Ask the Agent:

I personally don't notice or care if something is in 1st vs 3rd, as long as it is a seamless reading experience. Like... I just don't keep track of that or remember, it really doesn't matter to me, I assume that the author has picked the one that they like best for THAT BOOK, and as long as it is done well, it would not bother me. (Ideally, I won't notice!)

That being said, I looked up a bunch of books just to check, and in so doing found an article about it from last month all about how yes, First Person is very popular in romance novels right now.

And yet... plenty of bestselling books are in third person. HEATED RIVALRY is in third person. Many (all? some? idk! But definitely many!) of Christina Lauren's books. Tessa Bailey. Jasmine Guillory. I could keep going! Many/most historicals are in third person. Lots of very "voice-driven" could-almost-be-YA books are in first person. There are benefits to both styles, neither is right or wrong, but to ME, first person tends to skew a little "younger" and funnier. Third person a little more sophisticated.

ANYWAY, THE POINT IS: Romance novels aren't a monolith! You don't say what kind of romance novel you want to write. Rom com? Romantic suspense? Romantasy? Historical? Something else? Perhaps the thing to do is to narrow it down.

And when you have, look at a bunch of other books in that specific style/ genre that are for the same audience as your book will be, published in the last year (ie, 2025/2026).

Are THEY mostly in 1st person? Or is it a mixed bag? IF your particular specific genre of romance novel is really incredibly dominated by 1st person only, that's probably indicative of a strong preference on the part of publishers and readers and that should inform your decision. If it's a mixed bag, some first, some third, then do what feels right for YOUR book and YOUR story.

(I also haven't noticed a marked increase in book length, but then again, I don't keep track of word count and don't care. So while you are scoping out all those books, look at about how long they are. Aim for about that long! You can look at some post in the FAQ if you want tips on finding word count for novels that aren't children's books, basically you can usually look up the word count on Kobo.)

Let's say you are in a bookstore. You only have $20, you can get ONE book. So you're wandering around looking at stuff. Maybe first you look at the books on the New Releases table, then go to the sections that have stuff you usually like.

You pick out a few potential books. They all have cool covers, they all have interesting-sounding descriptions on the jacket, so you decide to turn to the first page and just start reading.

WHAT MAKES YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING? What makes you decide THIS one is the one you are going to spend your $20 on? And, what might make you set the book down?

The answer might be a little different for different people on different days. Some of it might be just vibes-based, you just really aren't in the mood for XYZ or for whatever reason XYZ gives you the ick, and this book seems to be brimming with it. OR, on the other side of the coin, you ARE really in the mood for XYZ, or you are always a sucker for this trope or this type of premise, and this particular book seems to be really ringing that bell in a fun way.

So... it's the same when I'm looking at the query inbox. There are a lot of things that are easy to say no to. But, there are probably several things that look potentially promising based on the query and the first page or so, and they have become Maybes. If I'm looking at the "maybe" pile and trying to decide what to request, I'll go in deeper on the sample pages, just like hypothetical you reading a bit of the book in the bookstore.

For ME, the books (or manuscripts) that make me say YES are generally the ones where the voice rings true and the writing is clear as glass. I feel instantly like I am in good hands with this author, and I'm excited to keep going because I'm already hooked and want to know more about what will happen next.

Ideally, I FORGET that I'm reading a query, it just feels like a REAL BOOK.

I don't really know how else to describe it, or how you ACHIEVE that. It's just a FEELING. (Sorry!)

If at ANY point I want to nope out, for any reason at all, I will do so. If I get to the end of the first page and want to keep going, that's good. If I get to the end of the sample and want to keep going, I'll request a full.

(Sorry I don't have more specific Things You Must Do... just, you know, make it so people want to keep going????)

A lot going on here.

Is it true agents only spend ten seconds on a query and first pages before passing or adding to the maybe pile? It's true that most agents are very fast to know whether they want to decline something or look more carefully at it. TEN SECONDS is probably an exaggeration. (My eyes barely have time to focus in ten seconds, good god.) But certainly ... a minute or two is enough to read a query letter and glance at the relevant info. If it is an easy pass, we pass. If we want to take a closer look, we'd put it in the maybe pile.

I saw a thread on agents needing a perfect query and any of them being chronically online being a bad thing because it means they’re not agenting. These feel like two different thoughts. a) yes obviously your query should be good? I don't know that "perfect" is achievable, or what that would even mean, but good is certainly achievable.

b) yes, some agents who are chronically online do more chit-chatting than agenting. (Some agents can do both admirably). If they are online 24/7 and also NOT SELLING BOOKS, that's a problem. If they seem more concerned with curating an "online presence" and boosting some side hustle money making opportunities or something and are never posting about their books, THAT might be a problem. But if they are selling books, and posting about their books, I don't see why they can't also do their own personal instagrams or have a Tumblr or whatever. (I post on the internet! I also sell a lot of books...)

I feel that people fundamentally misunderstand normal lit agents and it’s irritating to see the negative stuff every so often. Eh, I am not too worried about it, and I don't think you need to be, either. Some people probably do "fundamentally misunderstand" agents -- but some people fundamentally misunderstand, like, basic science, too. Some people are straight-up dodo birds and it's a wonder that they can even function in society. Oh well.

This is confusing to me, sorry. Obviously you shouldn't keep company with people who are bigots? This doesn't feel like it should be new information. Maybe I am not understanding the question?

I assume the question is What if we don’t know we’re interacting with closeted bigots?

Well, if they are CLOSETED, ie, they have never said or done anything to indicate that they are bigots, and you don't know that they are bigots, and nobody has ever told you that they are bigots because nobody ELSE knows that they are bigots because they aren't saying or doing bigoted things, then how would it "impact" anything if you interact with them? You aren't a mind-reader. People might have all kinds of crazy personal opinions you never know about, and as long as they never act on them or speak them aloud, well, you aren't the thought police, what are you supposed to do about it?

Whereas, if you found out somebody you thought was cool is actually a racist who is doing or saying racist things, I HOPE you would call them out, or at LEAST that you would stop being hanging out with them. Because if somebody you are hanging out with is doing/saying racist things and you are apparently fine with that, you are also racist. (Just like the Nazis who actually did all the atrocities and the Nazis who just hung out at the HQ commissary drinking with them after the atrocities are all Nazis.)

That being said: Does anything "impact anything at all"? Nobody in publishing knows or cares what random discord or reddit community you are a part of. Don't be a jerk to other writers, and don't hang out with jerks, not because it will "impact" your publishing -- but because it's not nice to be a jerk or hang out with jerks!

Here's a truth-bomb:

You don't need to go to college to be a published novelist. And if you DO go to college, most of the time it doesn't matter where you went to college or what your degree is in or what grades you got, nobody in publishing is checking your transcripts.

I personally know some published writers who didn't go at all or didn't graduate, and some who went to college for something totally random, and some who have advanced degrees like MFAs in writing or even PhDs, and all of them have a similar level of success.

So why go to college at all?

-- If you want to be a FICTION writer, it's helpful to know lots of interesting things and live an interesting life. It's not vital that you go to college to achieve that, but it can be a decent place to start.

-- Using your brain A LOT and reading A LOT and writing A LOT (and being able to do those things on a deadline) are all vital skills for an author. Again, you don't have to go to college to do those things, but it doesn't hurt!

-- A degree in any liberal arts major (English, of course, but also Communications or Journalism or Theatre or History whatever interests you) will force you to do a lot of writing and reading and critical thinking, which is helpful for developing those skills, especially if they don't come naturally to you or it's been awhile.

-- A degree in ANY major will likely help you get a better (non-writing) JOB, and unless you are independently wealthy, it's good to have a job that pays relatively well since writing usually doesn't, especially in the beginning!

-- And going to college can be helpful for learning "soft skills" that will come in handy in publishing, like professional communication, how to get and give critique, getting along with lots of different kinds of people, etc. Again, you CAN get those skills in other ways, but college is how many people gain them.

OK, but wait, go back, you said "most of the time" college doesn't matter... so are there exceptions? (of course there are exceptions):

-- I said Novelist above. If you want to be a NON-FICTION writer, a degree (especially an advanced degree) in your field of interest will give you more expertise and credibility. Like, you are writing a book about immunology or whatever? Probably not a bad idea to have a degree in that or at least an adjacent subject, because a book about immunology by a doctor or research scientist or even a journalist with some kind of scientific knowledge is more likely to be published than a book about immunology by Joe Schmo who mans the hot-dog oven at the Circle K.

-- I said "it doesn't matter where you go to school" above. However. For SOME kinds of highly literary fiction, it can be helpful to go to a prestigious writers program like the Iowa Writer's Workshop. Not imperative, but... I won't say that it couldn't help, just in terms of networking with probably award-winning authors, etc.

-- I said it doesn't matter if you have a degree above, and THAT'S TRUE. However, part of "geting a better job" MAY require graduate school. For example, if you want to be a lawyer, you'll need to go to Law School. You probably DO need at least a Masters/MFA to teach at an accredited college, and a PhD to be a tenure-track professor. So while you don't need any degree to BE A WRITER, some of the adjacent careers that a lot of writers might want to do WOULD, of course, require a degree.

So what should you major in?

-- If you have a career goal besides writer, or your goal is to get into graduate school, major in whatever is helpful for THAT. (So that could be liberal arts or a science field or business or whatever will be most useful).

-- If you don't have a particular career goal and you aren't planning to get an advanced degree beyond a Bachelors, a major in any liberal arts field that interests you will be helpful in your writer life.

-- Regardless: For a BA degree, your mission should be to get through it as fast as you can with as little debt as you can. The "get through it fast" is important because obviously being done sooner is better than being done later and the longer you are in school the more debt you will likely accrue, but ALSO because if you are going to turn around and go to grad school after, THAT's the important part.

-- If your goal is to MAKE MONEY and you don't want to go through law school or medical school or be a tech bro or whatever: GO TO TRADE SCHOOL. For real. I don't know about other countries, but the US has a real lack of folks who have tangible skills, and we NEED THEM. AI can't fix people's dishwashers. AI can't mend power lines or solve plumbing conundrums or build things. If you can be a skilled electrician, plumber, contractor or anything of that nature, you can make A LOT of money and never be out of work, and that security can go a long way toward pursuing passion projects. My favorite teacher in high school gave me this advice, and I was a snob and didn't listen to him. Now I have a billion dollars in student loans I'll be paying off until I'm 60, and no skills aside from reading and writing. DANG IT.

"Difficult" sort of implies that we as authors/agents/publishers have any real control over the trade reviewing at all. The publishers do have to send the books to the reviewers, but beyond that, there's not really anything that the AUTHOR can do about it.

In other words, it's not really a "difficulty" problem so much as a "likelihood" one. (You also say "now" but you don't say compared to when, so I'm guessing). I would phrase this question as:

Is there a higher or lower likelihood of a book getting reviewed in one of the trade publications now versus pre-pandemic?

IMO, lower. My opinion is based on casual observation, not rigorous science, but it so happens that I track starred reviews for my agency, so I keep an eye on this. My observations:

-- Maybe like 10 years ago, some publishers had already started to make a big electronic shift, but there were holdouts who still did everything the old-fashioned way. BUT! When the Pando Lockdown happened, there was a forced shift in a lot of processes for every publisher.

After all: There was nobody physically in the office to deal with mail! So publishers that used to insist on paper contracts for example, were forced into accepting DocuSign and the like. Places that used to pay with paper checks and statements were forced into doing ACH and electronic royalty statements. Meetings that had always been only in person were suddenly on Zoom. And, crucially for THIS convo, Publishers had to stop doing all the paper ARCs and trade publications had to start accepting all the ARCs/review copies electronically because there was nobody to SEND paper arcs from the publisher, and nobody to receive them in the offices on the other end! (I'm sure they COULD have reviewed electronically earlier than that -- and some publishers DO still do paper ARCs now (again) for sure -- but that lockdown moment is when paper became kind of an impossibility).

-- Electronic ARCs mean more books to sift through, with less identifying information. Like, maybe this is my ADHD talking, but I would find it a lot easier to find the awesome stuff if I was pawing through a pile of actual books, and easier to remember that I was interested in reviewing a book if THE PHYSICAL OBJECT WAS ON MY DESK. As an electronic file in a folder with ten thousand other files that all look the same, I would find it very difficult to prioritize, to remember what was coming out, what I needed to review, what seemed interesting vs not, etc. Now obviously book reviewers have some kind of methodology to deal with this, I'm just saying: When the books to be reviewed were physical objects, there was a limit to how much the publishers could/would send and a cap on the number that could actually be considered at any given time. If there is no physical object involved, then the number of possible books to choose from is not limited by physical space or constrained in any way, and that is kinda overwhelming!

-- Also around that time, there were a lot of layoffs, including layoffs at the Trade Publications. And I don't know if you've heard, but the magazine industry isn't exactly a thriving concern... I'm sure that subscriptions and views are not as robust as they were back in the day.

-- So, put it all together and that means fewer book reviewers responsible for reviewing more books for less money. That's it. That's the problem.

While this really started kicking off around pandemic times, I don't think it has gotten much better. It's just the "new normal":

Reviews that used to ALWAYS come well before the book was released might get reviews much closer to the date, or even post-release (in some cases WELL past the release date!)

"Big", HOT, highly-anticipated books that, pre-pandemic, would have certainly been reviewed by every trade publication will now be reviewed by most.

Popular authors/books with a fair amount of buzz that, pre-pandemic, would have probably been reviewed by most trade publications will now be reviewed by some (but it would not be uncommon at all for a few to skip).

Debut authors/less-well-known/more under-the-radar books that, pre-pandemic, would probably have been reviewed by several of the trade publications now might only get one or two.

(This isn't like, a call to action or anything - I'm not sure what you can DO about it! Just reporting the facts as I see them!)

This article from last month is about LGBTQIA voices being (according to the headline) "pushed out of kidlit." So, not JUST about trans/nb characters, but queerness across the board.

Full disclosure: I was asked for a quote for that article, and I didn't give one. Not because I don't believe the authors/agents who were on the record in the article (like I trust that their experience is a real one, I'm not arguing with the article!), I just personally have not found that to be the case, but I would be hesitant to really draw any kind of broader conclusions about the industry as a whole from such a small sample size.

For example, I have sold 100% of the trans protagonist MG books I've gone out with this year. (I've gone out with one!) I have sold most of the trans/nb protagonist books for all ages that I've ever gone out with.

The few that didn't sell, nobody has ever said that the reason they didn't sell was the trans/nb-ness of it all, and I don't actually think that IS the reason why. Like... lots of things don't sell? I certainly get significantly MORE rejections for books that DON'T have trans/nb progtagonists... but of course I do, because there are way more of those books!

Again, I'm not saying it's all a bed of roses, obviously this is a tough time for BOOKS IN GENERAL. Publishers have a delicate dance to do.

-- On the one hand, of course, they want to acquire books that will sell the most copies possible, they would like to stay in business -- that means that they probably would prefer books that are appealing to the majority of people and WON'T get banned.

(Despite what some people say, "banning books is the best publicity" is simply not true for the majority of books that are banned. Most don't get that kind of publicity, they just become unavailable to readers. Plus, in addition to actual bans, there is "soft censorship", the librarian or teacher just won't bring the books in at all to avoid potential controversy. And with the absolute firehose of banning coming at us nowadays... welp.)

-- On the other hand, of course, most publishers WANT to have all kinds of books for all kinds of readers, they want to stand up against censorship and fight the good fight. While there are a couple of distinctly conservative imprints, the vast majority of publishers/editors are somewhere on the spectrum between Liberal Leaning and Woke AF. They would NEVER want it to be said that they leaned away from publish trans/enby/queer narratives or anything like that.

-- And on the other-other hand, of course, as it IS a tough time for BOOKS IN GENERAL -- if, let us say, a "Woke" book doesn't sell -- is that proof of publishers "pulling back from publishing Woke Books"? Or is it that MOST BOOKS AREN'T SELLING, WOKE OR NOT?

I don't know the answer to that, but anyway, that's why I didn't give a quote to the SLJ. But it's an interesting article anyway. I also read... something somewhere recently (????) that an editor was saying, it's not that they couldn't/wouldn't buy LGB/Trans/NB narratives at all -- it's just that they probably wouldn't buy something that was like "It's OK to be Trans!" / "We Love Pride Flags" / "All Pronouns Are Cool!" or whatever at this point, not that those topics aren't valid and important, just there already are lots of books like that that do their job very well. They would prefer a book that is just a GREAT STORY, and there are queer/trans/nb/whatever kinds of people IN IT, but that's not the whole point of the story. Again, that was one editor talking on behalf of themselves - is it reflective of the whole industry? Who knows!

I don't consider myself some huge expert on What People Want In Fantasy Novels or anything, but I kinda suspect that when Agents / Editors say "POC writing fantasy based on folklore from their culture", what they really mean is "people writing fantasy from a perspective that is different from what we already see a ton of, for example, perhaps fantasy based on folklore from their culture."

I realize that may sound the same, but there's a difference there, actually!

What we already see a ton of is like... white people running around a Europe-looking environment quaffing flagons of mead in European-looking castles, white people hopping on dragons and/or sword-fighting, and white people dabbling in magic/folklore drawn from Celtic or Germanic or Norse or possibly Greek/Roman mythologies. You can picture this, yes?

So I DON'T think agents mean just, "OK, well, your background is Korean, so you have to write a story that draws from Korean mythology and that's ALL you can do." (Like... that's racist actually, and it'd be fair enough if to that you said "Um, I don't know anything about Korean mythology, I'm from Phoenix. FU!")

I DO think agents might be saying, "We'd love a story from a unique perspective that isn't a copycat Game-o-Thrones/Percy Jackson." So MAYBE that's a story that is set in Korea or a Korea-like fantasy environment with Korean folklore inspo. OR MAYBE it's a Korean-American girl growing up in Phoenix who is on a field trip with her class, and stumbles upon what she thinks is a geode in the desert, but actually it's a DRAGON EGG and it hatches in her gym locker later that day. (Or whatever - point is, a story that YOU would have fun writing that is from the unique perspective that YOU bring to the table, basically.)

That doesn't just go for POC people, either. I think most agents have exhaustion around LOTS of things that are "same old same old." It's INTERESTING when people bring new / unique / specific perspectives to the table, whether those are non-Western cultural/mythological perspectives, BIPOC perspectives, disability perspectives, neurodivergent perspectives, class or specific regional difference perspectives, etc. How do those differences change the story and the way magic works or whatever it is?

For example, my client Marti Dumas wrote a story about a girl who finds out she has magic, and that there is a secret magic school and she is invited to enroll. Sound familiar? If I just said that, you might think it was like Harry Potter! -- but in WILDSEED WITCH, the main character is a Black girl in modern-day New Orleans who just wants to be a YouTuber, and the school is set outside the city in swamp country with magic systems drawn from Black Creole culture, absolutely suffused in Louisiana-ness, and is nothing like Hogwarts as a result. That's a story that MARTI was great at telling -- she brought her unique and specific perspective to it. Somebody from New York or Phoenix or Germany or Korea would likely have had a hard time telling that story in that way. (And that's FINE! They bring something different to whatever story THEY are telling!)

(I have NO IDEA if that helps -- but I hope so!)

ETA: FWIW, as for "a lot of rejection" -- there IS a lot of rejection. I don't know if you can lay the blame for that at the feet of what you are writing about or your background. White writers get a lot of rejections, and POC writing "stories of their culture" get a lot of rejections, too. Most people get a lot of rejection before they get a yes! Dare I say,.. everyone? Pretty much everyone!

Maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet? But to me... not really.

"High Concept" means that it's easy to understand from a nutshell, one-line pitch. These are probably very plot-driven stories, and the audience knows a lot about what the plot will be like immediately -- the contents are written on the jar (often literally). Like, What's STAR WARS about? Pew pew, I'm in space! Pew pew, enemy, I'm doing a war! IT'S ABOUT STAR WARS. What's HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS about? Obviously, it's a hapless dad who shrunk the kids. JURASSIC PARK. DON'T TELL MOM THE BABYSITTER'S DEAD. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. All of these things are High Concept. (The title doesn't necessarily have to tell the story like that, my point is, for a high concept story, you would be able to "get it" easily.)

Generally speaking, stories that are labeled quiet are the opposite of high concept. They probably not plot-driven. They are stories where you need to dig into them to "get" what it is, they are often full of interiority and introspection, etc. You can't really describe the plot in a nutshell one-line pitch, because it would sound boring. Like... MRS DALLOWAY is about a woman who buys flowers and walks around and thinks about things? REMEBERANCE OF THINGS PAST is about a man who really likes a certain small cake? That doesn't mean these stories are BAD, they just aren't high concept!

I don't think something could be high concept and also quiet unless they did the high concept part badly and something had gone wrong?

I DO think something could potentially be literary and high concept. For example, THE POWER is an alternate universe in which all women have the power to electrocute men when they touch them. It's a literary novel, but it's not QUIET, and there's a distinct "high concept"!

If people disgree with me and can think of High Concept AND Quiet books, I invite them to chime in and provide examples!

No.

Hi there’s somebody (or several people?) in my inbox being quite uh… aggressive in their asks. Not to tone police or anything, I get that you are feeling some kind of a way, but I would really rather not post insulting screeds about specific books, writers or publishing professionals, whether or not I agree with them on a personal level. My name is on this thing, you are anonymous – I don’t want it to look like I’M saying that stuff! And I can’t edit your questions to take out names or name-calling!

Anyway, I’m deleting those asks. So if you just wanted to vent, OK, you got to do that. But if you really did have a question and I haven’t answered it, maybe try again without insulting anyone else or their work. I would prefer to TRY to keep this as positive a space as I can, just so I don’t fall into despair. Thanks!

Publishers are well aware that they can do significantly more than the author can with traditional marketing. Things like ARCs, bringing the book to school library conferences, doing bigmouth mailings, having special bookstore display signage and special discounts for stores -- all of these things are things that drive sales to bookstores, schools and libraries. All of which are, obviously, necessary to sell books to consumers. (People can't buy the book if it isn't in the bookstore!)

So, MARKETING is to some extent consumer-oriented, but really mostly geared toward getting gatekeepers to know and love the book so that they can then make their community aware of it and push it, because that's the most bang for the buck. A passionate bookseller or librarian can reach a LOT of people, and those tentacles spread out!

Publicity is a bit of a different beast. The goal there is getting "earned media" -- that is, NOT PAYING for coverage, rather, getting the NYT or whoever it is to WANT to write a story about you. Publishers are decent at that too, but of course, not all books lend themselves easily to being featured in major media. So those two are the main avenues by which publishers get the word out about books.

But there is that third prong, SOCIAL media... which publishers, frankly, kinda often suck at. And this isn't ACTUALLY their fault. The problem is, things that the publisher creates tend to look like ADS. (surprise!) People on social media aren't looking for ADS. The things that go viral are things that feel AUTHENTIC.

So a publisher spends time and money crafting an elegant video about a book -- 30 copies sell. A grainy video of grandma hilariously reading a book aloud to a kid and laughing will set the internet on fire and suddenly a half a million copies of a nearly-out-of-print picture book sell. Obviously you can't manufacture or buy "authenticity" -- that's the whole point!

But it is just a fact that on social media, the AUTHOR is a way better ambassador for the book than the publisher can be. People DO want to listen to authors -- they DON'T want to listen to ads. So that's really the main place where an author can help with book marketing.

THAT BEING SAID. I've been doing this for nearly 20 years and have literally never had a publisher or anyone else in a position of power "insist" that one of my authors have "big social media accounts".

They might suggest that an author have at least one social media account. Not because they are expecting you to have a string of viral videos or anything -- but just because that's best practices! It's good for you to be able to post stuff on easily and and it's good for them to have a way for them to tag you in their posts. They'd appreciate that. But I don't think they are insisting, and I don't think they are follower-counting. If anything, that seems like LESS of a conversation than it was in the 2010s!

Of course, if an author HAS a big social media account, that's a nice bonus, I'm sure they'd be delighted -- but it's laughable to think that an author who DOESN'T have a huge following is just going to "get big" overnight because a publisher "insists". I just really don't think most publishers DO expect that.

I mean there ARE publishers and agents who are explicitly seeking influencer-type authors who have a huge social media presence. But that's not all or even most publishers and agents. If you DON'T have a huge social media presence, you probably aren't a fit for those particular folks, or vice versa. So, OK, move on. Normal authors with normal, regular social media (or even hardly any at all) do get book deals all the time.

I’m gonna be totally real with you:

I don’t know any agents who only represent books for adults. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I’m just not friends with any. Not for any reason other than I would really have no occasion to meet or hang out with one. I usually meet other agents at conferences and book fairs, and I only attend children’s book focused ones. The publishing parties I go to are all thrown by children’s book publishers. Certainly if I’ve been introduced to one in passing at an AALA function or something, they have been perfectly cordial.

(That being said, regular people NOT in publishing, if I try to explain my job, will often ask when I will work on real books! 😂 I solved the problem by no longer trying to explain my job to strangers!)

I'll preface this by saying that while I've met Mac Barnett, I don't KNOW him, I have no special insight into his thoughts, I like a lot of his books and love a couple of them and don't personally care for others, which is fine. So, you know where I'm coming from, I've got no horse in the race as it were!

In case you missed the scandal du jour, Famous Children's Book Author and National Ambassador for Children's Literature Mac Barnett has a new book out for grownups. It's about, well, children's books. Toward the front of the book, there's a quote which I'll paraphrase: "94.7% of children's books are crud." (It's a riff on a different famous quote by a different author about Science Fiction books, that's not the point, I'm just giving you the background here!)

As you can imagine, a lot of people who have a lot invested in promoting children's books were dismayed by this comment. Which is fair enough, tbh, because yes, out of context — (eta: OR EVEN IN CONTEXT!) — what a monstrous thing to say! Like, talk about privileged, buddy, GET REAL, who are you to "crud" all over your colleagues, and the publishers who publish all those books... including YOUR BOOKS btw?

Tracey Baptiste wrote an excellent response about this and why it matters. Kate Messner wrote another excellent response that I think encapsulates what we, people who love kids books, might do about it. I urge you to read both, they are smarter and more thoughtful than I am!

MEANWHILE, a bit of a dogpile commenced, with people clamoring for him to resign his post as Ambassador, saying his books suck anyway, dragging him through the mud, etc etc. OK. Now you're caught up.

The problem (well not the only problem, but ONE of the problems) here is, the alarming quote has been taken so far out of context that it means the opposite of what I think Mac would say he meant it to mean. (ETA: Not that that makes it a GOOD QUOTE, it’s emphatically a shitty thing to say, just — it’s not the *only part* of the thing he was saying!)

Like, if you were to read the actual book in question as a whole, it's a sort of philosophical defense of Children's Books and why they are important. He explicitly says in that text that it's vital to have all kinds of books, that children need to be able to see themselves in books, that children often like different things than adult gatekeepers like (and vice-versa)... in other words, MUCH of the same stuff that all the people who love and write children's books say all the time.

Additionally, it might or might not be important to note that the book was written and originally published in Italy BEFORE he was the Children's Ambassador, he wasn't writing it from that position. His platform and influence NOW is much bigger than it was a couple of years ago when it was written. (ETA: At this point in time, his position in the world is different, and the effects of his words have bigger ramifications than I think he knew when he wrote them. So this was perhaps “ill advised” before, but it feels IRRESPONSIBLE now!)

I think he used the word "crud" because it's an objectively fun word and a riff on the original quote, and "94.7%" because it's funnier than 90%. I think he was showing off, because he loves a little rhetorical flourish and didn't ever think it would escape containment and go viral. He wasn't thinking it through. I think he was writing philosophically from an "ivory tower" of sorts, figuring few people aside from Big Fans would ever even read it and it wouldn't have to serve as a Grand Statement. (It's a niche book!)

The thing is, it DID escape containment. Many of the people reacting to that quote aren't up in the tower, they're grappling with reality in the trenches. If the "94.7%" quote is all they hear, OF COURSE it comes off as snobby and elitist and awful. IT IS.

He's a smart guy. He's talented. He clearly thinks a lot and cares a lot about children's books. And A LOT of what he talks about in the book is spot-on. However. Alarming Quotes get a lot more clicks than Nuanced Philosophical Arguments. And with a platform as big as his, they can do a lot of damage.

If you've got this far and are still interested in reading more about it, I'll also point you toward this interview with Mac about the book from PW. And this is a superb review of the book that gets what's right about his arguments, and what's wrong about them: "Mac Barnett is Right. Mac Barnett is also a snob."

Now if you're still fired up about it, I suggest you go back and read Kate's message AGAIN, and use that energy to #BeAnAmbassador yourself.

There's such a thing as "lots of agents are friends and we talk with one another" -- does that count?

It depends what the "something or someone" IS.

If you want to directly quote lyrics of a song, or a poem from a book, something like that, it may be under copyright. If you are quoting for something like educational purposes, a book review, commentary, or parody, that's considered Fair Use. If you are just quoting it directly in a novel, that's probably NOT fair use, and you will need to get permission from the copyright holder.

For example, if you start your chapter or book with an epigraph:

"It was twenty years ago today
When Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play
They've been going in and out of style
But they're guaranteed to raise a smile"

-- The Beatles

To put that epigraph in your novel, you would to not only give attribution, you would need permission. (I would consider THIS use to be an educational example, so I'm not getting permission, if the Beatles don't like it, they can tell me and I'll remove it!)

If you want to paraphrase something or name the title of a song, that's fine. For example, two characters talking about a song:

"I love that Beatles song about Sergeant Pepper." "You would, you're the King of the Lonely Heart's Club Band!" (that's fine)

If it is like, a famous quote from a politician or celebrity or something, and the characters are talking ABOUT it, and quote a tiny bit of it, I think that's fine. ex: "OK, MLK, you're giving very "I Have a Dream" vibes right now."

If it is something like a (short) famous TV character catchphrase, or a TikTok Pet catchphrase for that matter, it's OK to reference that. Just be aware that it might make your work feel a little dated, depending on the context. Your book might take years to come out, will people remember the catchphrase from a viral video three years from now? But if it is really something that has entered the popular culture and people will get years down the line, sure, whatever.

Tammi walked in wearing overalls and thick glasses. Brad hooted. "It's dress like a BOOK character day, why are you dressed as Steve Urkel?" Without missing a beat, Tammi turned around and said in a high voice "Did I do that?"

That's such a weird question? I ASSUME that they mean how many UNITS of the book, not how many TITLES. But like... what if you have been at this awhile and have multiple books? Do they just mean your FIRST book in its first year? Weird. WEIRD.

I guess I'd just put the biggest applicable number and then explain more on the call.

Yes of course, it's fine.

That agent IS still the agent of record on the book, so there will still need to be a line of communication open between you / the publisher / the agent. And your editor will still be working with them (and might be friends with them!) so obviously keep it professional and cordial, don't badmouth your former agent or anything.

"Hey, just a heads up that Jane Q Agent and I have parted ways. Of course, as she's still the agent on this book, please do cc her on anything that's important for her to know, but otherwise, you can come to me directly. And I'll let you know when I've got new representation. Thanks, have a great week!"

(If you are chatty with your editor and feel comfortable with them, you can absolutely even ask if they have any favorite agents to work with. Who knows, maybe they have advice or can give you a referral! But if you do, I'd suggest you keep the ask very low-pressure and be ready to drop it immediately if they seem to balk; some editors would be totally fine with this, but some might not want to feel like they are playing favorites.)

In that answer, I specifically said that IMO, best-practices-wise, you shouldn't follow up a decline to an agent with an immediate new query to that same agent. The one who just declined. It would be better to wait a beat before trying again with that agent.

Totally different query to a totally different agent (at the same agency)? Totally fine.

The SAME query to a totally different agent at the same agency? If their submission guidelines** say that's fine, that's fine.

** I know YOU know this, but just for avoidance of doubt in case anyone new is reading this: Each agency's submission guidelines may vary, and you should be sure to carefully read and follow those guidelines. Most agencies do have a policy about this. Some agencies are one and done, aka "a no from one of us is a no from all of us" for that project. If that's the case, obviously, follow their guidelines and don't query another agent at that agency with the same material that has already been declined. Many agencies DO allow multiple submissions, just not simultaneously. A few agencies don't care at all, in which case, go off I guess!

In my opinion, it's not the best idea to query an agent RIGHT after you have just gotten a decline. It just feels a little "spaghetti-at-the-wall"-ish. Even if that's not true! Like, perhaps from your perspective, you are just trying to maximize your time, and these really are highly thought out manuscripts and targeted submissions. But from the agent's perspective it goes:

Agent: "Thanks for the look, but this is not for me."

You: [ten seconds later]... "OK how about THIS one?"

(You SEE why that feels "spaghetti-at-the-wall"-ish, right? Even if it isn't?)

So personally, I'd suggest giving it a couple of months in between trying the same agent with new material. Like give them a chance to breathe!

If you want to start querying two books at once in different categories, well, if you are an at all disorganized person, I would not suggest this, there's just a lot of room for flubs, and then you'll be writing back to me like "omg, I accidentally queried two agents at the same agency with two different manuscripts and now they are both requesting them what do I do???"

But hey, If you are a hyper-organized spreadsheet-lover, you can do that. I would just treat them as "one submission" and do your best not to not cross-pollinate. In other words, choose ONE agent at an agency to query with ONE of the manuscripts. DON'T send a second to their colleague at the same time. If that one passes on the one, send the second to the second. (Or some method of non-cross-pollination like that!)

Whether you are querying one of them to start or trying both to different people, I would suggest FOR SURE putting a bit of this backstory in the query. You don't need to make a meal out of it or anything, but just succinctly say something after the pitch for the book you are querying, like:

"My previous agent left the business just as we were getting ready to sub, so I have two manuscripts in good shape; in addition to [THIS BOOK YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT'S TITLE], I also have a [other category of manuscript], which is a [commercial thriller or whatever-it-is] about [something short and snappy.]"

That way if they are interested in the book you are querying, they will KNOW that there is more than one possibility, and potentially ask to see both.

Good luck!