I'm not confused about what I wrote. I'm trying to piece together the point you are trying to make. Whatever you are trying to say isn't working so much.
I find it entirely hypocritical that you use "up to snuff" as a valid criteria for acceptability, but besmirch "work".
I find it laughable that a (first gate) criteria you are unaware of -- or failed to mention -- that editors use to determine ongoing interest in a MS (dialog that "works") is brought to your attention and you dismiss it out of hand.
I offered the information as that - information. I will probably be able to guess your ongoing dismissive know-it-all attitude towards any further contributions in this matter.
Ah. I'm not sure why that required three one line posts*. "Up to snuff" is my phrase to describe the criteria an agent uses to evaluate a work. Considering the great body of input that encompasses, blanket colloquialism was used. "Work" on the other hand is the term chosen by an agent in order to describe his or her rubric for evaluation a manuscript. While I hope that the entire chapter was more elucidating than that single quote, it does point to a endemic and maddening inability on the part of agents and critics everywhere to explain their feelings and actions regarding specific writing principles. That it is a criteria that one agent uses? No I did not know that, you're right. I assumed that dialogue was a criteria of some kind, but didn't see it as relevant to this conversation. There are a ton of different ways in which an individual agent decides what they will accept or won't. I imagine I know less than half of these things, and that a great number of them vary from agent to agent. *"Oh! Wait...and another thing!"
Are you hard of reading? Several is 3 or more. Not one. Just. You know. FYI. More dismissive lack of reading comprehension on your part. Because you wrote: Implying the first thing they (most agents!!) do is read the first line. My example clearly states You are now writing: which flies in the face of implying the first thing they do is read the first page. I have shown an entirely different method.
You can't know what the great body of input that encompasses is, as it will be entirely subjective from "agent" to "agent". In either case, "up to snuff" and "works" are essentially identical: they satisfy the criteria of the person reading the MS.
This is true, I guess. I find it hard to believe that these agents look at the dialogue without looking at the first page. But I guess "several" do. Not something I've experience talking to one, but good for you! Why don't you start a new thread and tell @Sarah's scribbles all the great stuff you've learned. If I were her I'd have checked out around the time you revived a dead thread with a cross post. To be honest I'm not entirely sure why I'm here. Except one was used by me, who wasn't writing a publishing help book. I don't know what the criteria every agent uses, I explained that. I use the term to encompass the sum totality of what an individual agent might consider important without writing the words "the sum totality of what an individual agent might consider important." I've explained my problem with "works", I'm not sure why you think these two things are somehow related. Edited to add: At some point in your tenure on this site this button will get unlocked for you, if it hasn't already. I'm not sure at what level that happens, so I'm sorry if this is useless to you. In any case it allows you to go back and add stuff that you'd forgotten in your post. Kind of like I'm doing now. Mods can see all the edits you make, and a little tag will show up on the post as well indicating you've have changes. It's also good manners to mention that you've edited your post, just to let everyone know.
Correct. Clearly you think what you write has far more gravitas than practicing editors recounting the words of other practicing editors. I'm happy to agree to disagree. Except the site uses Ajax. So once you've submitted a post, if you are expecting someone to respond to that post, going back and editing it to add new content is unwise IMO. I have seen it a few times in my short stay here: go back and edit it and the person responding is going to miss your edit as they have already acquired your original post into their response text area. Add 3-4 respondents into the conversation and not only has the original post to which you are responding changed, but also disappeared off the page due to the additional respondents' posts. If I choose to post additional posts one after the other, it is to avoid this anomaly. The additional posts will appear different to the post to which you are/were responding and thus will be more easily recogniseable as new content. I will continue to do this, and nothing you write will prevent it. If I have the need to edit a post -- as I have often done -- I will continue to do so, but not to add new content. That's not the way I wish to use the forum. For future reference, I have written a complete forum site from scratch, and been programming on the Internet for approximately 20 years. There is no need to edjumacate me on how forums work technically. Your welcome.
