megwrites

fashionista_35 sums up and says better than I ever could every thing I think about the whole "writing rules" meme going around.

As far as I'm concerned (and I said this an entry or two back), there is only one writing rule: WRITE. That's it.

I feel about writing the way The Fat Nutritionist does about eating, I suppose. I think any advice or assistance or comments on writing have to start with the premise (and I appropriate from her here): Write. Stuff you like. As much as you want.

Which, for both eating and writing, are radical premises. If you're a writer or a person who pays attention to any health news, you know the world is full of people who want to tell you what to do. Who tell you these things as though you're a complete idiot who can't be trusted on their own to eat or write properly.

And while both writers and eaters (ie, everyone who eats food) may need guidance, especially when complex issues get in the way, either health problems or a desire to get published. That's fine. And lots of us have had our internal compasses turned discombobulated or destroyed by concern-trolling and bad advice and authority figures (parents, teachers, mentors) who meant well but thought that we couldn't be trusted on our own to know good from bad and right from wrong. And sometimes to reverse that damage, you do need some guidance.

But remember, there's just one rule: WRITE. Everyone thing else is an opinion or suggestion or strategy or somebody's best educated guess. You take what works, you leave the rest.

This is, coincidentally, why there are some agents and editors I have come to love dearly on their blogs. Like agent Holly Root who says wonderful things concerning do's and don'ts that people hand out to writers when it comes to querying and agents. This, especially:

So here's what you can take away from the bajillion bytes on the subject: Write the best book you can, then the best query you can. Submit written materials to agents. The worst they can say is no so don't worry about fine-tuning that to the nanometer, just look for the right ballpark (i.e., alive, still in the business). Then press send.

That's it.

Take the rest as it comes. And never, ever let any of the voices on the internet, no matter how helpful or authoritative they aim (or claim) to be, take away from your ability to hear your own unique authorial voice.

The power of an agent talking to writers (in general and specifically) as though they are adults completely capable of being trusted to do a good job and don't need condescension is mindblowing. I want to draw hearts around these agents, and I'm sad sometimes when they don't rep the kind of books I write. 'cause damn, these are the kind of people that keep me psyched about the idea of getting published and getting to work with such cool folk.

And then there are some agents who's advice seems to come with the premise: "Look, I know you (ie, writers) are idiots and I spend my days drowning in your idiocy so I'm gonna tell you what to do because you can't be trusted to know on your own."
I'd name names, because yeah, I have some very specific people in mind who like to dole out this kind of advice and these are agents who I've noticed don't seem to be very happy in their professional lives (I don't know or care about their personal ones). But honestly? I don't want that kind of drama.

Suffice it to say, I'm here to sing the praises and spread the gospel of The One Rule. Because there is just one: WRITE. Stuff you like. As much as you want.

This link Ten Rules for Writing has been circulating around my f-list for quite sometime. It's a collection of writing "rules" from various authors.

I almost didn't click the link because the idea of writing rules is something I despise absolutely. But I did.

( Thoughts about writing rules and on the querying writer-agent relationship. )

My computer is finally starting to say it's long goodbye, which is putting a cramp in how much writing I can get done. ( Cut for those who do not care about my technological woes )

Woke up to a rejection in the inbox. It was a very nice form rejection that included an apology for sending a form rejection. It made me smile, because while that's a very sweet gesture, I don't think any agent should feel the need to apologize for a form rejection. The fact that you bother to send any notification of rejection is actually quite generous on your part. So it's like saying, "I apologize for being extra nice!"

Query Score Card update time! The score is changing not only to reflect the rejections I've gotten, but that I found yet another agent who accepts fantasy that I missed when I re-checked.

Requests - 2 (1 full, 1 partial)

Rejections - 3

Timed Out - 0 (from round 3. All of round 2 has timed out, rejected, or requested)

Still Pending - 4


I'm thinking of posting the agents I've found, thus far, that accept SF/F fiction along with a more specific list of what they have/do accept. I know other lists like this are out there, so would it be helpful to anyone else if I did this or no?

I've found that a lot of agents who will look kindly on vampires, werewolves and leather-clad heroines have no interest in science fiction or higher end fantasy, and I think it's a bit deceptive on the part of some search engines to say that a writer accepts "fantasy" - because that's like saying, for example, that Scott Lynch and Laurell K. Hamilton are writing the exact same thing and if you've ever read The Lies of Locke Lamora or any of the Merry Gentry or Anita Blake series, you know they're not.

First with the bad this time:

Science-fiction author Peter Watts was detained and beaten at the U.S.-Canada border. Quoting from the article:

When Peter got out of the car and questioned the nature of the search, the gang of border guards subjected him to a beating, restrained him and pepper sprayed him. At the end of it, local police laid a felony charge of assault against a federal officer against Peter. On Wednesday, he posted bond and walked across the border to Canada in shirtsleeves (he was released by Port Huron officials with his car and possessions locked in impound, into a winter storm that evening). He's home safe. For now. But he has to go back to Michigan to face the charge brought against him.

This is completely unacceptable and a clear violation of civil rights. There's a defense fund for Dr. Watts and donations can be sent (according to the BoingBoing article) via PayPal to donate@rifters.com

Another good link is here about the incident, pecunium, Root and Branch. Definitely worth you reading. Because having a different president doesn't mean that all the ugliness of the old administration is gone.


And for a bit of good. Today is Agent Appreciation Day! While I don't have an agent (but would dearly like to), I definitely enjoy seeing people share the many wonderful things their agents do for them as writers.

I may not have an agent, but I know that I've received a lot of great advice, help, and pointers from agents who went out of their way to be extra kind, even when rejecting me. They didn't have to be, but they were. I'm much better for it, and hopefully am sending out a stronger manuscript than I had in hand a year or two ago.

As a writer? I can say that such advice as "you give away too much information in the prologue" is worth it's weight in gold coming from an agent - and for such advice I'm thankful to so many. And yes, that definitely does include Colleen Lindsay. I disagree vehemently with the things she says online sometimes (still do), but I won't deny that her help was invaluable in shaping up the Tower!Guy manuscript. She didn't have to go out of her way, but she did. I'm sorry there's not a day to say "Thank you even though I'm not your client" - because I'd like to do that. I imagine I'm probably not the only unpublished nobody she's reached out to, and if you're someone who's benefitted from her free-of-charge, keen-sighted hardwork, I'd recommend sending up a flag.

I also owe thanks to other agents who rejected the Tower!Guy novel and gave bits of feedback, even if they were a sentence or two on how they felt about the protagonists or the plot or the setting. Or heck, even just some advice about the market and about who is and isn't looking for my type of book.

Like I said, you wouldn't believe the benefit of having someone say something as simple as, "Your plot slows down in the middle" or "Your protagonist cries too much". Not always easy to swallow, but they help you hone in on where you need to improve that book and whatever books you write in the future.

So to those many agents who have been so kind, who I have not thanked personally because it would clog their already crowded inboxes - I salute you.

If you do have an agent that's done you a good turn, go and add their name to the list. We need to recognize the good guys and gals in this industry.

Dear Colleen Lindsay,

I have been following the comments that you and others have made in this post made by Rachelle Gardner concerning public complaints by writers. My opinions on that can be found in other entries, if you feel like reading them. That's not here what I came to talk about.

I came here to talk about this comment that you left further down the page, the one that says (emphasis mine):

I actually didn't go into anyone's journal. Google feeds locked posts into the Google reader willy-nilly, regardless of whether the post is locked or not. I found out it was a locked post simply because I tried to reference it again to show a colleague from another agency who was also mentioned in the post and I was unable to access it through LiveJournal.

You may be loathe to point this out so I will: I just did you and every other writer a major public service by letting you all know that even if you think something is private, it can sometimes still be seen by Google Reader.

Here's a Xanax and a glass of water. Chill, please.

Colleen

This may be the scariest thing I've ever done, but I need to tell you that this is not okay. I realize that I am probably very much putting whatever writing career I might have had in jeopardy. I realize that I could face a lot of consequences for saying this.

I'm willing to live with that.

I don't know your personal life all that well, besides what you Twitter or blog, so I don't know if you've ever had cause to be someone who takes Xanax or a medication similar to that.

But I do know many friends and family who have. Including me. I'm shaking right now, because I really don't like to admit that once upon a time, I had to be put on psychiatric medications when I was a kid. I still feel ashamed of it. It was a long time ago, and I try not to think about it or about how hard I tried not to let anyone know about it because, well, letting the kids at school know you're on "crazy pills" is asking to be teased.

I saw what happened to the one other girl in school who let the secret slip. I heard the "crazy" jokes and the "psycho" remarks. I heard the "she must be off her meds" remarks if she dared to show her hurt, her anger, her frustration. I got lucky. I kept my secret and was taken off the meds quickly. To this day, the thought of ever having to go back on them make me shake. Like I'm shaking right now.

I'm no longer on any psychiatric medications, but I know so many people who take such things. Including, yes, Xanax.

Those people, those friends and family, don't take it because they're high-strung and just need to "chill". They don't take it because they're bitchy and whiny and weak. They take it so they can function, so they can lead healthier lives. It is not due to a character flaw - it is due to a disorder, a disability.

The act of admitting you need help, especially with a mental disorder, is terrifying for so many people. There is still a lot of stigma surrounding it. When you admit that you have or still do take those drugs, you're opening yourself to a lot of scorn, to people who trivialize your condition, to people who think you're just whining and complaining, to people who think you're less trustworthy or intelligent because of it.

This isn't about writers or agents or the gripes between them. I don't care about that right now. I care that a professional that I respected so much has shown such profound disrespect, intentional or not, to so many people I care about.

You're a highly visible figure in the publishing world. One look at your blog or your Twitter feed shows that a lot of people watch and listen to you, and when you say such things, you give a silent nod to ablism to all those people watching. Yes, their actions and words are their responsibility. You can't control what other people do. But you can control what you yourself do, and what you condone.

I'm asking that in the future that you think about the things you say publicly, even in moments of great irritation (however justified) and the impact they will have on others. It is something that I think anyone who blogs, tweets, or comments should think about before they hit "post".

I'm keeping this letter open because I think that you are not, by any means, the first or worst in the voices of people who also encourage a culture of ablism, whether they mean to or not. I think we all need to talk about this, need to talk about ways we can change our words and behaviors so that we're not holding people down, disrespecting them, and making their lives harder.

Perhaps open letters on the internet are also unprofessional, perhaps bringing this out into the open is unprofessional, perhaps air my past is unprofessional. Well, maybe professionalism isn't all it's cracked up to be. And I'm not a professional. I'm just some nobody, unpublished writer with stories to tell who sees other people with stories -- and selves -- that are scorned, hidden, disrespected, ignored and thinks that it shouldn't be that way. I think that comments like yours only make it harder for those stories and those selves to come out honestly, openly, and with the dignity they deserve, and that shouldn't be.


Thank You,
Meg Freeman

I came across this post, entitled "Agent Query Policies: Stop the Griping" by Rachelle Gardner this morning while making my way around the usual places on the internet.

It's a good post. It's healthy for writers dealing with the inevitable frustration and teeth grinding anxiety that comes with submitting to remember that agents are busy, busy people. Long response times (or no response) is not a deliberate slight on their part. They're dealing with a day that only has 24 hours in it, and well, there's just only so much any human can do - and I do not think there is a single agent who deliberately keeps a longer response time than necessary or who withholds a response just to spite a writer. Non-response and long response times are the nature of the beast.

Remembering that agents are not trying to be rude can help with the frustration.

There is also a very important warning in that post, if you scroll down in comments. Agent Colleen Lindsay says, in this comment on the post,

I rejected a manuscript that I had been seriously considering last week because upon a cursory online search, I found a LiveJournal post by the author badmouthing me and several of my colleagues for what she thought were excessive response times. Well, that blog post cost her representation from at least one agent. (OH, and it was a LOCKED LibeJournal post. You do know that Google Reader doesn't respect locked posts, right? Well, you do now.)

This an extremely good warning to writers, and to all LiveJournal folk.

a) Google Reader does not respect locked posts at all. So what you think is private may not be private at all

and

b) Agents are reading your blog, they are paying attention, and they are Googling you. Be careful what you say on the internet, even when you think it's private.

That comment has scared the crap out of me. I don't think I've ever said anything that can be construed as badmouthing any particular agents, it definitely gave me pause. I wonder if my strong opinions have cost me representation. Have any agents looked at my blog and said, "Wow, this woman is mouthy and obnoxious. Reject!"

Some things I wouldn't mind getting rejected over. If an agent is so opposed to the idea that I fully and vocally support same-sex marriage rights, for example, its best we never work together.

Other things are not so simple. I was very outspoken about criticizing the proposed "new adult" category from St. Martin's, including being very critical of posts made about it. BTW, S. Jae-Jones earned a lot of respect from me for her response to my posts. I was probably far too harsh in some respects, but she handled it with considerable grace.

If an agent read those posts would they believe I'm difficult to work with?

If you are one of the agents who has or ever will have something by me under consideration, I'd like to say: I'm actually easy to work with. I take editorial direction well, I don't expect you to return calls or emails instantly, I understand that you're busy, I'm open to having anything I write torn apart for the sake of a better story, and I do try to conduct myself as a professional.

In the future, I'm definitely going to be twice as mindful of what I say online, even when I think it's private. Also, I'm possibly going to lodge a complaint with Google Reader for not respecting locked posts.

If you're also a writer querying about? I'd recommend the same.

The queries to the agents have been written, but not sent. They're sitting in the drafts folder of my email. I'm going to take a break for lunch and come back to give them one last looking over before I send them out.

I think moon walking is a pretty apt metaphor for the process of querying, at least for me. Walking on the moon is a big moment. It's glorious, perilous, and strangely tedious. It's also the culmination of a lot of work over many years. From the barest outlines to the training to the revising to the last minute details. And that's just what it takes to get in the damn rocket.

More than that, the moonwalk is not the end of the process, rather it's just the middle. Because the point isn't to get to the moon, the point is to get to the moon and come back alive. So you can't just shoot a monkey into space, you have to retrieve the monkey. And that's the tricky part.

The point isn't just to write a novel and query an agent. The point is to write a novel, query an agent, and get the agent to say "Yes, I love it!" and then to get the agent to get an editor to say, "Do Want! Here have this big pile of cash and a three book deal!" Or something like that.

So this is only half the trip. Here's to not burning up horribly in the atmosphere or skipping off into space never to be heard from again!

I spent the better part of today doing intensive research on agents, and I managed to find a handful that I somehow missed on the first go.

I also found some pretty good stuff, so I figured I'd share the wealth.

Agents who rep SF/F thread at AbsoluteWrite.com - You'll have to fast forward to the bottom of the thread to see the most recent entries, but I gleaned a few very good names from there. As always, do your research. Some of the info on the forum may not be accurate, but it's nice to know actually does SF/F, not just who lists it at AgentQuery or LitMatch.

Colleen Lindsay is opening to submissions again. Colleen is a superb agent and a great person. Read the guidelines very carefully, though. She's only opening to certain things, but if you fit the things she's looking for, I would definitely submit.

10 Literary Agents Who Represent SF/F. Most of these are the really biggest and best agents working the field, but it's probably a good starting point for anyone looking for agents. And hey, it was nice to know that I was thorough the first time around (I queried way more than ten, though).

A list of agents who represent at least three living SF/F writers. It's a good list, though there are a few sticking points. Some of the agents are no longer with the agencies listed, some are moving away from SF/F, one or two of agents and/or agency is defunct, if I remember correctly. But it's not a bad starting point if you just need some names and a direction to go in.

I finally figured out what has been under my skin about this particular blog post by agent Jessica Faust over at Bookends Literary Agency, and indeed about a lot of "advice" coming from agents these days.

I like hearing about the agent side of the equation, and I certainly believe that most agents are consummate professionals, wonderful people, and sorely underappreciated for the hard work they do. I want to make that clear. Even the agents that rejected me were professional as they did so (well, all but one, but every group's got it's bad apples) and I would welcome the chance to work with them in the future. There were a few who I almost wanted to send a "thank you" to for being so quick on the turn around and their kind words of "keep submitting elsewhere".

But in all this talk of "good enough", with people like Michelle Sagara (msgara) weighing in, I've just felt this sense of aggravation and frustration, but especially when I read what Ms. Faust wrote.

And now I've figured out why, and there are two major reasons.

Reason the First - Writers cannot exist without a sense of "good enough". There comes a point when every writer has to say "I've done all I can do" and hand the project off. Otherwise we'd all only ever write one thing in our lives and that makes for a lousy career. Especially if you have rent and bills to pay. I don't know the specifics of the writer that Ms. Faust talked about in her blog post, but I do know that writers usually don't need telling about revising. Most of us, left to our own devices, would spend decades revising and redrafting the same work. One of the hardest decisions a writer makes is when to put the pen (or the keyboard) down and let it go. I'm sorry that she encountered someone who didn't seem to take pride in her work, but I'm not sure Ms. Faust can be an accurate judge of what kind of work that particular writer put into her manuscript. Yes, she said "rough draft", but maybe for her, a draft that's only been revised five times is still "rough". Maybe she considers it rough, even though she did her level best on it.

Like I said, I don't know.

But that brings me to Reason the Second - If that writer is the kind who hands in sloppy work, then she's not the kind of writer who is reading agent blogs anyway. The advice a lot of agents are handing out these days is not advice that anyone who actually needs it would be listening to in the first place. Advice like, "Don't tell me how great a movie your book would be" or "don't write back to bitch about being rejected by me" or "please bother to get my name right" isn't helpful. The writers who do these things are not the ones who even read submission guidelines to begin with, much less agent blogs and Tweets.

Agents seem to believe, in very good faith, that they are being helpful. Sadly, they're not. I think this is part of what made #AgentFail so vicious. A lot of writers who were doing their level best felt like they were getting lectured at for things they weren't doing, and felt like their hard work and professionalism were being ignored. A lot of agents believed they were helping out aspiring writers by letting them know What Not To Do.

The writers who are reading these blogs and feeds are not, by and large, the people who are causing agents such headaches. The ones who send the "I'm the next Stephanie Meyer!" queries with your name misspelled and give you a surprise sex change, ignoring that you don't even represent YA or urban fantasy/paranormal romance are the ones who don't bother doing any research. They are not listening to you.

I'd like for agents to stop talking about the writers who do the deeply silly, obviously stupid things and start talking about something besides Query 101. I'd like to hear an agent talk about the queries they passed up for reasons other than beginner mistakes.

I'd like someone to show me a perfectly correct query that they rejected and show me why, even when the writer checked all the boxes and got everything right. Did the description of the plot make it sound too boring? Did they not emphasize the characters enough? Did they not make it clear what the story was about? What specific sentence, in an otherwise great query, turned you off or made you say "pass"?

I'd even like for an agent to show me a perfectly serviceable manuscript or partial they turned down and describe why. Did the author take too long in getting to the plot? Was the hook not good enough? Was it too much like every other manuscript you'd seen that day - and what makes a manuscript stand out. And don't just tell me generalizations like "great characters" and "a unique voice". Tell me specifics.

Tell me that when you see a mystery you can solve before you get to the second chapter you turn away, and what it is, specifically in that manuscript, that made you figure it out so quickly.

Tell me that a character comes off as too artificial, and point to the lines of dialogue or narration that gave you that impression.

It comes down to this, dear agents: bumbling idiots are an eternally renewing resource. If snarky advice was going to stem the tide of bad queries, it would have done so a very long time ago. You can swing the clue-by-four as wide and hard as you like. It won't help. You run a business where you open your door to public submissions. You're going to get a lot of losers. I know, it sucks, but thems the breaks. Ask anyone who works in a business where they deal directly with the public. Service industries, tech support, anyone. They'll tell you. Stupid people are just part and parcel. You have to deal and focus on the good people that you can help. I know, I've done everything from working in a coffee shop to tech support to janitorial. You just have to let the stupid roll off your back.

Focusing on the writers who are willing to take advice will help them turn good queries and manuscripts into great ones - ones that have a better chance of selling and making more money that can go in your pocket Wouldn't seeing an increase in great queries and great manuscripts make your day brighter, not to mention make you richer?

So let the losers go, okay? I appreciate the urge to snark, and some folks really do deserve it, but it's not helping the impression that the agent-writer relationship is antagonistic, and I'd hate to see anything make your lives harder.

Oh, and just a side note to you advice giving agents who are otherwise awesome: be careful about giving advice on Twitter. I know it's tempting, but honestly? Twitter is not given to thorough communication. Some things you wish for writers to know really do take more than 140 characters to convey.