![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What looks to be round #2
Jul. 3rd, 2009 11:26 amI hope this doesn't turn into AgentFail/QueryFail Round #2, because honestly, I don't want that because it was vicious and sticky and made a lot of folks look bad - but it seems that on Twitter there is something going around called #pubtips. So far, it seems wank free.
And no, I haven't gone over tothe dark side Twitter, I thought I might as well check it out to comb through for any useful bits of information. And wow, does Twitter make it hard to follow a cohesive thread of thought. I can't tell who is saying what or to whom. Replies don't show up near the comment they're made about, rather they show up on the Twitter stream of the person who made the comment.
Also, the fact that a lot of what I'm seeing is people apparently repeating each other (I think RT means re-tweet or something) is also frustrating. Oh, LJ, no matter how many Russian own you, I will always love your linear structure best.
Anyway, my thoughts about the Twitterpation of the internet aside, there are some tips going around.
Some are useful, some are not. Some are down right contradictory.
Rachelle Gardner offers something that might be useful: "You may not want to open your query with STATISTICS unless you're trying to bore me to death.". That seems like something a querying author may want to keep in mind, though I wish the tips were more specific. Why didn't the statistics didn't work? For a fiction query or a cookbook or something, then yeah. But for a nonfiction query, a strong statistic or two may actually help your pitch. I mean, if you're pitching a "How To Get That High Paying Job" book, mentioning the current unemployment/underemployment rates might not hurt. Again, it depends.
Some tips, however, are not so much with the helpfulness. Like willietrekin's suggestion that: writers and authors need to get more involved in publishing. (I think this is a repeat of something Rachelle Gardner said). Uhhh. It would help if you elaborated. Involved how? Reading books? Blogging? Making friends with agents and editors? Going to cons? Getting a job in the publishing business? What, precisely, is your value for "involved".
As a writer, I'd love to know this. If there's something I can do to help my prospects, I'd really love to know. But 140 characters does not seem sufficient.
I'd also love to know how to reconcile "don't chase trends/write what you love" with "profit matters" - which both can be found if you cruise around the hashtag (I think that's what they're called). Because I've seen plenty of agents, editors and other folks saying that there are certain trends they do want or don't want, and that writing something that isn't going to sell isn't worth your time (or at least not worth submitting for publication).
My snarking aside, some stuff is rather common sense but a good reminder if you're rusty or a first timer, such as: Kate McKean's tip that "All submission guidelines apply to you. Yes, you. Always and "I know it’s difficult to visit individual agent websites and read their guidelines, but it’s worth the effort" bear repeating.
Equally helpful: One project per query, please. No, really. We mean it.
I don't know if I'd encourage you to check it out or not. Some stuff seems like it's pretty Query 101 (don't stalk agents, don't say you're the next J.K. Rowling, don't say how great a movie the book would be, etc), but it never hurts to be reminded of the basics. At the very least, if there's a particular agent you're interested in, it might be good to see if there's something useful to you to be found.
Personally, I like the idea of calling it #pubtips a lot better than #queryfail or #authorfail. Because it keeps the focus on giving tips (either do's or don'ts) rather than creating a perception of one group of people ganging up to make fun of another group. While I understand that the purpose of #queryfail was to give out information and be helpful (free advice, how could it go wrong), attaching the word fail to it was not the smoothest move. In internet vernacular, saying "fail" or attaching it to a word is almost always a way of being insulting and demeaning. In fact, there's a whole blog dedicated to spotting fail in the wild and bringing it to people's attention, and I can see how setting such a derisive tone (unintentionally) could cause hurt feelings and make people feel like agents and authors are in an intensely adversarial relationship - which they are not.
And no, I haven't gone over to
Also, the fact that a lot of what I'm seeing is people apparently repeating each other (I think RT means re-tweet or something) is also frustrating. Oh, LJ, no matter how many Russian own you, I will always love your linear structure best.
Anyway, my thoughts about the Twitterpation of the internet aside, there are some tips going around.
Some are useful, some are not. Some are down right contradictory.
Rachelle Gardner offers something that might be useful: "You may not want to open your query with STATISTICS unless you're trying to bore me to death.". That seems like something a querying author may want to keep in mind, though I wish the tips were more specific. Why didn't the statistics didn't work? For a fiction query or a cookbook or something, then yeah. But for a nonfiction query, a strong statistic or two may actually help your pitch. I mean, if you're pitching a "How To Get That High Paying Job" book, mentioning the current unemployment/underemployment rates might not hurt. Again, it depends.
Some tips, however, are not so much with the helpfulness. Like willietrekin's suggestion that: writers and authors need to get more involved in publishing. (I think this is a repeat of something Rachelle Gardner said). Uhhh. It would help if you elaborated. Involved how? Reading books? Blogging? Making friends with agents and editors? Going to cons? Getting a job in the publishing business? What, precisely, is your value for "involved".
As a writer, I'd love to know this. If there's something I can do to help my prospects, I'd really love to know. But 140 characters does not seem sufficient.
I'd also love to know how to reconcile "don't chase trends/write what you love" with "profit matters" - which both can be found if you cruise around the hashtag (I think that's what they're called). Because I've seen plenty of agents, editors and other folks saying that there are certain trends they do want or don't want, and that writing something that isn't going to sell isn't worth your time (or at least not worth submitting for publication).
My snarking aside, some stuff is rather common sense but a good reminder if you're rusty or a first timer, such as: Kate McKean's tip that "All submission guidelines apply to you. Yes, you. Always and "I know it’s difficult to visit individual agent websites and read their guidelines, but it’s worth the effort" bear repeating.
Equally helpful: One project per query, please. No, really. We mean it.
I don't know if I'd encourage you to check it out or not. Some stuff seems like it's pretty Query 101 (don't stalk agents, don't say you're the next J.K. Rowling, don't say how great a movie the book would be, etc), but it never hurts to be reminded of the basics. At the very least, if there's a particular agent you're interested in, it might be good to see if there's something useful to you to be found.
Personally, I like the idea of calling it #pubtips a lot better than #queryfail or #authorfail. Because it keeps the focus on giving tips (either do's or don'ts) rather than creating a perception of one group of people ganging up to make fun of another group. While I understand that the purpose of #queryfail was to give out information and be helpful (free advice, how could it go wrong), attaching the word fail to it was not the smoothest move. In internet vernacular, saying "fail" or attaching it to a word is almost always a way of being insulting and demeaning. In fact, there's a whole blog dedicated to spotting fail in the wild and bringing it to people's attention, and I can see how setting such a derisive tone (unintentionally) could cause hurt feelings and make people feel like agents and authors are in an intensely adversarial relationship - which they are not.
