Tag Archives: querying

Making Lemonade

I spent the first half of today feeling discouraged, and the second half of today feeling like my writing is so terrible that I shouldn’t waste my time trying to get published. In other words, I had my normal response to a partial-manuscript rejection.

By this evening, I had straightened around to deciding that I should at least consider an idea proposed by the agent that would, in her opinion, increase my likelihood of securing representation:
Drumroll, please…

Switch it from YA to MG.

This agent is not the first to suggest that Jim and Jack has a Middle Grade feel to it. Two of my critique partners also mentioned this, but I have stayed true to my original vision of the novel being for gifted eighth-grade boys (as well as a grade or two in both directions).

Why?

1. Boys mature at a significantly slower rate than girls during those tween/lower teen years.

2. Boys are generally not as emotionally complex as girls (read The Male Brain, by Louann Brizendine, MD, if you disagree with this. If you are still doubt, go make friends with a 12-15 year old boy.)

The Male Brain

3. Gifted kids of both sexes are known for their asynchronous development, in that their emotional maturity frequently lags behind their intellectual prowess.

4. 1929 (in which half of Jim and Jack is set) was a simpler time in many ways. Even though adolescents typically had more responsibilities at a younger age, frequently getting married right out of high school, there was a naiveté that doesn’t exist today. Society as a whole was more focused on developing character rather than on “being cool,” and I want that lack of sophistication to be reflected in my 1929 characters.

5. Just to make sure I was right, I had my manuscript test driven by ten 12-to 16-year-old gifted boys (nine of whom did not know me) before I started querying. On response sheets, in answer to the question, “Do you think you were the right age to read this novel? Why, or why not? What age would you think IS the right age?” every one of them thought that theirs was exactly the right age, for various reasons. Which says to me that it is right on target.

I am willing to consider the change, though. Clinging to my rationale won’t bring Jim and Jack any closer to publication. As the litmus test, I have recruited my reluctant-reader middle grade son to read it. If he likes it, I will pitch it differently and see what happens.

They say that you know you’re getting closer when you start to get personalized rejections. We’ll see.

1 Comment

Filed under Critical Thinking, Miscellaneous, Uncategorized, Writing

On Giving Up

Cate Woods blogged recently about beta readers, and the comment that I wrote has been rolling around in my brain this week, due to the rejection of yet another partial manuscript.

I have sent out more than sixty queries. One agent has requested to see my full manuscript, and six others have requested partials. All of these submissions were ultimately rejected. Many of the responses have been that the manuscript seems like a good, well written story, but no one is AS in love with it as they would need to be to sell it in this market, and/or they are not sure where they would place it.

This is discouraging. It makes me wonder if I should throw in the towel, and maudlinly reflect that my manuscript might just be too beautiful to live. But then I start to think of why I should keep going.

When I was finished with the original draft, I contacted a few teacher friends around the country to ask if they would offer it to students in my target group (gifted middle-school boys) to read and answer an accompanying questionnaire. I didn’t want kids who knew me, because I thought that might interfere with the honesty of their answers.

I ended up with ten guinea pigs beta readers, all tempted by the promise that I would put their names in the acknowledgments section if the story gets published. A few girls wanted to read it, too, which was fine with me. I stressed in the questionnaire that I wanted to know what was wrong with it, and that anything just written to be nice might hurt the chances of it getting published. I also asked them to write down the words they didn’t understand, so that I could include it in a glossary (gifted kids enjoy things like glossaries).

Although one girl wanted me to work a vampire into the story, the rest of the readers really liked it. They mentioned a few questions they’d had that had gone unanswered (which I fixed), said that they would recommend it to friends, and offered unsolicited ideas for sequels. One said to his teacher that Jim and Jack is one of the best books he has ever read.

One question on the form was about whether or not they thought they were the right age to read it, and if not, what age would they recommend? The students ranged from 11-16, and each thought that their age was exactly the right one, for different reasons. None of them wrote down words for the glossary, which didn’t surprise me; gifted boys don’t usually like to admit when they don’t know something. 

This is what keeps me going, when I am feeling down about querying, and when adult beta-readers/critique partners suggest that it might be MG instead of YA. I’m not sure exactly how to find an agent who thinks like a gifted teenaged boy — that’s not the sort of information that gets shared in profiles or on websites. If there’s one out there, though, I intend to hang in there until I find him/her.

What keeps you querying?

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Scrabbling for Success: 10 Helpful Hints for the Querying Process

Ever since I discovered that Scrabble was on Facebook, I have been playing simultaneous games with multiple people. In an attempt to justify this, I have decided to write a post about things that I have noticed are parallels between the game of Scrabble and the Querying Process.

1. LOOK AT THINGS FROM EVERY ANGLE

Look at the board’s potential in various ways before setting any letters down, even before you look at your own tiles. Sometimes, just adding an ‘S’ can net you more points than making a word out of the letters on your rack.

When writing a query letter, it is important to think of a good hook. While there are typically many aspects of a manuscript that could be highlighted, jot down several different ideas before selecting one to develop. Sometimes, not going with the obvious can be more effective.

2. TAKE YOUR TIME

It pays to take some time to consider the potential point value of different words, instead of just going with the first thing you see.

Rather than whipping your query together just to have something to send out, it is better to take your time with it, get some opinions, and send out a few test queries to agents on your B list first. If you find that no one responds, give it a few tweaks and send out a few more. Remember, you can never requery an agent with the same project; don’t burn bridges in your haste to get on the bestseller list.

3. DON’T BE AFRAID TO TAKE A FEW RISKS

Sometimes you’re not sure if a word is really a word or not, but when you take a chance, it can pay off in big points. One of my recent words was QUIPU, which I recalled from my sixth grade Social Studies report on the Incas. I wasn’t sure whether or not it would be valid, but I tried it anyway. 66 points!

A few months ago, I queried an agent whose website said if there was no response in one week, to requery. A week later, I had not received a reply. Although I felt awkward about it, I re-sent the query with a note reminding the agent that queriers were instructed to do so, and apologized for it being a duplicate. Within a few hours, the agent responded that he had never seen it, and requested a partial.

4. CREATE A CHALLENGE AND THEN REWARD YOURSELF

It can be dull playing against people who don’t play as well as you do, or are of the same skill level. Mix things up by playing people who are better than you are. If you win, take a little time to gloat. This can be done subtly on Facebook by “sharing” the news and personalizing it by saying, “Good game, (opponent’s name here).”

Researching agents can be tiresome, as can tweaking/personalizing each query, and you should reward yourself often. Set up a system where after researching/sending three, you get a treat. The treat doesn’t have to be big, just something you like (going for a walk, getting a snack, or playing a game of Scrabble on Facebook…). After ten are totaled, you get something bigger, while a request for a partial or full manuscript gets a correspondingly larger payoff.

5. DON’T SET YOURSELF UP TO FAIL

Don’t play someone better than yourself too often. Sometimes it’s fun to face a difficult challenge, but it isn’t fun to get beaten all the time, and you won’t want to play anymore if it happens a lot.

Don’t make unlikely goals to inspire yourself (sending ten queries in one day, getting a response in the first five queries, getting an agent in 20 queries, etc.), because if you fail, you will be less likely to try it again. Managable chunks are best. 

6. DON’T RELY ON THE SAME PERSON ALL THE TIME

Don’t always play the same opponent. Playing with a variety of people keeps you from getting into a rut, and you tend to learn a better variety of strategies.

Find different people to critique your query and make suggestions. You will be sending the query to many agents, with different points of view. The more people the basic query appeals to, the better off you’ll be.

7. CAPITALIZE ON NEW IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES

Learn from your opponents; watch what they do better and take heed. They might not be prepared to have their own tricks used against them.

Look for query critiques on agents’ blogs. Even if your query isn’t the one being evaluated, you can learn a lot from other people’s mistakes.

8. FORGIVE YOURSELF FOR THINGS BEYOND YOUR CONTROL

Sometimes you just don’t get great letters on your rack. Persevere, and sooner or later things will turn around.

Consider the comments on your rejection letters. If it’s just not “right for their list” or not what they rep, or if they just signed a similar book, don’t take it personally.

9. DON’T GIVE UP

Even if your opponent is 80 points ahead, keep on playing. You may end up losing anyway, but you certainly will if you just forfeit.

Even though it can be discouraging to get rejection after rejection, it is all part of the querying game. Keep reminding yourself of authors who got over a hundred rejection letters before finding representation, such as J.K. Rowling, and that was when it was a lot easier to get published.

10. DON’T BE AFRAID TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT

You might have the word “indigo” in your tray, but if the letters on the board don’t give you an opening, it doesn’t matter how great your plans are. If you look into alternatives, you might get something even better.

Don’t just query. Participate in online agent pitch fests, go to conferences, enter contests. There are many ways to get your work seen by agents. Take advantage of as many as possible. Not only will it get your work out there, but it is fun and breaks up the monotony of querying. 

I could go on, but it’s my turn…

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized