Agent Rejections, positive?

Since we don't have a reliable way to determine the good from the bad, we rely on human judgement which is
widely varied. Humans are flawed and drawn to things they like, so naturally they would show preference
in that direction.

 

I think I have covered my being swayed to agree with you. It also explains why
agents are like freaking daises all over the place. Because you have to find if possible
the one that finds your work favorable.

 

This statement:

and this statement:

are wildly different. The first is not an exaggeration of the second; it's totally different from the second, and in fact to a very large degree it contradicts it.

 

The only objective measure of how 'good' writing is is SPAG. Around 5-20% of the manuscripts agents receive are competent in technical terms (according to self-reports) Let's say 10% because I'm crap at maths and will find it harder to screw up calculations involving 10. Reputable agents receive around 50 queries a day, average. This includes weekends. That's 35 manuscripts a week that are "good". 1,820 a year. The average number of clients an agent can handle is around 30. Once she's got as many clients as she feels she can handle without neglecting any, she'll only take on new ones if one of her clients leaves.

1,820 good manuscripts a year, and perhaps two opportunities a year to take on a new client.

In light of those numbers, of course it doesn't come down to how "good" your writing is. That isn't a sign that the publishing industry is broken - it couldn't possibly work with each agent trying to sell 1,820 manuscripts a year.

So... I'm not sure what the gripe is.

 

It's a hard field to break into, for sure. Maybe there's a better system (although I don't think it's the current version of self-publishing).

But accepting that is a long way from villainizing agents/editors/publishers/others who work in the field. They're no more selfish or evil or ignorant than all the writers who are creating the huge supply of manuscripts for them to pick from. It's just the way things are - a lot of people want to be writers, and there just aren't that many readers out there waiting to buy all their books.

 

From what I've seen from publishers on Twitter (I don't follow any agents since I don't work with them), there are a lot submissions that get weeded out up front by writers not following the submission guidelines. If you can't follow their guidelines, your manuscript isn't going to be read. Or if your submission email is rambling or contains excessive SPaG errors, they're going to assume your manuscript also has them and it's not getting read.

My favorite example was when someone submitting to my publisher used a competitor's business name in the body of their email. There's nothing wrong with copy and pasting, but good God you should proofread before hitting the "send" button.

 

This is one of the truest statements I've ever read.

 

The first states that you could write an amazing story with proper spag and so on,
but if the agent doesn't like the story then it is gone.

The second is just a simple fact that applies to every human on the planet.
But since I am one who understands that humans are imperfect it makes
sense.

No where do these two statements need to be compared against each other
considering they are making two different points

Unless you are the creator of the logic of the universe (which could be the case),
that would mean that no matter what I say it will be wrong, because you are
the one in control. I can't prove it otherwise, and neither can you. So for the sake
of argument, you cannot be wrong because you create the logic of the universe.
Well done you have found godhood.

(That and I kinda began to start agreeing with you all mighty Logic Lord of the known Universe.
or is that a direct violation of how this power works, I am not sure.)

I think that would be a no brainer, but I guess that is bound to happen.
Never had that happen personally though. And yes the minuscule amount
of submissions I had done in the past were to the best of my ability to the
guidelines that were to be followed as they were outlined. Think I might
have been a bit more ambitious about it when in reality it still wasn't ready.

And now to the rest of the Universe (God of Logic permitting).
I have learned much today, and I agree with what has been
said. So after that bit of knowledge, I am off to...IDK what.
Continue writing and pretending like I have a snowballs chance in
hell of ever getting read. But I did learn something today
thanks to you all, I now have a better understanding.

Probably why I have that Dunce thing in my sig.

 

No, it says that the agent doesn't CARE if the story is any good. You said

"It doesn't matter how great your writing is, they really could give a shit less."

That is quite different from saying that the agent uses their own personal taste in deciding what is good. In fact, it pretty much contradicts the idea that the agent uses their own personal taste in deciding what is good, because if they don't care what is good, then...they don't care.

Perhaps all of your talking about imperfect humans could help to guide you in the possibility that your statement, quoted above, was an error on your part?

 

Lord of all Logic in the Known Universe,

Follow this if you will.
I send you (the agent) a story that is well written and error free. But you don't happen to like
the story because it is not to your tastes. Ergo you would not want to make that story something
you would want to publish. You made a decision based on personal preference, even though you
admit that it is well written and error free. It just didn't quite suit your tastes. So what is the
next step, considering all the applicable information? Would you throw it out, because the only
thing wrong with it is that it didn't fit your personal preference? Or do you give it a chance in spite
of your personal preference? You know the right answer, so which is it?

 

Do you really not see the difference between "agents don't give a shit about quality" and "agents pick work that is both good and something they want to work with"?

 

Obviously you throw it out. There's a hell of a lot more to writing than just that it's well-written (whatever that means) and error-free.

And as the writer, you go on to query another agent and another until you run out of agents or find one whose personal tastes DO match your work.

As a writer, why on Earth would you want your work represented by someone who doesn't actually care for it? Do you really think they'd do a good job of representing it to editors?


ETA: Also, and much more importantly!!! I just used the singular "they"! And I'm not going to correct it. I'm hip, I'm happenin', I'm changing with the times (and/or reverting to the old times, or whatever). I can do this. I, Bayview, am a singular "they" user, and I am not ashamed!

(Well, I kind of am ashamed, but... I'm fighting past it! Hopefully...)

 

You continue to fail to comprehend the difference between:

"X doesn't care about quality!"
and
"X uses his/her own taste to judge quality!"

Not the same. Not at all.

Also, you seem to assume that "error free" is a high measure of quality. Manuscripts that aren't completely or almost completely error free aren't even going to be in the running. We're talking about choosing from among the huge population of well-written, error-free manuscripts.

 

Lord of all Logic in the known Universe

Just because it is represented as good,
does not automatically make it so.

And to the second, is why I know I will never have a chance in hell of ever
submitting anything. Because the demand in perfection is far too unrealistic.
That is probably why there is a heavy reliance on editors before it is ever submitted
in the first place. Even though they themselves have them, it gets a little redundant.

So imperfection is the fatal flaw, interesting. That would most certainty explain
a few reasons, why it is so damned hard, and not an option for persons like me.
I am not perfect, and nor can I afford an editor to make my work perfect.

On top of the fact that I have long since agreed with you already, you have found
a way to beat me further by telling me that all I have is a dream that will never
be actualized due to circumstance.

Thanks for once again educating me.
Congrats you have done two things, gotten me to agree with you, and feel more like
shit.

Well done.
Somebody is looking to get promoted...

 

And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue under discussion. Nothing.

You are clearly determined not to read, or at least not to comprehend, any part of my posts or, as far as I can tell, any part of most anyone's posts. I'm not sure if you are deliberately trolling--in accordance with your name--or not.

But deliberate or not, your determined immunity to understanding is no longer engaging.

 

I have already agreed with you, so what does it matter. That was in the past, and this is the present

 

I have never submitted to an agent, but having a sales and business background, I can safely say that you should always treat them kindly and with respect. Remember: an agent is not your personal promoter. Their job is to make money for themselves and for their company. You are just another writer among hundreds of thousands of other writers. It pays to have humility.... you need them more than they need you... for now.