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.
Anonymous says
When we try to become a published writer, whatever we go through, refined sensibilities go out the window.
Like you want to poke fun at queries – ok. I'm too thick skinned by now. Besides, the worst you may say is nothing as compared to what I have to say about my own " the world's most stupidest" queries I sent initially.
Kristi Helvig says
I'm assuming you mean real queries, and not someone making up a bad one for the sake of education. Bottom line: I think it's unprofessional. Really unprofessional. It's one thing to critique queries in a helpful (and sometimes hilarious manner) a la Janet Reid, but those writers know they are signing up for the world to see their critique. I'm much more a fan of the strength-based approach and think you learn more from being told what works, rather than what doesn't.
If a 'bad query' was posted and mocked for its badness, I think that's bad form. Yes, there might be an educational component there but it's at the expense of someone else. There's a fine line between helpful and plain ole' mean.
Adam Heine says
I have no problem with them (they're fun to read actually), so long as the people running them are up front with it.
What's not cool is when an agent or somebody says out of the blue: "I think I'll do some query critiques on the blog here," and then totally berates the folks who submitted. Fortunately that hardly ever happens.
D.G. Hudson says
Humour at someone else's expense always seems like a cheap shot. I avoid those specific websites, as they seem to be basing their posts on the amount of buzz they can generate.
Samples of what makes a good query could teach the same lesson as using 'group analysis' and a lot of 'chatty cathies'.
I don't see the need for such query whipping, is that how these gals & guys get their kicks?
christwriter says
Great fun, as long as it isn't my query. If it is, I would probably go cry, but I would at least know that I got rejected because my query sucks eggs.
Having worked behind the counter for years and years, let's just say that I wish to god we had hidden microphones and the ability to post recordings without risking lawsuits and being fired. People are idiots (myself included sometimes) and anybody who has to deal with large amounts of the public deserves to vent. Loudly. And often.
Personally I don't see a difference between me bitching about the Cake Order From Hell (…Full sheet cake? Disney Princesses? Black spraypaint? PURPLE LEAVES ON THE ROSES??? "Oh yeah, sure. We'll get it Thursday" I think that particular taste abortion is still in the freezer)and an agent bitching about query stupid. I might not like it if you point it in my direction, but … *shrugs* you earned it.
Anonymous says
I really hate when agents do that. I think it's rude.
Cyndy Aleo says
My take on it: It's one more site to learn from. Odds are, the people whose queries are being quoted on it aren't people who do a lot of research anyway. Am I afraid my query would end up on it? Absolutely. It's like the "What Not to Wear" of querying. But if you don't have a thick skin, you shouldn't be querying in the first place, because it comes with a LOT of rejection. If my query did end up on there, I'm sure I'd hide my head under a blanket screaming for a day, then spend another kicking myself for making such a stupid mistake. Then I'd dust myself off and try again.
To be honest, I'm waiting for an acquaintance from an online writing community I'm in to end up there. This person does everything wrong, but won't listen to a bit of advice from other writers. What else can you do?
Jayme A. says
I love these websites! Not only are they hilarious to read, but if you have the balls to submit your query, it may actually help you in the long run.
My favorite is Evil Editor. I submitted my query (Face Lift 791-The Zookeeper's Machine) to Evil and waited for the humiliation. His comments helped a ton!
katdish says
I'm against anonymous snark. Period. For me, it's the written equivalent of leaving a burning bag of dog poop on someone's front porch, ringing the doorbell and running away. If you have to hide your identity to say something rude, you probably shouldn't say it in the first place. I think most of us are not angelic enough that we've never shared a private chuckle at the expense of someone else, but to do so publicly is cruel and unprofessional.
Maya says
I love Slushpile Hell. It's pretty harmless because the agent only takes one or two lines and they don't have anything to do with the plot of the book. It would be awful if the agent was putting up someone else's ideas without their permission.
Jess says
Something like #queries or #queryslam is okay because they aren't snarky. literally, the intern says, "too wordy, pass" or "didn't grab me, pass." no harm there. that's interesting to me as someone who wants to see a book from all angles of making it.
as soon as there's snark involved, NO. Not funny, not educational.
Cameron says
Adding to my comment from earlier this afternoon…
I'm all for freedom of speech as long as individual privacy is protected. If the quirky-query writer is identified (or easily identifiable), then posting letters on websites may be considered slanderous.
Go ahead, enjoy these websites for entertainment value. But, honestly, who has the time to become intimately familiar with these sites?
Unless I'm actively involved in query-letter writing (my goal for this November, with plan of sending them in Jan), it's just not worth the distraction.
In fact, I've been so busy with novel writing, rewriting, critique-gathering and revisions these days that I haven't posted anything on NB's blog for months, I think!
Back to WIP. No more distractions. You won't hear from me here until after I send out my queries in January. I promise.
Cheers –
Nathan Bransford says
Thanks, Janet!
And everyone, here's the link to Query Shark, it's an invaluable resource.
Kate Lacy says
Best Query peek for me came from Elana Roth. She showed us a set of a dozen or more queries and we discussed which ones we would have found enticing or vague, dull or missing the essence of a story we couldn't really predict, and so forth. I didn't predict all the same ones she requested for more pages from, but I hit 2/3 the same.
And she was more forgiving on a couple that I would have politely trashed. This meant something to me….and it didn't need sarcastic humor to pull me in. Elana Roth rocks and she hasn't even read my WIP.
wry wryter says
You can slap in private and you can slap in public either way you're an ass—-.
When you do it publicly everybody knows you're an ass—-.
Thank you Nathan for keeping your hands to yourself.
Laurie Wood says
There's a couple of agents who poke fun at queries and it seems rude. Maybe their job gets frustrating at times, but it seems to me they could just email these "hilarious" queries to each other to vent, not blog about them. Everyone's trying to learn, and if it's a query that's so obviously stupid or wearing, just hit delete!
Anonymous says
There is a malicious undertone to this site and it just seems wrong.
Agents hold the keys to the publishing gate and therefore have much power. To use it in such a way is not constructive, it’s harmful. Just think of all the energy wasted and negativity generated from just a few agents ranting on poor queries.
Next time, they should try something more productive like giving the company a better public image.
Holly says
Fine, if you give permission.
If you don't, then it might be funny, but it's also malicious and unprofessional.
Meanness turns me off. I looked at that site once and never went back.
Bryan Thomas says
I understand that some of these queries can be amusing when you look at so many but I think taking them outside the office is unprofessional. People are just trying to live their dream, and we all started in the same place. Writing is hard. Writing prose is harder. Writing queries is even harder. Why mock people who have genuinely subjected themselves to the likelihood of rejection for something they are very passionate about and have likely worked very hard on? It's like kicking a dog until it's wounded then laughing as it limps away. How is there any honor or professionalism in that?
Joseph L. Selby says
I thought Slush Pile Hell was funny the first time I read it. There are two things that weren't really taken into account as agents began posting it as their blog entries and on their twitter feeds: 1) those of us that follow them all; 2) how the mechanics of those sites work for those that follow them all.
I saw Slush Pile Hell posted, went, laughed, and was over it. A few days later again, and so on for a few weeks. Now when it's posted I just roll my eyes. When I grew to dislike Slush Pile Hell was a day when it spread quickly around Twitter and agents began trading it back and forth and then making jokes of their own. This was where it stopped being funny. I follow them both so I get to see their comments to each other. It was incredibly disrespectful to authors in general, not just those that were posted on SPH. I expect more from professionals that claim to represent writers.
I took it as the blowing off of steam that it was, but I'm hoping SPH fades soon so it will stop popping up in blog rolls.
Miss Aspirant says
On the one hand, I understand how it might be fun to let off steam and mock some of the slush an agent receives. It can also be very enlightening to read agent mocking because you can then go back and re-evaluate your writing so it can be a public service.
On the other, an agent is a professional business person and has a public personna. One who ridicules writers in public might scare away a truly good writer.
Writer Chick says
Let me just say, I LOVE QUERY SHARK. Those folks are doing it voluntary, and The Shark is helping them. She pokes fun a bit, but everyone who sends in a query knows what to expect. And she always, always, always gives good advice.
Bite on, Query Shark!
Now the other vile folks who use queries just for entertainment, ack!
Rachelle says
I've visited the Slush Pile site exactly once and I can say this: the queries being used as examples on that site are most definitely real, not made-up as some suggest, because I've received almost all the same ones in my own slush pile.
That said, I wish the site were not anonymous because I do believe it makes writers fearful when submitting. Is this the agent behind SlushPile? I don't want people to wonder if it's me, or any of my above-board colleagues in the industry.
I wonder, though, if the site is actually written by an agent? I could be wrong but for some reason I thought it was written by an intern – which is very, very different from a literary agent.
cato says
@ Shelly and Jess, #queryslam does provide some objective explanation of why the intern passed, but it also includes some ugly commentary.
As just one example, the #queryslam intern regularly calls people "liars" and "fibbers" if a writer thinks self publishing counts as "real" publishing credits. It makes my skin crawl every time every time I see those tweets.
Instead of assuming that the writer didn't know how self publishing would be perceived and needed to learn more about the industry (which is what what intern claims is her purpose), she attributes motivation and literally calls them LIARS on Twitter. How is that helpful? How is that supportive? How is that friendly?
Being called a liar for misunderstanding a part of the industry that intentionally misrepresents itself is NOT something aspiring authors should have to tolerate. As others have stated here, writers should be able to vote with their business not query agents who allow (or encourage?) their interns to do things like #queryslam. If the agent wants to have his or her name associated with the intern's commentary, fair enough, but writers have a right to know.
Anonymous says
I have a good novel for sale. One more is ready for it's first revision.
I've been writing for a few years,
published some small pieces, and I send out a query for the novel about every six weeks. I expect no response and cooperate fully when I get one.
No, I don't resent people who make fun of that or me. I'm happy chasing my dream.
But there's nothing in it for me to read a site like that twice. It doesn't teach me a thing. I'd rather write and study up on alternative publishing.
Nathan, I like your blog. It's been helpful to me and I appreciate the effort you put into it.
Carry on.
Lillian Grant says
I find the agent's comments very amusing. If they wanted to post my query I would be more than willing. If your query isn't good enough to win you an agent then why not be bad enough to be memorabe. Not that when I write queries I do it with the intention to fail miserably.
Becca says
I'm probably being a hypocrite here because I'd hate to end up on a site like that, and yet I enjoy reading it. Mostly I read it for knowing what not to do. I'm pretty okay with it because it's anonymous, and it doesn't show anyone's name. Plus it seems to have a level of sarcasm that seems to reach on exaggeration.
I don't know. Like I said, I'm being a hypocrite.
Terin Tashi Miller says
Mr. Agent Man: I'm not a great fan of them, though when you posted how badly queries were addressed, presumably to you, it was hillarious.
At my first newspaper, we invented a pretend newspaper, where everything we hated about certain stories (quotes from high school football coaches, quotes from plane crash witnesses and tornado survivors) were combined into one pretty funny (for us) news story.
At an earlier phase in my career at my current employer, I and a writer who shall remain nameless because of his current notoriety came up with a fictional newspaper and slogan: The Daily Bludgeon, a left-leaning paper that would give you the news others were too afraid to. We still, between us, occasionally propose stories to each other for the good ol' Bludgeon.
But both instances were private, inhouse, in-circle jokes and not really intended for public consumption.
To post named queries essentially purely for ridicule and a kind of encouraged public stoning, seems to me anethema to encouraging well-intended, earnest, people seriously attempting to put something of themself out for public consumption.
Writers, in my opinion, as artists, expose too much of what most people prefer to keep private, because they have to for the sake of investing themselves and making their "art" a symbol, something believable if even only for the duration of a short story.
I was fortunate enough in my youth to have an agent, and interest from publishers, based on a careful and thorough reading of my manuscripts–not a perhaps cursory reading of a few lines intended to sum up my idea.
I realize it's the norm. I realize I have to get over not liking it. But just as when people would ask us in the early days what was in the news or what we were working on and we replied "you can pay a quarter like everybody else," it seems to me a bit of modern idiocy that we ask writers, who spend years sometimes coming up with hopefully a well crafted several hundred or greater paged manuscript, to boil their idea down to a "pitch," a sound-bite.
Mr. Hemingway, tell me what "The Sun Also Rises," as you've proposed, is about? (Think of it like you've got 30 seconds with me in an elevator…).
Mr. Fitzgerald: Who is "The Great Gatsby," and why should I care?
Mr. Melville: why would you think in your wildest dreams we would have any interest in publishing/representing a novel about whaling, especially one loaded down in the middle with the anatomic and commercial minutae of whaling?
Terin Tashi Miller says
Mira: I just re-read others' responses and read yours.
Thank you for saying what I was thinking, and far better and more succinctly than I did.
Best,
T
Anonymous says
I read the Slushpile from Hell and could see why the grumpy agent was inspired to take action. The query letters he quotes are the literary equivalent of the most heinous American Idol auditions. They're so incredibly clueless that it's hard to drum up too much sympathy for the people who wrote them. And the grumpy agent doesn't name names, so no one is being publically shamed.
On the other hand, the grumpy agent isn't bringing much good karma into the world either. If he wants to vent and release his frustration, he might do better with a quick run around the block.
henya says
After all, there are real people behind the queries. Many want to become writers. Some shouldn't even try. But trying to elicit chuckles on someone elses expense is just unfeeling.
Robyn Campbell says
Totally against. I'd rather have constructive crits like yours. 🙂
Julie Hedlund says
I will admit to loving Slushpile Hell because the examples are so over the top that anyone making a serious effort at publishing would find them ludicrous too. They make me laugh, plain and simple.
However, there have been Twitter threads and blog posts that have come up recently that seem more mean-spirited because they focus on what's wrong without providing constructive feedback. I followed one for a while and then un-followed, because as a pre-published writer I found it extremely discouraging. When I provide a critique to anyone, I always start with the positive and go from there. Not so easy to do in 140 chars.
This is not to say that a real critique from a well-intentioned place – even on a blog or Twitter – is not extremely valuable. It's just a delicate balance, and I think anyone in the business of engaging in that type of activity should be sure they know well how to hold the line before doing so (like yourself, Nathan).
JDuncan says
Depends, I'd say, on why and how it's done. I honestly don't mind poking fun at the obviously pretentious clueless queries. It's another thing to do it to writers who are clearly trying and just can't do them very well. It also matters if it's being done to inform. We should all be able to laugh at ourselves for being clueless sometimes. So, done in the right spirit, I have no issue with them.
CFD Trade says
If there's nothing sensible to say or write about…then don't…
Anonymous says
Writers are already standing in public with their pants down, so to speak, when we send our manuscript to an agent or our new book is sent out into the world to be judged by the hungry horde, known as the readers.
This is just one more dragon to overcome and slay. So don your armor and forge the moat fellow writers.There are more worthy battles to fight
Lady Pam Owldreamer,also known as Sir Hopeful Published Author.
Raquel Byrnes says
I guess it depends on who is doing the bashing. I've seen sites where you can submit one of your own queries that you did at the start of learning the business. In this way, its educational and with the author's approval. Sites that poke fun of queries submitted to them seems just hurtful.
Edge of Your Seat Romance
Jenny says
Marilyn–
I loved this:
"When a kid goes to school dressed poorly, is it OK to excuse bullying them as helping the child to learn better fashion choices? If the kid doesn’t speak clearly, is it OK to excuse mocking them as a way to help them learn better language skills? I think not."
I thought that was very well said. =)
marilynpeake says
Thanks, Jenny!
wendy says
I actually found my way to slush pile hell yesterday through links on a posters blog. I thought the comments really funny, and I enjoy other sites like this just as much. But I guess…taking into account what's been written today, slushpile hell is a little on the cruel side. But it is funny, and perhaps it would help the writers to not only learn but laugh at themselves? especially if they're not being identified. No one knows it's their query, but they, themselves. So could, then, these sites be considered more entertaining while also being instructional. I think we should all be prepared to laugh at our foibles, especially if we can remain anonymous.
Hmm…I wonder if Nathan is having a giggle at a query I sent him recently?
Lisa B says
While I feel badly for the writers who are serious and trying to find representation, they have obviously done no research on what to include (and not include) in a query letter. I don't seek out these types of websites but It IS helpful to learn from other writer's mistakes.
Megan Grimit says
I think that sometimes a well seasoned literary agent can get so grumpy after years of bad query's they forget that when they post jokes about them its insulting. There's a person behind every query letter, badly written or not, and its got to be terrible to know that you're not only rejected but publicly laughed at.
I like you're approach much better Nathan. It's professional.
Clove says
Someone earlier up said something along the lines:
"When a kid goes to school dressed poorly, is it OK to excuse bullying them as helping the child to learn better fashion choices? If the kid doesn’t speak clearly, is it OK to excuse mocking them as a way to help them learn better language skills? I think not."
I don't think these query sites are like that. It's not like the agents are seeking out writers on their blogs and trashing them, these writers are submitting to the agents.
I would liken it more to the auditions in American Idol. The people who think they're brilliant but sound like cats being run over? Then they rant and swear and cuss out Simon when they don't get through. Some things on query slushpile are so extreme you have to wonder if it's a joke. It doesn't seem like something coming from a serious writer. Like:
"I want an agent who’s confident to get me a 7 figure book deal or high 6 figure deal, not some bull crap deal."
Or
"My 318,000 word novel may seem like it starts a little slow, but after the first 100 pages or so it really picks up steam, so I hope you will be patient and not be distracted."
I'm also pretty sure there are several sites where writers post and comment on the rejection letters that agents have sent them. How is that different?
Katrina L. Lantz says
Except that seeking an agent is not like American Idol. Seeking a literary agent is more like trying to land a record deal the old fashioned way, by playing at bars and high schools until somebody recognizes your talent and discipline, and gives you a chance.
American Idol contestants want to be on TV–not all musicians want that.
Writers don't deserve scorn just by virtue of being aspiring authors. That's bunk.
Anonymous says
Slush Pile Hell is hilarious for those of us who actually work with queries. I think 80% of your responders have never seen the site and think it sounds mean. It's humor, people. If you don't like it, don't read it. The people sending those queries are rude and/or out of line, not to mention truly delusional. After the first 500 queries like these you HAVE to laugh!
Meagan Spooner says
I have mixed opinions about this one. On the one hand, I have no problem with, for example, Slushpile Hell–the query snippets it posts are SO outrageous that you just know the authors are so clueless they've never read a publishing blog in their life and probably will never see it.
On the other hand, though, I do feel uncomfortable when I see agents quoting from queries that may not be fantastic, but also aren't completely atrocious. There's a chance those writers might see it. And even though I don't think a query of mine would be ridiculed (who sends one out believing it would be?) it does make me feel less inclined to query those agents. It's not going to be the deciding factor, but it's a tick against them, the way, say… a very slow response time, would be.
I love to learn from queries posted. But I believe that they should either be posted with the author's permission, a la Query Shark, or they should not be direct quotes or specific elements identifying that book/author.
Beethovenfan says
I think we all have things in our jobs that irritate us. When I picture the "slush piles from hell" I can only imaging the frustration. As a teacher, I come across some little kids that are just plain annoying. But I would NEVER criticize to others about what a particular child is doing because it's not a professional way of dealing with frustration. Maybe speaking privately with a collegue would be acceptable, but not publicly.
Anonymous says
Katrina L. Lantz, nicely said.
Anonymous says
We, the members of the Association of Authors' Representatives, Inc., are committed to the HIGHEST STANDARD OF CONDUCT in the performance of our professional activities.
– We pledge ourselves to loyal service to our clients' business and artistic needs. We allow no CONFLICT OF INTEREST that would interfere with such service.
– We pledge our support to the Association and to its principles of HONORABLE CO-EXISTENCE, DIRECTNESS AND HONESTY in relationships with co-members.
– We undertake never to mislead, DECEIVE, DUPE, defraud or VICTIMIZE clients, other members of the Association, the GENERAL PUBLIC OR ANY OTHER PERSON WITH WHOM WE DO BUSINESS as a member of the Association."
Whirlochre says
It depends what the rules are.
If you're submitting a query in the full knowledge that it might be publicly lampooned by someone who knows what they're talking about, then you can have no complaints.
If your privately-submitted query makes it into the open without your consent, that's another story.