Skip to main content

Workin' On It Wednesday #19 -- Stuff That Not's The Story

So I was reading this article from Poets & Writers online, a Q&A with four literary agents, and I came across this answer to the question of whether the agents thought that MFA students' focus on the "business of writing" was good for them:

RUTMAN: Ultimately, no. If that is more of a priority than the work, it can't be all good. I mean, it's fine that they have a sort of professional track and that they're exposed to whatever realities they are ultimately going to encounter. But when they take a sort of sporting interest in it...

STEINBERG: It's a good way to eliminate potential people, for me at least. When they ask me, "What's the query letter consist of?" I usually think, "Well, that's probably not a potential client."

RUTMAN: It's true.


This was an eye-opener for me, not because I disagree necessarily, but because most of the things I hear from agent blogs and industry websites and conferences is "YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE BUSINESS!!!" And here are four agents (most of whom represent literary fiction, by the way) who are saying that too much of a focus on the business means that writer isn't really a potential client.

Wow.

But I think that makes a great point -- a writer's business is to write a good story. That is a writer's primary economic value to an agent or a publisher. Query letters, synopses, understanding the market, those are all things that can aid a writer in the process of getting published, but they aren't ends in and of themselves. A story is.

Take me, for example: I have a fairly demanding full-time job.* I also do other things: I teach a class for fun, I see my friends, I walk my dog, I (sometimes) vacuum. In other words, I have a precious but limited amount of time to spend writing and and even more limited amount of time to spend "learning about the business."** So I read publishing news, and subscribe to some online blogs, attend some conferences, and spend time on my query letter/synopsis/summary/blah blah blah. And when I get published,*** I will spend time doing promotion as well.

But the story is still the main point.

That's what the agents are saying, I think. A writer who can do a solid query letter or synopsis**** or who can stand up in front of a room from of people and speak about her book is great. I'm sure many agents would prefer that their clients are able to do those things. But those things are all icing on the cake of being able to write a story.*****

~~~

* to put it in perspective for any lawyers out there, last year I billed 2400 hours.

** If anyone wants to pay me to quit my job and write full time, please email me. I'm happy to oblige. :)

*** 2009, The Year of Optimistic Thinking!

**** which, by the way, these agents all say they don't even read! I hope that, as a courtesy, they don't require synopses in their submission requirements. The only thing worse than having to write a synopsis would be having to write a synopsis for someone who's not even going to look at it.

***** The rest of the article is pretty interesting as well. Take a look at this exchange:

STEIN: Don't write "Because of your interest in international fiction..." or whatever you think the agent's interest is. That means you've been trolling some Web site, and that freaks me out. Don't let me see that you've been trolling some Web site that says I like a certain kind of genre. If you know who I am, you should know who I am because you've done some kind of research that has to do with the specific books I represent. That should only be because you've fallen in love with one or two of those books. And that's pretty unlikely because those books haven't sold very many copies. So you probably shouldn't be writing to me to begin with. [Laughter.]

RUTMAN: "Just avoid me altogether. I haven't helped any of these people, really, and I'm not going to help you."

STEIN: Exactly. There shouldn't really be anybody writing to me at all.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Very interesting stuff! Thanks for posting.

Popular posts from this blog

Monday Miscellany

1. I've been watching old episodes of The West Wing on Bravo lately, and have come to the conclusion that I love the character of Sam Seaborn. He's smart, he's earnest, he's a good writer, and he's played by Rob Lowe. What's not to love?* 2. I just bought the cutest jacket at Ann Taylor Loft. I know you care, but it's not every day that one can find a white denim jacket with styling reminiscent of Michael Jackson and a tailored waist. I'm just saying. 3. NaNoWriMo proceeds apace. There is no way that I'm going to be able to keep writing at this pace after this month is over, but I'm on track to finish. It's an interesting project...in some ways the speed is freeing and in other ways it's extremely limited, as to make the word count I have no time to go back and revise. 4. Alien and Aliens are amazing movies. Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection ? Not so much. 5. This week's Glee characterization inconsistency watch: Rache...

Why Are The Characters Friends?

Lately, I've been reading a lot of books where the main character and her best friend don't get along. This is confusing to me. Why is the main character friends with someone she dislikes, or is afraid of, or actually hates? I get that it happens--I've seen Mean Girls . I've read Queen Bees and Wannabes . Heck, I'm old enough to have been the prime audience for Heathers . But in order for this fractured best friend relationship to be convincing, it has to be set up. In both Heathers and Mean Girls , there's a reason why the protagonist is friends with a bunch of b*tches--she chose to be. She knows that they're jerks. In fact, she can feel herself becoming a jerk right along with them. It's part of the character arc, the point of the story, that being friends with these girls is not who she really is. But the relationships I've been seeing lately don't make that kind of sense. The protagonist doesn't have a reason to be friends with...

Jay Takes A Stand

Moonrat, still at Editorial Ass, is making me think a lot lately. She did a recent post here about sexualized violence in print ads, and connected the dots to sexualized violence in books and other media, which got me thinking about how I treat girls and women in my books. To be clear--I'm a feminist. I believe in equal pay for equal work and reproductive choice, and the whole ball of wax. I'm not going to go into detail about all that here because, frankly, there are people out there whose blogs are dedicated to that kind of thing (like Jezebel *) and they do it way better than I ever could. But that's my political orientation, in case you care. So when I was writing The Book, it was very important to me that my female protagonist S did not fall into any of those "heroine needs saving by the hero" tropes that so many books for teenage girls do. Sure, there's something very "romantic" about the hero swooping in and rescuing the heroine, right? ...