Agent Tweets #8: 2-in-12,000 Shot

Editing is the bane and the blessing of a writer's existence - a bane because it is so frustrating and time-consuming; a blessing because if managed properly, it puts a writer's work out front as the shining gem of storytelling that it is.

More importantly, editing is the key to getting noticed.

If I repeated every tweet I've seen on this topic, this blog would be about nothing BUT editing. Even so - there were six recent tweets about editing that really stood out (Ha! I'm an agent for agent tweets...there's some irony in that...).

TWEET #1:  

I get 800-1000 submissions a month and maybe take on a couple new authors/yr 

Eye-Opener: I'd lie if I said my eyes didn't widen just a wee bit when I read this one. The 800-1000 submissions per month I totally understand; but out of a potential 12,000 submissions per year - only two are taken on?

Yoiks. This means if I want to stand out, I need to make sure my manuscript is in the best possible condition before sending it in.

TWEETS #2 and #3:

Finish your ms and edit and polish it before querying. 

You can't expect an agent to help you finish writing it 

Sloppy, typo-ridden final manuscripts just reek of unprofessional entitlement to me. 

Your editor is not your MAID 

Hard But True: Both of these tweets back each other up with the same reality: you can't expect an agent to be so wowed by your story that they'll overlook typos or loose writing, and just "let the editors fix that later." As we discussed earlier in our Agent Tweets series: the query letter - and then the manuscript - is more or less part of a job interview. Editing is the way you dress it up right for the interview.


Yes, yes, I hear you wail. I hear this all the time!!! But how much editing is enough? There is such a thing as spinning your wheels for too long.


I completely agree. Sometimes you need to know when to stop tampering and just send it on.


So how DO we know when enough editing is enough? Here are a couple agent responses:

TWEETS #4 and #5:

You shld finish the ms, edit it, polish it, get some1 else to read it, re-edit, sit on it a wk, re-read it & THEN query

One of the best and most underused tools for polishing your query is TIME. Let it sit for a week. Then review & revise

Time is Your Friend:  Though the second tweet specifies "query" and not "manuscript," the principle is the same for both tweets ~ to really get a polished manuscript, you need time - not just to work on it, but to walk away from it for a while. Get some emotional distance from it. Then go back and edit. This is what is generally called a "cold read" and it is hugely valuable to writers, enabling them to become more objective about their own work.


Notice that both tweets hint that editing your manuscript comes in repetitive stages:

Write - Edit - Polish - BetaReader - Wait - Edit - Polish - BetaReader - Wait - Edit...

Most published authors that I read and admire generally advise going through these "layers" a minimum of three times before sending out that first query letter. Remember: agents want the manuscript finished and at its glossy best when you query, so that when they make that full request there are minimal hitches in the proceedings.


Okay.....so how horrific are these editing stages we're talking about?

TWEET #6:

Sometimes #editing has to be drastic, entire scenes and sections lopped off. What's left will be stronger for it./ Every #word on the page must have reason to exist; it should add to the story or your piece./If you, yourself, feel a loss over a word or line cut from your story or piece, then it needed cutting. 

Bruised Egos:  None of us like to be told that some interlude of which we are very proud isn't worthy of the whole story. But therein lies some advice that is also some of the oldest, and difficult to accept, which the above tweet touches on neatly: If you or I are deeply attached to any character or scene, or prosy description, because we feel we "did so well" at that point --- chances are it shouldn't be there, because we're just showing off.

Bottom Line: "Editing" is not merely a matter of correcting grammatical and typographical issues. It involves removing those bits that burden the tale unnecessarily, and hold back your manuscript from being its best - from being a two-in-twelve-thousand chance of catching an agent's eye, and finding your way to the publisher's desk.

AT: Hard Yet Encouraging Truths, Pt 1

Welcome to the inaugural edition of Agent Tweets, a weekly post that highlights and responds to

 publication-centric comments from agents and editors, gleaned on Twitter.

NOTE: I will not put up the names of said agents and editors, so don't ask who they are. 

The tweets posted here are indicative of what I am seeing across the spectrum.
These tweets happen to be the most compellingly worded variations. 

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

A few weeks ago I announced my intention to roll out this weekly review of revealing tweets from editors and agents, and received a tremendous amount of feedback. Based on your responses to the topics presented, I decided to begin our AT journey with the topic: "Hard Yet Encouraging Truths" for writers. I'm glad, because I think all of us not-yet-published writers could really use some encouragement right now - even if it stings a bit in the application.

So let's cut to the chase, shall we? Here is the first installment of at least two "Hard Yet Encouraging Truths" episodes for the would-be published author.

Hard Yet Encouraging Truth #1: Sometimes you still hook ‘em – even if you still get a rejection.

Sometimes when I am reading a ms, I know it will be a no but I still feel compelled to keep reading & see how it ends.

There really are times I stare at a query, totally on the fence, torn between rejecting and requesting. Make your query the BEST you can.// I just don't have the time to request everything that sounds "pretty good." I want projects that get me SUPER excted!

I find these two tweets to make interesting bookends. The second one addresses the query; the first one addresses the manuscript itself. This means that would-be writer #2 got as far as the query process and almost got a request for a full manuscript. Would-be-writer #1 did get the request for a full, and then the effort sagged.

Why this is hard: There's probably nothing more frustrating than knowing you "almost" had an agent hooked (which is probably one of the reasons behind form rejection letters).

Why this is encouraging: Both tweets indicate the book ideas were good, even excellent - just not compelling. But the very indecision of the second agent, and the fact that the first agent felt curious enough to read through to the end of an "okay" manuscript - such responses hint at manuscripts that, with a little hard work and meticulous revising, could go from "pretty good" to the "super excited" quality work they're looking for.

Bottom line: How to improve the manuscript itself is fodder for a thousand other posts, on this blog and elsewhere on the web. But the query? The secret to overcoming that obstacle lies in the second tweet - the urge to make your query the best it can possibly be. For more hints on how to manage that, you can visit Query Shark, Query Tracker, or this thread in which twenty potential queries were critiqued openly by an agent. (NOTE: This link will take you to the first entry; use the side menu to access the others.)

Hard Yet Encouraging Truth #2: There is life after failure.

Sometimes it takes a while to discover the story you're trying to tell. Sometimes it takes an entire failed book. Sometimes two. That's OK.

Persistence isn’t an issue when you’ve just started - it's needed after the 20th & 200th rejection

If you're struggling with rejection, repeat after me: I have what it takes, and will not be discouraged. People are rejected for many reasons//And as an an agent, ONE THIRD of my clients were rejected at one point.... by ME. They revised and wowed me with their work.


I'm rejecting a lot of really great manuscripts this week. Just because it isn't The One for me doesn't mean it won't find that perfect home

Why this is hard: Two failed books? 200th rejection? What? ....ouch. Just....OUCH.

Why this is encouraging: No one likes to be told up front that you might have to submit multiple bad books before unearthing your winner. Even more unsavory is the idea of getting 200 rejections without a single offer. Yet none of these agents (four different ones, by the way) say to give up after multiple flops, or 200 rejections. The fourth tweet, specifically, indicates that rejections are sometimes a matter of preference or situation - that they really are great manuscripts, but just haven't yet found the right home.

Bottom Line: The third tweet, I think, is the key. Therein lies buried four important steps for pushing past failure (real or perceived) and on to success:

     (1) Don't lose your vision, and don't get discouraged. This is easier said than done, but those who persevere are the ones who eventually see their work in print.

     (2) Remember that many factors may have played into your rejection. A rejection does not necessarily mean your work is inherently bad. It may be that it is an "out of season" text (more on that for a later Agent Tweets report). Perhaps that agent just signed someone else with a similar idea. There are other reasons, I'm sure. (NOTE: For more insights into the agent mindset, I would recommend following @agentgame on Twitter - they are an agent's assistant, but they often tweet valuable insights on the book agent industry.)

     (3) Rejection is an opportunity to grow, not to sulk. If I posted all the tweets about ill-mannered writers who responded to rejection emails with profanity-laced fury, you'd be reading from now to Easter. Dabblers throw temper tantrums. Writers recalibrate and act accordingly. And then they get published.

     (4) Sometimes you may still be accepted by the same agent - if you bide your time and do what is wise. Please note that agents generally will state specifically if they'd like you to revise your work and then resubmit. Make sure that you check submission guidelines for any agent you query.

Questions? Comments? Insights?

Feedback is appreciated!

Forming Character(s): Part I

When I first fancied myself as a writer - oh, way back in middle school, or thereabouts - I did what most beginning writers do: I populated my stories with my friends. I was rather insistent on this point, even if I had the subtlety to give them a different name (which I rarely did). It was a nice enough idea at the time and, I guess, in itself a necessary transition point. On some level, every artist must continually wrestle with what it truly means to draw from life and infuse it into your creation, whether it be a painting, sculpture, pottery, poetry, music or literature. How do you create something that is not only interesting, but relevant and inspiring?

You draw from life - or so they say; and it's true, to a point. But only to a point.

The world is bigger than the part you've seen. Never forget this. It doesn't matter if you're a world traveler or a hobbit who's never been outside of the Shire - none of us have seen more than a corner, a mere sliver of the world. You have not seen all there is to see, known all there is to know, and you certainly have not met all the myriad kinds of people in this world. Neither have I. Even current access to movies and television cannot grant us the wealth of possibilities that your imagination could supply. Yes, reality is a beginning point - but then what?

The people you know might not react the way your characters need to react in your tale. I know many brave, even courageous people in my life; but faced with the kind of things I put my characters through, most would probably run away screaming. While I certainly look to specific people to get an idea of how someone might act in a given set of circumstances, it's a bit skewed because neither I nor the person in question really know what they'd do when the crisis happens. You think you know, but it's only a guess, at best. But in your tale you've got to know - you're the author! Part of that author-ly responsibility means knowing when to twist your characters arms, and make them act a certain way - so long as it's within the boundaries of who they are. As the author, it's up to you to determine those boundaries, as well as the response.

Putting real people in your story is not only a good way to get sued, but to get fish-slapped by a potential agent/publisher. I saw this in an article online a couple weeks ago, where the agent made the point that if you put your sweet five year old daughter into the story, what are you going to do when the publisher thinks the child ought to die at the end? Or that the best friend (that you love so dearly) is too saccharine, or a downright drudge? Then you get double the emotional suckerpunch for the price of one character. Ouch.
     Oh - and that whole getting sued thing? For exploitation, defamation of character, etc?
     Yeah. That should be common sense by now. Goes without saying.

Want to know how TO craft dynamic fictional characters? Tune in next week for Part II.

(Yes, I know this is evil of me - but it is only three days into NaNoWriMo.

I need all the buffer space I can get with the updates!)