Earlier this week, I told you the story of SIOA-avoider Zack, who had talked himself into a fairly common agent-soliciting writerâ€™s dilemma. He had pitched successfully — so much so that he had been asked to send both the first 50 and the whole manuscript, respectively, to a number of different agents — but he had become so intent upon revising the book that he never quite managed to get any of those requested materials packets out the door.
Not that he intended not to send them out when he was pitching — no, at the time, and even for a few weeks after, he was willing and even eager to place his work under as many agentsâ€™ noses as possible. He certainly stressed out often enough about it. But somehow, he kept delaying making those last crucial changes.
And one day, he woke up to realize that five months had gone by. Or seven. Or a year.
It may have been as little as four weeks, but regardless of the actual number of cast-off calendar pages involved, it was long enough to prompt that thought always so close to the front of a writer gearing up for submissionâ€™s mind:
â€œOh, God, have I blown my big chance?â€
From that cri de coeur, it was only a small step to talking himself into believing that the agents in question would be miffed over the delay, so his submission really didnâ€™t have a chance, anyway. Why, he reasoned, waste postage, now that rejection was a foregone conclusion?
For one very, very good reason, Zack: it wasnâ€™t.
What doomed the submission was not anything that happened on the agentâ€™s end; what guaranteed failure was not pulling out of the SIOA-avoidance spiral. There are, of course, plenty of things a submitter can do to render rejection more LIKELY, but at the risk of sounding like the proverbial broken record, the only manuscript that has absolutely no chance of being picked up by an agent is one that no agent ever sees.
So today Iâ€™m going to ask the question the Zacks of the world should be asking themselves: what precisely do you have to lose by sending it out at this point?
And yes, that’s a perfectly serious question.
Admittedly, I wouldnâ€™t ADVISE waiting 7 or 8 months to submit requested materials (or pushing it for longer than a year, regardless of the reason), but itâ€™s not as though Millicent the screener will take one look at the return address, consult a list of expected arrivals, and toss it aside unread, muttering, â€œWell, weâ€™ll never know if THAT one had potential, will we?â€
For one thing, handling it this way would require her to take the 14 seconds required to check a list — and for someone to have gone to the trouble of creating and maintaining such a list. Ripping open an envelope marked REQUESTED MATERIALS and starting to read is, when multiplied by a hundred manuscripts.
So if Zackâ€™s long-delayed manuscript falls into her hands, Millicent probably just going to — you guessed it — rip open the envelope and start reading. Oh, she will probably roll her eyes at the line in his cover letter that mentions at which conference her boss requested the enclosed pages, but in all likelihood, sheâ€™s going to take a gander at the first page, at least.
PLEASE do not, however, regard that likelihood as carte blanche to push off revising that requested material until some future point when youâ€™ll have unbroken time to revise. Some agents do take umbrage at long delays, particularly after face-to-face pitching.
You can see their point, canâ€™t you? Listening to many pitches in a row is pretty exhausting, after all, and one of the first reactions someone who makes her living by selling books is likely to have to the pitch that truly excited her is to start brainstorming quietly about which editors might be interested in the book in question. Donâ€™t you want to keep that train of thought going — or at least (hold on, racking my brains for a train metaphor here) place your good writing under her nose while that moment of excitement is still within living memory?
(Couldnâ€™t come up with an appropriate follow-up railroad metaphor, obviously.)
If you want to build upon the excitement generated by a pitch or query letter, itâ€™s prudent to try to get it out the door within 6 weeks of the request (not counting standard publishing not-at-home periods, like the three weeks leading up to Labor Day). The common wisdom dictates 3, but since agents hear SO many pitches at conferences and Millicent sees SO many queries, itâ€™s unlikely that either is going to recall details of a pitch or query.
It IS nice, though, if you can get it to â€˜em soon enough so SOMETHING about your project seems at least vaguely familiar. More than that isnâ€™t necessary, strictly speaking, because you will have written REQUESTED MATERIALS in big, fat marker on the outside of the envelope and reminded them in the first line of your cover letter that they did, in fact, ask to see it. (If anything in the last sentence came as a surprise to you, I would highly recommend taking a gander at the SUBMISSION PACKET category at right.)
Less than 6 weeks is ideal, but if you can send it out in under 3 months, there really is no need to apologize for the delay. (As writers often do, and at great length.) Longer than that, though, and itâ€™s a good idea to add a sentence to your cover letter, apologizing for the delay.
What you do NOT need to do is query again and ask for permission to send it at all. A crisp, businesslike cover letter set on top of your requested materials will do beautifully. Something along the lines of this is ample:
Dear (Requesting Agentâ€™s Name),
Thank you for asking to see the first fifty pages of my novel, INVISIBLE INK. Please find it enclosed, along with a SASE for its safe return.
I had hoped to get these pages to you a trifle sooner, but the confluence of an unusually protracted work crisis and a bright idea for improving Chapter Two rendered my proofreading eye a bit slower than usual. I apologize for the delay.
Thank you for considering this, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Nice, clean, professional — and most importantly, not maudlin. No need to go on at length about what actually delayed you; youâ€™re just being polite here, not filling in a long-lost buddy about the last six months of your life. (If you donâ€™t like the work crisis line, try a computer meltdown: everyone can identify with that.) All you really need to do here is to establish that you realize that you may have been slow to SIOA, and that you donâ€™t plan to make a habit of it.
If you DO plan on making a habit of it, you can buy yourself some additional time if you are polite about any anticipated delays early on. Naturally, if you experience a genuine life crisis, thatâ€™s beyond your control — and if one occurs within the first couple of months after a request, it is perfectly proper to send out a courteous (and BRIEF) e-mail or letter to the requesting agent, stating that thereâ€™s going to be an unavoidable delay in sending those pages he asked to see.
Do everything in your power, though, to keep the lapse between request and submission under a year, especially for a follow-up on a conference pitch. (Since conferences are annual, and agencies frequently send different agents in different years, it can be really, really obvious if a submitterâ€™s cover letter refers to the 2007 or 2008 conference.)
One more piece of practical advice: if you are SIOAing after a substantial delay, I would HIGHLY recommend submitting your work via mail, rather than as an e-mail attachment. Yes, even if the agent or editor originally suggested that you send it via e-mail.
Why? Because while Millicent will almost certainly open even a months-late envelope, she may not open a months-late attachment. Most agencies will not open unrequested e-mail attachments, anyway, due to fear of viruses, and the chances of your submissionâ€™s being mistaken for unsolicited grows as your name recognition at the agency fades.
If, knowing all this, you still find yourself firmly in the do-not-send-it-out-until-Groundhog-Day camp, I have one last question for you: are you positive that you really want to submit this book at all?
That may sound flippant, but listen: chronic SIOA-avoidance is a extremely common phenomenon, but in my experience, its severity does not correlate with how ready the book in question is to be marketed or the inherent talent of its writer. Itâ€™s very frequently a manifestation of fear of rejection, a way to protect oneâ€™s baby from criticism.
And thatâ€™s completely understandable, right? A manuscript that is never submitted cannot be rejected. Itâ€™s logically impossible.
So for many aspiring writers, it just feels more comfortable to cut the process short by not mailing requested materials — in essence, rejecting their own work before the agent can do it — than to take the risk of exposing their books to professional critique. That way, they can never learn for sure whether their books are marketable or not.
Let me be clear here: I have absolutely nothing negative to say about writers who create solely for their own pleasure. Bless the Emily Dickinsons of this world, I say, who limit their audience to people they already know. This can be wonderfully fulfilling, if the writer is honest about it, embracing the desire for an intimate readership — and doesn’t torture herself by continually trying to find an agent and/or editor she doesn’t really want or need.
However, the VAST majority of writers write in order to be read by people they DONâ€™T know. To do that necessarily means risking rejection.
And letâ€™s not kid ourselves about the kind of personal strength taking that level of risk requires: you have to be damned brave to send your work out to hyper-critical strangers. Letâ€™s face it, there arenâ€™t a lot of professions where the practitionerâ€™s FIRST official act is to take a piece of her soul and allow people a couple of time zones away to examine it under a microscope for minute flaws.
So, just for today, letâ€™s celebrate how courageous we are when we do send out our work, rather than castigating ourselves when we donâ€™t. Just for today, letâ€™s clap our hands for all of us who have taken the great leap of submission. And for those who are going to pluck up the courage to break the SIOA spiral now.
Chins up, my friends, and keep up the good work!