Nitwit of the Day!

Dear Miss Snark,

I have a question for you that you may have covered in the past, but feel it would take me months to get back to the first entry to find out the answer so if you don't mind responding, I would appreciate it.

Question: Do you represent children's book writers?

Just a one word reply of YES or NO will do. I don't want to waste any more of your valuable time than I am right now with a query if the answer is NO.

Were you thinking of sending Miss Snark a query?
Don't do it.
I don't take equeries on the blog.
And you don't have a clue about who Miss Snark is and you should not query an agent you don't know. One of Miss Snark's colleagues has just finished a project answering query letters sent to an agent who is dead. Talk about careful research.

Look in listings such as Agent Query and Writers Market and Publishers Marketplace. Look for agents who say "children" "YA" or some hint they do the kind of work you write. Don't mention your status as Nitwit of the Day in your publishing credentials. It will be our little secret.


Shelli Stevens said...

I think the question was a ploy to discover your identity.

Who'd want to take the fun out of that? I like not knowing who you are. Then I can read your blog, blissfully unaware of whether you've rejected my arse or not!

Anonymous said...

You say all the time we don't know you and that we shouldn't be interested in sending you a query.

May I say that I disagree?

I am sure that I (and a 1,000 others) would love to send you a query. You make it plain the sort of query you'd entertain, what you like to read, projects that might interest you, how you would pursue an author's interest -- leaping tall publishers in a single bound to find the perfect cradle -- and the sort of feedback you would give the talented (and lucky) author.


Anonymous said...

I could wish knowing one of my SASEs would be graced by one of Miss Snark's rejection slips, but that would ruin all the fun of it.

Anonymous said...

So, not only did someone send a query to a deceased agent, they actually got a reply!

Anonymous said...

They "read" but they do not understand.

I often wonder about these witless ones who don't seem to get concepts such as 'anonymous' or 'not-my-real-name'. This goes beyond nitwit. And it happened to me the other night.

Around the dinner table (not with my own family as we are dysfunctional and don't dine together often), we shared things that make us laugh. I shared Miss Snark, an anonymous literary agent's blog on agenting and the writer's life. Immediately, I was asked if Miss Snark would look at a manuscript. Conversation ground to a halt. I pointed out that Miss Snark was not a "real person" in that sense of the word, but be sure to read over her posts as she offers much wisdom in regards to the quest of obtaining representation.

And, I might add, her mystery has probably driven more than one hapless writer into finding many agents in their search for Miss Snark's true identity. I know I am now more agent savvy and have a better understanding on where to look. (Thanks for that, if nothing else -- and there is hardly nothing else.)

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the writer meant "represent" in the figurative rather than agentive sense: is Miss Snark symbolical of children's book writers (and perhaps is talking of book writers who belong to children, rather than the more prosaic writers of children's books). In which case, of course, the question makes perfect sense and is perhaps deserving of a more civil response and a less pejorative title.

You're writers, people (and in some cases, both); take a moment to look beyond the obvious and examine the sub-text.

Sometimes, I despair. Whereto have gone all the enlightened ones?

Anonymous said...

In defense of the Nitwit, perhaps he or she was asking in order to follow it up with a kid-lit agenting question. Miss Snark seems to know all, but maybe not all about this genre.

Anonymous said...

While anons 5 & 6 make valid (maybe) points, ought not a writer know how to communicate their intentions clearly?

I reread the question and I still believe Miss Snark's response was appropriate. If I had a "writer of children's books" question (or a question about child authors) and was unsure of Miss Snark's ability to answer, I would have asked anyway, with disclaimer, and waited. If history is a judge, Miss Snark would either say "uncle, don't know", or request others to post in the comments section, or seek out guest responses.

Elektra said...

"I don't want to waste any more of your valuable time than I am right now with a query if the answer is NO."

Unless you're really giving him the benefit of the doubt (in which case, I'd like you as a jury member at my trial), and think that maybe by "query" he meant "question", I've got to say--the guy has nitwit written all over him.

Anonymous said...

While anons 5 & 6 make valid (maybe) points...

You might want to read Anon #5 again, more carefully. I think s/he may be having a little fun...