~~~~~~~~

In today's tough publishing climate, most big commercial presses will not accept unsolicited manuscripts or queries from authors, and instead use agents to sort through the slush pile and bring them the best work around.

This means the most important contact a writer can or will have is with his/her agent. There are many things to consider when choosing an agent, including their sales record, affiliations, reputation, and client list. As you query the agents that meet your criteria, you will undoubtedly meet with much rejection.

Once you have an agent, don't imagine you're on easy street. Most agents will tell you to put aside that dream of instant success and royalties that pour in unchecked, and prepare to go to work. New writers must be willing to actively market their work, a job that is both time consuming and tedious. No agent wants a client who thinks once the book is written, the job is done.

Since I'm seriously short on psychic skills, I decided to do the next best thing and ask a few successful agents some questions. I asked four questions of three agents: Jeff Kleinman of Graybill and English, LLC [JK]; Liza Dawson [LD]; and Felicia Eth [FE]. All three are successful non-fee chargers with proven track records and good reputations. One fact came out loud and clear: Writers are making the same mistakes over and over again. Here's your opportunity to learn what an agent is looking for, directly from the source.

1. What is the worst thing a writer can do in a query letter?

JK: Hmm, that's a tough one. How about three things: ramble for more than a page and a half; sound desperate; and make grammatical, punctuation, or spelling mistakes. LD: Here are two worst things. One, write the letter like it's a promo piece for Publishers Clearinghouse, i.e. "Dear Ms. Dawson: I'd like to offer you the opportunity at a sure bestseller. I've heard you're brilliant and so successful and that's why I'm sending you and the other fifty agents on this e-mail submission this letter." Two, beg me in hysterical language to pay attention because you've never written a letter to an agent and you're really scared and you know that no one will ever listen to you. FE: Bore me. If the letter does, probably the manuscript will too. Boast about it -- tell me it's sure to be a bestseller, tell me I'll make lots of money. Send it to me, but address it to another agent. You'd be amazed how often this happens. Make it clear it's a form letter, where my name is hand-written in. It makes me think it's been to a million other agents.

2. What catches your eye and makes you want to read someone's work?

JK: A tightly-crafted letter with a great single- or two-sentence description of the work, and an author with very good credentials -- published in national magazines, or with a national platform; winning awards, and so forth. LD: One, a recommendation; two, a clear description of the work with few superfluous sentences; three, previous publications. FE: Pizzazz in the query letter. Good, maybe great credentials -- either on the person's expertise, or publishing background. An original approach without being overly corny; sometimes writers cross the line in making something way too cute. It's strong, original writing that catches my eye.

3. As writers, we hear stories of the "good old days" where agents and editors would nurture a promising writer with two or three books until they reached top form. In your opinion, was this ever the case, and if so, what changed it?

JK: I think that's still the case with agents and editors. It's all about nurturing and building up a brand name.
LD: It was true a long time ago. Agents will nurture for longer than editors will. Editors now must justify their salaries in a way that they never had to before. Unless that writer gets fabulous reviews and there's a whiff of a Nobel prize in the air, then that editor has to maintain a wall between himself or herself and the writer -- or else the editor will end up standing next to the writer, looking at the publishing house from the outside rather than the inside.
FE: I've been around for a while, and though things were never 'great' still there are definite differences today. People used to buy a book they loved but didn't think would be a great commercial success, for small money, publish it well and hope that it would help establish a writer for his/her next book. Today no one (of the major houses at least) wants to spend small money on a book with small expectations. They just can't buy those books; they need to meet minimums in terms of the number of copies they can get out. Also, previously if someone was a good writer, credentials and platform weren't nearly as important as they are today. Now, without that, it's a long, difficult, uphill battle and most editors aren't willing to fight that fight. So yes, things are different. 4. If you could give a new author one piece of advice to help advance his/her career, what would it be?

JK: BUILD UP YOUR CREDENTIALS! By that I mean: One, learn to make your writing as solid, tight, and wonderful as possible; and two, become an "authority" on your subject, with some kind of very strong regional, or national, platform.

LD: Cultivate a following on National Public Radio. Come up with a high concept gimmick.

FE: Build credentials -- short stories or magazine and newspaper pieces. Contests, supportive quotes from any major name you know. Build up a good case for why your work needs to be taken seriously, and then, amazingly enough, it will be. That's no guarantee it will be bought, but at least it will be read and that's an important first step.

I also asked one final question, half-jokingly: "When you become a literary agent, are you automatically required to use the word 'subjective' in your rejections?"

Liza Dawson says yes: "Every time we send out a rejection notice we're afraid that we're going to spark a suicide, or reject a fabulously successful novel and the author will then make merciless fun of the agents who rejected the book and post the pompous rejections on his web site."
Felicia Eth had this response: "You know, I do use 'subjective' myself, because it is. In fact, I don't love 'commercial' novels, with all that implies, and probably reject a fair number of them that are good and likely to sell. But that's not what I do, not what I like, and though other agents probably think I'm nuts, that's my criteria. Authors should know that. I told someone this week that I don't do Mob novels -- and said, 'yes I probably would have rejected the Godfather.' So that's how subjective it is."

An important thing to remember is that this ruthless business is also difficult from the agent's perspective. The goal of an agent is not to crush the spirit of a new writer, who often has great potential but simply is not ready to seek publication. The only way to succeed is to write, rewrite, edit and write again, until your work is perfectly polished. At that point, remember the business of publishing is, indeed, subjective. What one agent hates, another may love.

For more information on finding a good agent, visit these pages: Preditors and Editors - www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/

Association of Authors' Representatives Listing - www.publishersweekly.com/AAR/

Natalie R. Collins' Literary Agent Listing of non-fee charging, reputable literary agents www.nataliercollins.net/agents.html

© Copyright 2001 Natalie Collins

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Natalie R. Collins is the agent/publishing columnist for Fiction Factor www.fictionfactor.com--an online magazine for writers, offering articles on the craft and business of writing, tips on getting published, free ebook downloads, author interviews, paying market listings, and much more! Natalie is also the author of SisterWife, a top ten pick for 2001 in the annual Preditors & Editors Poll. You can visit her Web site at www.nataliercollins.net.
~~~~~~~