In homage to Carly Simon: You probably think this song is about you

[onyxhawke]

b.) NO PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS from queries. #queryfail

Colleen_Lindsay: It’s about educating, not about being mean! =) #queryfail
This was repeated more than once. And yet, several people got upset about it. Why, who knows. From the admittedly light skimming I did, it looked the usual offal about "My original idea might be stolen!!!!EventyANGST!!!

Comments

[mmegaera]

It's not that it's mean. It's that from a writer's point of view, it gets really incredibly old when you're looking for real, useful information on how to push that query over the line from "almost there" to "we'd like to see more," to keep running into nothing but "gee, look how awful this clueless idiot's query is" over and over and over and...

I know better than to talk about my upbringing and pets in my query, thanks. What I need is the information on the subtle stuff that's apparently still standing in my way. And I know I'm not alone on this one. If agents and editors really want to receive the kind of queries that make them want more, the folks who are almost there are the ones who need to be addressed.

Thanks for listening.

[onyxhawke]

I understand what you're saying, and don't disagree. The issue is that the _almost there's_ are usually much harder to nail down as to why they aren't "there". It is highly subjective. I read _a lot_ of the writers who are represented by Jen Jackson & Lucienne Diver. Some of them having read the first book I wouldn't have picked them as clients. One of my clients didn't even get past the query stage with either of them, yet has sold his books.

A lot of the people who are "almost there" will _never_ be "there" as they have plateaued or given up on learning more. When i catch up on client reading and slush a bit i might do some sort of e-workshop, but it'd have to be brief.

[mmegaera]

Harder to nail down, I agree with in spades. Subjective is an ugly word. However, you guys are setting yourselves up as the experts. Or at least as the gatekeepers. Therefore advice should theoretically be possible...

I would be most grateful for any help given, in an e-workshop or any other format, because I need to get past the plateau I'm on, and I refuse to give up [g].

Thanks.

[onyxhawke]

Ugly or not, subjective is an accurate one. It explains why Publisher X _almost_ bid on James Enge's Blood of Ambrose, and why Pyr has bought the third book ahead of the publication of the first.

[masgramondou]

One thing that jumped out at me was the common "no response = rejection" thing for electronic queries. I understand why they do it having read this - http://gretchenmcneil.blogspot.com/2009/04/agentfail-response-from-non-failing.html - but it seems to me that agents could really use some kind of computer automated thingy that rejected the really bad ones and maybe provided some sort of position in the queue thing so that you could estimate how long it would take before the agent got to your 'masterpiece'

PS I decided to reread my ultimate bad query letter and it still rocks - http://www.di2.nu/200609/09.htm - though yeah your worse real example was scary scary

[onyxhawke]

While obviously I don't run anyone elses submission box, I respond to anything that I open.

[melissajm]

FWIW, I appreciated the feedback. It's kept me from getting discouraged a few times.

[melissajm]

I hadn't seen this yet. Thanks for posting.

[onyxhawke]

I missed it until the Making Light post

[joycemocha]

My sense of it is that anyone who was majorly upset by Queryfail were those who were, alas, unlikely to learn from it.

[onyxhawke]

Shh! No using the "L" word, it's a horrible thing to inflict on people.

[joycemocha]

Hey, I'll use the "L" word all I want; I'm a teacher.

A special ed teacher (heh). I can write goals for the tender of skin and fragile of brain.

Shall I write an IEP goal for those who fail to grasp the concept of QueryFail?

Hmm.

Let's see.

Long Term Goal

When shown a list of anonymous, 140 character summaries of poorly written queries which resemble something she might have written/submitted, Janie Whiner will positively affirm her understanding, determine what mistakes she has made in past submissions, and correctly submit appropriately phrased queries to future agents which correctly follow agent guidelines in four of five opportunities.

Short Term Objectives1.) When given a list of queries, Janie will not complain but will affirm her understanding that she has done wrong by either giving a positive physical body signal (nod or weak smile are appropriate, body slams, slaps or belly slugs are not) or by verbally agreeing that she has done wrong in four of five opportunities

[onyxhawke]

See you at Raven!

[oldcurlywolf]

I'm surprised you don't have that song going thru your head..of course that might have something to do with Eric B an Rakim coming from your speakers