Where Miss Snark vented her wrath on the hapless world of writers and crushed them to sand beneath her T.Rexual heels of stiletto snark. The blog is dark--no further updates after 5/20/2007.
From my experience, you have a much better chance of hearing back from an agent (assuming a negative respone) if you send via snailmail. Lazy just doesn't pay - darn it!Obviously, if an agent requests email queries only, send that.
The young miss Rappaport's comment that e-mail queries are out of sight, thus out of mind, makes perfect sense to me. The only e-mail query I have ever sent was to an agent whose web page stated unequivocally -- and more than once -- that she strongly preferred e-mail queries.I love e-mail; use it all the time. But I still think serious business is better done through paper correspondence. This may change someday, perhaps when our long promised flying cars and silver suits finally arrive. For now, though, matters of the heart and queries to agents go on crisp bond paper.
I think the important thing to know is what the agent (or publisher) prefers. It's not a matter of which one is better; just which is preferred. To be perfectly honest, if I were querying Ms. Rappaport I'd either be worried the e-queries were out of sight and out of mind, or that her boyfriend rearragned the pile of snail mail queries she didn't bother to organize.
Saves trees - use email.
I have just sent out letters and so far, I am getting much better response from by e-mails. I have posted my letter and other information on my web site; if interested I thought they could save time and go to it.
Sir John said... I have just sent out letters and so far, I am getting much better response from by e-mails. I have posted my letter and other information on my web site; if interested I thought they could save time and go to it. Agents beware: Warren Frazier just pulled Lucianne Golgberg's ponytail running to this web site.
I've only sent two email queries and never heard boo about either of them.I've pretty much always gotten a response on my snailmails.
I've queried about 20 agents in my current quest, with about 75% of those being e-queries. I always go with the format specified by each agent, but I'll admit the Pacific Northwest tree-hugger in me leans strongly toward those who take e-queries. I just hate running through paper if I don't have to.So far, the response rate has been about the same between the e-queries and the printed ones, but for what it's worth, those who've requested fulls have done so much faster when the contact was initiated via email. It's also served to give me a great glimpse at a couple of the agents' styles as they've posed questions/comments or made requests via email. I'm not sure that level of witty banter would have been possible in snail-mail exchanges.Just to reiterate, I always respect the agent's preferences in how he/she wants to receive the query. One of the most enjoyable rejections I've ever gotten came via snail mail.Tawna
When I was querying a few months ago, I always snail-queried unless an agent said "e-query only." Sure, email saves paper and stamps. But most agents will respond to an e-query ONLY if they're interested. Most of the agents I e-queried (6 out of 8) never replied.In contrast, I sent out about 20 snail queries and heard back from every agent except one.
Flying cars and silver suits? As for me, I just want to see KY on that treadmill that Astro uses on The Jetsons...KY will be none to happy with the future, I'm afraid.
Back in the mists of time--two or three years ago--I got many requests for partials within minutes of sending e-queries. Now most evaporate in the cyberether. Of course, so do snail mail queries and their SASEs, but we get to hang onto hope a bit longer. Interesting to know what's really happening is some control freak boyfriend deciding our query pile doesn't have the right feng shui. Why don't we chuck it all and start buying lottery tickets or something with a better chance of success?
Count me in the email column. About half the time I get a request for a full or a partial, usually within a few hours. On the other hand, if I don't hear by the next day, I'm not going to hear from that agent at all.
I started out sending snail mail queries, and some took as long as 3 months to come back; only one never did... BUT-I discovered agentquery.com and sent out a whole bunch of e-queries. About one third got no response, but the others all came back within a couple of days, some within hours or minutes, so I was not kept in suspense.Also, four requests for partials came in as well as a request for a full from an agent with whom I signed two months later. Only one of the snails asked for a partial, and she was the one who asked for the first 50 pages. [This was before I stumbled on Miss Snark and learned that you ALWAYS send pages...]So, I love e-queries. Efficient, economical, environmentally friendly and best of all, it worked for me.
Here's what amazes me that I see so often in similar instances.Agent Jenny Rappaport states "it is polite and appropriate to requery if you haven't heard from an agent within eight weeks of sending your query. No one gets mad if you do this, trust me."This seems like such a disingenuous statement because nearly every agent is so unique in what they want and how they want it and how/when they'll respond. In fact, there would be several agents (Ethan Ellenberg, et al) who you'd be requerying every 8 weeks.Aspiring writers are seemingly always the fire hydrant, never the dog.I'm sure there are arguments against this, but I just got a rejection today that I thought I had a good shot at and I'm in a mood to hate the world, so wait till tomorrow if you want to chew me out.Thanks for indulging.John
Frainstorm said... Agent Jenny Rappaport states "it is polite and appropriate to requery if you haven't heard from an agent within eight weeks of sending your query. No one gets mad if you do this, trust me."Thank you, John. I almost broke my mouse trying not to post a comment on her blog about this statement. Not only is it disingenuous, it's stupid.
Post a Comment