So you’ve heard that major publishers colluded to fix ebook prices. I say the related DoJ ruling misses the whole point and will turn more American brains to mush (in the long run) than Moonshiners and Glee combined.

Anyway, here’s  the settlement.  Now is the time to write the Department of Justice.  The AAR wrote a great letter, not yet public.  Simon Lipskar of  Writers House wrote such a fantasic letter I’m linking to him and the letter in a couple places–check it out at Digital Book World, also reprinted on the AAR website.

My own letter is here.  Your comments appreciated.  Reprint if you think it helps.

John R. Read
Chief, Litigation III Section
United States Department of Justice
450 5th St NW
Suite 4000
Washington DC 20530                                                                                       May 8, 2012   

Dear Mr. Read:

The Board of the Association of Authors’ Representatives recently sent you a letter regarding the proposed settlement between the Justice Department and three publishers with respect to e-book pricing.

In that letter, the AAR board urged you to “reject the proposed settlement” and “allow the market to return to one that protects the value of our clients’ intellectual property from unfair and predatory discounting.”

I also urge you to reject this settlement. I am a former executive editor (for both Morrow/Avon, which is now a division of HarperCollins, and Bantam/Doubleday/Dell, which is now a division of Random House), and am currently a literary agent and publishing consultant.

If you accept this settlement, you will, I believe, abet in the destruction of thoughtful intellectual discourse in America. Well-researched nonfiction books are the optimal vehicles for the dissemination of new ideas. Well-written novels inspire other writers, and encourage imagination, organization, creativity and the pursuit of everything that goes along with intellectual advancement.

Such books fortify a civil society.

The current system of traditional publishing is not a business with high profit margins, and it is far from perfect. But it does enable multiple companies to pay a variety of editors, writers, designers, and marketers to discover, perfect and promote a broad mix of written works that merit publication. The money that supports this system comes through the individual purchase of commendable books, reasonably priced. It is not a business sustained by advertising revenues, by the sales of other vehicles (such as e-readers), or by a system of patronage.

In other words, the book publishing business relies on reasonably priced individual products, sold to individual readers, for its survival.

Amazon is a behemoth. If it is able to set any price it wants for the products it distributes–books published by companies with whom it is competing, through the Amazon Publishing Division–Amazon will drive book prices so low reputable publishers will go out of business.

Book prices have been consistent for many years; standards have evolved through natural and real market forces weighed against the actual costs of doing business, whether or not anyone made any calls to anyone else when Apple got into the ebook game.

Amazon’s ebook pricing is based neither on real market forces nor on the actual cost of publishing books. Amazon is supported by many revenue streams, and holds multiple other interests, including the Kindle products.

The business Amazon stands to destroy—the business that provides thoughtful standards for the quality of popular books–is an important one to every person in this country. The publishing business is one that should be protected by the DOJ, not dismantled by it.

Amazon already owns and promotes the country’s leading self-publication engine, CreateSpace. Amazon makes it simple for unschooled writers to “publish” ebooks and distribute them through Amazon’s own Kindle ereaders for virtually no cost. Amazon also, as noted, has its own publishing division. Accepting this settlement will leave Amazon as the channel through which virtually all books must pass–self-published or Amazon published.

What kind of books will these be, without competitive, schooled publishers to choose, edit and promote them? This I can predict: only those authors with wealthy sponsors or advertisers—or books that feed very prurient interests–will break through the massive numbers of self-published books to become known to readers.

Instead of a free and competitive market populated by professional businesses promoting worthy intellectual property, we will enter a new age of illiteracy where readers will find only those books that are either promoted through the patronage of a corporate Medici, or are self-published merchandise with the mass market appeal of the average YouTube cat on a keyboard.

Most serious, literary books will remain either unpublished or invisible.

Some publishers of serious or very targeted books will choose not to be distributed by Amazon. Such niche books, priced outside the reach of the average consumer without hope for economies of scale or chance of breaking out, will further the gap. Good books will become a commodity only the wealthy can afford. This is already happening.

Certainly this can’t be the competitive market you had envisioned when making your initial ruling.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jody Rein

Jody Rein
President
Jody Rein Books, Inc.
jodyrein@jodyreinbooks.com
@sharpcrayon
www.jodyreinbooks.com

You know that teeny pang—a bit of envy, resentment maybe, self-doubt–you get when a friend makes good? Especially when you’re feeling a little low yourself?

I know I do. When my own life’s road has been bumpy—and I’m not proud of this—I’ve too often confronted those ugly emotions bubbling up from a self I don’t want to be.

Except when it comes to Jeff Zaslow.

Jeff Zaslow, who, until yesterday, caught that “lightening in a bottle” brand of exceptional success not once but many times, was a man I could only, purely, always, be happy for. Whatever joys he experienced—I wished him only more.

I imagine that’s because…he was Jeff Zaslow. Someone who, no matter what he got, always gave a little more.

Jeff Zaslow.

I met Jeff when we were in our mid-twenties, in Chicago. We’ve been friends almost thirty years, sometimes more in touch, sometimes less. No matter how long it had been since we last talked, I knew I could pick up the phone any time and hear that inimitable, welcoming, grinning voice, saying “Jooooody” and in an instant he made me feel like the most important person in the world.

Always curious. Always funny. Always humble. Always caring. Incredibly generous.

I moved to New York, then Denver and he eventually to Detroit; I never got to know Sherry or their girls; only met them through Jeff’s emailed pictures and updates.

But I can’t imagine the depth of their loss. Losing Jeff devastates me as “chat a few times a year” friend. Losing his daily grounding love and support (and humor) will be an awful blow, and I am so very sorry for them, and his parents and in-laws and siblings.

When a loved one dies, it can help to hear that others loved him and will miss him.  To know he was seen. At least in this respect, for Jeff’s family and close friends, there will be no end to hearing the love.

Jeff grabs your heart, jumps in and never leaves. I hope his family can find solace in knowing he lives forever in so many hearts both known to them and not. I hope his written legacy helps (thank God for his last book, inspired by and written for his girls!).

It helps me to know he truly–as he aspired to do–lived his life. His was not a life filled with many regrets for words unspoken or love unshared.

So, as Jeff was one of the most present people I’ve ever met, I’m committed to trying to fill the hole his absence leaves by remembering, in dark times, to perhaps be more like him.

Not perfect. But so very real, and so invested in other people’s happiness.

Ha’makom yinachem etchem be’soch shar avehei Tzion ve’Yerushalim.

Lovely tribute to Jeff here:  http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/author-jeff-zaslow-dies-at-age-53

 Traditionally published books sell Kindles and Nooks.

 Does that seem crazy obvious to you?  Maybe–but think about what it means.  People buy e-readers  to read, at least initially, bestsellers like The Hunger Games Trilogy, Game of Thrones, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.  It’s the big and the beloved books that drive e-reader sales.   Books that have been acquired, edited, designed, published and promoted by traditional houses.

Think about that the next time you see an ad for an e-reader–I do.

Much as I support self-publishing in some cases, I must ask:  how many people, do you think, purchase e-readers to read self-published books by unknown, unvetted authors?  Very, very few.

Yet article after article, comment after comment, continue to laud Amazon’s ease of publication, high royalties and low prices as welcome signs of the increased obsolescence of traditional houses.  Could Amazon exist without traditional houses?  Would you buy their e-readers without the traditionally published books that fill them?

Traditional houses can thrive without Amazon or other e-readers; great books would continue to be published, sold and distributed.

Could e-readers and online bookstores succeed without the likes of Random House?  Simon & Schuster? Hachette? 

If Amazon succeeds in its reported quest to drive traditional houses–and bricks and mortar bookstores–out of business through practices like predatory pricing, and convincing bookstore customers to purchase books on Amazon while they’re standing in the bookstore–where, I wonder, will the books popular enough to drive machine sales come from?  All self-published without curation?   Amazon’s own publishing divisions?  How will that monopolistic environment encourage a diversity of ideas?   

Just asking.   Please weigh in (and if I may boldly request, without vitriol).

Can't find this on Amazon

Bookstores vs. Amazon Blog War

There’s a blog war going on about the future of the independent bookstore, and it touches issues very important to me, so I’ll weigh in.

In a Slate blog I felt seemed inadequately researched, Farhad Manjoo raged against the “high prices” of books in bookstores, termed the marvelous essay by Richard Russo in the New York Times “hectoring,” and called books published by major houses all “mass-manufactured.”  Mr. Manjoo displayed no evidence that he had investigated what actually determines the pricing of books in bookstores, and I disagree strongly with his contention that traditional publishers–or anyone–is capable of “mass-manufacturing” quality books.

The kindler, gentler bookstore owners responded:

Word Brooklyn:

“If Amazon started reversing any of their more unsavory decisions, they might lose money in the short-term, but I think they’d end up making more money in the long-term, by cementing the loyalty of an entirely new set of consumers who always sort of want to buy things from Amazon, and sometimes give in and do, but feel guilty about it…’

And Lacy Simon of Hello Hello bookstore wrote in her blog quoted by Mr. Russo:

“If you let me, I’ll get to know you through your reading life and strive to find books that resonate with you. Amazon asks you to take advantage of my knowledge & my education (which I’m still paying for) and treat the space I rent, the heat & light I pay for, the insurance policies I need to be here, the sales tax I gather for the state, the gathering place I offer, the books and book culture I believe in so much that I’ve wagered everything on it” as if it were “a showroom for goods you can just get more cheaply through them.”

And Nathan Bransford posed the question to others today in his as-usual evenhanded and civil blog.

Here’s my take, from my comment on Nathan’s blog.  What do you think?

“… there’s a larger point to be made than selling “boatloads” of books.

The issue is fundamentally about a system of commerce that either supports or works against the promotion of quality literature. At the moment Amazon and its price wars are tipping the scales toward production of poor quality work.

No major house can consistently “mass-manufacture” or “produce” intellectual property–with the exception of predictable bestsellers, which take years to build. To exist, publishers have to find, hone, build and endorse new talent, and promote that talent through reliable outlets, ideally staffed and handsold by knowledgeable salespeople.

Sure, you can mass-produce some genre books following rules & conventions, but that’s where Amazon excels.

And sure, that model is disappearing. But I’m not willing to let it go without a fight. Let’s reframe the conversation–what can we do to keep quality literature alive if Amazon drives out of business all the places that publish and sell it?”

Spotted an excellent essay on the consistently fine My Name is Not Bob blog by Robert Lee Brewer, in which he lists these 8 Key Jobs of Modern Writers: Writer; Editor; Copywriter; File Clerk; Negotiator; Accountant; Marketer; Speaker.  I believe Bob left out one key skill:  RESEARCHER (or, more accurately, ”Dogged Truthseeker“).

ALL writers must be master researchers. This is harder than it looks (and it looks pretty darn hard).  Today, information is everywhere and truth is hidden.  The online world is filled with hamster-wheels of mock expertise.  Yet without a strong foundation in well-documented facts, a writer will ultimately lose readers and self-respect, and in my humble opinion, contribute to the degradation of civilization as we know it.  To put it lightly.

Research in Fiction

Your work

Your job is to create a believable world, one that wraps up your reader in a cozy blanket of self-forgetting trust.  Your books are inhabited by identifiable people in specific places at certain times.  If the characters (what they do, how they think, how they dress, how they talk) ring true to the place, time and personality you have created, we keep reading.  If they act in ways that ring false, we are jarred out of your world and lost.  Creating that world accurately means:  solid research, yes as a keen observer of humanity, but also as a student of the historical period in which you are writing, and of the facts behind each aspect of your fiction.  Are wounds accurate to medical fact? How fast did trains run in Argentina in 1940?  Do ten year-olds know geometry?  Even fantasy must ring true both within the world you have created, and our understanding of humanity.  Glenn Beck notwithstanding.

Others’ work

Read other writers to discover yourself.   Whether you’re writing genre or literary fiction, the best genre fiction writers (rule makers and rule breakers) have studied the conventions of the genre.  They know the rules–they’ve read and learned from the writers who have preceded them. Originality is born of knowledge.  The best way to break a block:  research those who have come before you.  Read.  Be inspired.

You must know where your work fits in the canon of your genre when you submit to agents and publishers, and as you map out promotional plans.  An understanding of competitive and complimentary books is the single most important writing and sales tool for any writer.

Research in Nonfiction

Your work

The importance of accurate research in nonfiction is pretty obvious, yet I often see even schooled journalists drop the ball.  Give yourself the title of “author,” published or not, and you take on the burden of the reader’s trust.  A standard Internet search won’t do; with the printed word comes the obligation to be trustworthy, and facts gleaned from anyone you haven’t vetted are only words.

Beware of Internet information; it truly clouds the challenge of finding independent documentation of material.  You may find the same “fact” in many places on the Internet, but look closely–most Internet articles are reprints, not independently verified.  As a nonfiction author, your research must focus on primary sources–real people. 

Others’ work

No author is a master of his subject who hasn’t studied related works.  Again, perhaps obvious–unless you were sitting at my desk, and saw the number of “expert” pitches by authors who had no sense of the context in which they were writing.  Perhaps more common–when some nonfiction projects either take years, or reflect years of immersion in a subject, it’s very easy (and very human) to miss the latest entries in a field.

Research in Selling

To agents and publishers

Wow, I’m already tired just writing this.  But yes, as noted above, where your book fits in terms of competitive and complementary books, and your documentable readership, should permeate your pitches to publishers and agents.  You must research your market, and know how many people, and who, is likely to want to read your book

IN agents and publishers

And you must research the agents and publishers (and self-publishing resources, too, if you’re going that route).  Are you submitting to an agent who has expertise in your work?  Who is a member of the AAR?  Who is open to new submissions?

And Research Your Research

All sources  are not equally reliable.  If you see a particular agent has been badmouthed, does that mean she’s “bad,” or is it sour grapes?  Some quick tips:  People and sources who make blanket generalizations or one-sided arguments aren’t to be relied upon (except me, making that blanket generalization…)  PublishersMarketplace is wonderfully trustworthy.  The AAR is a good organization.  People quoting the same people all the time are suspect.  WriterBeware is a marvelous resource.  And Denver is a nice place to live.  (Just checking to see who made it this far.)

Literary Agents Closed to Queries:  Is the Sky Falling?

 Who knew?  I’ve just learned I led the literary agent crowd when I closed my doors to new queries several year ago (for me it was to find time to develop software and hang with my family).  But now I hear that’s the norm–yet another mega-contraction in the world of possibilities for the unpublished writer. (If I listen closely, I can hear the

grinding of the gears as the enormous iron-bound castle gate rises slowly, slowly up.  Hoards of once-hopeful writers surround the entrance: silent, staring, aghast, tears falling, manuscripts clutched…never to be read?)

But…wait.

Is that a side door I see?  Over there?  With a lovely princess beckoning you inside?

Well, yes. 

Because nothing has really changed.  

Established agencies rejected 99% of the unsolicited queries they saw anyway.  Agents can only take on so many clients.  The bigger and more successful the agency, the easier it is to find new clients.  Successful writers often count other successful writers as their friends, and recommend them.  Not because they’re snobs, but because as in any profession–if you hang around and work hard you’ll meet and befriend other folks who share your interests and passions–and whose careers progress just like yours.  (To paraphrase Harry Potter teaching spells in the Room of Requirement, “All those mega wizards had to start somewhere, didn’t they?”) 

Publishers also recommend reliable agents to their unagented writers.

Thus it is, and thus it has ever been.  Except now, I hear, more agencies are realizing it doesn’t help anyone–authors or agents–to encourage thousands of submissions when the agency is booked.

When there’s room on the roster, the doors open.  Younger agents have more room, and say so on their websites.

I don’t see this as harsh, I see it as honest and time-saving on both sides.  

But that’s also because I encourage you to view your queries as agents do:  your query letters are job postings.   Help-wanted ads. There’s little sense inviting someone who is happy with their current job to quit and apply for yours.  Of course it happens–people are wooed away from top positions to other top positions (and closed agencies take on new bestselling authors from time to time.)  

The norm, though, and the best use of your time, is to find an agent–seek the employee–who is thrilled to get the work, and who actively needs you.

Go in the side door to the castle–there was always a moat behind the front door anyway.

Romance Writers Enough with the Rules Already!

Just stumbled on a short and funny essay by Avon’s romance blogger Lucia Macro.  From her opening lines:

“I’ve been seeing a lot of rules lately about romance writing. My advice today: stop. Please stop. Honestly, I’m not sitting around looking to see if your book has a prologue, if your pov shifts around a bit, or if every chapter is 20 pages long. I just read.

And I keep reading, until…”    (Read More Here) 

Another sane and civil voice!  Very much in keeping with my own admirably grounded, sensible and modest viewpoint (see my query letter intro  if you don’t believe me.)

Warning–I disagree a teeny weeny bit with her postion–I do think basic genre conventions serve a useful purpose, especially for beginning writers.  But that’s fodder for a different blog.  

Full disclosure:  I was once gainfully employed by Avon, albeit as exec ed of trade paperbacks, not romance.  

A worthy hit

Today my friend Michael Larsen, probably the menschiest literary agent on the planet, and I were talking about The Art of Fielding by Chad Harbach.  That book, published by the admirable Little, Brown, was a buzz book last BEA.   A first novel acquired for scads of money & published with great enthusiasm–but both Mike and I were underwhelmed by the read relative to the ransom.  Mike pondered:  What does this mean? Is character now less important?  Are readers’ or editors’ tastes plummeting?  

While I can, and do, worry that the need for speed in journalism and publishing may lower writing standards if we’re not vigilant, that’s not yet a reality.  I think what this means is exactly:  nothing.

Sometimes hyped first novels wow (as in, the breathtaking The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society by Mary Ann Shaffer and Annie Barrows, or The Tiger’s Wife by Tea Obreht).  Sometimes–not so much.  

Headline Headaches

“First novel by unknown writer sells for an advance of $500,000!”

“Self-published wunderkind sells series to publisher for a million bucks!”

“Famous author jumps from Big 6 publisher to self publish!!!”

“Major publisher cancels contract of author over e-publishing!”

Instant information is extraordinarily stress-provoking.  Our technological age not only offers real opportunities for instant wealth and fame–it also spreads the word about such successes (and crashes) from the New York conference room–where such events more easily are placed back into context–to the Kokomo bedroom–where such context is missing–faster than Superman’s jet stream.

Being hit over the head with other people’s successes can make a person feel bad, mad and inadequate.  It’s true for the 99%ers occupying Wall Street; it’s true for the folks trying to navigate social networks without much tech experience, and it’s particularly true for the jillions of writers still writing queries, and whose Kindle books aren’t selling more than a few hundred copies.

Check in with Reality

The thing is–these head-shaking events are exceptions.  

Sometimes the hype and excitement doesn’t match the product.  This does not mean-in itself–that standards are slipping.  It does not mean only books with big advances will get attention.  It is not a pattern until it is a pattern.

Amanda Hocking’s sale does not mean all Kindle authors will achieve major publishing contracts.

Joe Konrath’s stridency notwithstanding, neither his nor John Locke’s successes mean all authors should self-publish.

And the quality, or lack thereof, of any hyped novel provides no lessons for anyone about the next.  Publishers will (and should, I hope) sometimes let their enthusiasms blind them.  Hyped books can pay off beautifully (Cutting for Stone by Abraham Verghese?  Oh. My. Goodness.  What a book.)

Craft is still king.  Hard work will still rewards.  Editors still mostly make good decisions.  

And those of us not generally making the exceptional headlines must continue to talk with one another, ground each other in reality, and soldier on.

Query Letter Scans--It's Strictly Business

This is the Second Entry in Our Queries Series.

Literary Agents. Do. Not. Have. To. Read. Your. Query Letter.

I write this so stridently to reduce your anxiety.

Time and again I run into unpublished writers who believe, sincerely, that the literary agent’s job is to read and respond to to their unsolicited queries. This is NOT the agent’s reality.  The lit agent’s job is to effectively and collaboratively guide the careers of the clients who have hired her to represent them.  She is paid for this work, either through the deferred compensation of a commission or, less frequently, on an hourly basis.

The agent is, fundamentally, a sales rep. She pays for her kids’ piano lessons only if she picks the right bunch of products to sell–the right author/company.

You’re the boss. Your query to an agent is your job posting.

Why does this matter?  Because, as Don Corleone said, “It’s not personal, Sonny.  It’s strictly business.”

Your First Sentence in a Query is the Money Sentence

The typical established literary agency sorts through hundreds of help-wanted ads (query letters) each day, scanning each quickly to decide which job to apply for. 

And, just as you would when hunting for a job on Monster.com or Craigslist, she reads the first sentence to determine whether the position offered  grabs her interest, matches her skill set, and promises reliability and longevity.  If there’s no match, she goes on to the next.

If she thinks selling your product might be the right business decision*, she continues reading.

Keep her reading.

Grab her interest, engage her trust.

“Interest” is Grabbed through Content; “Trust” is Engaged through Style (and Flattery and Name-Dropping)

Don’t be coy in your first sentence; lead with your strongest sales point.  If you’re a self-published wonder, list sales figures right up top.  If you’re tops in your field, brag immediately.  If your idea has been lauded on the latest Oprah equivalent, say so right away.  If you’re writing in a genre you know she’s hot for, put it up front.  If your story is your best feature, jump in.  If your education sets you apart, list it.  You don’t have to be brilliant.  You just have to make the agent want to read more.

You are asking the agent to work for you; she needs to know she can trust you.  How do you prove your professionalism in your first sentence?  

• Use proper grammar
• Get rid of typos 
• Mention mutual acquaintances, if they exist; authors she’s represented if they don’t
• Show you’ve done your homework (investigated your competition, reviewed her website)
• Place your book in the context of other successful books up top, if that’s your strongest suit

Four Killer (Mostly Real) First Sentences**

“Horse crazy girls.”

Why this kills, even though it’s not grammatical:  it makes me want to read more.  Don’t you want to know what comes next?  It grabs both trust and interest because we all know girls can be horse crazy.  I know there’s a potential market segment out there already, even thought I don’t even know yet if this is fiction or nonfiction.  I suspect the writer is professional, brave and innovative.  

“Saw that you’d be at the San Francisco Writers’ Conference, checked out your website, and really liked it–good old typewriter sounds!”

Why this kills:  it makes me want to read more.  Mission accomplished!  More analysis, although it may be obvious:  this writer tells me he’s serious, creative and personable, even though the tone is conversational and again breaks some grammatical rules.  Serious because he’s done some homework.  This employer (author) seems as if he’d be a good boss for me.  Also–shows a match between my quirky personality and his.  

“Back in 2008, my friend Susie Q recommended I query you about a novel I had written (NAME OF NOVEL).”

Why this kills:  I have to read more. Susie Q is a publishing mucky-muck.  

“I’ve written a novel, Novel with Intriguing Title, based on my screenplay optioned, most recently, by Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks Studio, and previously by Baltimore/Spring Creek with Red Hour Productions.”

Why this kills:  I have to read more.  The writer has led with a very strong suit–although in practice an optioned screenplay does very little to sell a book.  But the writer has proved he is trustworthy enough to read on; other professionals have liked his work.

Four Deadly (Mostly Real) First Sentences**

“I am forwarding these words with delight and submitting thirty pages of my manuscript for a Business Book.”

Bet you know why this job posting was quickly dismissed.  Poor writing, passive voice, strange words, nothing interesting.

“What if the one woman you thought you could trust threatened to kick you out of the house?”

What if?  You’ve probably read plenty of posts about using questions in queries.  They don’t really bother me as a device.  What bothers me is that this is boring.  It shows me that this writer’s sensibility is different than mine.  She thinks this is a hugely interesting situation, the most dramatic in her book; but it doesn’t engage me.

“People are tired of fad diets that claim to hold the keys to weight loss, only to be disappointed.”

I don’t want to keep reading, even though I agree people are always tired of fad diets.  What stops me here is the combination of a relatively trite notion and poor writing.  If I’m being pitched a new diet, that first sentence had better convince me the author has a giant platform in such a crowded field–and something new to say.

“My name is Fred Jones.”

Right.

Three Meh (Mostly Real) First Sentences (and is “Meh” an Adjective?)**

“I have recently completed a novel entitled The Seventeenth Rejection and I am seeking representation.”

I probably would read on to the next sentence, but I’ve already got a negative “ping!” in my brain. I don’t care when she finished the novel, and I know she’s seeking representation, so this is kind of wasted space.

“I would be grateful if you would read NAME OF MY BOOK, a novel I intend to sell to a fine publisher.”

Same as above.  I do like the “I would be grateful,” which I find courteous, but the clause is unnecessary and triggers a subconscious “ping!”

“My Really Great Novel” is a 97,000-word novel set in the 1920s in the Midwest.

And again–here I’d definitely keep reading, as it’s fine and informative.  But my interest and trust has got to be engaged–if the phone rings, I might not remember to apply for this job.

 *There’s a little lie up top–of course the “business” end of the decision is influenced by love of books & a desire to find the next great (if not commercial) novel.

**I pulled all these first lines from real queries, then changed them up to protect the innocent (me).   Except “Horse crazy girls,” that’s a direct quote.  The author of that query is Heidi Furseth.

Don't Sweat the Query

Query letters.  Yet again.

Holy smokes there’s a lot of query letter advice out here on the World Wide Web.   

And like everything in information-overload-land, that’s good and bad–it’s terrific for writers to have easy access to models and thoughtful counsel, but at the same time I’m a little concerned about the stressing out I see–the agony over each detail in each query; and the stridency of the dogma.  As in, “All query letters must start with x, end with y, and never, never include Popsicles.” 

Query letters are crucial, don’t get me wrong.  And yes, each book pitch does have to include some standard elements, like, well, the title of the book. 

But ultimately each letter is as individual as the book that is being pitched and the author who is writing it.  So rather than trying to fit your query into someone else’s mold, I suggest you sit back, take a deep breath, scribble out a quick rough draft, and then ask yourself if you’ve achieved the following goals.  I’ll elaborate on each in future posts.

A Query Letter is a Pitch for an Investment

Most important thing to keep in mind in any query:  a query is a business proposition.  If you’re writing a company directly, you are asking it to invest in your product.  If you’re querying an agent; you’re asking her to apply for the job of selling your book (more on that in the next post.) If you forget everything else, remember to review your own query as if you are on the other side of the desk:  would you invest thousands of dollars in your book as described?

Seven Goals for Your Nonfiction Query Letter

1.)You’ve grabbed the interest and trust of the reader with your first sentence.

     “Interest” is grabbed through content; “Trust” is engaged through style.

2.) You’ve led with your strongest suit.

3.)  Each sentence encourages the reader to read the next.

4.)  You’ve answered all key questions:  WHO, WHAT, WHY, HOW, WHEN?

     WHO are you? WHAT is the book? WHY will readers buy it?  Read it?  HOW will you market it?  WHEN will you write it?

5.)  You’ve placed your book into the context of other books.

6.) You’ve demonstrated professionalism and ability in your field, and in writing.

7.)  You’ve anticipated and addressed any editorial objections.

And remember this:  publishers make money by publishing good books well.  Without you, they’ve got no product.  They–we–need you.  So write and self-edit your query letter with confidence.  Next:  That First Sentence