So true. But I can be my own worst editor. And many writers cannot afford an editing service to help them weed out problems before submitting to a publisher. We are talking about $1000 bucks for 50,000 words. Depending on how much crap you feed them it could cost far more. Publishers do take on writers who struggle with the written word. But the writer was still able to convey an interesting idea well enough to capture the attention of the editor. Moving an idea forward, in my opinion, is far greater than using correct grammar. But that is no reason to be lazy.
Actually, more often than not, quite the opposite is true. Agents' editors look for reasons to pass that manuscript on to the next tier. Remember, in any agency, their client list is their paycheck. And 15/20% of zero is still zero. Believe it or not, agents and editors really DO want to find your submission suitable for representation. But you have enough hurdles to tackle to get to that point, not the least of which is the overwhelming number of other writers trying to get their literary foot in the door at the same time! There is no logic in making that journey to publication any harder on yourself than it needs to be. And, to borrow your soccer analogy, there are 60 - 80 -100 hopeful young soccer players in a field of tryouts. Let's say you start with 60 hopefuls. From the start, it is obvious that at least two-thirds of them are completely two-left-feet hopeless. You are now left with 20 vying for one position. Of those, half are 'okay' but do not have the energy, tactical awareness, or potential to really play pro level. That drops your field of potential players to ten. Now, of those ten, half a dozen seem to truly have potential to be honed and trained to pro level. And you have four that you can see from the start are ready to hit the field and run with the big boys. Of those four, you have two that stand head and shoulders above the rest. They understand the intricacies of the game. They seem to have an innate awareness of the tactical and physical game. They get out there on the field and they look like they were born to play. You want them both but you can only pick one of them. Now, Are you going to want to work those original 60 in hopes of turning them all into pros? Of course not. Will you put the last ten on your "To-Do" list and try to figure out which ones can be made into quality players? No. Will you even weigh your options based on the final four? You may put those on your "reserve" list and make a note to look at them sometime in the future but, it's going to be hard enough to choose between the two with real, ready talent. That, essentially, is the dilemma facing the average literary agent. The average agent may see hundreds of submissions in a week's time. a few may even face a thousand or more nearly every week. Can you imagine a collective of five or six being confronted with 52,000 submissions every year?!?!? The mass majority of writers who submit are "good". A select number are "better". Some are "exceptional". And a tiny few are in the "best" category. Although they may venture into the slush from time to time, most agencies do not have available staff ready to wade through that 51,994 just to find the half a dozen they feel they can confidently represent and promote. They read the synopsis/query letter. If the writing is clear, coherent, and presents a cogent and seemingly entertaining and marketable story, they will read the first few pages. If that, too, is well-presented, they may ask for a full. If you are lucky enough to get a request for a full, you are still competing against possibly a few dozen other lucky hopefuls. Some of those may have better editing but not as entertaining a story. Others may have a better story but the writing shows it will take a great deal more work than yours. Still a few others may be as good as yours both in writing and execution. Now you are up against maybe half a dozen other stories similar to yours and of equal quality. The deciding factor may well pivot on how much work the reader/editor/agent feels it will take to make it ready to present to his or her contacts with a publishing house. Now, do you really want the chance at a sale to hinge on whether or not you did your 'homework' better than the 'other guy'?
well, that's 'the awful truth' bottom line... with piles of queries to slog through every day, any reason the writer provides the reader for tossing it will be much appreciated and instantly acted upon...
Ho boy. I know I'm going to be shot down in flames, here, but I'm really beginning to wonder where this is all leading. Seems simple to me. Why not just ask each author to submit - say - the first 15 pages of any manuscript. Send SAE if you want it back. Query letter should contain only personal information, who you are, where you live and how you can be contacted. Publisher/agent reads first 6 words or first 15 pages, and decides if the writing is crap or not. If it is crap ...ootski. If not, they can ask the author to submit more, or a short synopsis, or whatever they'd like to get from that author next, and move on from there. All this focus on writing snappy query letters, short synopses, long synopses, bla-de-bla? Why? So the author has sent a good query letter? (Maybe written by somebody else on their behalf?) That does not indicate if the book itself will be any good. It's just another hoop that both the author and agent/publisher have to jump through before the real writing gets seen. Seems a huge waste of time to me, for authors, agents and publishers all. Agents and publishers - just take a look at what the author has written. If it grabs you, fine. If it doesn't, dump it. And all this research an author is supposed to do, into what specific agents/publishers do, and whether or not your book is just like the last one they handled? Okay, so you're not going to send a 3-volume Sci-Fi trilogy to Mills and Boon, but smart publishers and agents will be looking for an author who does NOT write just like somebody else. They'll be looking for the next breakthrough author, the one who writes like nobody else. I know publishers are busy, but it's their job. Okay, I'm wearing my protective suit. Flame away...!
Agents/publishers do ask for a partial manuscript (first 3 chapters or so) before asking for the full manuscript. But I wouldn't be surprised if an editor/agent rejects the manuscript after reading only a page if he/she comes across a lot of errors.
"...why should he oversee a few typos in a good story for a perfectly grammatical piece of crap?" This is the part that keeps getting me. So let me draw up a different scenario for you (keep in mind, this is, quite obviously, not the "true" numbers). A publishing company has $200 dollars, and it takes $100 dollars to publish a book. Three manuscripts are put before them, and all of them are interesting, thought-provoking stories with interesting characters that makes the editor go "Wow, I want to see the rest of this manuscript!" However, the editor only has enough money for TWO books, not three. So where do you look other than at the story and plot? That's right, the writers capabilities. The first novel is almost perfect in its writing; there's little wrong with grammar. The second has a few obvious errors, but they do, in fact, ahve proofreaders that can fix those mistakes. The final author's grammar, however, is exceptionally flawed. It would take their editors hours to find and correct all of the mistakes. So which two does the editor decide to publish? If you're honestly going to tell me you'd take 2 & 3 rather than 3 & 2, you're being delusional. We aren't talking about skipping over good stories with bad grammar for bad stories with good grammar. We're talking about skipping over good stories with bad grammar for other good stories with equally good grammar, or at least better grammar. You're training your footballers to try to make it to the big leagues. Authors trying to get published are already IN the big leagues.
Oh, now, jannert, that would make sense! Oh! Wait a minute! That's basically the process with most agents. "Send me a query letter and/or synopsis and the first five pages/50 pages/chapter of your manuscript. If sending snail mail please include SASE." (most agents now prefer e-mail submissions (included in the body of the message) btw.) Some, of course, do still request only a QL & Synopsis then, if that piques their interest, they will ask for a partial of anywhere from a few pages to 1 - 3 chaps. Then, if the author is lucky, the agent will like the partial enough to ask for a full. Sorry. Didn't mean to sound snarky about something you probably already knew anyway. Although, as to the synopsis, the point of requesting a synopsis included in the initial submission pkg is to try to determine whether or not the story itself has enough substance to it to warrant a further read. In this, the synopsis is a brief breakdown of the story and how it plays out. It is not intended to be a blow by blow, chapter by chapter recounting of the story but, rather, showing that the author has a logical, chain-of-events, cause and effect storyline. The agent wants to know that the story makes sense and that there is a reasonable beginning and reasonable and satisfying conclusion. That is one of the first steps in deciding whether the agent might want to take a closer look at what this or that writer has to offer. They will then read pages - the aforementioned five-50/chapter of the manuscript. If that proves to 'have legs', the agent will then ask for a full but, if those first pages prove to be difficult to read due either to poor construction, poor writing, or poor concept (not in keeping with the synopsis/query), the hapless would-be author receives a returned ms or "Not right for us" postcard or e-mail. Trust me, given the congestion of the backside of the market, those on the inside have done everything possible to streamline the process.
If I would have a company with printers and staff that can't do what writer can, I would focus just on what I'm really searching for, not what I already have. From your point of view they must be all kind of stupid. I suppose I have to save more of my money, to get it there
jannert... with no summary of the plot provided, why would anyone bother reading the sample pages?... it's not just the writer they take on, based on his/her writing skills, it's the book!... so if they have no clue to what it's about, they've no basis upon which to make a decision... you did mean '1 & 2' for the latter, didn't you, thorne? tws... that's not at all 'basically the process with most agents'... i've never come across a single agent who didn't require a summary of the ms to be included in the query letter... it would make no sense, for the reason given above, not to... the 'query letter' you refer to is expected to contain a summary, though it's true that few [if any] require a full synopsis be sent with the query...
Perhaps it's just a question of symantics but, yeah, though not always a full, complete synopsis, the QL should, indeed, provide a general, rough overview of the story. This should be enough to let the agent see where the story came from and where it goes. Of course all of this needs to be accomplished in about a page so there is not a lot of 'story' to be included considering part of that page must include other things like your own brief bio. Right? So now your QL is reduced to two-thirds to three-fourths of a page. Also in that QL you need to deliver a 'teaser' or slug line of sorts to whet the agent's whistle, so to speak, for the rest of the query. "He can't remember where he came from and he isn't sure where he's going but he knows someone is going to die and it's not going to be him."Here's the gist of the story in one line. Imagine it as a movie pitch-line or on the back of a dust jacket inviting people to "come on in, see what it's all about". (Okay, it's a bad example but I just came up with it in two seconds or less!) This is your opener, the first glimpse at the story. Now, you've got ... What? Four or five short, single-spaced paragraphs to make your pitch to the agent and/or their reader? One of those is already taken by your bio and personal info. Now you've got three, maybe four left. So you've got maybe 200 - 250 words to lay out your entire story. And, yes, a full synopsis is generally a lot more detailed than the brief summary included in a Query Letter. And, yes, any agent is going to want to see that brief summary in any Query Letter. After all, as you already pointed out, how will s/he know what you are offering unless you TELL him/her? That, of course, means you must be able to relate the basic story in three hundred words or less! And on that I fully concur with your assessment. While a full synopsis may not be a necessity in your "opening volley" query letter, an abbreviated form of that synopsis most certainly is. And, yes, I was being flippant in my response leaving my comments open to be easily misinterpreted or mis-read. For that, I apologize. What I said still stands, however. Jannert's concept of presenting the story at the outset along with author bio is pretty much the way most agents work, albeit in slightly different presentation than what jannert suggested, which is why I re-presented the concept - not only show that this was, indeed, the seed of how the winnowing process is done, but to clarify to some extent as well. (But, what am I telling you that for, mamma? You already knew it! Guess I'm still expanding on jannert's comments. Sorry.)
no need to be sorry, 'smitty'... i can agree with most of what you say here, but do have to take exception to one aspect of your clarification... the query letter summary should ideally be a single paragaph, two medium-sized ones only if the plot is too complex to cover in one... not 'three, maybe four'...
Here is an example of bad writing combined with no editing. The first paragraph indicates this work will require a LOT of fixing to be a truly readable article. It was published anyway. I can't imagine why It makes me sad.
jet... that isn't really 'being published' in the professional sense, as sites like that one generally don't do any editing and simply post whatever anyone sends them... for free... it's more of an open blog than anything else... and it makes me sad, too! love and hugs, maia
Let's say you workshop your novel and get all kinds of feedback on how to make it better. Would you guys think of that feedback as editorial suggestions? What if you let someone read your manuscript and they commented on how some of the dialog was confusing? Would you edit your own work to tighten things up? What if you wrote and edited your work without anyone else ever seeing it? Would it stand as good a chance for a publisher picking it up than if you had an editor look it over one last time?
No one's saying it's not a good idea to get another point of view on your writing. I have a writing friend that I trust dearly to give me advice on my writing and be honest about it. And yes, I will often-times edit my work based on her suggestions if she says I should change or fix something. You should never completely disreguard any reviews that you get, no matter who they're from. It doesn't mean you have to change or fix the work accordingly, but you should take them all into consideration. So, no, I don't think you stand as good a chance if you're the only one that's viewed your work.
So your friend sort of acts as an editor and you take her suggestions seriously, then adjust your work accordingly if need be. Sounds pretty good to me. Do you think getting feedback from friends or at workshops can replace an editor?
Not entirely, obviously. My friends aren't professionals, and I can't expect them to catch all of my mistakes. Typically, my friends also don't work with me as far as my plot. So if things are choppy or should be changed around, they won't normally point that out to me. That's more something they feel would be an intrusion on my writing style. They'll give me a general opinion. It has to be taken into consideration that a non-professional may leave room for your feelings. They don't want to rip you down. And editor, on the other hand, isn't in the business to spare feelings. They're in the business to sell books and make money, and to do that, they're willing to tell you how it is. So you can expect a much harsher, but blatantly honest opinion from an editor, while your friends may sugar-coat slightly. As I said: it's a very good idea to get a friend's opinion. At any rate, it certainly won't hurt your chances. And, of course, you should never feel pressured to take someone's advice simply by virtue of their giving it. But I do think it's worth getting a second opinion on something before you send it in for a publisher to look at.
I completely agree with you. I look at a novel as a product and any way I can get a better product I'll at least consider it. It has been suggested to me that using an editor is a cop out and that one should learn to be their own editor. I find that confusing.
Well, you should learn to be your own editor. Before you send a piece to a friend, you should always go over it yourself and try to fix your own mistakes. Never rely on someone else to do that for you; at least, not completely. Part of the skill of writing is being able to fix the mistakes that you make.
One should definitely learn to edit their own work. The less editing of any sort the publisher has to consider, the more likely they'll take you on.
That makes sense. I can't see how anyone could write without having some grasp of language and the ability to reflect on the clarity of what they have written. But to me, that is a far cry from having an unbiased editor going over things, pointing out problems for me to work on. I sure can't find all of my mistakes and I dare say I can't remember the last time I read a book without a mistake in it.
That's understandable. Do you ever pay for an editor to comb through your final manuscript before submission?
Haven't gotten to that step yet, but no way I'd pay for an editor. I have a couple of trusted betas, plus my own skills, such as they are. But who's to say an editor I hire will be any good, or will see the ms the same way an agent or publisher would? No, I'd rather do the best I can, and then work with the people who actually bought the thing.
Editor versus proofreader I think there is a difference between an 'editor' and a 'proofreader.' An editor will look for how your story flows, maybe make suggestions for better character development, etc. All writers can benefit from a good editor, with knowledge of the writing craft, and an eye for what makes a story work. However, for correcting 'mistakes' (grammar, spelling, punctuation) you need a proofreader. If your proofreader covers your manuscript in red ink, you probably need to sharpen up your basic English before moving on. If you intend to be a serious writer (in English), and hope to be published, you'll need your English skills to be sharp and accurate. If they're not ...well... It's like planning to become a professional footballer, but you can't kick a football yet. It's not going to happen, unless you learn.
