Chip MacGregor .com

Sandra Steps In

Well, Chip, you've proceeded to upset a lot people with your comments about Lifeway stickering a few authors' books. What do you say we move on to some new questions, shall we?

Nicole wrote, "I keep hearing agents complain about the amount of proposals they get sent. If an agent is willing to be a little more transparent and actually give a few examples of novels they love and then detail the specifics of what they're looking for, they might reduce their inbox queries, don't you think?"

Unfortunately, Nicole, my experience is that no amount of specificity is going to stop the onslaught of queries we receive from desperate souls looking for an avenue to a broader readership (or validation in the form of their name on the spine of a book). I wish it were that easy.

A few days ago, right after I posted ON OUR BLOG FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO READ the fact that I don't read, sell, or represent erotica, guess what happened? You got it -- a whole slug of racy romance novels. Holy slush pile, Batman! Give me a break!

Hey, I'll be happy to tell you what I love to read. I do have to confess my reading for pleasure hours have dwindled to near desperate proportions of late, but as I'm getting more efficient at my job, I'm learning to relax a little and allow myself to dive into a good book for the sake of escape, education, or edification.

I simply wish I was Steinbeck. I think Elizabeth Berg's characterization is to die for. I love Donald Miller for his innate ability to tell a story and convey a broad idea while making me laugh -- and laughing at himself. Richard Russo makes me want to crawl inside the pages. Jane Kirkpatrick's descriptions are luscious. Jodi Piccoult is scary good, though I haven't read anything new from her since My Sister's Keeper. (I got so completely lost in that story I got absolutely nothing else done for three days. Seriously.) I really enjoyed the imagery and metaphor of Athol Dickson's River Rising. And speaking of rivers, I started reading Anne Rivers Siddons a couple years back and thoroughly enjoyed her ability to weave complex, rich settings into her character-driven stories... but then discovered she tends to go on too many risque rabbit trails for my sensibilities. And as much as I love Steinbeck, Leif Enger's Peace Like a River replaced Tortilla Flats as my all-time favorite novel.

So you can probably tell I love philosophical, literary, character-driven, engaging sagas. Trouble is, there is very limited room within CBA for such material. And, as yet, I haven't collected enough relationships outside CBA to make it possible to take much literary fiction on. I want to -- I really do. But, as I've told many an author lately, I can't keep walking around with a bruise on my forehead in an effort to fulfill my personal mission get CBA houses to do more literary novels. That's just not my job. My job is to keep my hand to the plow (thanks, John B, for that reminder), remember that my job is to keep up with what editors want, and place authors who've worked hard at the craft with houses where they can reasonably find long-term success. So I keep looking for good commercial adult fiction in genres that are doing well in the market. We don't represent much in the way of speculative or sci-fi writing, but we're always on the lookout for women's fiction, romance, suspense, thrillers, and inspirational novels.

Having said all that, and in the interest of the transparency you seek, Nicole, I'll let you in on what's currently on my nightstand (besides manuscripts). Surprise Me by Terry Esau, Garden Design by Sunset, and Risen Magazine, a Christian interview magazine I'm absolutely enamored with. Also Where's Your Jesus Now by Karen Zacharias, and Jesus Land by Julia Scheeres. If you notice the glaring absence of titles by my own authors, it's because I simply chose to leave them out. I hope that answers your question, Nicole, though I imagine it might raise more.  

Renee wrote to say, "I've been contracted with a publisher for a novel that is due for release in August. I did not go through an agent. I think everything has gone great... Is it always necessary for an author to have an agent?"

Nope, it's not. As some folks have heard Chip say, we're not Agent Evangelists. There are still occasions where an author and editor connect, decide to work together, and things go swimmingly for everyone. Right now, though, as lists get tighter, editors' jobs harder, and open slots for books more difficult to pin down, it's definitely getting more difficult for authors to get in (and stay in) without an agent. If an author doesn't have relationships with acquisition editors, it's very tough to break into the market. And I suppose I could ask if you knew what you were doing when you negotiated the contract. As Chip has pointed out several times on this blog, the publisher has a team of lawyers and accountants supporting their negotiation -- who does an author have?

Given the chance, some authors enjoy handling the business side of writing themselves. The pitching, the negotiating, the contract review, and the following through with publishers on deadlines, compliance, options, and the like are things few authors enjoy or do well. Let's just say, for the sake of characterization, that these might be the same folks who don't mind filing and who actually fill out their mileage log whenever they drive to Office Depot for paper clips. But there are also authors who loathe the business side of their writing careers. They would prefer paper cuts on their eyeballs to reading a contract. They just want to write, and claim they don't care about the amount of their advance or the terms of their contract. THEN there are the folks who have written a couple books and feel they can do better in terms of contracts, but just can't find it in their DNA to ask for improvements themselves. Those are all things agents can help with.

Different types of authors require different skills. The bottom line is that most authors simply don't have the breadth of experience or the relationships with editors to get over the hump in publishing. Whatever their motivation, most authors find they prefer working with an agent and appreciate having an idea collaborator, an objective professional, a career consultant, and a cheerleader on their side, not only to handle the details, but to help keep them going when the middle of their novel starts to sag or they need help deciding where to go next to build their platform.

Still, even with an agent, everyone has to get their own paper clips. And do their own filing. Paper cuts and all.

Got a question about publishing? Send it in and we'll offer you our answers.

A Quick Q-and-A

I'm WAY behind in answering questions, so I thought I'd try to do some quick questions today (and limit my normally loooooooong answers). We'll see how it goes...

1. Heidi said, "I finished my first novel, don't have a contract or an agent for it yet, but I'm going to a conference soon to talk with agents and editors. Should I bring a one-sheet for both books? Or focus just on the second book?"

Huh? Why would you focus on the second book, Heidi? If the first book is completed, focus on that. Right now it's tougher than ever to get your first novel deal, so focus on the book that is complete. If you're unpublished, you're much more likely to get interest in a completed manuscript than a cool synopsis.

2. Holly asked, "Since I'm pitching a series, should I have a double-sided one-sheet -- the front page would cover the first book, the back page for the series? Or should they be separate sheets?"

I'd go for separate sheets.

3. Stan wants to know, "If I'm pitching editors at a conference, should I include a proposed cover on my one-sheet?"

Only if it was professionally designed AND you've test-marketed it (preferably with people who are not relatives). Most author-produced covers are godawful. They start off the meeting on the wrong foot, sending the happy message, "I don't know what I'm doing!" No sense revealing that in the first five seconds.

4. Karen wrote, "I was in a Lifeway bookstore yesterday, and noticed they have put a sticker on some of the books that says, Read With Discernment. Um...what's up with that?"

I heard about this from a handful of people, so I checked it out. Turns out the ever-vigilent Protectors Of All Things Correct running Lifeway have put stickers on books from authors like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and Donald Miller. (You catching a theme here?) So in other words, these guys are new generation authors pushing the envelope. They think Mr Bell is too graphic in talking about sex, Mr McLaren is too squishy in his theology, and Mr Miller...um...I don't know. He likes jazz, which is the music of Satan, perhaps. The store even set up a website to explain why the stickers are on the books (though having gone there, I think the explanations are so bland they're like reading old political speeches). Let's face it -- this is Lifeway's way of saying, "Be careful! These guys may not check all the right boxes on our ultra-conservative evangelical theological/political positions. They could be dangerous. They may not be Republicans. It's even possible (gasp!) that Jim Dobson doesn't like them! The horror!"

My take: Deeply stupid. These are books, for crying out loud. And the best books are the ones that make us think. I may not agree with everything Mr McLaren has to say about the faith, but to put warning labels on them smacks of the worst aspects of Christian legalism. If you don't like the books, why carry them? If you're going to carry them, why pick on some authors rather than others? You know what will happen now, don't you? All those edgy Christian novelists are going to be in a race to see who can get stickered, and therefore maybe get some free publicity out of this. (Oh... and in a funny move, they also stickered William Young's The Shack. I guess the lesson is that "we shouldn't base our theology on interesting but poorly executed religious novels." There's something you didn't know.)

5. Bobbi wrote this: "I'm a member of a popular novelist discussion group, and we've been discussing Kindle and e-book rights. We think the royalties should be higher, since publishers don't have any ink or paper costs, nor do they have to warehouse the books. And there are no returns on e-books!"

Um... I don't see a question there (though the rant went on considerably longer). Look, I happen to agree with you to a point. Publishers still have to spend time editing, copy-editing, proofing, page designing, taking care of front matter, and creating a cover. What they don't have with an e-book is any print costs or warehousing. So they're trying to pass along the savings by paying a higher royalty. The industry standard is going to be 25%, which is higher than the 15% you're getting on regular books. I'd love it if it were 50%... but I'd also love it if I were six feet tall and looked like Brad Pitt. What's your point -- that publishers are making more money than authors? Time to check the history books, my friend... publishers have always made more money than authors. (I mean, if they're paying you 25% of net, who do  you suppose gets the other 75%?) They're the ones who own the business, remember? That's not unfair -- it's how every business operates. The writer is the talent, the content provider. The publisher is the one packaging, marketing, and selling the content you provide. Finding a balance in compensation is what your agent is there to help you with.

6. D.J. asked, "Can you tell me why the biggest book show in the country is moving to a mid-week format instead of the traditional weekend show? This seems crazy."

Not to me. Most of the people who attend BEA (editors, agents, authors, booksellers, rights people) are professionals who work during the week. So BEA scheduled this year's conference during the week, to better fit their normal work-week. They also scheduled it in New York, which is still the heart of book publishing. There's been a lot of hand-wringing about this, and I think it's dumb. Okay, so we all don't get to travel to a fun place like San Francisco or New Orleans, and we all spend our normal work day at the show. Big deal. I think this is a good move (especially for a show that seems like it could be in trouble).

7. Lisa simply wants to know, "Is Borders going to survive?"

I hope so. They got their loans extended this past week. And they are taking steps to close unprofitable stores and shrink some of the outlets that haven't been working. Borders is a great company, and we want them to remain in business if for no other reason than to keep B&N from having a brick-and-mortar monopoly. But... it's pretty dicey.

8. And Jim wrote me to say, "It's been a while since you offered us any samples of the really bad stuff you see. Got any great pieces you can share with those of us who are parched for bad ideas?"

Happy to. We recently got a proposal that read in part, "This book is a natural to be made into a movie, since characters in it become Black; or possibly ALL of them become Black, now that we have a Black president."

This is in such remarkably bad taste I just stopped and read through it about three times. For those hoping to write for Hollywood, this guy's advice is to simply "have your characters become black." That makes it a sure thing. Yikes.

I also received a proposal for "Hari Sadhan Dam Meets HarryPotter." It simply came with the note, "The title is self-explanatory." Um... yeah. It is. I might have Sandra read this one...

And I just got in a proposal for "The Men Who Are Ruining America," but I didn't make the list, so I doubt I'll be interested.

Critique Groups

Back from Maui and relaxed (that's me in the photo, looking tanned and relaxed). Back to your writing and publishing questions...

Vicky wrote and asked, "As a beginning writer, is it really important I participate in a critique group?"

I highly recommend newer writers join a critique group. Often times at writing conferences I'll have someone come up to me clutching a manuscript to their chest. "Here," they whisper, looking around furtively. "It's my manuscript. It's fantastic. And no one has ever seen it."

So I'll look at them and ask, "And how do you know it's fantastic?" They invariably answer with something like "I just know" or "people at church have been encouraging me to write for years" or "my mom loves it."

Sorry, not good enough. I don't trust your personal instincts unless you've had at least one bestseller, and your mom loves you too much to view your piece objectively. Every writer needs a critique group. New writer or experienced hand, you gain wisdom when you have other writers looking at your work. A critique group offers you an honest appraisal, and provides an on-going learning experience. The best groups have a nice mix of people, so that your group provides you with a variety of experiences, interests, and personalities commenting on your writing. People get together and offer insight into your work, which will help you improve your writing. It also gives you a place to hang out with like-minded folks -- other people who also want to be writers. There is support in the group, and a sense of identity. Get thee to a critique group.

Bev wants to know, "How does a critique group work in the real world? What should one of our meetings look like?"

I love this question, since writers are often encouraged to start a group, but don't have specifics on how to do so. Some thoughts...  Let's say you have a group of four to ten people. You agree to meet once per month, somewhere in the middle of the month. On the first of the month (roughly two weeks before your meeting), everybody submits their work to the other members of the group. All the documents are emailed to one another in a Microsoft Word attachment, double-spaced, 12-point font, with plenty of margin space around the words. You may want to limit the page count to five or ten or even fifteen pages (though I know of one group that asks for a chapter per month, leaving the page count to the individual writer's notion of what a chapter length should be.) There's a hard a fast rule that you receive it by the first of the month or you ignore it until next month. So you receive everyone's writing, print it out, read each one, and edit it. You ask questions. You point out things that aren't clear. You write comments at the end. You try to be polite but honest. If you really want to be professional, you all use the "track changes" feature to make your comments, so that everything is legible.

Keep in mind that the criticism is of the work, not of the writer. And, as my friend Cecil Murphey likes to say, "Members do not make value judgments -- they don't say 'this is bad,' but instead offer suggestions for improving the work." Participants in a critique group are criticizing your work. They are NOT criticizing you. And on each piece you say at least one nice thing, since everybody needs to hear an occasional compliment.

So you gather in the middle of the month at someone's house, the leader or host puts all her copies of the month's manuscripts into a basket, and pulls one out. That's the first one you will talk about. You set a time limit of ten-to-thirty minutes (depending on the number of people in your group), and you all share your thoughts on the work. Don't repeat criticisms -- if one person notes that "Dweezil Gooschitz is a bad name for a character," nobody else needs to echo that. Just move quickly through the thoughts and responses people had. Consider starting with general comments (like structure and plot and lead), rather than spending time on the obvious minor stuff that will show up in everyone's edits (like misspelled words or misplaced quotation marks). After making general comments, you can do a quick page-by-page discussion, noting things like clarity and word choice.

Many groups use the Right Hand method of leading -- the person to the right of the author will lead the discussion and keep things on track. That way nobody dominates the evening by leading all the discussions, and everybody is forced to lead once.

And here's a hard and fast rule: When the group is discussing your work, you may not talk. Let evryone have their say -- you don't have to accept all the ideas. Use what is helpful, discard what is not. There's not an assumption that everything said to you is going to be correct -- it's just helpful to get other sets of eyes reading the words. After everyone has had their say, you may open your mouth to ask questions. But don't spend time arguing, refuting, or offering explanations. That's a waste of time.

Bobbi asked, "When do I know it's time to leave my critique group?"

I suppose it's time to leave a group when you've absorbed everything your group has to offer you. This may eventually come when you think you're experienced enough and confident enough to go it alone -- and, in fact, the others in your group may agree that it's time for you to either go out on your own or start your own, more experienced, group. That said, I wouldn't be in a hurry to leave -- I'd be in a hurry to listen.

There's always the danger a writer can become a critique group junkie, I suppose (just like there are writing conference junkies). I sometime run into writers who are always "about to" write. They go to conferences, and hang out with writers, and are about to get started on their big book. But they never do. And, of course, I don't really care. If they want to spend their time and money coming to conferences so they can hang out with writers and editors, that's their choice. They become conference junkies, hanging out with the ones they consider the beautiful people. Fine with me. Some people want to hang out at bars, others at basketball games, and others at choir practice. I don't care if someone wants to spend all their time at conferences and critique groups. But I want to feel the people in my critique group are moving forward, trying to become better writers. Because that, in turn, will help me to become a better writer.

I hope this helps. Thanks to everyone who offered their king thoughts to me after my recent accident. I'm much better now -- a couple weeks in Hawaii is just the thing for recuperating. If you've got a question about writing or publishing, feel free to send it my way and I'll try to get you an answer.

More Wisdom From Sandra Bishop

Since Chip is trying to keep his tan from fading and bleaching his hair to make us all think he's gone blond, it's probably time for me to offer a few additional thoughts.

David wrote to say, "At a conference last year, you told me you liked my writing but couldn't represent me because the timing was bad. What does that actually mean? I hear a lot of people talk about timing in publishing, but I have to admit I'm not sure what they're referencing."

David, I think I remember your submission. I think I even remember seeing your eyes glaze over when I uttered the dreaded "timing" phrase. Sorry. Rejecting material that shows promise is one of the hardest parts of this business -- especially when Chip and I rail on about how important good writing is. I must have thought your writing showed promise or I wouldn't have said so. Take whatever encouragement you can from those words and keep at it.

Here's the deal regarding the "timing" comment: I only have so many hours in the day, and I simply can't take on too many projects which I know will take an extraordinary amount of time to sell. So sometimes I'm already working with a similar project, and it's the wrong time to take on another. Other times I like a project, but it smacks of something that is already out there, so the timing is all wrong. There are many facets of the job of agenting, but when it comes down to it, selling my authors' manuscripts is how I make my living, how I serve my clients, and how I keep Chip happy (well... that and occasionally telling him how young he looks).

Let me offer an example... I've been working with an author whose story is unique and haunting and charming, and who I think has a great future. I've been showing her proposal to people for six months, and have a collection of responses like, "Wow, this is beautiful, but I don't know where we'd place it on our list right now" and "I really like this, but we just acquired another book on this same topic" and "This is nice, but we recently released a similar project, so we'll have to wait and see how that one does before acquiring more in this genre." I've just about come to the conclusion that this particular manuscript may not be the one that will launch this author's career. So what do we do? We set this one aside, move forward, and try something else. And that takes an enormous amount of energy and commitment on both our parts. Also, to be quite frank, it takes up space on my mental and physical to-do list. So that decision dominoes into further rejections for other authors whose work might be worthy of representation.

It's not pretty sometimes. I often go to conferences and see good projects that I just can't take on. But that's the nature of this business -- a literary agent chooses to work with a certain group of writers. I can't represent everyone, and sometimes the timing is just bad when I see a perfectly good project.

Julie wrote to ask, "How much do an agent's or editor's personal preferences matter when it comes to choosing who they will work with?"

That's a very good question, Julie. I've spent the better part of the last year deciding what kind of material I want (and don't want) to represent. And I've been working to get acquainted with editors and learn what they get excited about, what pushes their buttons, and what sends them over the edge. If you're an established author, you already know this, but if you're a newer writer who is just getting to know the publishing industry, here's a valuable tip: When you meet agents or editors, whether at conferences or over the phone, you need to keep in mind that they are not only people with a fair amount of influence, but with a lot of liberty. Most of them make very studied choices regarding the kind of material they choose to work with. There are exceptions -- I know an editor who loves literary fiction but whose house simply cannot sell it. Still, for the most part you aren't going to have luck selling horror to an editor who has never read or worked on anything but historical romance. The business just doesn't work that way. And I, for one, am glad for it.

I don't do blood and guts horror -- in my opinion, it's a slippery slope into darkness. I don't read erotica, which I basically regard as porn for women. I love reading children's books, but don't have a clue how to sell them. I don't handle military sagas, even though I was a Marine (been there, done that, had enough already). And I have no interest in science fiction or mystery noir. But there are plenty of other genres I do represent. And while I may still be figuring out what all I want to represent, I know what I won't read and what will fail to get my attention. I simply have to spend too much time with material to expose myself to reading stuff that doesn't interest me. (Or worse, stuff that makes me want to scream. Or run. Or both.)

An author and an agent need to match up. Not every agent you meet will be a fit for you. And you don't want an agent trying to pitch your proposal if she doesn't like it, or doesn't believe in it, or isn't enthusiastic about it. Or, worse, doesn't want to read it. Every agent has personal preferences. Finding an agent who loves your work is the way to move forward in your career.

Got a question? Send it in -- I'll stick it in a bottle and send it across the Pacific to Chip. Maybe he'll spot it while snorkling off Waikiki or something.

Sandra Shares a Word

Hey, now that Chip's off sunning himself in Maui, I figure it's a good time to jump in and answer a few questions. I'm Sandra Bishop, the other agent at MacGregor Literary. 

Here's one from Angel: "It seems like the books that do well and are worth reading are those which are big surprises. Is it really possible to set out to write a breakout novel? Don't breakouts just happen because a publisher decides to get behind a book and doggedly promote it until it gets noticed?"

There's some of that going on in publishing -- Chip wrote about the practice of "Making a Book" not too long ago. But that, obviously, is out of a writer's control. I'm guessing what you really want to know, Angel, is how to write a book publishers are willing to get behind. 

For those who don't know, literary agent Donald Maas wrote a great book in which he goes into the why's and how-to's of writing a breakout novel. In his book, Maas covers the reasons, mechanics, and philosophies behind doing so. It's worth a read, and definitely worth the money. If it's mechanics you want, go get his book. But I'm guessing you're not necessarily asking about mechanics with this question. We get this a lot in many different forms, and most people seem to be asking, "Is it really possible to make it big as a writer, and should I bother spending my time trying?"

Here's my short answer to that question: If you're crazy enough to try, go for it. Seriously. Publishing is a crazy business in which to try and make a living. But if you're willing, and have talent, and the energy to keep after it without losing your marbles, more power to you. Lots of people talk about and work at writing, but never really get down to honing the craft. The thing is, we can plan and strategize and project all we want, but we work in a creative field where the tail pretty much wags the dog (meaning the customers ultimately decide what's successful and what's not). That's why, ultimately, the credibility of the industry rests not in the hands of marketing folks, nor on the shoulders of publicists or booksellers, nor even pub boards and (thank the Good Lord) agents. It rests in the sweaty palms and hunched up shoulders and aching behinds of the authors who care enough about their craft to learn and practice and write and rewrite until they produce material worthy of giving the dog something to wag about. (Sorry -- runaway metaphor.) 

We may all think we know what readers and editors want, but then something gets picked up or pushed through that defies convention and surprises us all, and we're all left scratching our... er, heads, and wondering "why don't more people write like that?" You know of which books I speak -- those I call genre busters: Anne Lamott's "Bird by Bird" or Donald Miller's "Blue Like Jazz," Lisa Samson's "Quaker Summer" (no, it's not an Amish knock-off, folks -- you should read it). I'll even venture to add "The Shack" by Paul Young to the list, though I have to confess I'm one of the six people on the planet who has yet to read it. 

My guess is, though, the reason it broke out is because it shares something in common with the others I mention. The secret mix of ingredients that set it apart and cause the kind of stir and lasting impression every author dreams of. You ready? Excellent writing, unique voice, a compelling story, and a commitment to the craft. I'll venture to say not one of these authors set out with a plan in place when they wrote their book. I'll bet they didn't do plotting spreadsheets first (not that such things are bad) or work out a complete outline (again, not a bad step in and of itself), nor did they call every one of their friends to ask "what do you think of this idea?" before beginning (note the absence of my remark about this not being a bad thing). They just sat their butts in their chairs day after day (or night after night) and chipped away at their masterpiece until their fingers cramped up. And they didn't submit it until it was polished and ready. 

No amount of longing to be a great author will get you there. If that's what you really want -- to write a breakout book -- then you have to be wiling to  drain yourself every day and get up and do it again the next and the next until you've created something worth the fuss. 

That's my take. 

-Sandra