Queries
Very interesting query activity at Nathan Bransford's blog ended over the weekend, and my query got a whopping 2.3% request rate. This was ok, as it was something of an experimental query letter. The biggest result, other than being very glad I passed the idea along to Nathan, who made it into the fabulous contest it was, was just how difficult it is to decipher the 'good' queries from the 'bad.' Few of them were what I would call flat out poor queries. Only one really stood out to me, and it did so because it's premise was rather unusual. Most of them fell into that 'meh' range, sounding ok, but nothing out of the ordinary. I'm not even sure how many of the queries I tagged with 'sounds too much like other stuff out there.' Therein lies the conundrum for agents.
The thing is, readers like stuff that is like other stuff they've read. They find an author they like or types of stories they like, and they will seek out others that are similar. This kind of throws the whole 'sounds too familiar' out the window. The point of that being that most things that come across an agents desk are going to sound familiar to something else. The difficulty then comes in looking at a story and trying to decide if not only is the voice and writing quality good, but if the story takes the familiar and spins it in a new way. There are other factors that come into play, such as intriguing characters, but I realized, pretending to be agent, that trying to figure out which stories take the same old thing and make it fresh is a very difficult task. How they go through dozens of queries a day and decide so quickly is fairly amazing. I imagine it comes from lots of experience. I really feel bad for assistants and interns who get put to the task of helping out. Their 'instinct' for things can't be nearly as developed. Culling the slush pile is definitely an artform, and a big 'slap to the head' for those writers out there in seem to incessantly bitch about agent's ability to wade through the slush and find those gems that are worth publishing.
The thing is, readers like stuff that is like other stuff they've read. They find an author they like or types of stories they like, and they will seek out others that are similar. This kind of throws the whole 'sounds too familiar' out the window. The point of that being that most things that come across an agents desk are going to sound familiar to something else. The difficulty then comes in looking at a story and trying to decide if not only is the voice and writing quality good, but if the story takes the familiar and spins it in a new way. There are other factors that come into play, such as intriguing characters, but I realized, pretending to be agent, that trying to figure out which stories take the same old thing and make it fresh is a very difficult task. How they go through dozens of queries a day and decide so quickly is fairly amazing. I imagine it comes from lots of experience. I really feel bad for assistants and interns who get put to the task of helping out. Their 'instinct' for things can't be nearly as developed. Culling the slush pile is definitely an artform, and a big 'slap to the head' for those writers out there in seem to incessantly bitch about agent's ability to wade through the slush and find those gems that are worth publishing.