A modest proposal.
The submission process in the publishing industry these days is increasingly broken. Many literary agents have long had a “no response means no” policy on query letters, but now the shoe is on the other foot and many editors at publishing houses are straying into “no response means no” policy, leaving agents in the lurch.
Even Simon & Schuster CEO Jonathan Karp recently acknowledged the problem. As Jane Friedman recently summarized his recent remarks at the People of Publishing conference, “Karp said he knows that one of agents’ pet peeves is when they get ghosted by editors and wait weeks (or longer) for a response on material. He’s been pushing a three-week standard for responses but also asked agents to accept ‘not for me’ as a good-enough answer, rather than solicit a longer explanation as to why.”
While in some ways it’s tempting to revel in agents getting a taste of their own medicine, ultimately “no response means no” is bad for authors coming and going. Authors are left in a mind-numbing limbo, unsure whether to move forward or keep waiting for a response that may never arrive.
It’s long past time for the publishing industry to reform its submission standards.
I have experienced publishing submissions from all sides. I read a mountain of slush as a literary agent, and I’ve had to send query letters as an author. I believe I have a handle on what’s reasonable to expect all around.
Here’s my proposal for a Publishing Submission Bill of Rights. Let me know what you think is missing or needs changing in the comments!
Article 1 – If you are a publishing professional who’s open for submissions, you owe everyone who follows your submission guidelines a timely response – Non-responses slow down authors and agents as they wait for a response that may never arrive, turning submission timelines into an eternity. “No response means no” pollutes the commons. It bogs down writing careers and erodes trust. If you don’t want to respond to everyone who submits to you, either close your submissions or raise the barrier for entry by narrowing the aperture of which submissions you’ll accept or when you’ll accept them.
Article 2 – If you are an author or agent who doesn’t follow submission guidelines, you are not entitled to a response – All submission guidelines should be clearly, publicly posted. If agents and authors fail to follow them or try to bypass the procedures, they are not owed a response.
Article 3 – One month for queries and two months for manuscripts is an acceptable timeline unless otherwise agreed – If you’re a publishing professional who can’t stay on top of incoming submissions you should close for submissions, get more assistance, or request fewer manuscripts. Again, it’s unfair to authors to leave them in limbo with hazy timelines. (I’m a bit more lenient than Jonathan Karp here, but three weeks would be amazing!).
Article 4 – “Thanks but not for me” is not only an acceptable submission response, it’s better than saying something just to say something – The submission system should reward timeliness and clarity over detailed feedback. Agents and editors should not feel pressure to say anything other than “no.” It’s much worse when agents and editors give ill-thought-through “say something just to say something” feedback that can lead authors astray. “Thanks but not for me” is 100% sufficient. Constructive feedback beyond that is appreciated, but not mandatory.
Article 5 – If you receive “thanks but not for me,” you are not owed further clarification. Don’t ask. – Don’t bog down the process or put undue pressure on agents and editors who simply say “not for me.” If they only have a gut feeling and don’t have anything helpful to add, don’t follow-up. Just move on.
Article 6 – The American Association of Literary Agents should convene a “Publishing Terminology Convention” to standardize submission procedures and definitions – Ask ten different agents what a synopsis is and how it should be formatted and an author is likely to receive ten different answers. What belongs in a proposal? What are appropriate guidelines for comp titles? It is ridiculously confusing for authors to have to adjust their materials based on conflicting guidelines and standards. The AALA can play a role in bringing order to to this discombobulated process, which would make authors’ lives much easier and ensure consistency and order in agents’ query inboxes.
What do you think? Is this sufficient to reform the system?
Need help with your book? I’m available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and coaching!
For my best advice, check out my online classes, my guide to writing a novel and my guide to publishing a book.
And if you like this post: subscribe to my newsletter!
Art: First four Americana stamps issued in 1977 by United States Postal Service
I’d love to be able to know exactly when a response is coming, rather than my heart rate spiking whenever I’m preparing to open my inbox. Many agents do give a timeline, which is nice, but the ones that say “no response = no” leaves you wondering if your submission was received at all. Is it really a no, or is my query languishing in their spam folder?
Article 6: This would be so helpful for authors! But, maybe not for agents? I imagine every agent has a preference for what type of material helps them best sort through their submissions. Some want a 1-page synopsis, some want a 3-page synopsis, some want a query with exactly three plot paragraphs, some want you to tell them what songs you listened to as you wrote your manuscript. And on and on. I’m okay with adjusting my submission materials to align with their requests – what’s frustrating is when they don’t state what they want, exactly. Then I have to search out some kind of standard that may or may not be what they want. In these cases, it would be great if an agent could simply state, “Check the AALA standards for my submission guidelines”.
Different agents definitely have unique preferences, which is how you end up with ten different criteria for synopses, but most of these are very small differences, along the lines of “I think character names should be capitalized” vs. “well I think they shouldn’t be capitalized.”
I trust that a panel of say seven agents could hash out the differences pretty easily to create standards for a one page synopsis, a general synopsis, query letter, and proposal. And from there, everyone else would eventually get used to the new standards.
I would like to amend Article 2 that submission guidelines should be publicly posted in text on the agency website. Not solely on a social media platform that requires an account to see them. And not in image form without alt text.
Yes, yes, & yes.
Thanks for offering this opinion in the wilderness. The “no reply means no” policy is simply unprofessional.
Bravo.
Thank you for this! Even an “assume it’s a no if you haven’t heard from us in four weeks” or similar is better than straight up no response = no. Especially when the website also says you can only query one agent at that agency at a time, but you have no idea when it’s fair to assume it’s a no from the first one. A form rejection is always better than no response.
Thanks Nathan, Excellent suggestions that would benefit everyone, and ultimately make the process more productive.
Dear Former Mr. Agent Man:
YES!
I concur wholeheartedly with your proposal.
Best,
Yes to everything here! One of the hardest parts, I think, is talking to literary agents who are clearly book lovers and who have very obvious goals of making their authors successful. There’s no doubt when you talk to them over a casual meal at a writing conference that the agent truly wants the best for their clients. Yet everything looks and feels wildly different from this side of a computer screen when, as everyone else in the comments has pointed out, there are so many different definitions and lack of communication during the querying process.
For me, too, it seems like the more I talk to people and listen carefully to the conversations online, everyone in publishing is overworked and has seven tasks that needed to be done last week. Publishers are also frustrated that the industry isn’t producing bigger, better hits that boost their ROI. After reading Michael Castleman’s excellent book, _The Untold Story of Books_, this summer, I have to ask: Isn’t it blatantly, wildly obvious to everyone that a major overhaul of sea change levels of the pub industry is long overdue?
I agree, especially the short rejection letter, to be sent by agents and accepted by authors, and standards set for submission guidelines. Writers, agents and publishers are three parts necessary for the success of an industry. An industry, by definition, should maintain standards and work as one, not three competing, antagonistic parts. If the ondustry is failing, time to look for remedies. Thanks for initiating this conversation. I hope it moves forward.
Absolutely, Yes! A galaxy of shining yesses!
Just basic processes and protocols that aide inclusion rather than exclusion and don’t create a minefield of frustrations for all involved.
What your proposal really does is re-integrate the humane element into an increasingly robotic and mechanized system.
Great ideas!
Yes, absolutely spot on Nathan. I found querying to be a full time job, researching agents, finding comps, adapting to specific forms etc. When I put all that work in, it’s frustrating to hear only crickets. I appreciated the kind form rejections. I finally decided to self publish and have never regretted that decision. Recently I got a very nice form rejection to a query I sent a year and a half ago. I’m not sure what held that up, but at least it’s something. I hope your suggestions take root!
I agree 100%. I’ve had responses to queries a year after the book was published, and that’s just ridiculous. And one was from a no-response-means-no agent. Was I supposed to wait two years for that request? The whole query process is heartbreaking and soul destroying as it is, so a few simple guidelines to offer some certainty would make everything a little netter for everyone.
Sufficient.
An excellent proposal! A copied and pasted “Thanks but not for me” would be perfect and would probably only take a half-second more than what it takes to delete the original submission.