Yeah, I'm afraid I'm forced to reluctantly agree with Tenderiser. ( ) What's the principle called? Where people who aren't much good at things overestimate their skill and people who are good at things underestimate their skill? That's what I see with writers, most of the time. I also see writers being really, really eager to knock each other down, at least in some venues. I think it's the old "deal with my own insecurities by trying to make someone else insecure" trick, and it can get pretty ugly. We slam each other's genres, methods of publication, writing practices, and anything else we can think of. We LOVE to criticize the Twilight woman and the 50 Shades woman - not just saying the books weren't to our taste, but actually getting really, really vicious about them. Some of the stuff I've read about the authors themselves, not the books, and based on absolutely no knowledge, has been really cruel. There are little pockets of writers who are supportive of each other, but outside of those pockets I can only explain the behaviour of many writers as being based on insecurity. If they honestly feel their writing is so wonderful, why do they have to spend so much time slamming other people's work?
I don't, though. Whenever I start to feel confident I read something else (like Catrin did) or I get a belated rejection from an agent or I remember some bad beta reader feedback or whatever and I feel like a wannabe loser fraud author. It's always both a surprise and a relief when someone comments positively on my writing. You really can't speak for me. Personally I think of it as the Freddy Kruger effect but I think it's Donning Kreuger or something.
Freddy Kreuger is actually a more fun name! He's a really GOOD serial killer, but he doubts himself. Are his finger-blades as sharp as they could be? Did he really get the maximum scream from his last victim? Jason probably could have done it better...
You're talking about the Dunning Kruger effect. And there's some truth to that. And I agree that we all have a seam of self-doubt too. What I'm really talking about is that people who write for any extended period have just enough (at least until they get published and make money) unwarranted belief in themselves and their abilities to not just put it down. There aren't people out there who literally cannot help themselves but write. Good stories don't just burst forth. They take a lot of work and we put the work in because we think we're creating something good, or at least have the faith to believe it will be eventually. And yes, we do certainly have self doubt too. It physically hurts me to get rejection letters. And yet I keep putting myself through it because... I believe my work is good and given a chance other people will see that. I don't believe that I'm some world changing talent but equally I think I'm good enough to keep on headbutting the wall even when a hundred headbutts has left me bleeding and concussed with no progress made. I don't do it because I'm a masochist. I do it because I think my work is good enough to warrant the effort.
Yeah, there has to be some reward to it all, sure. I think where I start objecting to your ideas is when the writers don't just think they're producing something worthwhile, but when they start comparing themselves to others and believing that they're the best. I produce a lot of writing. I don't think I'm in any way the best. My lack of disdain for the writing of others hasn't in any way affected my productivity.
How can you feel relief if you believed it was bad? I mean, relief comes from discovering that you aren't the only one who believes something. In fact, vindicated is almost synonymous with relieved in this context. Seriously; if you truly feel your work is bad then why do you do it? If you don't feel that, if you think your work is good for any reason then it's just a different way to describe the same thing.
Writers absolutely need perspective too. You can't afford an ego until you really are sitting on top of the world and even then it's a luxury. That's probably why narcissist is the wrong word in this context; that does rather imply the idea of your work is the best and everything else is crap. I mean it more in the less metaphorical sense; a writer needs to be able to love their own work and believe their work is worth loving by others. Not to the extent of drowning in your reflection but it has to be there. Just as in a relationship; you won't be successful as a writer if you don't believe your work could be loved. It's healthy to be self-critical; it's how we improve at things but that doesn't mean you stop loving your work. We all have that love/hate relationship with our work. We want to believe it's as good as we think it is but fear that others won't agree. That belief keeps us going, that fear makes us strive to be better. It's healthy. My point from the start was that that love/hate needs some love too. It's ok to believe your work is good.
I think it's a weird field when reading/comparing yourself to other writers. Your book, you know it by heart; every twist, every joke, and every moment that's supposed to mean something. But you knew all of those things more or less even before you wrote them down. And then you reread it. Over and over again until you thought it was perfect. How hard is it for us to imagine someone appreciating our stories when we ourselves have lived through them a hundred times? I think that's part of the issue. We know every good and bad, we've seen the whole thing through every phase, and we can't ever even pretend to be someone who reads it for the first time. That's why we're always tweaking, wondering if it's any good, changing things to make it sound fresh; it's more for us than anyone else.
I think there's also the element of what @ChickenFreak mentioned on the first page - it's not just that we know our own book really well, it's also that we've internalized a lot of "rules" about writing, trained ourselves to be really critical of writing in order to improve our own, etc. So we aren't really reading as readers anymore, most of the time. We're reading as writers, and that's a whole different deal.
Umm. That's interesting. Because I was just in correspondence with Barbara Poelle, who is an agent who writes a column in Writers's Digest about how to get an agent. She said something about 'your book should be unique and not like anybody else's,' or something along those lines in the latest issue of WD that led me to believe perhaps she no longer wanted comparable novels listed in the query. (Hooray!) So I wrote to ask her to clarify her meaning. This is the relevant portion of her reply that I received a couple of days ago: "In the end, yes, it is important to provide comparable titles within your genre to show that you understand the direction in which sales accounts should push your novel and that it is indeed a viable direction. That being said, the content of your novel should have your original take on it, not a ghosting of what is already out there. Keep the query as your book's resume, showing capabilities, keep the book as an individual, so that it may rise up that corporate ladder quicker." .............. She said it, not me. And not only is she an agent, but she's writing for a major writers' magazine advising people on how to get an agent. As for your second point, is it not normal practice to research agents, then contact them personally with a spiel like: "I see you represent Author Whoever's book Whatever the Title, and I have written a novel in a similar vein which I think will interest you..." ?
That's certainly true. In my civilian life I work in video production and I spent a long time at college and uni shooting, editing and critiquing video. It's hard for me to just sit and enjoy mediocre video of any sort; I have to actively make myself get into it to stop noticing how shots are composed from a technical standpoint and pay attention to the story. However I don't think there's quite so much divide between reading as a writer and as a consumer. Yes, it's harder as the creator of a work to get the perspective you need but I think that's more something that you learn.
I thought you'd decided not to take the agent route? Have I got you mixed up with someone else? But anyway, I think this fits into my "maybe some agents like it" exception, doesn't it? There are agents who want all kinds of things in their queries. If this agent want comparables and you want to work with this agent, then I think you should try to include comparables. But I never mentioned comparables when I queried, @Tenderiser apparently didn't either - and it wasn't an issue for either of us. ETA: And I just checked the website for that agent's agency, and there's no mention of comparables in their "perfect query letter" list (http://www.irenegoodman.com/perfect-query-letter.php) - so it seems like it's not even universal at that agency, let alone across agencies... ETA2: They do say "If it doesn't seem to fit into any genre, just say you wrote a literary novel (but you still need a description and a hook)." which doesn't make it sound like they're looking for rigid classifications if none apply.
I don't want to speak for Bay exactly but I think the issue they took wasn't giving an idea of the genre and style, it was the idea that every single pitch you ever make is required by law to include a direct comparison to work they already handle and that (in short) if you can't find someone similar on their books you can't pitch to them. You should be taking the time to see who the agents you pitch to are and if there's someone there you genuinely know is similar to your work then that's something to mention, on the rationale of 'you can sell this guys work so you can sell mine' but a tortured comparison to a forgetable book they represented five years ago? Probably not. The goal is to stand out, not to just do these specific things.
@jannert Ooh, insider info I wasn't sure how or who to compare myself into. So, I dug into twitter, blogs, interviews of each agent I am interested in and found out what they want. In the query, I mention how I found what they want and how my work has such elements.
No, I wasn't searching for an agent. I was merely reading her column in WD and came across something that made me think agents no longer were looking for comparisons. I merely wrote to her for clarification. So what do you say when you approach an agent personally? Surely you have to give a reason why you think they, personally, would be interested in your book? And you are supposed to approach them personally, aren't you? And let them know why you've chosen THEM as somebody to represent you?
I'm not sure what 'provide comparable titles within your genre' could possibly mean, if not to find similar books to what they already sell. I'm not saying every agent adheres to this policy, but it is certainly what I've been led to believe ...which is why I questioned what she meant in her original column. @A.M.P. seems to be labouring under the same delusion as me. How could we have missed something so obvious as the fact that agents don't expect comparisons in a query letter?
"Approach them personally" through a query letter? That's all I did. And the advice I followed was that if there was a good reason why I'd chosen them, I'd share that, but if there wasn't, I just glossed over it. So for a few I said, like, "I read your interview at X about wanting Y and think my project may be of interest" but for most of them I didn't personalize much. I mean, I used the agents' NAMES, but not much beyond that. Again from that perfect query letter post - "Do customize your query for each recipient. But please avoid tailoring it too obviously because then it sounds like pandering." - I customized by getting their names right and by including the right number of pages or the right length synopsis or whatever. But if there was no special hook for the query, I didn't say anything. I got several offers, but as I recall the agent I eventually signed with didn't have anything too personal in her query - I just wanted to work with her because she's at an agency that has a lot of good sales and she works in all of my genres. I don't think I mentioned those reasons in the query.
Honestly, the most important thing I've learned from querying AND from having friends/acquaintances go through the process is that there's no such thing as a perfect query letter, any more than there's such a thing as a perfect book. Different agents, different moods, different market up- or down-swings, different experience with different sub-genres, etc... way too many variables to try to control for all of them. I think it's important to create a serviceable query letter, but I think it's madness-inducing to try to create a perfect one. There's no such thing.
Well, that sounds like a sane approach. A much saner one than having to scratch around and compare yourself to another author. But 'provide comparable titles within your genre', at least from this agent, is certainly a requirement I've come to expect. I've spent ages scrabbling around wondering what in heck I'd compare my book to, and coming up blank. It's not even a 'genre.' However, it's nice to know this comparing requirement isn't universal.
I think it's useful to think of agents as individuals (obviously) but also to think of yourself as a potential partner, not someone soliciting charity. I wouldn't want to work with someone who made demands I found unreasonable, so I wouldn't send a query to an agent who made demands I found unreasonable. Why set myself up for aggravation? And to tie it back around... no, I guess still not to the original topic, but at least to a different de-rail - maybe this is the kind of confidence @LostThePlot is getting at. Writers have to believe that agents will want to work with them in order to approach the agent relationship with the right attitude. We have to believe that if one company wants our book but has an unreasonable contract the won't negotiate, it's okay to walk away because someone else will want our book as well.
Yeah, I found that a lot of the more twitter active agents (either through just personal stuff or the #MSWL) I found them suddenly rather human. They weren't perfect gods who judged me. They were people, doing a job, trying to make a buck, and who share an interest in stories with me. But yes, I made sure each query not only had their name but also I mentioned that I was submitting to them because of something they said they wanted (One wanted LGBT characters, another likes world building. I made sure they were aware that I not only looked into them but that my proposal had elements they search for)
Somehow, from your tone, I have this feeling that you might deep down think you're just a better writer than everyone else? This is not an accusation - I could be extremely wrong - but from the way you've written your posts, that's just how it sounds to me. Is there any truth to this? My point being - you don't just think you're a good writer (this is healthy to believe in, and necessary if you are to continue as a writer), but you think you're better, far, far better than like 99% of writers out there (this latter one is less healthy - I'd personally say probably unhealthy). Because if, even subconsciously/unconsciously, that is the case, then you're only ever going to see inferior qualities in everything you read. If you think I'm way wrong, then I definitely apologise. It's just when I was younger, I did this very thing and I can honestly say I hated almost everything I read and every movie I watched - there were very, very few exceptions. Do you read to learn, to enjoy the story, or to tear it apart? I don't mean your forefront, conscious decisions - I mean in the subconscious, quiet motives you may not be aware of immediately. To some extent, not being able to switch off the inner critic as you read is perfectly normal for a writer. Also, to some extent, what level of quality were you hoping for amongst free-to-download self-published books, quite honestly? It shouldn't surprise you that their quality is bad. As for why people are gobbling up bad quality - that's because most people don't want quality, they don't know what good writing is, and they frankly don't care. They just want a good story. It's like, I just want to listen to a nice, catchy song and I don't care if it's Britney Spears prancing around or if it's Sarah Brightman singing Ave Maria, as long as I enjoy it - whereas my sister, the more musical one, would end up analysing who's the better singer and their voice quality. If you asked me, I couldn't tell you who was better - I only know whom I enjoyed, and that's all I care about. The same goes for readers. People tend to read for enjoyment and to relax, not to analyse the writing. Or think like McDonald's and KFC - who doesn't know the food there consists of crap and is a heart attack waiting to happen? Yet we still eat it. Why? Because it's tasty - it's enjoyable. Books, same thing. Make your book enjoyable and the reader will forgive a lot. I'm currently reading Dune and I see writing flaws, and there are garbled sentences whose meaning eludes me, yet I'm devouring it to the point of not sleeping because I wanna read. Why? Because it's a darn good story! Is the writing in Dune excellent? Nah. It's pretty average on the whole. But who the hell cares when there're sandworms and cool conspiracies and impending doom on your most beloved character?
It definitely isn't a requirement. And a good thing too frankly. It's hard enough figuring out which genre box you want to tick when you go hunting for agents let alone finding someone else who's genuinely comparable. I've plumped for literary fiction because at least my work has a point to make but frankly that's a crap description. My work is like the grime of Martin Amis, the sarcasm of Will Self, the delight in making the reader squirm from Irving Walsh with the restrained, unadorned prose of William Gibson. Now I think that's a compelling comparison to make; at the very least these are writers who have been extremely successful for writing weird, dark stories. But explaining that in an already crowded pitch is a challenge. I'm always open to the idea that maybe I should actually be telling agents this but it's really hard to know if this actually even sounds attractive to modern agents. I started pitching my first book as 'The Thick Of It meets Trainspotting' but again I have no idea how that sounds to people who aren't me. Suffice to say I've been happy not to be forced to tell agents all that much how I think I compare. For me the only agent I really wanted to approach as a person (he said he was looking for unique, clever stories) would only take submissions in printed form and that's something I'm still trying to figure out how to make work. It's not so much that I'm too cheap to print off a sample one time; it's more the principal of spending some non-zero amount of money (printing 50+ pages in a print shop) to sit in some guys slush pile with no guarantee he's even going to look at it.
It would also make me wonder just how modern and effective the guy would be as an agent. Surely he won't be selling your stuff to an editor via photocopier and post?
A lot of agents who aren't really looking too hard for clients will use the "paper only" thing as a way to discourage people from including them in a shotgun approach to submissions. So if he already has all the clients he really wants, but isn't quite ready to close to submissions entirely, he might say paper only as a way to cut back on his slush pile.
