When the Boston News-Letter, America’s first continuously-published newspaper, was first published in the early 1700s, a new era was born. Print gave people a venue to express their views in a sacrosanct forum. In truth, the inseption of the newspaper gave people permission to behave badly…in print.
Centuries later, we have the internet. And boy do people behave badly. Although there are rules of etiquette for blogging, commenting, and plagerizing internet content, s**t happens and, well, etiquette flies out the window a lot of the time. As a lurker or participator, the internet and all its craziness can bring out the worst in people. A Twitter commenter put it beautifully: It’s like “the car-creash element. Sad, but strangely compelling.”
Trying to stay current with the developing internet and its ever-growing relevance in our lives can be a full-time job. First there was My Space. Then Facebook, LinkedIn, Ning, and other social media forums. Now we have Twitter, and what a slippery slope that is.
Twitter has its place and serves a purpose, but it can also be a speedy trip to bad behavior. Take the latest Twitter Scandal involving the publishing industry. Last week, some editors and agents spent a day Tweeting about the good, the bad, and the ugly in the query world…minus the good. It was tweet after tweet of samples of what the agents deemed horrible queries started by literary agent Colleen Lindsay. While I understand that there was no malintent, its hard to overlook the bad behavior it inspired.
There were mixed feelings about the stream. While some people found a lot of value in Queryfail: “maley43055: @rebeccacoffey: People really say and write these things? I love this and it is helpful of what never to do!†and though it wasn’t meant to mock anyone, it did. You can say you didn’t mean to hurt someone, but that doesn’t change the fact that if you hurt them, you hurt them. Mockery may not have been the intent, but mockery was the result. Many people felt that when you send a query that is declared bad, it opens you up for such criticism and you have no business trying to break into the publishing world.
Maybe, but does that mean you want your words and your failure [as others see it] put up for public ridicule? There were a few breeches of the no identifiers intention, and that’s all it took to take queryfail into the realm of bad taste. That and the beer spewing out of noses and ROFLOL Tweets. No professionalism there and isn’t there some underlying professionalism in how we, as authors, aspiring authors, agents, and editors hope to be treated and want to treat others? What started out as an exercise to instruct quickly deteriorated to a bash-fest.
Queryfail has taken on a life of its own. The comments go on and on. Still.
I don’t know about you, but I like the fact that my agent and editor are professional. That they if they are going to give feedback to aspiring authors [or to me], it’s done in a constructive way. And I am relieved to know that my words are not going to be broadcast for others to ridicule if I happen to write something bad. Sure, people probably did learn from queryfail, but as a teacher I know that constructive criticism is key to meaningful learning. Instilling fear or resorting to humiliation–even the annoymous kind–isn’t a good teaching tool.
So, I’m with Nathan Bransford and his week of positivity. Pay it forward and spread the love instead of the humiliation.
No related posts.
It was kinda funny at first. Now it’s rather annoying. That being said, I have no problem shining a spotlight on folks who are given a specific set of instructions (i.e., submission/query guidelines) and choose to disregard them entirely or in part, thinking they’re so special that an exception will be made just for them.
(Then again, I find the whole agent thing is bass ackward. I mean, who’s paying who in this equation? Representation is a service to be purchased. I think a lot of authors have lost sight of that, not that many agents are doing anything to squelch the perceptions either. Supply & demand, eh?)
I prefer the positive/constructive approach. I hope Mr. Bransford’s initiative is as viral as #queryfail.
“isn’t there some underlying professionalism in how we, as authors, aspiring authors, agents, and editors hope to be treated and want to treat others?”
I read a few pages of it. The main thing I noticed in the queries held up as failures was their LACK of professionalism–on the part of the aspiring author. Complete failure to observe submittal guidelines? That’s neither professional nor courteous; it devalues the agent’s time and expertise. Regardless of the intent, and effect, of #queryfail, I think the blowup about it has been strongly tilted toward being “nice” to the clueless. It’s debatable whether it’s truly nice to let the clueless go on being clueless, especially when a career could rest on their gaining a clue.
#queryfail was humorous at first, then it got vicious. I prefer Mr. Bransford’s approach.
(Then again, I’m of the opinion that the whole agent shopping dynamic is bass ackward. I mean, who’s the customer in the author-agent equation?)
I know a lot of aspiring authors feel they have to query everyone who represents what they write (and then some) and still their chances are practically zero.
I look at it this way – I want an agent and/or editor with whom I can have a long and pleasant business relationship with. So, when I read what an agent and/or editor says anywhere online, I ask myself if I think this person is someone I can have a long and pleasant business relationship with. If the answer is ‘no,’ I don’t query them. Does this diminish my chances of achieving paying publication at all? Probably. But, I don’t care. Life’s too short and I’m already a happy person, thank you very much.
My advice is if Queryfail failed to impress you, forget about it and move on. There are plenty of publishing professionals who didn’t take part.
I thought it was great, only in terms of cheering me up that a lot of the competition was eliminating itself.
I think some of the editor’s ‘editorial’ comments on people’s letters was the mocking part, not simply posting the crazy things they read. I was entertained, but certainly some people might be hurt if they recognized themselves.
On the other hand, it certainly lets a writer know how he/she is coming across to an editor, and that’s probably a good lesson to learn. No one would make that mistake again. And writers need fairly thick skins. Even if you get contracted and published you still need to deal with negative reviews, so perhaps it’s good practice.
Why do I always miss all the drama?
Kimber An, I don’t want a ‘pleasant’ relationship with my agent or editor. I want someone I’ll cuss about because he or she is pushing me so hard. I want someone who will say ‘Kimber, this story bites’ so I don’t waste my readers’ time and money. I want someone who cares enough to be nasty.
But then I’ll be the first to admit I’m a bit strange.
RfP, point taken, but I still think that the editors and agents we hold in such esteem should maintain professionalism and #queryfail did cross that line.
You would hope that people wouldn’t be so clueless, but on the other hand, I didn’t know a thing when I first submitted, and while I never made the mistakes broadcast on #queryfail, I know that I would have been mortified and it would have been a crushing blow had my query been held up for all to ridicule.
I believe there are more constructive ways of enlightening the clueless, that’s all.
“…if Queryfail failed to impress you, forget about it and move on. There are plenty of publishing professionals who didn’t take part.” -Kimber An
Thank God there were many who didn’t participate, and kudos to Nathan Bransford for standing by his own ideals and instituting Positivity Week, and to agents who rethought there participation after the mockery started.
LOL Kimber Chin!! Strange is good.
Kimber C:
That’s another good point. You do want an editor/agent who is going to be honest about your work. Pats on the back don’t get books published.
But you definitely missed some good stuff. A good summery is here:
http://taralazar.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/queryfail/
Even without any mockery, it’s clear what NOT to do, and why some amount of mocking couldn’t be helped.
I did not personally see anything that revealed anyone’s identity, though anyone quoted here would surely recognize themself.
“I think some of the editor’s ‘editorial’ comments on people’s letters was the mocking part, not simply posting the crazy things they read.” -EM Linley
Absolutely correct! But how could it not deteriorate to that, and the fact that it did goes to show the line that many people feel was crossed, when professionalism and constructive criticism stopped and ridicule started. It’s simplistic, but I just think we should treat others as we want to be treated. The Golden Rule is the Golden Rule for a reason!
Misa,
I didn’t actually see anyone that I felt crossed the line, but then again I wasn’t following everyone, just one editor I had subbed to and a few people who commented back and forth with that person.
I see that Colleen has taken down her specific examples, and I honestly feel that some examples are necessary. The idea that someone would talk about their hair in a query letter is worth pointing out as a DON’T.
Everyone’s idea of what sounds “crazy” or too personal is clearly widely varied or you wouldn’t see much of what was posted in the first place.
People do need to see examples and realize where they stand on the scale of creative/unique vs. batshit crazy.
Given how some of those letters sounded, it certainly begs the question of what their manuscript was like…
I agree that samples of what to do and what not to do are necessary. I’d just prefer to see them put out there in a different forum, but that’s my opinion!
And yes, I know there’s a lot of crap out there, wasted time of agents and editors, and yes, people should learn how to submit, follow guidelines, be professional, etc. In a perfect world all submissions would be, well, perfect, there would be no crap to broadcast via Twitter or any other way, and we’d all be brilliantly published. Actually, not sure that’s really a perfect scenario either! I imagine agents and editors know what they are getting into with this profession just as writers know the odds of rejection. It all goes with the territory, though knowing it doesn’t make it easier to hear.
Thank you SO much,
EM
for taking good care of me!
I do so love the romance community.
Very generous.
It’s true that everyone comes at this from their own perspective. I know I’m sensitive to how people treat one another because of personal family issues. The fact that that I’m not at the place where I’m querying agents also gives me a removed perspective.
I still adhere to the Golden Rule philosophy and to the ideal of professionalism even in this cut-throat business. I wish there was another way to communicate and instruct the masses. Bottom line is that Twitter and other Social Media is the way of the future and the way we navigate these forums is a personal decision. I choose not to participate or follow stuff that doesn’t speak to me, what’s in my heart, that I feel is sound or honest or presented with good intentions. Like Kimber An said, it’s best to move on if something doesn’t suit you.
#queryfail doesn’t suit me. But I’m sure it has a place and a following.
I absolutely agree that the whole exercise was right on in the FAIL aspect, but not necessarily because of the queries. I have huge, huge issues with this sort of thing, going back to the RWA Idol workshops, which, when it was first practiced at local conferences was actually a helpful cold read workshop with the agents and editors behaving respectfully, but which, once it hit the national “stage” as it were, devolved into something mean-spirited and ugly enough to leave some participants sobbing in hallways.
And because something like this has proven to be “entertainment,” it allowed for a workshop at Romantic Times last year where the aim was for the presenter (a publisher) to read from the worst of the slush pile and allow the readers/workshop participants to vote on the worst of the worst, ala William Hung.
Really? REALLY?
That goes beyond good taste.
And I know what the next response is– “Writers need to develop thick skins.”
Why yes– yes we do. But dammit, we don’t generally receive our rejections in a room with an audience of hundreds with the agents and editors going for the one-line Simon Cowell-style put down in order to get the cheap laugh. Yes, there are tons of silly, rookie mistakes out there. Those people will either learn from experience– i.e. asking fellow writers to review their queries and give them constructive criticism, or they’ll continue on their clueless way, and eventually die out like the dodo bird. This is known as Publishing Darwinism– the strong and adaptable will survive.
But crushing someone’s spirit and mocking their work for sport? Serious flag on the play.
Serious flag…well put!
Misa,
Like I said, I didn’t see anything posted that was truly mocking, so I missed much of what the criticism is about. I do also believe in the Golden Rule.
As for educating people about how to query properly, there are hundreds of resources already out there, but either people are not reading them, or their concept of what falls under the definition of acceptable is drastically different from the average. In some cases being an outlier is not a good thing and not everyone knows where to draw the line.
Yes, there is a better way to do this, but the ones that have been tried so far have failed to educate many people or we wouldn’t have seen some of the examples which were posted.
Queryfail, in its present form may not be ideal, but I think it succeeded in at least opening people’s eyes to the fact that there are rules, standards, expectations and plenty of resources available to help any writer succeed at least at writing a query.
Without feedback such as real writers got last week, most of them would not understand why they got rejected. Now they have some real suggestions of how to improve their chances, which normally busy editors and agents don’t have time to provide. Has anyone out there gotten a rejection with advice on how to write a query letter?
I’m sorry if I sounded mean; that wasn’t my intention. I simply think that some good results get overlooked by the fact that a few people didn’t play nice. Overall, I think the event probably helped more people than it hurt. It would be nice if no one got hurt, but I’m not sure how that could be accomplished.
You didn’t sound mean, EM! Like I said, I’m glad there are forums like this where dialogue can happen!
I don’t need a ‘pat on the back,’ just shared definitions of respect, constructive criticism, and mockery.
That’s definitely a good start.
It’s likely that for a lot of writers their main feedback is from friends and relatives (all pats on the back) and they don’t have any true peer critique before they try to sub. Then of course a harsh comment from an editor or author is going to seem even worse in comparison.
A wide variety of critique is essential, as well as research into the industry. It’s also possible many of the queryfail victims didn’t even see the feedback since they aren’t aware of the online forums to help aspiring writers.
Mocking or not, I find Queryfail to be of great use to aspiring writers. Two reasons:
1. It teaches you what NOT to do. If you’re ready to pitch, then you damn well better know how to do it professionally. Although I have to say that some of these pitches were so hopeless that it’s doubtful the writers in question will ever learn.
2. It toughens you up. The writing business is a tough one, where you DON’T always get constructive criticism. And if you don’t have skin made of leather, you’re going to get hurt. So this kind of stuff — even at its worst — can help prepare you for the life of a writer.
My advice to aspiring writers: Read these tweets, then spend a couple years working in Hollywood. That’ll toughen you up to ANY kind of criticism.
Criticism isn’t fun and I don’t know if you ever become desensitized to it. For me it’s now book reviews. Don’t look at reviews and don’t check the sales rank on Amazon! You can’t please everyone is the bottom line. But I don’t think I’ll ever get a thick enough skin where criticism, especially given in a non constructive way, will not burn.
I’m definitely tougher than I used to be, though, and that did come about the hard way.
I don’t mind bad reviews. At first it’s like a quick stab to the heart, but then it quickly dulls and I think, “Oh, well, you can’t please everyone.”
My favorite bad review was something like: “The only thing amazing about this book is that it ever got published in the first place.”
I actually thought that was pretty clever and funny.
LOL! You have a positive outlook, Rob.
Well, I’m also lucky that the majority of my reviews have been positive, so I have something to fall back on. If I didn’t have those, who knows what my attitude would be…
Actually I felt pretty schmucky for commenting on a few-even if it was a “Please tell me you’re kidding.” I would have hated to have been them.
So, here is my apology. I’m so sorry. Lesson learned.
I’m fairly sure there will never be a consensus on this subject, but I do object to the constant characterization of this being a “mean kids” vs “nice kids” throw down.
Everyone has different standards of professionalism. Personally every time I see an author ranting about how NY is blind to their obvious brilliance and only interested in cookie-cutter knock-off crap I wonder if anyone ever gave them a memo on the definition of professionalism. But hey–enough people do it that some must consider it an acceptable method of venting frustration.
I don’t. But those same authors may not agree with me when I say I didn’t see anything particularly unprofessional about an agent detailing the hundreds of ways in which a query letter can break their guidelines.
We all have our standards for acceptable behavior, and maybe those of us who enjoyed #queryfail ARE following the Golden Rule. Because if I disrespect an agent by ignoring their guidelines, I welcome them to disrespect me in return. If I wanted them to respect me, I believe I should have done onto them…?
I truly believe that lack of professionalism is a self-correcting issue on the internet–if you cross lines enough, you’ll suffer for it in the end. I’m going to trust in that instead of attempting to gather the pitchforks and torches to convince everyone that #queryfail was OMGsoAWESOME. (But yes, I thought it was.)
I think you’re right, Bree. There won’t ever be consensus on controversial topics. As things like Twitter continue to grow, I do hope that people use them appropriately and with good intentions. I have no control over it, but I’m grateful for forums like this that facilitate discussion on relevant topics so that we can hopefully all try to understand each other and gain new perspective on the world around us.
The idea that the interwebs will be self regulating kind of reminds me of the idea that capitalism will self regulate, too.
So this is me, agreeing with Nathan 100%.
I missed the whole thing except for a couple of peripheral references, despite being on Twitter.
Until I read this post, from those peripheral comments I had thought people were making up funny “what not to do” queries.
I originally thought it was made up as well, until I started reading back to the earlier postings…. who could make that much up?
I’m one of those people who can’t watch the last five minutes of reality shows where someone gets voted off because the stress is too much for me
But for myself as a writer, while kindness inspires me to go on, I learn more from brutality. I have thin skin but a very thick head
So I’ve found different people to meet both my needs.
I’m probably simplifying the point everyone is talking about but did anybody grow up in the generation where if you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all. Why do we have to beat someone else up to make our selves feel important. If you have a problem with someone, take it behind closed doors. Not some place where the whole world can see. People need to remember when you are saying something hurtful to one person it could come back to bit you in the a–. We as humans need to start being nicer to each person we meet and not be so critical of each other. None of us are perfect. I’ll get off my soap box now. Have a great day.
<>
Writers are lucky that they don’t even get private rejections face to face, typically. My husband is an actor who has been slapped down harshly in the midst of casting agency waiting rooms. Hated it, yes. Learned from it? Absolutely.
As an acquisitions editor I personally have no problem with “Learn How to Query By Seeing How NOT To,” if done with discreet paraphrasing rather than direct reposts complete with author name.
The notion that this process should be all sunshine, positivity, and lollipops is lovely, but no more likely in publishing than Hollywood. It seems that too many in need of a wake up call respond better to a slap with a wet mackerel than a lolly dangled over their sleeping nose.
It’s like those American Idol contestants standing up there and taking the criticism with a stoic face. Simon’s the toughest, but also the one people listen to. But even he crosses the line. It can’t be all sunshine; I know that! But somewhere in between the lollipops and the wet mackerel would be nice!
LMAO. I have also just lost my appetite… thanks Misa!
People know how much of Simon’s comments to accept and how much to ignore, but that takes time. Same with queryfail. People can figure out who to trust. And who not to query unless you take the heat. It become self-selection at some point.
Wow, I kind of missed the whole drama. I was busy editing and having a birthday party for my son. My general strategy for this kind of thing is stay out of it. I think people say things online they would never say in person. I would never mock someone’s first attempt because I was completely clueless when I started out. I’m lucky I found the right people to give me guidance.
Good strategy, Susan!
I also missed most of this, but that’s because I can’t figure out twitter to save my life, and I really don’t want to. I don’t think that’s a boat I’m going to be sailing on.
But the controversy that has come up seems to stem from the fact that this process drew in the dreaded snark like the proverbial drop of blood in the vast ocean of cyberspace.
Roger Ebert wrote a great article on the effect of snark on the internet. I have a link to it on a blog post I wrote about it.
http://jessgranger.blogspot.com/2009/02/snark-infested-waters.html
Here’s the problem as I see it. Writers are insecure about their writing, and also their queries. When you put up “bad” queries, it invites people to knock those queries down so they can feel more significant/clued-in because “they would never do THAT in a query.”
But that sort of snark can grow rows and rows of sharp teeth very quickly.
It’s best to beware.
Jess
The literary agent who started this actually used the term mocking writers on her blog when referring readers to another agent who was doing the same thing with queries. I personally believe that shows the true intent of all this from the very beginning. Just my opinion, of course. Finally, this was all started by an agent who seems to fight deligently for people, like herself, who have lifestyles that are damned by many, and you would think, because of that, this agent would be especially sensitive to never mocking or hurting anyone vulnerable, and new writers are about as vulnerable as they come.
I would note that there were more than a few examples of queries that were winners (in that they passed the first round of consideration by these agents/editors). And there were fails rejected with notes about querying other agents who would be better suited to the author.
This is obvious, but we all know that agents only make money when they sell a manuscript to a publisher. They want to find great writing. In order to discover something really excellent, they have to wade through endless — and if you follow Colleen’s Twitter stream (full disclosure: she is a friend of mine), you know that the number of queries she gets every week are growing — queries.
Where is the censure for the writers who fail to offer the basic courtesy of doing their homework?
For every writer out there who takes the time to read guidelines and craft a compelling query letter, there are dozens who don’t bother. Those writers are standing in your way, and, frankly, they are wasting the time of these editors and agents. Think about it: people who say, “I know you don’t represent YA, but I think you’ll make an exception for me” aren’t helping the process for you. Do you really want to be the query read after a dozen or so queries that blatantly disregard the most basic requirements?
Finally, given that most of the identifying information was scrubbed (with a few sad exceptions), this was probably the gentlest of public commentary some authors could receive. At least they were getting specific reasons for why the query didn’t work. This sounds harsh, but once your work is out in the public, you have to expect all manner of criticism (good and bad). If you’ve been writing for public consumption for any length of time, you know how tough critics can be. If this breaks your spirit, I’d venture that your spirit isn’t in the game.
Kassia:
I have basically no disagreement with what you are saying, but what Ms. Lindsey has started will change none of these facts, and therein lies the problem. Bad writers will continue to write badly and will continue to query badly, queryfail or no queryfail on Twitter. Agents have been rejecting 95-plus-percent for decades. And what Ms. Lindsey has started is not going to cause a bad writer to become a great writer, etc. She is simply mocking the weakest and most vulnerable of those who sent her queries . . . it’s just a hateful attack on the weak, just like skinheads do to (need I say it?). Finally, as any real literary agent will tell you, the bad and misinformed NEVER stand in the way of the good. The right material shines like gold and rises to the top most always.