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
B. The Committee on Ethics and Practices shall consider complaints against any agent member relating to a claimed violation of the Canon of Ethics, these By-Laws or other standards of the Association.
When a complaint is made, the Committee shall keep such complaint confidential, shall make its own investigation, and shall then either
(i) Determine that no further action is warranted and terminate the investigation, or
(ii) Call a meeting of the Board of Directors at which the member charged shall have the right to appear personally, and of which the member charged and all members of the Board of Directors shall have not less than 15 days' written notice by certified mail, which notice shall include a detailed statement of charges against the member.
The Committee may further determine either to make no recommendation to the Board of Directors, or to recommend reprimand, censure, suspension, or expulsion of the member.
A vote of two‑thirds of the entire membership of the Board of Directors shall be required to reprimand, censure, suspend or expel a member.
Clove says
Katrina L.–
I still stand by my point that it's not the same as someone picking on a kid for dressing wrong or something, but you make a good point, too. Aspiring authors aren't submitting themselves for ridicule just by submitting a query.
However, they want to be published. They want their books in stores and they want to be featured in newspapers and they want to be reviewed. If you think for one second that amazon.com reviewers are going to be gentler than agents poking fun at queries, that's just absurd. Reviewers can be harsh, picking apart characters and lines and pleading with the author to never publish again. The industry can be rough. You have to have a thick skin.
That being said, I don't approve of agents picking on queries. Not because of what they say, because they are human and it's okay to have those reactions, but because posting it is unprofessional and disrespectful.
Marjorie says
I am strongly against websites of literary agents that poke fun at queries. I wrote a piece about the topic at my blog and you can read it here:
https://marjorie-digest.blogspot.com/2010/07/slushpile-hell-pathetic-madness.html
Here are some main points from my piece:
There is nothing posted at that "amusing" website to indicate that the query lines included in SPH are written by the anonymous blogger for the purpose of satire. So, my opinion is based on the belief that the sarcastic blog is written by an actual literary agent who has posted truthful and unedited snippets from authentic queries s/he has received and has then written sarcastic comments designed to ridicule those query lines.
Based on no posted statement that the blog is totally an imaginative creative endeavor for the purpose of comedy… my opinion is that the blog, SlushPile Hell, is unethical. And it serves to diminish the professional integrity of the blogger. I think it represents a total breakdown of professional standards.
Yes, writers should be able to handle harsh criticism of their work, but there is something very wrong when the ridicule is coming from a person to whom the material was sent for the possible purpose of representing that work.
How would (these writers) chances for representation be damaged if another agent read the blog and then recognized a line ridiculed at the blog in a query s/he received? There seems to be no question that it damages the query sender's chances of getting another agent. He has been designated a joke.
There are no limits, no boundaries, and everybody crosses a line in attempts to bring on the funny. Everybody is a wannabe comic. The internet is a real cesspool where anybody can put on a mask and anonymously go for the jugular.
kathryn evans says
I think the truth is a muddle. Very often the reason we laugh at things is because we recognise ourselves in the situation ( be honest guys); we laugh out of relief it isn't us ( this time); and, of course, we laugh because we are all stuck at our desks, climbing a mountain, and we want to bond with our comrades. Damn it all, turns out we're all cliched, towing the line, laughing accomplices to the bully boys…….
Jason Branch says
It's kind of like what Steven King wrote about why we crave horror movies. We like a sense of normalcy in our lives. I think seeing other people butchered on film, or in this case, on paper, provides us with a sense of "glad that's not me!" I find it hard to look away from a roasted query, though I have serious doubts of any redeeming aspect of making fun of others in this situation. That is DEstructive criticism at its worst, and leaves me wondering why the person making fun needs their ego stroked so badly. Unless someone's just being obnoxious. I don't mind making fun of obnoxious people, but I always try to do it behind their backs.
Tessa Quin says
I sometimes feel that some of what goes in there is just made up by the blogger. I can't say for sure, but do agents really receive so many strange lines in queries? He/she has one per day (For some reason I'm inclined to call SlushpileHell a "he" – don't know what that says about me).
I can't say if I'm against it. I subscribe to it. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's just meh. It's nice to see what one should definitely not have in their queries, but I subscribe to it for entertainment value more than educational value.
You know what I do like? When agents go over their queries live on their blogs. They don't use names or anything specific. They run through their inbox, writing a a line about why they're not interested in each. It's amazing to see how quickly some are dismissed. It's very educational. I think it was Gatekeeper who did this once or twice. Either Gatekeeper or KT Literary.
Elie says
I think it's a sign of the times. Unfortunately.
Anonymous says
I agree with @cato with respect to #queries and #queryslam on twitter. As a disclaimer, I fully admit that I read them often (there is some kind of morbid attraction). Sometimes they are educational but on more than one occasion I've really wanted to say 'who do you think you are?' (to one certain intern in particular). They can come off as being extremely condescending and uppity. Maybe that is hard to avoid with only 140 characters to work with, but at the same time, there is a definite power trip going on. I almost wish they'd just say who they work for, so I could avoid querying that agent on principal.
Laura
jongibbs says
As far as I'm concerned, the only person it's okay to mock is yourself.
stacy says
I think sites like Evil Editor and Query Shark are fine because people submit to them knowing their queries are going to be critiqued and are therefore giving permission. And those sites are designed not only to be funny, but to be helpful. And they are.
It's things like #queryfail that make me a little uncomfortable, because no one saw that coming and it left a lot of hurt feelings in its wake.
Rick Daley says
In general, I'm against it. I believe in honest feedback over destructive criticism.
However…I have to admit that some of the slushpile hell retorts are really funny.
I also like Evil Editor, but that's different because writers should know to expect the snark when submitting there.
WORD VERIFICATION: notor. A motor that isn't.
Matthew Rush says
I was one of the commentors who mentioned Query Shark and after seeing Janet's comment I feel I ought to clarify. Query Shark is a very valuable resource for writers. Sure it can be a little harsh at times but feedback has less value if it is not brutally honest. I link to Query Shark on my blog. I recommend it to anyone trying to improve their query. I didn't mean to imply that it was cruel or malicious or to lump it in with #queryfail or evil editor or slushpilehell. Each of these things is a different animal and unique in its own way.
I read them all.
So sorry Janet if I gave the impression that I though there was anything wrong with Query Shark. That is not what I meant!
Anonymous says
"Anonymous said…
I wish the author of the Slushpilehell site would stop posting here anonymously (name at the bottom of the post or not) trying to influence the thread. "
Is someone seriously suggesting I'm SlushPileHell? Lol!!!!!!! Only in my dreams.
– NaomiM
jrlawson4 says
The phrase "do unto others as you would have them do unto to you" comes to mind. Maybe the agent thinks it's perfectly fine because he/she wouldn't care if he/she were treated the same way.
I on the other hand would not do that. I want people to be kind and helpful to me, so I am kind and helpful to them.
Everyone should be free to follow their own consciences.
Hillsy says
A couple of things.
1) This isn't x-factor. It's Anonymous.
2) Anyone who starts any kind of blog post with "I can't believe this guy today…" is guilty of the same thing: complaining or mocking the actions of another person in the public domain. Considerer yourself a victim of your own scorn.
2) The majority of times the quotes mocked are not mistakes, but continual ignorance or denial of all advice and resource. My sympathy deteriorates with each readily available warning against such an action.
3) In a number of cases quoted (and mocked) enormous arrogance and delusion is displayed. No mockery or ridicule will effect these people.
4) It's actually immoral NOT to mock these people.
By not, in the strongest terms possible, dissuading a particular approach you are encouraging them to waste hours/days/weeks/years of their life they'll NEVER GET BACK!
Now that's cruel.
5) This kind of "pick the worst and make fun of it" is purely for comedy value – it is rarely helpful. The honest mistakes that one might make in their own queries are cited so rarely as to be non-existant. As such the honest mistakes (such as Rhetorical Questions, 'Fiction Novel', or irrelevant writing credits) are often dealt with in a more considerate way.
6) One wonders: Are the people who complain that puncturing an over inflated ego is wrong the same ones claiming that, with a bit of editting, they'll outsell The Bible? Oh, no! I've gone and made a joke that may potentialy offend someone. Quick! Get a stake, some wood and a pot of parrafin. I'll burn myself as a heretic.
Jay-sus. I can't believe I've written so much on such a silly argument
Natasha Fondren says
I generally hate it. Sometimes it's funny, it is, but even when it's not done in a making-fun-of way, the comment section turns into "Look how stupid they are! I would never do that! See how smart I am?!", which sours the humor.
Respect the dignity of our fellow humans: that's my motto.
However, I definitely think agents should have a good laugh at it amongst themselves.
Anonymous says
Against it with all my being. It's unprofessional. Period.
I've crossed off many, many agents thanks to their blogs and tweets. Far more than I've added. And I know I'm not alone. In my writing group alone, we'd all crossed off several agents each. (Now that would be an interesting poll, Nathan.)
I'm not sure why these agents don't pay attention to this. They seem to be hurting themselves and their reputation with their online presence a lot more than they're helping it. A LOT.
It's a bad business practice. It's unprofessional. I don't get why you'd do it. I just don't.
Anonymous says
I’m torn.
Yes, some of them are very funny, and some of the mistakes these aspiring authors make are incredibly ridiculous. Do a little research before querying. It’s not like there is a wealth of information about agents and querying available online. I wonder if some of these quoted queries are attempts at humor, taken out of context. I wonder if some are written by people with a mental illness. Some may not just appeal to the agent. Do they deserve to be made fun of?
I started querying this summer, after a long hiatus from writing, and after four months I am incredibly jaded by the querying process. It’s all boiled down to writing a perfect, pithy letter, and at that I failed. Miserably. Couple this with the snarky attitude of most of the agents out there, and I’m about ready to give up on traditional publishing altogether. I started following the blogs and twitters of several agents, and I was appalled by what I read there. Most of these young women seem to revel in their gatekeeper status. It reminded me of a mean girl clique in high school, and no surprise, most of these people are barely out of high school. I found them to be a bunch of privileged, mean-tempered white girls bitching about how hard their life is, with their ivy-league educations and their internships, and the cost of vegan snacks in their hipster NYC neighborhood. Then they go and trash the very people who want to hire them! Ugh.
I wish the agent pool wasn’t so homogeneous. Even the interns are obnoxious! I feel like you need to know the secret handshake to get through to these speshul snowflakes.
*Not all the agents I researched where like this. Most of the older, established agents hat I researched have always seemed professional, and helpful, including you Mr. B. (You were my first choice to query, and you quickly rejected me. Ah well.) But some of the younger ones, the ones that seem to tweet and blog more than sell, just left a sour taste in my mouth.
Magdalena Munro says
Some of the agent's blogs you follow on your own blog have mocked query letters and included copies of said queries. I completely disengaged from those literary agents. That said, I am completely against this sort of behavior. I've mentioned before that I'm a recruiter and can't imagine posting people's horribly written resume's and cover letters. There are ways to parse material from poorly written queries to help us learn what not to write without compromising integrity and privacy.
ella144 says
I don't have a problem with it as it as long it stays anonymous. An agent is clearly just blowing off a little steam, but mostly I see it as a valuable tool.
They are big flashing signs of things not to do in a query. Things that may sound like a good idea at first, but aren't. I appreciate anything advice that keeps me from looking like an idiot or ups my chances at not making a mistake.
Annikka Woods says
I still remember when Miss Snark was snarking away at query writers. I miss her blog. Right now my choice for queries is Query Shark. I've seen some of these blogs where query letters are ridiculed, satirized, or humorously critiqued by agents.
If it's anonymous and you don't let anyone know they're poking fun at you, who cares? If an agent puts the author's name in it (and no, I haven't seen a blog yet where this is the case) then it becomes more personal and can damage an author's credibility, and their belief in their own work.
I'd hate to see someone like the Query Shark driven off of the blog circuit because people are up in arms about blogs that poke fun at inexpertly written query letters. I am all for honest C&C for queries, but the satirical and sometimes rather vicious humor at the expense of the query writers? I am not a fan of those.
Anonymous says
This is timely — I recently visited the site of an agent that had rejected me and was horrified to find she was making fun of the queries she was reading (quoting unusual MC names and mocking them, bitching that someone hadn't made their book sound special enough… and so forth.
She's a new agent, been in the business less than six months.
Dear God, you're THAT jaded already? You're feet aren't even wet and you've got the balls to vent on Twitter how much writers suck? Give someone a little teeny tiny power and see what happens?
Hogwash.
Phoenix says
@Matthew Rush:
I didn't mean to imply that it [Query Shark] was cruel or malicious or to lump it in with #queryfail or evil editor or slushpilehell.
Not sure why you're divorcing Evil Editor from Query Shark's ilk and lumping it with #queryfail and slushpilehell.
1) Evil Editor uses humor to teach. Does it amuse him to come up with some of the scathing stuff he does? Probably. But it's also probably what's challenged him enough to still be at critting queries 4 years and 800+ queries later.
I take on revisions of queries that have already been through the grinder at his site. So I know it's time-consuming work when you're not even trying to add in funny. And, unlike Janet, EE critiques EVERY single query submitted, which usually runs about 3-4 per week, PLUS taking on first-page critiques.
2) Several writers who've been left bloody have gone on to get agents with their reworked queries and to publish. Scads more have gone from getting no requests to being routinely asked for partials and fulls.
3) EVERY query is voluntarily submitted. And everyone who submits knows that EE will find something to ridicule no matter how good or bad your query is. That entertainment aspect is what keeps folk coming to his site and learning. It may not be YOUR cuppa, but I've seen some amazingly transformed work come out of his workshopping.
KaelaQLC says
At first I thought it was funny, but then decided it was pretty rude. I understand the need to joke around, but posting it on the internet to humiliate the author (whether the names are posted or not, imagine reading that site and finding your query letter – horrifying). With all writers hear about the chances of being published, some people may take a risk to make their letter a little different. Maybe it didn't work, but let's just quit pickin'.
Anonymous says
Eh…
Some parts are pretty funny, but the whole time you're thinking poor writers… so…
Queries are written to the agent. Not the world.
Enough said.
Anonymous says
Also, I'll say that I think agents that poke fun at queries on twitter do it because they like the attention.
Janet Reid doesn't need attention, and therefore Query Shark is voluntary. She's not trying to screw writers over to inflate her own ego. She's trying to snap their queries into place. VOLUNTARILY.
I see other agents, and especially the young, hip, been-an-agent-for-less-than-a-year aren't I cool I'm an AGENT crowd, lambasting their innocent queriers more and more. It's like they consider their job as a place to gain personal love via twitter followers, rather than doing the much harder work of actually finding clients, helping shape their work, and selling their books. You know, because that's hard. Lambasting writers on twitter, much easier.
No thanks, I'd like an agent that's an adult, please.
Also, I'd like to see how agents would react if editors did the same thing to them — bitching and complaining on twitter or a blog about all the annoying stuff agents so to them — Oh, not so funny then, right?
AlyMorrissey says
For it. Any time you can get into the mind of an agent, no matter what the context or intention, provides helpful insight into the world of publishing.
dcamardo says
One of the most helpful things for me is when Kate Schafer Testerman–or should I say Daphne Unfeasable–live blogs about her query pile. Here's a link to what I'm talking about:
https://ktliterary.com/2010/06/at-long-last-a-new-live-blog/
You see, there is a way for an agent to talk about their real slushpile in a respectful, confidential, and helpful way… and yeah, there's a little bit of humor there sometimes too.
I never really thought about Slushpile Hell that much until this blog post. When I give it some thought, it seems that a lot of writer's see agents as the "in crowd." When writers laugh along with an agent, they can feel a part of that "in crowd."
I'm not saying agents aren't cool, but all this hunting for agents can sometimes put things out of proper perspective. If we maintain the perspective that publishing is a business, there is no place for websites like Slushpile Hell.
Karen Schwabach says
Slushpile Hell amuses me, but makes me ashamed to be amused. As with #queryfail, it seems many of the queriers being lampooned are making mistakes that serious, informed writers will not make…not even when they're first starting out.
Putting a private communication out in public seems ethically questionable.
There's a world of difference between that kind of thing, and the blogs in which agents try to help people improve their queries, such as Janet Reid's QueryShark.
Em-Musing says
OK, I admit it, I sometimes like to laugh at other people's (query) expense, just as long as the names were removed to protect the innocent, unsuspecting writer (maybe me), and by posting these queries,it serves to help others, including agents by relieving their stress.
Anonymous says
I love how "it's just humor" is an excuse for a lot of horrible things these days.
Just because it's funny doesn't make it right. It's easy to forget that amidst the laughter.
Anonymous says
If Slushpile Hell is your only "education" for how not to write a query, you've been reading all the wrong sites.
There are better ways to learn. Calling SPH "educational" is a cop-out.
Anonymous says
While reading through the comments, I was amazed. I had no idea writers felt this way.
With the exception of a few agent loons who always wind up moving on to other careers, I always thought the queries that were put up on display in places like slushpile hell were just anonymous examples of clueless writers who don't bother to take the time to research or understand publishing. And, I'd bet most of these people are just querying on a whim and none will ever have what it takes to become serious career writers.
Interesting.
Hart Johnson says
It depends on how much of the query is shared. These are all fails on the intro and personal presentation, and I think they're hysterical. If there is any of the HOOK though–anything about the BOOK, then not without the writer's approval.
Laura Maylene says
I find them hilarious when individual agents post a few examples of disastrous queries on their own blogs (assuming the author/book can't be identified, of course). Entire — and anonymous — sites dedicated to ripping on query letters are more mean-spirited.
Loree H says
I've seem them. I don't spend my time reading them.
I think a query letter should remain between an agent and author, period. Are we professional or not? Of course, I can live with it if permission is granted to post it for humor or help.
I'm going to be starting the query process very soon, and I am wondering (as Rachelle commented on) to who these agents are who post and rip apart queries all for a good laugh.
Just when you think you've done your homework on your selected agents, you wonder if they are the anonymous bullies who might do you in by posting your query.
It just leaves one more step for "us" in the "finding a good agent" homework process.
Pretentia says
Nathan, sweetie,
We all know that 99.99999% of what we receive is crap. We have to make fun of it, for sanity's sake! The slushpile is the last refuge for the unwashed masses, seeking fame and Meyer-like fortune through their use of gerundive phrasing. I’ve been an agent for two whole weeks, and this job is so hard, so soul-killing, I cry myself to sleep at night. My cat, Mr. Fudgcicle, is my only comfort. I could have been an editor, or taught at my alma matter, or married a Hearst, but I chose this career path because I love great literature. Or literature that can be sold at auction, or will be optioned by the CW. D Instead I sit on my laptop, at a crowded café, and dwon in these horrible queries. The last one I read was 251 words long…can you believe the nerve? And it wasn’t even YA, or a Dystopian! What are these imbeciles thinking?
https://twitter.com/PretentiaVonBok
Jo Young says
Query bashing – or any kind of bashing – is a spectator sport. For people who don't have anything better to do with their lives – such as actually getting their own stuff published. Making fun of others belongs in a bad high school novel.
I agree with your policy – carry on!
glasseye says
I'm sick of hearing about queries, to be honest. Writers who regularly follow agent blogs understand how to write a query – and thanks to the snark, how not to. I'd much rather hear what agents think makes a good manuscript.
Mira says
Terin Tashi – thank you!! 🙂
I think it is very upright of Janet Reid and Rachelle Gardner to come here and distance themselves from this type of site. Thank you. I never for one moment included Query Shark in this – Query Shark is voluntary and consensual. And I appreciate that Rachelle confirmed these are real queries.
I had one other thought about this – social networking. There is alot of pressure on writers right now to form positive connections with other writers and behave professionally on the web.
This means that the WRITERS who participate in these sites and are mocking other writers may want to think about how they are percieved by the person they are mocking and the other writers/general public who may be reading what they wrote.
If you mock another writer in public, whether you know who that person is or not, will that person want to buy your book?
Or are they much more likely to tell everyone they know that you are NOT a nice person, you said terrible things about them (again, whether you knew their name or not) and no one should ever buy your book.
You may damage your reputation in a way that is almost impossible to fight – through word of mouth that you are NOT nice.
Along these lines, any agent or industry professional who encourages a writer to mock one of their peers is doing that writer a grave disservice.
Juice in LA says
248 comments in, I am sure someone else has already said what I am about to say, but as long as the Query Author isn't identifiable, I am indifferent- Although frankly I'd love real honest negative feedback. If my query sucks, I WANT to know, and know how bad it sucks.
Bring it! I say. Let's face it, entertainment industries like ours where your talent and creativity is perpetually being judged are ruthless and soul sucking for the most part. better to learn early and develop that thick skin.
Elizabeth says
I'm not a fan of the Anonymous genre which allows writers to sucker punch from a secure location. But having just read Slush Pile for the first time, it seems harmless and disturbingly educational.
No big deal.
Marjorie says
This is a reply to Hillsy:
1. II doesn't matter that it is anonymous. The person who wrote the query will recognize his sentences and be hurt. Also, his chances for representation elsewhere can be damaged when he is designated a joke. (read my post above)
2. There is a huge difference between receiving a private communication (as a professional for the purpose of representation) and mocking the piece…. and people commenting about that activity which has been posted on the internet. It speaks to professional ethics and integrity… and the commenters are responding.
3. Teachers handle constant mistakes as well. It is totally not acceptable to ridicule continued errors, which may be the result of many factors. (YOU PUT NUMBER 2 TWICE IN YOUR LIST)
4. A query sender can be as arrogant or delusional as he wishes. That is no barometer for a determination of ridicule and to suggest such shows almost an inability to understand the concept of professional integrity on your part.
Nathan Bransford says
marjorie-
That's enough, please. No personal attacks.
Marjorie says
Nathan:
I thought the last part wasn't posting.
Thanks for the explanation. I had a dilated eye exam and my vision is all blurry from the drops and I couldn't understand why the end of the piece was not appearing. I kept reposting it….
I will repost the last points and leave out "the attacks."
Sorry… I tend to get very emotionally involved in a topic.
joeverkill says
I'm A-okay with them. If you're querying an agent, you're trying to get your work out there, and if you're not ready for exposure to criticism or mockery, you're not ready to be a published author.
Marjorie says
5. "It's actually immoral NOT to mock these people." Should professors in law schools mock the students who he believes will never pass the bar?
6. Satire and comedy are usually written completely by the performer or author… or credit is given to the source of the material, which in this case creates a paradox.
7. The personalities of the query senders should not even be part of this dynamic in a discussion of the ethics of the activity.
This issue is about the meaning of professional standards, ethical behavior in a profession, and the meaning of professional integrity.
What would you think of a teacher who posted the poorly written compositions or the failing tests of students… and wrote sarcastic comments all over the work? Is that OK?
Anonymous says
Hey, Pretentia @ 8:46, do us all a favor and don't lump yourself in with Nathan Bransford when you've only been an agent for two weeks.
YOUR QUOTE: "… The slushpile is the last refuge for the unwashed masses, seeking fame and Meyer-like fortune through their use of gerundive phrasing…"
— Not at all true. Most who are serious about writing don't follow trends, much less proclaim themselves to be Meyers. Those who do can have their query easily deleted from your computer with one keystroke. Wow, what a hardship for you.
YOUR QUOTE: "…I’ve been an agent for two whole weeks, and this job is so hard, so soul-killing, I cry myself to sleep at night…"
— You aren't cut out to be an agent. Please, feel free to leave. No one is forcing you to choose this career.
Your Quote: "… I could have been an editor, or taught at my alma matter, or married a Hearst, but I chose this career path because I love great literature. Or literature that can be sold at auction, or will be optioned by the CW. .."
— Wow, so big of you to lower yourself from marrying a Hearst in order to make money off the writers you scorn. Didn't you just condemn writers for hoping their work may be received like Meyers? While you dream of auctions and (gag) CW? Pot to kettle.
Honey, YOU are the agent we all want to avoid. Someone who disrespects the industry she's in, the writers that fuel it, and in the same breath has the nerve to say she's been an agent for TWO WHOLE WEEKS!
jjdebenedictis says
In one of Jim Butcher's books, someone says to the main character, "No one likes a smart-ass."
The main character replies that, in his experience, everyone loves a smart-ass as long as the smart-ass isn't talking to them.
I think Slushpile Hell is hilarious because I'm confident I'm not making those mistakes anymore.
I think those who hate it are frightened that they are.
Anonymous says
Anon 10:33 – You make good points, but Pretentia is not an agent. It's satire.
Thus, the name, Pretentia.