Simultaneous submissions

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think some of you are worrying too much about your convenience and not enough about who is going to do the best job of representing your work.

In the long run, how quickly you get responses is pretty trivial. It seems to me -- from the things I read here and elsewhere -- that a lot of unpublished writers spend far too much of their time worrying about this and not enough time thinking about things that could actually help them.

It's no use saying, "agents should do this" and "it's an abuse of power when agents do that." It may give you some satisfaction to vent, but it doesn't get your work on an editor's desk. Looking into the various agent's track records is a far better way to allocate your time. When you send your work out, aim high, submit to the best agents out there (and if they look at simultaneous submissions, fine, but if they don't be prepared for your search for the best agent to take a while), you can always lower your expectations later.

[Havlen]

I'm not sure if you are projecting or something, but typing up an opinion is not the same thing as dwelling on it. I assure you that it didn't take me more than a minute of thought to figure out that requiring an exclusive on a query package is a bad mark for an agent.

And I'm sure that those asking the question aren't spending oodles of time pondering the issue as well. They just want some information. The more they learn about agents, the better equipped they are at researching and prioritizing their list.

[Mark Robson]

An agent's track record is one thing, but their recent track record is particularly important. Like in any other job, people get jaded with the business. The thing that impressed me most about the agent I signed with was that he was as hungry for success as I was ... if not more so. That drive in an agent is very important. An agent hungry for success is likely to move heaven and earth to get that deal for you. However, hunger for success must be combined with results. Not just one big deal, but a solid track record of success. The good ones do tend to stand out from the crowd.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Havlen, you seem to be taking something personally that was meant to apply to aspiring writers as a group.

And you are quite right: typing up an opinion is not the same thing as dwelling on it. It's done in a few minutes. But that's not what I meant, and I don't believe it's what I said. Now when you allow that same opinion to influence your priorities and your actions over a period of time, that's another matter. Then, it's a good idea to ask yourself whether basing your decisions on that one thing is going to take you where you really want to go, and whether there are other factors you might want to give equal or greater consideration. Mark has just given a very good description of what one of those factors might be.

I've known a lot of writers, those who have not been published, those who were not published when I first knew them but who have been published since, and those who were already published authors when I met them. And of course I have my own experiences to draw on.

And what I have seen is that those who complain the most about the system, and who take an adversarial attitude toward agents and editors (in my opinion, phrases like "abuse of power" indicate an adversarial attitude, but perhaps whoever said that uses these words more carelessly than I do) are generally the people who make poor choices and burn out early, while those who show more patience and more willingness to work with the system as it is -- instead of projecting their own ideas of how the system should work -- have a higher degree of success.

But if anyone here has information or experience that convinces them otherwise, of course they should do what they think is best. I'm only offering my own perspective for those who are interested in reading it.

[Havlen]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

I think some of you are worrying too much about your convenience and not enough about who is going to do the best job of representing your work.

Havlen, you seem to be taking something personally that was meant to apply to aspiring writers as a group.

Teresa, if your response was meant for aspiring writers as a whole, I don't think you worded it very well. Considering that you had already given your opinion in a previous response, that reads a lot more like it was directed at individuals on this thread.

It's great that you have an opinion on the subject, but others are allowed to have an opinion as well.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Now you are the one who is projecting Havlen. When did I deny anyone's right to have an opinion? And why are you allowed to respond to me, but I'm chided for responding to you? I don't think you are being fair at all.

Anyway, I think I have sufficiently clarified by position. (Anyone who wants me to explain it any further knows where to find me.) And since your position seems tolerably clear to me, I'm happy to leave it at that.

[Havlen]

Where did I 'chide' you for responding to me? I simply demonstrated what in your response I felt was directed more at individuals than aspiring writers as a group. I'm not sure why you are reading anything more into it than that.

I'm also not sure what type of assumptions you have made about my 'position'. But, I do agree that continuing this is only likely to derail the thread without adding any value to it, so it's best left dropped.

[SJAB]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

who is going to do the best job of representing your work.

This is, in my opinion, is the crux of the whole matter.

For a number of years I ran a small craft business, working large and small craft fairs up and down the country. Some of the organisers were, I suppose the polite way of putting it would be, "not my type of person", but their events were well run, well advertised, and drew in the public. On the other hand a couple became friends, one was renowned for their events being mobile disasters. Sadly it came to the point, where from a business point of view, I had to drop most of this friend's fairs.

I don't expect publishing to be any different. It is a business and you have to treat it like such. If friendships develop out of agent/publisher/author relationship then that is a bonus. If the agent/publisher sees the world of publishing in the same manner as you, the author, again a bonus. BUT you should, if you want to have half a chance of making it into print, look at the whole business of agent/publisher hunting with the cold eye of business.

You are in a way tendering for a contract when you approach an agent/publisher. You have to make sure your tender (novel) meets their tender specifications (submission details) You might not like them, or privately think some are silly, but you abide by them. You want this contract with this agent/publisher.

As to the question of simultaneous submissions right off the bat. If you want to submit to the agent that has such in their submission details the choice is yours, submit and abide by it, or find other agents, it really depends how much you want any one agent to see your work.

Personally I have given an agent such, and held off submitting until I heard a reply. Not done it for a couple of years though, I have, through hard work, found other agents who I feel would better suit my work. This has resulted in quite a few sample chapters being requested from query letters, even good feed back with the rejections, and requests to see new work, when I have it ready.

[Havlen]

Here's a slightly off-topic question (okay, very off-topic) that occurred to me when I checked out the website in question.

It has a category for "10 Pet Hates". Out of curiosity, are "pet peeves" an American slogan?

[Pete Rebb]

When in doubt, Wiki it! Ha!

***A pet peeve (or pet hate) is a minor annoyance that can instill great frustration in an individual.

The term originated from the word 'peeve', and is relatively recent - its first usage was in 1919. The term is a back-formation from the 14th-century word 'peevish,' meaning ornery or ill-tempered.***

Ah the power of cut n' paste, a joy to behold!

Pete

P.S. I would imagine that's why JK Rowling named that annoying ghost 'Peeves' !!

[Peter Graham]

Hi Havlen

Out of curiosity, are "pet peeves" an American slogan?

To take Pete Rebb's Wiki sleuthing a bit further, some people over here still use "peevish". I do, for one.

We also use "peeved", which again just means "slightly annoyed". In fact, it features in a standing joke about the names given to states of emergency in our respective countries. You go from "amber alert" to "red alert", whereas we go from "browned off" to "peeved". The last time we were officially peeved as a nation was during the height of the Blitz.

We don't tend to use "peeve" as a noun. We'd normally say "gripe" instead.

Regards

Peevish Peter

[Havlen]

Yeah, I could have sworn I'd heard 'peeved' in a UK movie. I guess some people just like 'pet hates' or something. Personally, I think using 'pet hates' is one of my pet peeves.

[speakmoretti]

Peter Graham wrote:

We'd normally say "gripe" instead.

We do? I've never said it!

Personally I don't use either phrase much - I am more likely to just say "annoying things" - If I did use those phrases then I'd say that 'peeves' are things that are mildly annoying but you can live with them. A pet hate is more intense and something you really can't stand. It's the difference between "Ugh, that's annoying" and "OMG THAT'S ANNOYING"

[Teresa Edgerton]

Perhaps we could return this thread to the original topic, or at least let it lie dormant until someone has something they would like to add on the subject mentioned in the thread title?

Because it's strayed way off topic.

[Giovanna Clairval]

Are there many agents requesting exclusive queries? I haven't seen this during my googling around, apart from the one agent quoted here (and it's not a "request", just a preference, although multiple submissions are one of our friend's pet hates...).



I'd say that it is logical that an agent request exclusivity when she asks for a full (the balance, after the writer sent a few chapters). This marks the agent's interest, and it should be respected to the letter because there's going to be investment of the professional's precious time.

A query (letter plus synopsis) in exclusive submission is acceptable when the agent replies very quickly. This is not a dream: I've seen a blog in which the agent states that a negative response is almost immediate (email submissions). This may be an extreme, but four weeks would be acceptable, too.

But, to say "Multiple submissions are forbidden. Don't expect to hear from me before four months, though. I'm a very busy person," shows a lack of consideration for the writers.

It's the clause suggested by the lion to the mouse.

In this case, I'd prefer not to submit as opposed to "I submit my query to you, and I know you don't appreciate multiple submissions, but I'll submit elsewhere anyway; everybody does that."