As surely as the changing of the moon and the appearance of new seasons of Survivor, there always seems to be a website out there devoted to poking fun at bad queries. These come and go, with varying levels of humor and angst.
The most recent iteration has been the subject of some debate on various blogs in the past week, and I’m curious what people think. Do you find these sites rude, funny, educational, malicious, informative, privacy-invading, entertaining, possibly a combination?
And, just FYI, my personal policy that I will never ever make fun of a query that is sent to me, nor will I quote from one without your permission. Query freely.
Also bear in mind that not all agents are members of the AAR.
In case it's not already clear, the AAR is run by working agents who have full time jobs and important things to be doing today. Please let me just take this up through proper channels and try to put this in perspective. While I know people are rubbed the wrong way by these sites, in the grand scheme of things there are more important things to be worrying about than what an anonymous agent (if they are an agent) are saying about someone's queries (if they are real queries) on a blog out there on the Internet.
Mira: Good point. But I wonder if the agents who publicly denounce queryfail (though they were active, yet less mailicious participants) are still privately laughing behind writers' back with their agent buddies?
Makes me think twice about querying ANY agent with an active Twitter account. Have you read the 99.99% drivel they tweet? (If they can lampoon our queries, then we can critique their tweets–LOL) They find plenty of time to lambast queries on Twitter but no time to read their slush pile? Gimme a break!
Nathan,
That's fine. I wasn't expecting you to take this on, actually, please don't feel obligated.
But I'm fine with slowing down, and I don't want to take up someone's time who won't really have an answer at this point.
This has been a very intense discussion. Marjorie, I don't know if you agree, but I say let's let things rest a bit. Give people a chance to think about things and absorb them.
I know I'm late to the party on this, but I think there's a special brand of funny that fits under the headline of "What I really want to actually tell people, but can't." Especially within our professions. A good portion of satiric writing these days seems to originate from this desire… "what your barista wants you to know," "what your bartender would like to say to you," etc. Honestly, I don't see the problem with it if no one names names. The poster gets to vent and say "Look at the nuts I have to deal with on a daily basis!" and the rest of us get a laugh – and a little reminder not to be one of the rude ones.
mira-
I don't think it's much of a secret that I'm not a fan of sites that generate unnecessary negativity and give agents a bad image. I've already taken the broader issue of social media conduct with the AAR, so let me continue to work on that.
correction: taken "up"
*Picturing Nathan flying through the air, wearing an orange cape with a huge letter A on it*
Thanks, Agentman!
Nathan.
Thank you.
As Matthew says: Mad respect. And deep appreciation.
And P.S. – if we're really getting all high and mighty about the query bashers, let's evaluate all the other ways we publicly ridicule people – from celebrity fashion dont's to reality TV shows. If we don't figure out how to balance humor and satire within our lives, we risk becoming a society of pious whistleblowers and censors.
Morgan,
I can't speak for other people, but I definitely haven't confused #queryslam and #queryfail.
We disagree about whether #queryslam comes across as mean-spirited, which is fine. I am, however, concerned about lumping #queryfest in with Nathan's promise to "never ever make fun of your query in public" (no matter how ridiculous the query).
Regardless of her good intentions, comments like "This reads like it was written by a 12th grader" are making fun of the query. That comment (which came up a lot in queryslam) certainly isn't helpful–it doesn't give writers anything to look for or to improve in their own work.
#Queryslam/fest is great when she provides concrete information that genuinely tries to be helpful. For example, pointing out when weak prose contains too many conditional auxiliary verbs, gerundive phrases, prepositional phrases, and so forth. Those details can help writers improve! Her intentions may be good, but comments that compare adult writers to high school students in need of additional training are snarky. (Just like comments that call people liars if they misunderstand self-publishing, and so on.)
An example from yesterday of where I think snarky crosses a line: If a plot sounds too much like Twilight, why say the writer "stole" it? Lots of first time writers unintentionally reproduce the last thing they read; it's common and–for many people–part of the learning process. Saying "the plot is too similar to Twilight" communicates exactly the same information as "this person stole their plot." However, one makes a very negative assumption about the writer's intentions; the other points out the reason for the rejection.
Even if there aren't names attached, and even if it is meant with the best intentions, it is most assuredly snarky. That's not necessarily bad! It's just that if the agent chooses to not be accountable for his or her intern's public comments, there's no way to know if your query is going to a snarky–if funny and well intentioned–intern.
Snarky is fine for some people (even desirable!). That's exactly why your safe/snarky list is such a great idea!
We may disagree on the example, but in principle I absolutely agree with you.
(holy crap that got long! that'll be my last comment, but thank you, again, for your helpful list! I'll be referring to it when I start querying.)
You make some good points, Cato 🙂 There's actually been other people who have expressed some concern about including Amie on the "safe" list, for different reasons (she's an intern, not an agent).
My tolerance for "snark" is rather high, and I'd like the "safe" list to be safe for the most sensitive of writers. So I will remove her.
hilarious. completely and simply.
I find them so demoralizing. While I can see how the would be funny in another situation, I'm trying so hard to work up my courage as it is. Knowing that things I inadvertently say could not only be offensive but offensively funny is horrible.
I've been thinking about this.
The enormous egotism, unprofessionalism and ignorance on display in those query snippets is so extreme that it borders on parody. That someone could, in all earnestness, perpetrate some of the passages is hard to believe, and such extremes of behavior often invoke laughter in witnesses… myself among them. The comebacks are usually witty as well.
Is it funny? Yes it is.
Is it cruel? I don't think so. Query authors are not identified. Although the words may be posted for public amusement, the author is not subject to it. Would the author be shamed by coming across his/her words held up as an object of ridicule? Maybe, although given the arrogance on display I suspect that indignation is more likely than shame.
Is it educational? Yes. Seeing what some of the authors on display have written, and the agent response to it, will definitely discourage new authors from going down the same road (assuming a new author takes the time to find a site like this, which implies at least a little research, which implies that the author is ALREADY unlikely to make these kinds of mistakes).
Is it right? Now that's a question that Nathan didn't ask. I admit I've always been curious about what an agent sees coming through the inbox. I've been especially curious about the dregs. How bad can it get? Reading the posts is the equivalent of rubber-necking at an accident, equal parts curiosity and "There, but for the grace of God…" I think the desire to witness disaster is hard-wired into human nature, but that just explains the behavior. It doesn't excuse it. We're supposed to be better than that.
I don't believe it's right. The authors whose work appears on those sites were seeking publication, but not of their queries. The correspondence was between author and agent, and even though it may not be explicitly confidential, it's definitely not explicitly for public consumption. Publishing excerpts without the author's permission strikes me as unprofessional.
I've been thinking about this.
The enormous egotism, unprofessionalism and ignorance on display in those query snippets is so extreme that it borders on parody. That someone could, in all earnestness, perpetrate some of the passages is hard to believe, and such extremes of behavior often invoke laughter in witnesses. The comebacks are usually witty as well.
Is it funny? Yes it is.
Is it cruel? I don't think so. Query authors are not identified. Although the words may be posted for public amusement, the author is not subject to it. Would the author be shamed by coming across his/her words held up as an object of ridicule? Maybe, although given the arrogance on display I suspect that righteous indignation is more likely than shame.
Is it educational? Yes. Seeing what some of the authors on display have written, and the agent response to it, will definitely discourage new authors from going down the same road (assuming a new author takes the time to find a site like this, which implies at least a little research, which implies that the author is ALREADY unlikely to make these kinds of mistakes).
Is it right? Now that's a question that Nathan didn't ask. I admit I've always been curious about what an agent sees coming through the inbox. I've been especially curious about the dregs. How bad can it get? Reading the posts is the equivalent of rubber-necking at an accident, equal parts curiosity and "There, but for the grace of God…" I think the desire to witness disaster is hard-wired into human nature, but that just explains the behavior. It doesn't excuse it. We're supposed to be better than that.
I don't believe it's right. The authors whose work appears on those sites were seeking publication, but not of their queries. The correspondence was between author and agent, and even though it may not be explicitly confidential, it's definitely not explicitly for public consumption. Publishing excerpts without the author's permission strikes me as unprofessional.
marjorie-
I really think it's time to let this one go. I already said I'm taking this up to proper channels. Let's keep some perspective about this.
And Marjorie, you've more than had your say and I don't think any further comments are necessary.
When someone submits a query to a blog, they're asking for it – praise, critique, bashing, whatever the blogger finds appropriate.
If an agent is posting queries from their slush pile, that just seems tacky and unprofessional to me. Do they really think they're encouraging authors to query them? Do they consider how that paints them as an agent?
I think you're right to take the high road and stay out of that.
I'm new to the blog, by the way, and I've found it super helpful and entertaining! Thanks for sharing your piece of the internet with us!
At first glance, I didn't see the problem with these, and then I thought about it. I thought mostly about how it would feel. God knows, I messed up when I started querying.
Posting something with the writers' knowledge (like Query Shark) is completely different from laughing at them behind their backs. Laughing at them PUBLICLY behind their back. So I've changed my stance from indifferent/occasionally amused to 100% against.
People make mistakes, they do things wrong, they sometimes figure it out and sometimes they don't, but the laughing just doesn't feel good. It's like laughing at people when they fall down. I never understood the humor in America's Funniest Home Videos either. It's like putting a laugh track on someone else's pain and waiting for the applause to roll in. Big thumbs down.
…on the other hand, I do find Slushpile Hell hilarious and encouraging, so maybe I feel the exact opposite of what I said…
Maybe it makes more sense to me because it's anonymous, so I have no agent to feel hurt by, only hilarious lines from queries floating in the ether, like they just bobbed to the surface on their own entirely.
Back when a bunch of agents participated in #queryfail on twitter, it just gave the impression that agents are always looking for (and revel in finding) a reason to reject queries.
Didn't make a good impression on someone just starting out in the industry.
"How Do You Feel About Websites Poking Fun At Queries?"
We call them gays now.
No new content in two months?
I need the bookmark space.