Latest agent query rejection

[Karen J]

We've all endured the dreaded 'I'm passing on this' rejection. We're grateful when an agent gives any insight into why they're rejecting. And if I would've received this latest insight last year, I would've found it encouraging. This is what the agent wrote.

'I encourage you to re-work your query so that the plot points, obstacles, and character(s) attempts to overcome them are more clear.'

So why am I disheartened? Because I spent money using professional query critique writers who said my original query was a too wordy explanation of plot points, obstacles, & characters which told too many details, gave away too many points and didn't leave any mystery. I followed their insights and instruction and worked it, whittling my query down to a few brief sentences of each of those. They praised the new version: said it was the heart, the meat, of the story.

I was grateful to them. I am grateful to those here who gave further tips on little snippets to remove to tighten it even further. And yes I understand that everything is all just opinions, paid or freely given, but I'm lost on how to fix something that's been praised as ready. I don't know who else to turn to for help.

 

[Barbara]

Hugs to you. It's so frustrating. Just shows, we can't please everyone and there is no magic formula. What works for one agent .... etc

Sounds like the agent felt the need to give you some sort of feedback (according to their opinion of what a good query should be). That's sort of nice but not necessarily helpful to the author because other agents have different criteria and tastes. Feedback like this, also makes authors tweak and tweak and tweak forever to get the query JUST RIGHT, and you could end up chasing your tail and pulling your fur out. Still, it's nice they took the time, and that is encouraging

The basic message of this agent is still a 'no, thanks.' The rest (their feedback) is subjective and will vary from one to the next.

My advice is, don't sweat it too much. If an agent sees something that they think they can sell, they'll pounce on it. This agent didn't have an avenue to sell yours but wanted to be friendly and helpful and encouraging because they probably saw potential even though they couldn't take it on themselves.

Keeping it short the way you did following your critique writers's advice, is a good idea. By giving too much and by explaining too much, you could potentially talk yourself out of a sale. Things like plot points, obstacles, and character(s) attempts to overcome etc can be done clearly and economically in a simple 1-2 line elevator pitch and / or short blurb. You don't really need more than that at this stage. Just get their interest, they'll ask for more if they want more. Like I said, we can't please them all. But I agree with the advice the writers gave you about keeping it short.

Was it a US agent? They often have a different idea of what a pitch should be like.

Maybe bring your query to a Huddle?

All we can do, is write the best to our ability, then send it out and let it go.

 

[Karen J]

Hugs to you. It's so frustrating. Just shows, we can't please everyone and there is no magic formula. What works for one agent .... etc

Sounds like the agent felt the need to give you some sort of feedback (according to their opinion of what a good query should be). That's sort of nice but not necessarily helpful to the author because other agents have different criteria and tastes. Feedback like this, also makes authors tweak and tweak and tweak forever to get the query JUST RIGHT, and you could end up chasing your tail and pulling your fur out. Still, it's nice they took the time, and that is encouraging

The basic message of this agent is still a 'no, thanks.' The rest (their feedback) is subjective and will vary from one to the next.

My advice is, don't sweat it too much. If an agent sees something that they think they can sell, they'll pounce on it. This agent didn't have an avenue to sell yours but wanted to be friendly and helpful and encouraging because they probably saw potential even though they couldn't take it on themselves.

Keeping it short the way you did following your critique writers's advice, is a good idea. By giving too much and by explaining too much, you could potentially talk yourself out of a sale. Things like plot points, obstacles, and character(s) attempts to overcome etc can be done clearly and economically in a simple 1-2 line elevator pitch and / or short blurb. You don't really need more than that at this stage. Just get their interest, they'll ask for more if they want more. Like I said, we can't please them all. But I agree with the advice the writers gave you about keeping it short.

Was it a US agent? They often have a different idea of what a pitch should be like.

Maybe bring your query to a Huddle?

All we can do, is write the best to our ability, then send it out and let it go.

Thanks for your insight, Barbara, I appreciate your kind words. Would you mind if I sent you my original query that the professionals said they liked and a new version I slaved over today, to give your opinion of them, please?

 

[Barbara]

Thanks for your insight, Barbara, I appreciate your kind words. Would you mind if I sent you my original query that the professionals said they liked and a new version I slaved over today, to give your opinion of them, please?

Of course. Send away. Happy to have a look.

Or post in the workshops and tag me. You'll get lots of others giving their thoughts too.

Whichever you prefer.

 

[Hannah F]

There's also a difference when you send out a cover letter, synopsis and first chapters (what most British agents want) and when your submission comprises solely of a query letter (asked for by many US agents). In the former, the synopsis outlines plot points, obstacles and character's attempts to overcome, so the blurb in the cover letter can be a very short tease (as per back of book copy). In the latter, the query letter is all you have to hook the agent so needs more detail. Still keep it as short and concise as possible though.

But I agree: horses for courses; different agents have different expectations. Some say what they are looking for on their website or blog or interview. For others it's a throw of the dart while blindfolded. You may hit the jackpot, but don't sweat if you don't.

 

[James Charles]

We've all endured the dreaded 'I'm passing on this' rejection. We're grateful when an agent gives any insight into why they're rejecting. And if I would've received this latest insight last year, I would've found it encouraging. This is what the agent wrote.

'I encourage you to re-work your query so that the plot points, obstacles, and character(s) attempts to overcome them are more clear.'

So why am I disheartened? Because I spent money using professional query critique writers who said my original query was a too wordy explanation of plot points, obstacles, & characters which told too many details, gave away too many points and didn't leave any mystery. I followed their insights and instruction and worked it, whittling my query down to a few brief sentences of each of those. They praised the new version: said it was the heart, the meat, of the story.

I was grateful to them. I am grateful to those here who gave further tips on little snippets to remove to tighten it even further. And yes I understand that everything is all just opinions, paid or freely given, but I'm lost on how to fix something that's been praised as ready. I don't know who else to turn to for help.

To add my two and a half cents: I've watched agents through symposiums. Some say they wand to see see this in a query, some say that. It is frustrating as there should be an industry-wide standard, but there is not.

 

[Peyton Stafford]

We've all endured the dreaded 'I'm passing on this' rejection. We're grateful when an agent gives any insight into why they're rejecting. And if I would've received this latest insight last year, I would've found it encouraging. This is what the agent wrote.

'I encourage you to re-work your query so that the plot points, obstacles, and character(s) attempts to overcome them are more clear.'

So why am I disheartened? Because I spent money using professional query critique writers who said my original query was a too wordy explanation of plot points, obstacles, & characters which told too many details, gave away too many points and didn't leave any mystery. I followed their insights and instruction and worked it, whittling my query down to a few brief sentences of each of those. They praised the new version: said it was the heart, the meat, of the story.

I was grateful to them. I am grateful to those here who gave further tips on little snippets to remove to tighten it even further. And yes I understand that everything is all just opinions, paid or freely given, but I'm lost on how to fix something that's been praised as ready. I don't know who else to turn to for help.

Bring it to a Huddle for No BS responses.

 

[E G Logan]

'I encourage you to re-work your query so that the plot points, obstacles, and character(s) attempts to overcome them are more clear.'

We so rarely receive comments that are anything other than form rejections that you should congratulate yourself that this agent saw something in your work to justify a personal reply.

Honestly, that doesn't happen often.

OK, it's vague, but it does say something. That's so much better than the 'it's not right for us' and 'it doesn't fit with our current publishing policy going forward'.

 

[Eva Ulian]

I've seen many queries "butchered" about here in the Huddle- because frankly they weren't right in the first place. I'm not suggesting you bring yours to the Huddle if you don't want to, but I am saying that if you participated at these Huddles, Saturday in and Saturday out- you will learn so much that never again will you feel you are banging your head up against a brick wall.

I know it seems unrealistic, but you need to try it and it will be a great relief to you. Besides, @AgentPete at times gives some amazing insight that you wonder how he does it. Come!

 

[Barbara]

Hey Karen. Did you receive my feedback on your submission letter? I sent it via PM yesterday morning, and as I haven't had a response, I just want to make sure you actually received it.

 

[CarolMS]

Hello @Karen J. Colony folks seem to be giving you lots of encouraging and helpful feedback. I'm so glad. The whole query business is so frustrating.

I want to share just one thought I have about it because I think a query letter's story summary and a book jacket blurb are often confused with each other.

To me, the query letter summary is meant to give agents a sense of whether or not you know how to write fiction and what the primary building blocks of story are. In short, do you have a story worth tellling and do you know how to tell it?

A jacket blurb, on the other hand, is a marketing tool to attract readers, so you want to spark interest without giving away the whole story. That's where mystery comes in.

I know there are different opinions about this, and I also think there may be a difference between how the UK and US approach it. My perspective is from the US.

Good luck with this. Don't get discouraged. You're not alone on the query rollercoaster.

 

[Peyton Stafford]

When I first submitted to magazines, the form rejections came printed on crisp paper. I drove a nail into the woodwork next to the commode and kept them there. Rough, but satisfying.

 

[AgentPete]

To add my two and a half cents: I've watched agents through symposiums. Some say they wand to see see this in a query, some say that. It is frustrating as there should be an industry-wide standard, but there is not.

Which will never happen, at least as far as the existing business model is concerned, because…

• There’s no entry qualification to call yourself an agent. You may have great instincts, you may not. You may know the business inside out, or you may be a complete newbie who just fancies the pseudo-status the job seems to imply.
• Agents tend to be individualists, with the sure and certain knowledge that their personal tastes and instincts are correct. Herding cats?
• Agents tend to deal with a relatively small pool of publishing contacts. If the submission doesn't appeal to that pool, reject.
• Don’t forget that essentially, you’re selling the submission to an agent, not going through a box-ticking exercise.

 

[RK Wallis]

Herding cats?

LOL! Great image

 

[Peyton Stafford]

Which will never happen, at least as far as the existing business model is concerned, because…

• There’s no entry qualification to call yourself an agent. You may have great instincts, you may not. You may know the business inside out, or you may be a complete newbie who just fancies the pseudo-status the job seems to imply.
• Agents tend to be individualists, with the sure and certain knowledge that their personal tastes and instincts are correct. Herding cats?
• Agents tend to deal with a relatively small pool of publishing contacts. If the submission doesn't appeal to that pool, reject.
• Don’t forget that essentially, you’re selling the submission to an agent, not going through a box-ticking exercise.

No doubt what you say is true, but for Litopians, templates of basic information to include in query letters, blurbs, etc., could save a lot of agony. Of course, these would need customizing for specific agents and publishers, but checklists would give people a place to start. Or are these already on Litopia? (I'm still trying to prepare a ms for beta readers, so please forgive me if I am asking for something already available.)

 

[James Charles]

No doubt what you say is true, but for Litopians, templates of basic information to include in query letters, blurbs, etc., could save a lot of agony. Of course, these would need customizing for specific agents and publishers, but checklists would give people a place to start. Or are these already on Litopia? (I'm still trying to prepare a ms for beta readers, so please forgive me if I am asking for something already available.)

As to quieries, there is so much on the internet about how to format them. But I see that the US and UK formats differ. Go figure: The colonies revolted in so many ways from the homeland.

 

[Peyton Stafford]

As to quieries, there is so much on the internet about how to format them. But I see that the US and UK formats differ. Go figure: The colonies revolted in so many ways from the homeland.

Having templates taking these differences into account could help. Litopians need a practical way to deal with this issue. It's life or death for writers and those who want to earn a living by writing.

 

[Hannah F]

A template is difficult when there are no rules. It can lead to people falling down rabbit holes.

 

[Peyton Stafford]

LITOPIA WRITERS’ SEMINARS

Litopia’s Writers’ Seminars are a radical new reinterpretation of the tired – and often exorbitantly expensive – seminar format for writers.

colony.litopia.com