? I've seen people who suggested it, but I bet you if we went back in time and talked to them around the time they sought representation for their first novel, they wouldn't feel that way.
Agents also need to protect themselves. Everyone can learn how to write a query, and there is no barrier to query any agent you want. It's fair, it costs nothing, presents no risk to us, once written takes seconds to send… but THEY are stuck with the load.
Agent also deal with the risks… People in black hats and sunglasses show up without an appointment, some received white powder in a cup, other granola bars… and let's face it, there are many crazies and assholes out there: https://theswivet.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-not-to-do-when-you-get-rejection.html
This morning I sent an e-mail to Nathan about a possible solution to his query deluge problem… a custom solution we developed for a clinic around here that allows to drag an e-mail from the Inbox to a folder to automatically send out a response… no copy/pasting, just click & drag.
When it dawned on me it could be applied to queries treatment, I thought it was a chance for me to give back. It was only after I sent it that I thought he could think I'm just some crazy lunatic who wants to send him a nasty virus bomb… it doesn't occur to us that crazy shit happens, but we've read enough about them to know it does.
The query system allows agents to be unbiased and to be impartial by giving everyone a chance to submit. If you're gonna vote no, then at least try to provide an alternative that would preserve the same fairness!
My 2¢
Ganz-1 says
I'd say YES. Writing is a skill, query is a form of writing, therefore writing query is a skill. You only get through once you're skilled enough.
Lucinda says
The query is much like a degree on a resume. It indicates how dedicated a writer is to becoming a serious writer, how willing the writer is to listen to editor's, agents, and other professionals in the industry.
Striving for the query that will sell our hard work is worth working hard, studying, learning, and proving our abilities.
I have learned more about writing since trying to write a query letter which led to many revisions in the novel itself.
Nobu says
I think a short query letter and a few sample chapters plus synopsis is a good package. I hate the whole query only thing that some people want. I think the novel itself should be key, thus some sort of sample is needed. Fortunately, the editors whom I submit directly to all get a sample of the work with the query, not just the letter itself. So it works well enough.
Thomas Sinclair says
The process is imperfect, certainly, but what are the alternatives? It's easy to say that the process prevents good writers from making it, but that's really not what the process is about. It's about getting rid of those who are not ready for publishing while giving those who are a chance to have their work examined.
Yes, it's hard, and it's horrible, and I want to tear my hair out at the number of drafts I've written. But I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it because I teach college, and I've hung around online and these people should not be published, nor should they be taking time from agents with their lengthy material when others are more deserving.
We all look at the query process with dread, but what would the world be like without it? I shudder to think of the fanfics, un-proofread forum-posted stories, and more that would be churned up because of the internet's ability to convince people that they both know how to write and deserve to be published.
Furthermore, the system did not evolve arbitrarily. Nathan's unearthed 110 year-old query response is proof of that. I have no doubt that in the early days, the query process involved more than just a synopsis or 5 pages, but I know that it always involved some kind of letter very much like the modern day query.
It's important to remember that authors who query are asking for a job. The query actually is more akin to a cover letter than any other type of writing. The manuscript itself is the job interview, but the resume and cover letter need to shine before even getting to that point. Like the query, the cover letter system evolved because it works, and it has been around for a long, long time. Just ask Leonardo Da Vinci: https://tinyurl.com/yeu33dh
Anonymous says
Query-writing has become a niche skill in itself, creating more and more distance between the writer's writing and the agent. Let the writer's work speak for itself. If a writer sent a sample 5-10 pages FIRST, the agent could skim through that; if interested, could ask for more info such as the writer's biography, etc.
After all, when a reader goes to a bookstore and picks up a novel, he/she reads the first few pages…this is what sells books. It should be what sells a writer to an agent!
John Overman says
Having to craft a compelling query has helped me to review and revise my story. Whether or not my query attempts are successful, I see the good queries you have posted here and I do believe the process works. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us so we can learn!
Kimber An says
What the others have said about learning to write a query improving all over writing ability is absolutely true, so I don't regret it.
And I really can't imagine how to improve on the process either.
Wendy Delfosse says
I think they do. Of course I also most often decide on reading a book based on the blurb with it (okay, only after I judge its cover. That looks so bad in writing.)
That being said, I would imagine a query letter plus sample pages would give the best results.
Clayton says
First off, I think we should change the name. Instead of query process, we should call it Microsoft.
You try to open a file, the gray box appears that says "file failed to open. Close and try again."
So you do.
"File failed to open. Close and try again."
And you think: I wonder if I'm opening it from the wrong place. So you try another route.
"File failed to open. Close and try again."
Hmm… maybe I'm supposed to open it using another program.
"File failed to open. Close and try again."
OK… how about on a different computer.
"File failed to open. Close and try again."
So you start fiddling.
And you don't get the message box. instead, the hourglass starts to spin. Ah-ha. Finally. Then:
"File failed to open. Close and try again."
And you wonder what you did that gave you the slightly better result. You try moving in that direction. The hourglass spins for a long time, and then:
"File failed to open. Close and try again."
So you do and this time you get the message immediately again.
I realize that it's not at all feasible to respond to all queries, or even more than the few truly promising- especially since it seems to encourage the crazies- but I also can't help but think of how much I'd have been able to refine both my query for my first book, and the book itself if, instead of "not for us, try again" I'd even got one sentence like: this doesn't sound like a mystery. or: this sounds really dull. Does anything happen? Or: The query letter is good, but the sample pages don't work. Etc.
I get why it has to happen, but I don't think it's actually beneficial to either side of the process to have people tweaking and tuning based on nothing more than, Ehhhhhhh…no. Try again.
SammyStewart says
It seems that people with agents tend to lean towards the "it's a great system that weeds out poor writers" camp, while those who are frustrated without agents claim it's a little unfair. I think the system could be much worse. And I can't think of anyway to make it fairer while being practical with an agent's time, which is valuable because it moves books. So I think it's the best system.
mapelba says
I'd like there to be a "kinda sorta" option.
Mira says
You know, I'm wondering if my comment was a bit harsh, in terms of bull-dozing right over those who might not agree with me – like Ink….
Sometimes I get lost in the pleasure of debate.
But I want to acknowledge that those who see things differently may have a valid and legitimate perspective.
Um, except about queries.
ha, ha. Little joke there.
Seems to me it's about evenly lined up, in the comments anyway. I'm surprised, actually – I would have predicted mostly pro. That's interesting.
Munk says
It hasn't worked for me, but maybe I just suck.
Or maybe i'm just saying I suck so that you think I am that writer who just thinks he sucks but really doesn't. OOooooh, there's that pain behind my eyes again.
Erica75 says
I've heard so many horror stories about the query system, I now tuck my ms into bed, give it a hug and kiss, and wish it good night. For the past three months. Why? Because I love my book and have no trust in my query. I have no suggestions for improvement. I just am very scared of the process.
Nancy says
A good agent knows a killer query right off the bat. Nothing further should be necessary to know whether the work is good or not. If I were an agent I would look for four main elements in a query:
1) A tight logline, premise, thesis, or a two-sentence "story blurb" in the first paragraph, including title and number of pages.
2) The author knows how to write.
3) The material is something I want to rep, is not corny, stale, or too convoluted to grasp.
4) If I read this far, I would then look for a tight, detailed paragraph about the book.
Authors who think this does not work and that they need 5, 10, or 50 pages to explain their book are missing the point. How many writers have we encountered who cough and look around the room, trying to explain what their story is about? We have to be able to nail it on the spot.
No agent, editor, agency rep, has the time to sit around and listen to a long explanation. And often, in reality, if the writer can't nail the thesis or plot in one or two sentences, that's an indication of meandering, sleepy work. It's probably time to go back and chop, hone, or revise.
The beauty of a one-page query is that an agent can tell a lot about an suthor's skill and what he or she has to offer. It works!
Rage says
I think it works well enough considering the alternatives. We can't expect agents or publishers to go through entire manuscripts. It would be brutal and the response time would be eternal. Of course like most processes (I hate the sound don't you) it could be improved.
Jenny says
A query letter is the business letter–you cannot escape it because it is necessary. Call it a cover letter, call it a resume, call it a c.v.
You cannot expect someone you want to do business with to just jump into your project (read: read your whole manuscript) without telling them what it is and why they should invest in it and in you.
Project Savior says
My last few books dealt with big concepts, the value of individuality, A grand conspiracy that stretched out over 100 years and three major wars, a war for the destiny of the solar system so people can live with dignity in the post scarcity economy.
Agents say they like big concepts but end up going for the tried and true so my next one (You'll get it next month) deals with a pizza guy battling vampires, devil worshipers, the invisible man, werewolves and aliens while trying to woo the time traveling babe of his dream.
Condensing the big concepts to three paragraphs makes sure the fluff (but fun to write) stuff gets more consideration then the big concepts you want.
One thing that would help would be a note, no bigger than the individual touches you put on two out of your three (The first one sucked) form letters to me, if the query needs work or the sample chapter.
I don't mean for this to sound bitter, but on my fourth novel I feel like I'm writing it so it will have a great query letter with a self contained first chapter instead of working on grand concepts.
But maybe that's a lesson I need to learn to be an author as opposed to a writer.
Jenny says
I love the references to music, because it reminds me of when I was doing musical theatre. The directors commonly said that within 8 bars they knew whether or not a performer was going to work–none of this 'Let's hear the whole song and then make a decision'.
Kaye George says
I'd love it if we could just send pages to the agents instead of the query letter. That's all they really need to see, since they all say the most important thing is the writing, right?
Dan says
A lot of authors claim that the ability to write a query is a distinct and separate skill from the ability to write a novel. I disagree; the query is simply a short writing sample, and any author who is capable of putting together a coherent long-form narrative should have no trouble writing a short business letter.
A query is not a blurb. It's not a sales pitch. It's not a marketing material. Larding it up with puffery or advertising lingo will reduce the effectiveness of the query. Your goal is not to tell the agent that your book is good; your goal is to appear competent. The query is a test of the author's proficiency at communication in the English language, and it is a useful tool because the vast majority of people who submit fail this test.
If you can write four coherent, grammatical paragraphs that explain what your book is about in a way that makes sense, and if you send that query to twenty-five appropriate agents in a form that meets their individual submission criteria, you are likely to get at least a couple of requests.
If you can manage one clever or elegant phrase in your letter, your results might improve a little.
Anonymous says
I think the query system succeeds more than it fails. But this notion that 'good writing' and 'good storytelling' will always find a home just isn't true. Maybe it's true most of the time, but there are great books that slip through the cracks on occasion.
Clayton says
Reading the last few comments, I'd say the query process works best, but I think most of the problems we have with it probably just goes back to the sheer number. it means agents are all pressed for time.
Think of the difference between when you go to the book store or library with two hours to pick a book or two, versus a trip where you have fiteen minutes, your parents, or spouse are waiting in the car and irritable.
When I'm rushed I just glance at the title, barely take in the cover, and then read the first few lines of the inside flap and it's a whole lot of:
This? No.
This? No.
In a world born of– no.
Tommy Mcginty knows fear– no.
This? No.
After the death of her husband– No.
But when I've got hours to kill I'll take in the whole cover design, read the entire inside flap and then usually give the first page a shot, even when it's not something I normally go for.
When I'm rushed, I rarely end up with more than two books that I read to the end and enjoy. When I've got time to consider them, I usually end up with at least four.
I think if we could filter out all of the "Craig's list" queries, and get to where the agent inbox doesn't look so overbearing, the query process might work as advertised.
India Drummond says
I originally started this post with a bit about my personal experiences with querying. Deleted it. Everyone has battle scars.
The system is obviously flawed. It works for those who get through the gate. I liked the analogy above that said "that's like asking lotto winners if the lottery is a good way to make money".
As to another system… that's a tough one. I assume this system has evolved because it works for agents. It's fair for you to dictate how you want to receive information. But since you asked…
I have considered the Authonomy model for getting a work pubbed, but it has problems. Frankly, I don't have the time to devote to the level of participation it would require to get my book(s) voted to the top (because it seems to be participation and voting that determine the positioning of one's own work, rather than quality), plus I don't feel comfortable putting my whole (or even 95% of) my mss online.
The agent-for-a-day model though (referring to last year's NB query game)… Hmm, what if there was a website where writers submitted queries and <1000 words of the work. So instead of "Dear Mr. Bransford" it would be "Dear Community". Registered users could vote and leave a comment about why they would or would not want to read the rest of the book. The agent(s) could troll through it, see what was popular (and appealing to them, naturally), and if they saw something they liked, they could request more. Something like this would eliminate the feeling among writers that queries just go into a black hole, never to be seen (or replied to) again, they'd get feedback on why the book does or doesn't appeal, and they'd be given the opportunity to revise their query or even revise the book's premise based on user feedback.
Like any website, a lot of things would have to be worked out to make it fair, appealing, and workable, but anyway it's an idea.
Now that I'm thinking about the possibilities, I find myself planning the database structure in my head (sorry, I'm a geek programmer as well as a writer). I like the idea… if an agent or two would use it, we could make it happen.
Ted Cross says
I believe it works to a point, but I also think that agents can get certain ideas in their heads that may be flat out wrong. For instance, from what I read on AW I would get the impression that no one wants to see books that have elements of Tolkien in it, so I imagine many agents would ignore such queries. Yet, I believe there is a large fan-base out there that does want to read more Tolkienesque fantasy. I know I am one.
People seem to believe it is overdone, yet who has done it well besides Tolkien? Perhaps the first couple Shannara books by Terry Brooks and the Iron Tower trilogy by Dennis McKiernan, but that's about it as far as I can see.
Edward W. Robertson says
I don't think it's fatally flawed, but I've got reservations.
First, there's numerical data suggesting it misses a lot. Jim C. Hines' survey on first novel sales shows that even in the '00s, nearly 30% of first books were sold straight to publishers. Some number were books where agents are less common (e.g. category romances), and other authors may never have tried querying agents at all, but we're looking, I think, at a fair percentage of published books that couldn't land an agent through a query. (Unknowable: how many perfectly fine unagented books failed to land a publisher, either?)
The second problem's structural and likely unavoidable. Any given genre's got what, 50-80 reputable and available agents repping it? If your request rate on fulls is a decent 10%, that's only 5-8 individuals making the final call on your book; if your work's tricky or on the bubble, maybe it's as few as 1-3.
Great work may get snapped up, but when that few people are making (admittedly educated) judgment calls within a flood of other queries, I see a lot of room for publishable work to slip through the cracks.
Last, I am suspicious of the one-page query (despite netting a partial from a one-pager I started querying two days ago). Some books sell on concept, but others sell on voice. On authority.
Even if great writers write well no matter the form, the one-page query is a filter between the agents' eyes and that novel's narrative authority, and will inevitably disinterest some agents who might have been grabbed by the book's particular voice. It isn't hard to tell when a book's got it; I trust an assessment of the first 5 pages (hell, the first paragraph) much more than for a description of that book, no matter how well-written.
So define "works." It self-evidently provides a living for a lot of good writers, agents, and editors, and readers with a lot of good books. But it seems like it's got a recognizable margin of error, too.