Previous Entry | Next Entry

Slush stats

  • Sep. 26th, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Kippy Facepalm
Queries: 93
Requests: none!
In my inbox: 2 queries to chat with Jenny about, 4 partials, 3 fulls

--

Someone was kind enough to mouth off at me this week so I'd have a full slush stats post for you. Wasn't that thoughtful of them?

Titles removed for the sake of ethics.

In response to my form rejection:

I thought you liked these genres. Anyway, twenty minutes before you responded, an agency in New York sent me its response as quickly as you did. Here was their reply:

The idea sounds chilling. I'm interested to see where this all leads. I'd like to request the first three chapters of [title]. Please send it in a .doc attachment and hit "reply all" so we have an extra copy on file.


My reply:

Just because we represent a genre doesn't mean all books within that genre are for us. We can only request what enchants and inspires us.

At any rate, it's rude and unprofessional to respond as you've done. I'm glad someone else has shown interest in your book, but it's unnecessary to lash back when I've politely told you your book isn't right for us. Please do not respond in such a way again.


His reply:

My reply was not vitriolic. But let me understand this correctly...you've agented books that deal with zombies and vampires but [idea] are of no interest?!! You'll excuse me if I just shake my head at that. I think ten million people would shake their heads at that. It very much seems now that your comments leading off your reply to me are disingenuous in the extreme. At this point, I really don't know whether Jenny even saw my query. Perhaps you don't like [idea] stories no matter how well they may sell.

So, I guess that means that if Stephen King queried you per [title], you would've turned him down, too.


My final reply:

This is going to be the last time I reply to you. I'm not going to take the time again. I'm replying now because I don't want you to reply like this to other agents. They have enough to deal with.

Your previous response was rude. It's akin to asking someone on a date, and when they say no, you saying, "I'm a guy. Don't you like guys? Anyway, that girl over there already said she'd date me." Just because one person said yes doesn't mean everyone must. Tastes vary. Please take that into account when querying.

Yes, we've represented books about zombies and so on. We don't have anything against [idea]. In fact, I like that idea. However, the story, the execution, the premise, the characters -- all of that has to work for us in order for us to want to see more. Just because we like, say, vampires and romance doesn't mean we enjoy TWILIGHT.

As to your question of whether Jenny saw your query: No. That's my job. I read queries on her behalf. I'm paid to do this. I know her tastes, and I request what she would like.

If Stephen King had queried us with [title], I would have asked Jenny if she'd like to see it, the writer being Stephen King and all, and therefore a for sure sale. You are not Stephen King. You are not a for sure sale.

Again, this is my last reply to you. Further emails will be deleted. Please don't send emails to other agents like the ones you've sent me.


Fortunately, this was the last email, though every time the mail notification binged, I dreaded what it would bring. That said, [info]jimhines wrote this. It's true. It makes me laugh.

Comments

( 65 words — Leave a word )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
[info]houndrat wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 09:27 pm (UTC)
Yowza. Some people never get it. *Love* the dating analogy, btw.

Cheers!
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:20 pm (UTC)
I wish I could take credit for the analogy. I stole it from someone else, though, just can't remember who. :)
(Anonymous) wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 09:28 pm (UTC)
GAH! It's a very, very good thing I'm not a slush reader. I wouldn't last long. The temptation to send that interaction, by name, around to all my agent friends would be hard to resist. I doubt the "New York agent" who requested pages would want to work with him if the agent knew how unprofessional he could be.


Lisa Iriarte
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:21 pm (UTC)
I don't think it will be long before this agent finds out.
[info]domesticatedwriter.blogspot.com wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 09:29 pm (UTC)
This kills me!
Gahhhh! Things like this make me want to get violent. Authors need to understand that queries are like job interviews. Don't do something that will make people remember you negatively. Chances are, you might some day have another work you want to submit! GAH!
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:21 pm (UTC)
Re: This kills me!
Amen!
[info]frohock.wordpress.com wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 09:43 pm (UTC)
People who engage in e-mail tit-for-tat are looking for a response and a debate. They have to be right; it's a self-esteem issue for them. There are two things you can do when you're approached like this:

1. Ignore them, it drives them insane; or
2. Do what my dear old daddy used to adivse: always let the a$$hole have the last word and walk away. ;-)

If you allow them to upset you, then they feel like they've won, because you've given them what they want -- attention.

Teresa
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:22 pm (UTC)
If I let every jerk upset me, I'd be miserable. Instead, I mock them on my blog. That makes me feel better. :)
(no subject) - [info]frohock.wordpress.com - Sep. 27th, 2009 08:27 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]sg2823 wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 09:49 pm (UTC)
I'm sorry you have to put up with this kind of behavior, but you don't owe these types of people replies. You don't owe anyone a reply. Some agents even say upfront that they only reply with requests, just so they can avoid these types of responses. You're kind enough to reply, and quickly. Next time someone wants to get snippy with you, just let them continue with their inappropriate behavior and shoot themselves in the foot. If this person acted this way with you, imagine how he'll act with this other agent eventually. Querying is already hard enough, but he's making it even harder on himself.
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:23 pm (UTC)
I know I don't owe them a reply. I just live in hope that something will get through to them and they won't harass others. It's unlikely, but I was cursed with optimism at an early age.
[info]ravens_shadow wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 09:51 pm (UTC)
I find it hard to imagine someone thinking it's a smart idea to email an agent wth anything resembling "well, so-and-so likes me, so there!"

I don't know how they take it from 'email query, -maybe- thank them for personalized rejection,' to 'they sent me a form rejection, I must prove them wrong.'

Gah. I hope you have a much more pleasant weekend from this point on, Jodi.

~Sabrina
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:23 pm (UTC)
Thanks! It's been a pretty fab weekend. Hope yours is doing well! :)
(Anonymous) wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 09:52 pm (UTC)
I'm sorry you have to put up with this kind of behavior, but you don't owe these types of people replies. You don't owe anyone a reply. Some agents even say upfront that they only reply with requests, just so they can avoid these types of responses. You're kind enough to reply, and quickly. Next time someone wants to get snippy with you, just let them continue with their inappropriate behavior and shoot themselves in the foot. If this person acted this way with you, imagine how he'll act with this other agent eventually. Querying is already hard enough, but he's making it even harder on himself.
[info]emilycaseysmusings.blogspot.com wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 09:58 pm (UTC)
Wow.
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:24 pm (UTC)
Yep.
[info]j_cheney wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 10:26 pm (UTC)
::rolls eyes::

I like your dating analogy.
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:24 pm (UTC)
I like it too. I stole it from someone. :)
[info]snarky-writer.blogspot.com wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 10:29 pm (UTC)
People are often stupid. And this sort of thing reminds me that NOT being stupid puts me one step ahead of 98% of the people querying.
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:24 pm (UTC)
That it does. I'm a big fan of all the nice people in my inbox.
[info]b_twin_1 wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 10:33 pm (UTC)
*facepalm*
Good luck with that NY agent... :p

People are strange sometimes.
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:25 pm (UTC)
He's going to need the luck. I suspect it won't be long before the NY agent learns this person isn't fun to work with.
[info]shalanna wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 10:37 pm (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls! They want you to answer and engage in some long discussion. I don't know WHY, but they're just that way.

He should be kissing the ground that another agency asked for pages! He should be burning a candle for good luck! Not lashing out at the other agent(s) who didn't ask.

(I'll bet he was making it up anyway.)

But whatever. Trolls are always with us. Just . . . delete!
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:26 pm (UTC)
The request, which looks like a form, doesn't look like any I've seen. And it might be from one of the agents who just never requested me, but....
[info]fiction_theory wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 10:38 pm (UTC)
You're far more generous than I would be in even replying to this guy the first time around. I would have put him on the spam filter the minute I got the first email.

It's a shame there are people who do to folks like you who have gone out of your way to be helpful to so many people (ie, your query project and what not).

Though your dating analogy is very apt.
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:27 pm (UTC)
He's on the black list now. Never will he darken my inbox again!
(no subject) - [info]fiction_theory - Sep. 27th, 2009 08:54 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]writermomof5.wordpress.com wrote:
Sep. 26th, 2009 11:19 pm (UTC)
Is it bad that I chuckled a little? Not at you, of course, at the situation.

Sigh. I used to think that maybe it would be fun to be an agent.

[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:28 pm (UTC)
I'm laughing, too. There's nothing wrong with chuckling!
[info]bethrevis.blogspot.com wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 12:01 am (UTC)
*groans*

This is the kind of person who, after the big NY agency rejects him (because they WILL), will self-publish and rant about the unfairness of the system for the rest of his extraordinarily short "writing" career.
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:28 pm (UTC)
I totally agree. He's no loss to the rest of us.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 12:04 am (UTC)
I want to feel mad at this guy, but all I could do was laugh at how ridiculous he sounds.

Don't take it too hard Jodi, it's not worth it. Best options are to (a) Ignore it, (b) Blog about it (which you did), (c) Collect all these gems and publish them in your memoirs, or (d) Work this character into one of your stories, them make him *suffer* ... Mwahahahah ...

*Loved* the poem BTW -- many thanks for posting that link.

IanB
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:28 pm (UTC)
I choose laughing, too. It's much more fun than being angry. :)
[info]retrobabble wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 12:46 am (UTC)
If Stephen King had queried us with [title], I would have asked Jenny if she'd like to see it, the writer being Stephen King and all, and therefore a for sure sale. You are not Stephen King. You are not a for sure sale.

Zinnnggggg.

<3
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:29 pm (UTC)
If it wasn't true, I'd feel mean. But none of us are Stephen King. :D
[info]slweippert wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 12:46 am (UTC)
You are of tougher stuff than I to take that with such grace. I could see myself ripping this rude person a new one, which would be a terrible thing to do.
That said, he needs to mature a little. Because somebody says they don't like you're writing, doesn't mean they don't like *you*.
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:31 pm (UTC)
It took me a few minutes to calm down before writing replies. Sometimes being professional is HARD. :)
[info]asakiyume wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 01:04 am (UTC)
What a strange character: he gets an agent to offer to look at his MS, and instead of being happy, he wastes time badgering you. I guess it's a (strange sort of) tribute to Jenny's reputation as an agent that even with a bird in the hand, he decides to go holler at the bush a bit.

I agree with the people who said not to feed the trolls. I don't think you can ever gain anything but frustration from engaging with someone who's being rude and stupid. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I think you'd be perfectly within your rights to disregard an e-mail like that. I don't think you're ever going to get through to someone like that, and you just give them the satisfaction of knowing they've gotten a rise out of you. It's not as good as getting a request for pages, but to a troll, it's the next best thing :-(
[info]secritcrush wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 01:32 am (UTC)
What a strange character: he gets an agent to offer to look at his MS, and instead of being happy, he wastes time badgering you. I guess it's a (strange sort of) tribute to Jenny's reputation as an agent that even with a bird in the hand, he decides to go holler at the bush a bit.

It's interesting how many people seem to do this sort of asshattery considering how many partial requests never pan out - and yet they are perfectly happy to burn bridges.
(no subject) - [info]madwriter - Sep. 27th, 2009 07:34 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]jmeadows - Sep. 27th, 2009 08:31 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]charlierice wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 03:44 am (UTC)
Rudeness is never appropriate. You didn’t care for his work – big deal. If I was an agent and Stephen King was ride, I’d tell him to stuff it.
Sorry, I just came home from dinner and had waaaay too much wine (aka, the perfect amount) and rudeness pisses me off. I for one, appreciate the KIND rejection you’ve given me. It made me want to better myself. It encouraged me. It made me respect you all the more for it.Thank you again.
Send him some aggressive attack bat dragons. That’ll teach ‘em,.
[info]madwriter wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 07:35 pm (UTC)
>>I for one, appreciate the KIND rejection you’ve given me.<<

I second this with my own kind rejection. My only regret was that I didn't rewrite the query the way Jodi suggested before sending it to her. :)
(no subject) - [info]jmeadows - Sep. 27th, 2009 08:32 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]pjschnyder wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 03:45 am (UTC)
I'm very surprised that the person didn't seem worried about burning bridges at all. It's a small world out there and that kind of business correspondence wouldn't get far in any industry.

I'm glad you shared, both for education and also hopefully so that you got to vent a little. ;)

Thanks!
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:33 pm (UTC)
Yes, the industry is so small and close. I can't imagine why anyone would want to burn bridges. But...whatever. Weeds out the obnoxious ones, anyway.
[info]adamheine wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 06:59 am (UTC)
You consistently astound me, Jodi, with how much time you give to authors -- both the good and the bad. If I were an agent, I imagine I'd be fairly free with the 'Block Address' button.
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:34 pm (UTC)
If I was an agent, I wouldn't have bothered. But it's hard for me to let writers dig themselves into holes. I gave him a chance to apologize. He didn't. Now he's blocked. :)
[info]frigg wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 09:18 am (UTC)
*snort*
I hope he gets over himself one day. :)
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:35 pm (UTC)
I suspect he won't, but maybe!
[info]jl_johnson wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 01:32 pm (UTC)
You know, that was just as bad as the $&^$%# who boasted on a writing forum that he told an editor off because the editor asked him why he was 'telling instead of showing.'

It's just plain rude, and the sad thing is, this guy is probably getting support from his writer friends, which just encourages him on.

[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:36 pm (UTC)
Wooooow.

And yeah, I bet their writer friends are heckling those mean editors and agents right now.
[info]bogwitch64 wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 01:41 pm (UTC)
You know, yours is the second post I've read like this in the last couple of days. Jennifer Jackson wrote a similar sort of thing in her blog on Friday. What astounds me is that BOTH of you actually answere rejection-inspiried emails. I'd have thought pressing the delete key would have been all the required effort needed.

I am impressed. I really am. I'd not have given this person the satisfaction of knowing his email even got read. If a writer emailed me back asking politely for a point that turned me off, I would at least respond that I don't have the time for feedback and give a kind word. I'd probably try to give that person the asked-for point. But you went out of your way to give advice (good advice) to someone who was egotistical and rude. Honestly...you've more patience than I'd have!
And this is the good thing about reading 'industry' blogs. I learn something new about the writing/publishing world daily.
[info]jmeadows wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2009 08:36 pm (UTC)
I saw Jenn's! Must have been something in the water this week.

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 65 words — Leave a word )

(W)ords and (W)ardances

In which I go on and on about writing and ferrets. And my cat. And yarn. And whatever else I happen to think of.



click tracking

Latest Month

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lizzy Enger