I went to Good Reads and looked at blurbs there and printed the best in my genre and my comp book blurbs. After studying them, everything fell into place. You talk in another video about the hook, the cook and the book. All the best blurbs I found boiled down to exactly that. So thank you!
First off thank you soooooo much for all your information and valuable advice. I love that you pointed people to read the blurbs of books with a similar theme. This is so true and I personally found it very helpful. As a writer I dislike writing queries because it is so hard not to subplot it to much. A writer has all this STUFF for lack of a better word in their heads that it is often difficult to separate the conflict from ones own personal favorite parts of the book. This is where I think a good deal of us writers get mixed up. I am glad you clarified what an agent/editor actually wants to see in the first glance.
This is extremely helpful for when it comes time for me to send one. Thank you all for sharing with us beginning writers out here. Fantastic advice and recommendations.
Thank you (again!) for all your helpful information! A few questions, if I may: 1) What is a typical good "yield" for a good query? If you are targeting agents in your genre, should you be getting requests 90% of the time? 75%? 50% 20% 5%? 2) If you're getting requests, say, 20% of the time, and 80% say "not for me" or "interesting, but not a good fit for my list," how do you know if this is a good blurb that is truly not a good fit for a lot of agents, or if you need to rework your blurb? Thank you!!
Commenting a year later, but another author on RU-vid, iWriterly, who is a former literary agent made an entire video giving examples of phrases that agents use when rejecting queries that suggest that you need to rework your book. If you’re still in this boat, I suggest checking that one out.
Another helpful vid! I have my earphones in and honestly I thought the gnawing was MY cat. Good to know you're not sacrificing anything😂 thanks for the tips, I've written my query SO many times but now I have 6 pointers to refer to when I read over my work again. Oh and I like that Kim's joined the vids! Her seriousness is hilarious. It's kinda like watching Friends 😂 James is Phoebe, Jessica is a mix of Rachel and Monica and Kim is Ross 😎😎😎😂
@@kimlionetti8091 it's a compliment! Ross is underrated comedy gold 😂 but don't mind me, I'm a millennial which means I only think I know what I'm talking about 😂😎
I'm in the second draft and will be starting the third here soon. I'm a bit concerned for a few reasons. One I still have no title (yes I've tried key words but to no avail). Two...though I'm pushing off writing the query until after I've typed a final draft I still can't help but feel a sense of dread when I do eventually have to write it. Lastly finding the right agent because I write adult fantasy so obviously there is cursing, violence,etc. From what I'm getting from the many bookends videos that I have watched these agents don't seem to be the type to like such things (that is the "vibe" I'm getting anyway). So I doubt I'd ever submit to bookends.
How can I find more information about genre? I am having a hard time fitting my novel (very humorous with aspects of adventure, mystery, fantasy and a bit of romance) into a specific genre.
Just from your comment it’s likely between mystery and fantasy. I’d say fantasy may be more prominent but it comes down to the audience you’re looking on selling most to. There’s a lot of romance and mystery within fantasy novels so think about what main component is in your book. I hope that helped!
We use query manager, so once we request a submission by asking for more (full manuscript, partial manuscript, or additional picture book manuscripts, synopsis) then you would get an email from Query Manager with our letter. You can then use the links in that email to upload your work.
From what I have seen so far, I like the videos this channel puts out, but, in some way, I think this video highlights the main problem with literary agent gatekeeping and author queries. Authors are maybe not the best marketers, and it seems that (from viewing many literary agents give their take on author queries) many literary agents look for any excuse to reject a query. Some of this channel's videos seem under-produced. This particular video seems more disjointed than others. Maybe it's the dog. Maybe not. One example is when James pitches over to Kim to explain WHAT a hook is. Kim then goes on to explain WHY a hook is important - and she does so more in a rambling of words, rather than by use of a concise and coherent thought. Another example is reason number four: comp titles. My understanding is that comp titles are part of the query letter, not the blurb. In other words, each the blurb and the list of comp titles are separate parts of the query letter, along with other distinct parts. But, the video here is about the blurb alone, not about query letters in general. When Kim says, "That was my very good point that I needed to make," it seems clear that this is the only thing she wanted to contribute to the video - and by that, the viewer is given the sense that she does not want to be in the video at all, just that her point about the blurb grabbing her attention is made. Overall, I get the impression that Kim is one of those gatekeeping-type literary agents - especially how her "I do" response contrasted against Jessica's "I don't care about comp titles" comment. Kim strikes me as the type of literary agent that would tell some hopeful author that they better have their queries perfected to the nth degree, else she will not give them the time of day. And, I bet she is the type that thinks nothing of giving silence as rejection in response to most of the queries that come across her desk. That's just my impression. And therein, as they said, lies the rub. Just as these literary agents are not perfect videographers, commentators, hosts, etc., neither are all authors perfect query letter writers. This is why high-production studio shows, e.g., local news, tech news shows, comedy shows, SNL, etc., have separate roles. They have writers and they have talent. And, many times the talent also write. Next-level quality is often best achieved through the division of such labor, because individuals are able to specialize. That is also why single-person YT channels who properly prepare (acting as the writing and editorial staff) before they press record can do so well. Audiences recognize the quality. And, that quality needs to be well-placed. There are many examples where production quality is high, but the content quality is low. IMO, this is because audiences prefer content quality over production quality. (Reference the old adage about lipstick and pigs.) It's better to focus on content first. And, here you have some under-produced literary agents overall giving fairly good, on-topic content, but with one of them delivering that content with the demeanor of someone who would rather sit in judgment over the production quality of a query letter, in order to justify ignoring the content quality of that query letter - unlike those who ignored the lower production quality of this video in order to appreciate and consume the video's content quality.
