The Huddle **New Sign Up process**

[Jonny]

Dear all,

From this week we are approaching the Huddle sign up and attendance process in a more streamlined way by cutting out a layer of (often confusing) admin.

Below, in this post, you will see a link to the Huddle Hangout Forum. If you wish to be included in the coming Saturday's Huddle then simply post your name below (in this thread) with an optional message.

When you add your name, I will include you in the Private Group in the Huddle Hangout. Then, when you click the link below, to take you tot eh Hangout, you simply select the post with the relevant date, wherein the Zoom Meeting Link will be in the first post of that group thread.

This notification thread will be posted here every week from now. The old sign up thread process will be no longer used!

IMPORTANT:

To avoid any doubt, you can be sure Pete's intention is to hold a Huddle every week. The only exceptions to this might be unforeseen circumstances. Should that ever be the case, a post informing The Colony will appear in Cafe Life.

If you've not attended one before - what happens in a Huddle?

Put simply, every week when the Private Group thread goes live (normally Thursday AM UK time) you can post work for @AgentPete and fellow Huddlers to offer critique and suggestions on. These submissions can be anything - from the opening pages of your work in progress, to a blurb, synopsis or query letter. Nothing is out of bounds. General questions on the publishing industry are encouraged and if you spot something you feel is worth sharing with the group, then that's also welcomed.

Huddles are free to all Full Members, so if you fancy coming along to see what they are all about, then just add your name below and you will be included in the attendee private group. And that's it. Simple as.​

So don't be shy, there's no pressure and you don't need to submit work. You can simply attend just to watch and listen or help with the critique. The atmosphere is completely relaxed and there is anyways lots of fun.

Huddle Hangout LINK

 

[Jason L.]

I'm in.

 

[Trey]

Yes please, Jonny.

 

[Pamela Jo]

My suggestion for discussion is an innovation for agents. If they are taking time to send a real rejection not just a form could Query Tracker, for example establish a guideline for agent rejection that would be simple but game-changing for writers. Every agency could post their own list on their web page as well.

For example:

1. Idea not right for current market.

2. Structural problems.

3. Voice not saleable

4. Author needs to look at genre requirements. Too cliche or not following what readers want in this genre.

5. Not ready for submission. Reads like 2nd draft.

Pete, what do you think. Writers what would be the most helpful information for you? Would you want to get a rejection that said, "Thank you, but we are passing on your book because of 2 and 4." I know agents are in the business of rejection so could it be made more useful for both ends of the stick?

 

[Trey]

My suggestion for discussion is an innovation for agents. If they are taking time to send a real rejection not just a form could Query Tracker, for example establish a guideline for agent rejection that would be simple but game-changing for writers. Every agency could post their own list on their web page as well.

For example:

1. Idea not right for current market.

2. Structural problems.

3. Voice not saleable

4. Author needs to look at genre requirements. Too cliche or not following what readers want in this genre.

5. Not ready for submission. Reads like 2nd draft.

Pete, what do you think. Writers what would be the most helpful information for you? Would you want to get a rejection that said, "Thank you, but we are passing on your book because of 2 and 4." I know agents are in the business of rejection so could it be made more useful for both ends of the stick?

I think it'd be useful for writers and, long term, for agents who might get ms's that are better quality. I'd change 2 to read 'needs structural editing', 4 into two separate numbers though, just Too cliche and (another number) not following genre requirements.

 

[Hannah F]

My suggestion for discussion is an innovation for agents. If they are taking time to send a real rejection not just a form could Query Tracker, for example establish a guideline for agent rejection that would be simple but game-changing for writers. Every agency could post their own list on their web page as well.

For example:

1. Idea not right for current market.

2. Structural problems.

3. Voice not saleable

4. Author needs to look at genre requirements. Too cliche or not following what readers want in this genre.

5. Not ready for submission. Reads like 2nd draft.

Pete, what do you think. Writers what would be the most helpful information for you? Would you want to get a rejection that said, "Thank you, but we are passing on your book because of 2 and 4." I know agents are in the business of rejection so could it be made more useful for both ends of the stick?

I won't be at the huddle, but I like this idea. Kind of similar to exam marking feedback guidelines we had to follow and which did speed up the feedback process.
I would add 6. Great but too similar to another on my list which would lead to conflict of interest when submitting to publishers.

However, sometimes the writer ticks all the good-to-go boxes, but the agent just doesn't love it as much as another submission they received, and has only time in the day to champion one. Maybe that should be number 7.

 

[Trey]

I won't be at the huddle, but I like this idea. Kind of similar to exam marking feedback guidelines we had to follow and which did speed up the feedback process.
I would add 6. Great but too similar to another on my list which would lead to conflict of interest when submitting to publishers.

However, sometimes the writer ticks all the good-to-go boxes, but the agent just doesn't love it as much as another submission they received, and has only time in the day to champion one. Maybe that should be number 7.

That would be the old, ‘I don’t quite love it enough’ category.

 

[Pamela Jo]

I won't be at the huddle, but I like this idea. Kind of similar to exam marking feedback guidelines we had to follow and which did speed up the feedback process.
I would add 6. Great but too similar to another on my list which would lead to conflict of interest when submitting to publishers.

However, sometimes the writer ticks all the good-to-go boxes, but the agent just doesn't love it as much as another submission they received, and has only time in the day to champion one. Maybe that should be number 7.

Yeah I've gotten 2 back that could have been that. They suggested another agent for me.

 

[Hannah F]

That would be the old, ‘I don’t quite love it enough’ category.

True, but with other categories to choose from, you'll know it to be the real reason.

 

[Trey]

Yeah I've gotten 2 back that could have been that. They suggested another agent for me.

I have had so many back that didn’t love it enough but they didn’t offer any feedback or redirect. I took them as form rejections for that reason.

 

[CarolMS]

I'm looking forward to being with you all.

 

[Pamela Jo]

I have had so many back that didn’t love it enough but they didn’t offer any feedback or redirect. I took them as form rejections for that reason.

There are different levels of form rejections now. Some agents write the same words. Some may have a cache of prewritten emails. That's what gave me the idea. If they could add the core reason it was a "no" to that prewritten response I think many would. If you have to reject people constantly you have to distance yourself, but I see agents suffering from that. If they had a way to help wo having the pain of actual connection I think most would.
It would have to be a short list tho. No more than 5 choices or it becomes as much work as actually writing an answer.

 

[Trey]

There are different levels of form rejections now. Some agents write the same words. Some may have a cache of prewritten emails. That's what gave me the idea. If they could add the core reason it was a "no" to that prewritten response I think many would. If you have to reject people constantly you have to distance yourself, but I see agents suffering from that. If they had a way to help wo having the pain of actual connection I think most would.
It would have to be a short list tho. No more than 5 choices or it becomes as much work as actually writing an answer.

I've heard interviews with agents who say how painful it is to keep rejecting subs that were almost there. Good idea, PJ.

 

[Bloo]

My suggestion for discussion is an innovation for agents. If they are taking time to send a real rejection not just a form could Query Tracker, for example establish a guideline for agent rejection that would be simple but game-changing for writers. Every agency could post their own list on their web page as well.

For example:

1. Idea not right for current market.

2. Structural problems.

3. Voice not saleable

4. Author needs to look at genre requirements. Too cliche or not following what readers want in this genre.

5. Not ready for submission. Reads like 2nd draft.

Pete, what do you think. Writers what would be the most helpful information for you? Would you want to get a rejection that said, "Thank you, but we are passing on your book because of 2 and 4." I know agents are in the business of rejection so could it be made more useful for both ends of the stick?

Gotta admit...that first point scares me a bit.

 

[Bloo]

@Bloo

Bloo

Can I squeeze in ?

I wasn't sure if there was any automation involved. I got hung up on the "add your name below" bit, and took it literally. It doesn't seem to work that way, tho'.

I requested access to a huddle a few weeks ago (under the "old" system), but never got an invite.

 

[Bloo]

I want to join the huddle, please.

@Jonny

 

[Jonny]

Hi Bloo

Just spotted your post and added you now. Link is in the HH as normal

 

[Bloo]

Thank you