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.
I've had a post started on this for some time, but I haven't fully formed my thoughts yet. It's even on Twitter, too, with the #queries tag.
To some extent, it's helpful to the people who see what goes wrong. But can you imagine being the person seeing your query made fun of? Or reading that agent's #queries tag and seeing, "Ugh, this contemp YA query was good but the pages SUCK. PASS. #queries" And wondering if it was you? And sometimes there are specific references to plot, etc., it can be very harsh.
So while I'm somewhat torn, I think ultimately I'm against.
I've been duped — she's not an agent but a bitter writer. Oh, well. I don't approve of bitter writers pretending to be agents, either.
Anon 10:33/10:52 – Don't worry about it. You made good points.
I think Pretentia is funny! She declares her Tweets to be satire, and writes some hilarious material. I love it!
It is not designed to ridicule or involve real people… and there is a huge difference. i am a fan.
Kindness is rarely, if ever, a bad idea.
Beethovenfan said, "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." Exactly. It seems to be an immature way of dealing with frustration. Agents who do this come across as impulsive, possibly not having enough patience to do the best possible job on books they represent, and not very professional. It's funny, but you rarely hear about this kind of stuff coming from agents who represent the most impressive books. I've started to think that maybe the agents who are mean to writers online are impulsively venting their own frustration because they aren't receiving queries for the truly amazing books, possibly because the authors of those books won't query them. I've been in writers groups where agents who constantly feature silly, pop culture topics on their site or vent frustration in mean ways online are completely avoided by authors who go on to find great agents. Maybe agents feel they can criticize writers with no consequences, but successful writers talk among themselves and recommend agents they respect. They don't respect agents who constantly imply that writers are stupid, who talk to writers as though they're guilty of a thousand writing mistakes. The writers' conclusion: If those agents are getting THAT many bad query letters, maybe it's something the agent's doing publicly. Agents should take the same advice given to writers: If most of the query letters you receive are poorly written, perhaps you need to take a good hard look at what you're doing to attract those types of writers, rather than complaining publicly about writers. After all, everything you write publicly can be Googled.
This is a reply to Rachelle. Your comments serve to support my claims.
1. How would those writers' chances for representation elsewhere 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.
2. If that site is written by an intern… it has to be a very self-destructive and foolish intern. It should be grounds for immediate firing. The employee has set in place a severe breach of communication privacy and has put the agency under an umbrella of professional violations of ethics.
Also, it should not be hard at all to identify the author of that blog. All you need is one writer (whose word for word query line appears at that blog) to step forward and identify the last agency or agent to whom he sent his query before it appeared on that blog.
This does not require huge detective work. It's not like exposing "Deep Throat."
I'd personally like to see a Slush Pile Heaven showcasing the best and pointing out what works well. Something closely akin to the Shark and the Query Critique here, I suppose.
You'd probably have to ask permission and redact personal info.
It's probably more work. It's probably less hilarious.
But I'd learn a heck of a lot more that way, and it would be vastly more edifying to the community at large.
I'd read it, bookmark it, and blogroll it.
Marjorie: You've invalidated your own argument.
How can I take seriously the opinion of anyone who compares getting their feelings hurt to the murder of six million people?
That's not just obscene, it's irrational and almost criminally self-centred.
Whirlochre: To be fair, if you've send your query letter to a dozen complete strangers, you can't argue you had any reasonable expectation of privacy.
Sending out a query letter is a scaled-down version of a company mailing out advertisements to every house on your street. It's not a private communication.
I didn't think I'd come back to comment again, but one last thing is needed.
JJ-you completely missed the point again and insulted over 50% of the commentors as you suggested they're upset with SPH because they are in the query process.
I can verify that I am not actively sending out queries at this moment and I am still upset with agents ridiculing writers.
Sorry, JJ, I've seen you before on these comment threads on other sites and each time you embarrass yourself, although I respect your right to free speech and an opinion.
By the way, sending out a query is a private matter. There is nothing else to it. Remember, I mentioned before I had a lawyer friend look into copywrite laws for this debate…
@Phoenix,
I'm sorry if you misunderstood my meaning. If you check my comment again you'll see that I said that each of the examples was a different animal, not that I was lumping evil editor together with any of the others. Personally I think there is some negativity to all of them, but negativity is not always wholly bad. For evil editor where every query is submitted for the sole purpose of having it critiqued, and where the submitters know what to expect, the harsh humor is probably a good thing.
As other commenters have said it is probably better to hear the brutal truth now rather than delude yourself for an extended period.
You may not have noticed but I also said in my comment that I read all of them … well that is except for #queryfail, since I wasn't on twitter yet then.
For clarification please forgive me if I offended anyone. I did not mean to imply that any of the examples I gave are bad or cruel or malicious. The point I was trying to make above anything else was that I have a high level of respect for Nathan's decision to refrain from such practices. That was really all I meant. I'm sorry if that was not clear.
Leaving this thread open for now and not deleting, but guys, no need to get personal. Let's just keep this discussion in the abstract — we're talking about these sites, not about each other.
Nathan, thank you for providing a respectful environment for this discussion.
I realize I'm a day or two late to this party, but I've been helping my best friend move into her dorm down in South Carolina, and am now planning on spending the duration of summer break down here as this is probably the last time I shall see her before winter break, so basically I'm always going to be running a little late this week.
Anyway, I am totally against sites like these. I noticed a few people mentioned things like Query Shark and I have no problems with those. For one thing, QS is actually helpful and not taking the piss. For another, and far more importantly, people do so entirely voluntarily.
But sites like that one? Man that just irks me, and I make it a point to avoid them like the plague. I've had fellow writer friends try to link me to those kinds of sites in the past, and I just block those people for varying lengths of time.
Writing is a daunting enough challenge as it is. As I've said in the past, with writing, there is no yardstick against which to measure yourself as there is in other fields. I'm a decent footballer but you don't see me going to the MLS SuperDraft, because I know I'm not that good, and even if I were good enough for the professional level, I would never be starting eleven material. But with writing, there is no same measure.
I have a friend who's a very talented violinist and earned entry to one of the better music schools in our country, but she went through an excruciating audition process wherein she was asked to perform many pieces, often times long ones, and always ones that would show off different skills they considered necessary to gain entry.
Querying is like the antithesis of that audition process. Instead of being handed pre-existing music to play, and given a brief downtime to prepare, we're asked to write our own piece; or rather, our own opera. And then once we have that big thing in our hands, we're told to get up on stage and condense it into something the size of the galop infernal. What?
It's frustrating, and at times terrifying. Frankly, if I were to ever be signed by an agent, if I found out they were associated with a site that just sort of freely copies queries and takes the piss, I would terminate our contract. Regardless of how good of an agent they are otherwise.
Oh, and for the people who aren't classical music fans: You know galop infernal as the can-can.
Fair warning. Deleted that and will delete any more personal arguments. This discussion isn't about each other, it's about the sites. No reason for the debate to get muddled with personal stuff.
@Matthew Rush:
Thanks for the clarification! We're all reading and writing comments so fast there's bound to be a degree of misinterpretation both ways.
No hard feelings :o)
This discussion isn't about each other, it's about the sites.
True, dat.
My apologies, Nathan. I do appreciate you hosting this debate, and I am sorry if I was helping turn it into something you didn't want here.
I have no problem with Slushpile Hell, but I know a lot of people do. I've posted a list on my blog of "safe" versus "snarky" agents.
For those who are afraid of their queries getting lampooned or don't approve of that type of humor, you can filter from there.
For those (like me) who admire quick wit and a good bit of satire, you may find an agent who shares your quirky sense of humor.
Congratulations, Nathan! You are the only agent who has actually come out and said you are a "safe" agent (although I would assume most agents are "safe").
Hate it.
Who would ever want to be the butt of someone's joke? No one, that's who.
It goes back to that quote about having learned everything you needed to know in life in kindergarten.
Be nice, it doesn't cost anything, and snarky should never be confused with clever.
I think the whole thing is just sad: Sad that the agent feels such contempt for their jobs and the writers who they depend on for their livelihood, and sad that the writers may be totally sincere yet clueless. Is it really "okay" if the posts are anonymous? Rather I think a lot of agents use hyperbole and frankly, I'll bet they make most of it up to get more laughs.
Do they really think it's helpful and productive to lash out at unsuspecting writers, and spend all their time complaining about their overflowing in-boxes on Twitter? If these agents are so burned-out, bored and frustrated with their jobs, perhaps they should devote their time and energy to finding a new job, preferably in a completely different field.
Myra, at least one of the agents who actually PARTICIPATED in queryfail condemned it only after they admitted being part of the original Twitter group of agents–and only after there were so many protests about it from writers. A bit two-faced and holier-than-thou, if you ask me…
@Phoenix,
I'm really glad we got that sorted because I've actually read your blog (assuming you're Phoenix Sullivan) and I think that you provide an awesome service.
See how things can get all muddled when we type with fingers full of emotion (this was more my fault than hers, but still)?
See Nathan? In the words of the immortal San Francisco underground hip-hop group Deep Puddle Dynamics (whose name is based on a Kerouac poem):
sole, alias, and slug:
it ain't all love, it's confusion and a waste of time.
sole:
it ain't all time, it's confusion and a waste of love.
alias:
it ain't all waste, it's confusion and some time to love.
slug:
it ain't all confusion, it's love and some time to waste.
dose one:
it ain't all that…it's all of the above…
so…scared into this, and you are,
and you wonder from the shores how deep the puddle is.
Anyway I'm not sure where that came from but my point is that this thread is not all hate, Phoenix and I got to know each other better without all that drama. To tell the truth I haven't read every single comment, so I understand your concern about personal attacks, but I hope you keep it open, because some times good things come where you least expect them.
Also anon @5:35 pm, you have a valid point, but considering the fact that you're here, I hope that you've probably noticed that Nathan is different.
Is he an Alien from planet WONDERBAR (that's German for wonderful BTW) who was sent to destroy the status quo of the publishing industry? Probably not. But he (and his web services) have made a difference in my life that cannot be quantified.
Mad respect.
Here's another thought: if SPH is written by an intern, what agency wants to keep around such an immature self-involved fool who doesn't take the job seriously and places the agency is such a controversial or perhaps vulnerable light because of his own personal need to be funny? If you don't like the job, or you are in it for the side laughs…. quit.
I would love to smoke this guy out. I can't stand all these self-impressed purveyors of snark. Snark? A bunch of phony hipsters who gain strength at Twitter. In person, they probably have lockjaw.
It's all really a bunch of lashon hara with a little Motzi Shem Ra thrown in the lousy mix.
I can't stand this type of agent… one who misuses his power and feels oh so important. I hated principals who did this as well and strongly fought against them…. which is on topic because it shows how you can fight a fight and win.
I went up against several principals in major fights and won. Here's the story of one saga:
https://marjorie-pentimentos.blogspot.com/2009/02/my-finest-hour.html
This is minor stuff. But, it can be fought if organized correctly. You can smoke out these anonymous agents. Get organized and try to get the writers whose pieces of queries have appeared at that blog to list to whom they sent their queries right before they appeared at that blog.
In doing something, you will be taking a positive step to put an end to this nonsense and preventing others from being subjected to this type of activity.
https://marjorie-digest.blogspot.com/2010/08/rich-and-rewarding-life.html
You're no longer alone, Nathan 🙂 Amie Cortese just updated her blog. There is now another agent (well, intern) who had openly aligned herself with the "safe" crowd."
The New York Times puzzle editors require that constructors/authors use their real names as bylines. No pen names, no "Anonymous" contributions. There have been no complaints about this policy — and it's a departure from previous editorships.
I prefer to read bloggers who use their real names. They seem more confident than the anonymous folks.
(Nathan, you're amazing, by the way — this is an extraordinary resource.)
Morgan,
I certainly hope so, but I think it's going to take some time before #queryfest deserves a spot on the "safe" list. Bear in mind that if you'd asked her yesterday (or even just a few hours ago), she would have been adamant that #queryslam was "safe" and not "snark." We have to take that public alignment with an optimistic grain of salt.
The first few tweets in #queryfest were really promising, so I'm excited to see how it unfolds, but I think there's some trust building still to do.
It is unfortunate that the agent chooses to not be publicly accountable. Even if #queryfest turns out to be a huge improvement from #queryslam (which I hope it is!) writers still have a right to know who they should avoid querying if they want to avoid being part of #queryfest.
Overall, I love your list–that kind of concrete information empowers writers to make informed choices! (Always good!)
Anonymous 10:46 am, Pretentia Von Bok is a real person. I dated her sister Dystopia.
I don't get it. What is all this nonsense that goes on at Twitter…. with hashtags and agents who get involved with phony names and create Twitter pages for stupidity? I just posted at #queryslam and #queryfest. I said it is total narisha zach.
The internet has brought us to this place. I never saw anything like this in all my years of working. But, I worked when we had a pay phone in the lunch room with a rotary dial.
I am sorry… this is beyond my ability to understand. i don't get this absurd attachment to Twitter and hashtags and this absurd need to "snark."
Sounds like much unresolved and displaced anger to me.
Anon 5:48, are you talking to me? Hope so, since I'm going to answer you. 🙂
My view of this is: I am okay with any agent (or other industry pro) changing their mind at any point. Maybe people didn't realize the impact of what they were doing, and they read something (like this thread) and changed their mind. That's wonderful. That's the whole point: to get people to listen and think about things differently.
Personally, I'm fine with taking the high road. I don't need someone to admit to making a mistake or offer an apology(although that will always gain my respect). I understand there are professional consequences that need to be taken into consideration, and a public presence on the internet is a big deal when we're talking about jobs.
What I really hope to gain is a change of heart.
That would be truly wonderful.
Even the person who runs that horrible, awful site that so pisses me off.
If they change their position, they have earned my respect.
For what that's worth, anyway. 🙂
I think I'm really 50/50 on this one. These queries are absurd. Absolutely, positively unprofessional and absurd. The writers need to take the time to research how to do it properly.
That being said, I think it's just as grossly unprofessional and immature to put these out there.
Let's say you have a choice between 2 agents. One of them sends out form rejections, the other posts queries anonymously to ridicule the author. Which do you want to work with?
The Association of Author's Representatives, Inc states that non-members can file a complaint:
"Please address your questions or concerns to the Board President. Our administrator is Jody Klein. She may be reached by email at administrator@aaronline.org. Her phone number, should you need it, is 212 840.5770."
Nathan you a member of the AAR? Is that posted?
anon-
Yes, I am. You can search for members on the AAR database at http://www.aar-online.org
"Let's say you have a choice between 2 agents."
Hahahahahahahahaha…gah – I think I just swallowed my chewing gum.
If I seriously had a choice of one agent, let alone two, I don't think their secret life as a querysnark would really come into it. Show me where to sign.
Education and humiliation are different words for a reason.
Cato,
Glad you found the list useful 🙂 I disagree that #queryslam/#queryfest is anywhere near the caliber of #queryfail or SPH, though.
What Amie does is incredibly useful. It is not intended to poke fun (which seems to be a big issue people have) and she never quotes anything (the other big issue people have). It is simply her thoughts about why she is rejecting or accepting. How can getting a real-time glimpse into the reasons behind acceptances and rejections be anything but useful?
It would be similar to me posting generic commentary on the documents I edit: "Oops, this document doesn't use parallel structure in the bullet points. Must fix that." (Not that anyone would care, but you see my point.) It's not an insult, it's just stream of consciousness.
I feel sorry for Amie. She is trying to do something good, but everyone is so hopped up about #queryfail and SPH, and they are taking it out on her.
marjorie-
Seriously, no more personal attacks.
Nathan,
This seems to be quite the topic. The comments by hundreds of people are filled with angst on either side.
Questions may be needed;
How does this affect the current state of publishing?
Where do we go from here?
Will relationships between working professionals be strained due to this debate?
How will writers respond today and in the future to further ridicule?
How will literary agents respond?
Is there a real problem, or is this an issue delegated to an understanding of ego?
How do you feel, Nathan, about sites like SPH?
Just thinking about all the help I've seen you give writers in the past. You're at the top of my Bookmarks list as your site is the most important to me. You critiqued my novel recently. You're a stand-up guy. Writers respond to this favorably.
So, we know where you stand regarding ridicule, but how do you feel? Is it harmless, or does it harm?
Nathan:
I didn't think it was a personal attack because I was replying to an anonymous post. I thought I was being slightly biting and funny regarding the issue… but, I guess it came across as too strong.
Sorry. I will edit it and repost a scaled down version because I do think I made some good points regarding behavior on a job.
Why doesn't somebody contact Jody Klein of AAR and get their position regarding this entire issue?
Then, there will be nothing more to say. You can't argue with their final word.
Marjorie – actually, I was considering doing that myself. I really appreciate whoever is leaving all of that information (!)
But I thought I'd wait abit, think about it and let things settle down first. Maybe just talking about things will be enough to shift them.
But if you feel like doing it, I hope you'll let us know what happens. 🙂
I agree it may be time for the AAR (?) AAAR (?) to take a position on some of these issues.
Mira:
Even if this settles and that site goes away, it still would be a good idea to get AAR's position so if it happens again, we are coming from a stronger place and there is a contact person who is made aware and can handle these complaints.
If they say it is OK and acceptable activity… then no further debate seems necessary.
I will call later today…
Well…actually if they said this type of activity didn't violate their own ethical code, I think there would be PLENTY of room for debate.
But it would certainly be interesting. 🙂
Okay. I just spoke to someone else who is contacting them, but I guess I can contact them too. I'll take the hot potato, Marjorie. 🙂
Give me a few days. I'll see what they say.
Oh! You're taking the hot potato.
Never mind then. I'll wait to hear what they tell you. 🙂
And thanks.
Guys, no offense, but while I think this is something the AAR should address at some point, to save yourself time (and to save the time of the person you're planning to call), to my knowledge there are not specific guidelines in place.