Tips direct from the lit conference trenches

 Here I am, in the middle of back-to-back virtual writing conferences with lots of tips from the trenches.  First up, from this past week's Historical Novel Society North America conference, is a discussion by agents Cate Hart and Melissa Danaczko from their master class on navigating past the publishing world's gatekeepers.

Although many smaller publishers are willing to consider unagented manuscripts "most major trade publishers don't have the bandwidth to sort through the tends of thousands of submissions they receive in a year," Danaczko said. Instead, those large publishers rely on gatekeepers -- literary agents -- to do the initial sorting.

I've lost track of the number of times I've heard fellow writers decry agents who reject a manuscript as "unsellable." But agents, legitimate ones at least, only get paid once their clients receive money. They're the ultimate commission sales force. And because of this, they need "a very clear path in our minds as to how we're going to sell the novel," Danaczko said.

Image: Pixabay

Among the questions they ask themselves when considering a manuscript, particularly historical novels, is where it fits in current culture and whether there are connections between the story's past and our present world.

Connection that can pique an agent's -- and a publisher's -- interest include narratives that have been overlooked in the past but are becoming relevant today. Other connections include reimaginings of works coming into the public domain once their copyrights have expired, or anniversaries of significant events.

However, Danaczko warned, "it can be tricky to jump on trends or even to try to predict future trends. And works relying on topics that have become extremely popular may encounter a glut of similar projects in the marketplace.

Cate Hart concurred. "It's hard to follow trends. . . Write what you love, then work with themes of today to see what fits."

Some things we writers have been taught to obsess about may seem surprisingly less important to agents. Among these are the writer's social media presence.

Hart pronounced social media "not a make or break." And as Danaczko noted, "an author's engagement with social media is something you need to think about but only to your (level of) comfort and enjoyment. It doesn't hurt to dip your toes in the the water," but for her, it's what's on the page that counts most in her decision about who to represent.

However, being a follower on social media can provide much needed information about what agents are interested in, what they love, things they notice in popular culture. And as always, check the agent's website.

Danaczko also noted that many pitching events on Twitter, such as the quarterly #PitMad, offer good practice for authors, helping them refine their pitches and drill down on what works.

So ow, say we writers have completed and polished our manuscripts, preferably with the help of beta readers. How do we put the information we've gleaned into our queries?

"Look at book descriptions" on the blurbs for published books and their online sales and review sites. "What is it about the description that entices you?" Danaczko asked. "I need to have a really good sense of what the book is about and what's at stake."

Or as Hart put it, in a formula she loves, the query needs to have a "hook, a book, and a cook." 

The hook is the elevator pitch such as "X meets Y." (And yes, she loved "Pride and Prejudice with zombies"!)

The book part of the formula is two or three paragraphs, including the inciting incident, highlighting major plot points (but not the ending), and what's at stake if the main character does -- or does not -- accomplish their goal.

This is also where the often-dreaded topic of "comp" (comparative) titles appears.

Although Danaczko admitted sometimes requesting manuscripts even if the query listed no comp titles, these can be a useful shorthand for the book's themes, plot or characters. It's best to avoid mentioning as comps books that either not sell well or, conversely, were massive best sellers.

She suggested such formulas as "for readers of X type of book" or "with the feel of Y book."

"Comp titles work better for high concept/commercial books," Hart said. "But if your book is quieter, comps are less helpful." And although writers are often advised to use only the most current books as comps, "sometimes something older works, if it's culturally on people's minds."

The cook is us, the authors, the reason why we're the one destined to write this story. We often fret if we have no previous publishing experience but both Hart and Danaczko say not to worry. Everybody is unpublished at sometime. Instead, consider whether there are relevant family connections or research specialties, but stay as relevant as possible. 

Surprisingly to me, another often-touted must have -- professional editing -- was less important to the agents. Both Hart and Danaczko noted that although editors can be helpful, too much reliance on external help can be a sign that the writer's own toolbox of techniques may be skimpy. The manuscript should be as polished as the author can make it but "editors are not going to guarantee representation down the line. Take it as far as you can on your own."

After all that, did they have any major turnoffs about queries?

For Danaczko:

• When I can't locate quickly what the book is about
• Queries that promise things nobody can guarantee, such as sales comparisons
• Verbatim repeating of the agent's bio in the query

All of the above, Hart said, adding:

• Pasting parts of the book in the query -- "I still don't know what the book is about" 
• Not a genre I represent
• When requesting a synopsis, "I get two paragraphs when what I need is a beat by beat version"

    ***

 Still to come: what to ask an agent who offers representation? How to know if they're right for you? And what the heck do they actually do?