Query Shark

I had been thinking about it for a while and decided last week to jump into the deep water and swim with the sharks. Well, in this case, just one shark -- Query Shark, the blog by agent Janet Reid of FinePrint Literary Management.

Like many agents, Reid has a regular blog but in Query Shark, she provides a service most agents don't -- critical analysis. Examining a query letter, she points out what works and, most importantly, what doesn't work. And she offers the chance to improve.

I don't always agree with her. There was one letter that broke all her rules in terms of content. Plus I thought it was boring. But she loved it and requested the manuscript. For whatever reason, it appealed to her, which she says is the only point of any query letter -- to get the agent to request more material.

Query Shark isn't for the faint-hearted. But neither is the publishing industry. Reid's comments can be harsh, particularly for mistakes she has repeatedly commented on earlier. To avoid such criticism, she STRONGLY encourages writers to read the Query Shark archives before submitting to the blog. She wants to see new mistakes, not the same old mistakes.

I read the blogs of several agents whom I won't mention in today's post. (They get enough online promotion already.) They are valuable in offering suggestions and in pointing out general mistakes they see regularly in the scores of queries they get each week. Query Shark does that, too.

But what I like about Reid's blog -- and where I think is its greatest strength -- is that she points out specific problems in specific queries. The names of the innocents are redacted, of course, as is any identifying information, except the title of their work. But if you read through the blog archives -- again, strongly suggested, though for the uninitiated, it will take days to read through them all -- and take notes, you can improve your query letter whether you decide to submit it or not.

That is what I did. I tried to apply everything I learned on the blog in my letter. At 250 words, it was short. I got right to the action. While I did mention more than one character, the main character was the only one mentioned by name. I presented the problem the character faced and who sought to foil the character's plans. The writing reflected the tone of the novel. It was in present tense. And on and on.

I sent the query to the blog and got a form letter e-mail reply the next day acknowledging my letter's arrival.

In the e-mail reply, Reid pointed out, "The chance your query will be posted are low." She reads some 200 manuscripts a year but posts less than 160 query letters on Query Shark. There are about 100 pending queries for each query letter that makes it online. No writer's query appears without their permission and the writer can at any time request that their letter be removed.

I am of two minds in this adventure. I tried to send the best letter I could and I'd like it to appear on the blog. If it's too good, she won't use it. Letters in Query Shark are used as a learning tool for others. There needs to be problems. But if it's too bad she may not use it, either. In fact, she may not use it for any number of reasons that I will never be aware of. It's still a crap shoot.

I did send the same basic letter to a number of agents late in the week, including on Saturday to an agent in the South. (I won't mention her name but she is mentioned in the current issue of "Writer's Digest" as one of "27 agents looking for new writers.") I got a form letter rejection in less than 24 hours, even though it was a holiday weekend. Obviously, the query letter didn't impress her. No idea why. I will never know. No matter. She only made my C list of agents to query.

But perhaps I will have better luck with the Query Shark. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

And in the meantime, I am pouring over AN UNTIDY AFFAIR word-for-word, and working on an outline for my next novel. Life goes on. So does writing.

Thanks for reading. Enjoy the holiday.