Playwriting has taken up a lot of my creative energy and time lately, and it's been an incredible rush to have had two plays stage-read in front of large, appreciative audiences since November. It's no secret that I love the stage, both acting on it and writing for it.
But my first love is the novel, and it's time to devote more energy on that front. And there's news to report.
Recently a colleague sent me an email, suggesting an agent I could try, assuming I hadn't already gotten one – which she'd heard, God knows where, that I had. I haven't – yet. But I'm still working on it.
In fact, in spite of the horrid state of the publishing world, things finally seem to be looking up a bit in that area. In the process I've learned a few things about this industry worth sharing.
Last spring an agent sent a rejection that was, uncharacteristically for most in this business, actually helpful. Her comments about my manuscript were constructive and specific, albeit brief. She told me exactly what was wrong with it, from her point of view. In an ensuing exchange of emails, she indicated that she'd be willing to take a look at the manuscript again if it were edited to address those issues.
The issues were, in case you were wondering:
- No hero. Since Peter, the book's main protagonist, schemed for the innocent defendant's conviction, that left the story with no one to root for.
- Length. The trial stretched on too long and got boring.
In the new version, Peter uses his knowledge of the actual crime to help acquit the defendant. This assuages his guilt and he feels that he can set some part of this right by letting the innocent man go free. In addition, I removed some segments of the trial that created doubt and slowed the story's pace. The case against the defendant is stronger, making Peter's task of convincing his fellow jurors to acquit that much harder.
Those changes turned out not to be enough. However, the agent wrote: "Now, when you do action, it's really terrific. You're really very good, and I'd love to do something with you. … I'm hoping to hear from you again."
Since then we've begun a dialog about my next work in progress, and she's indicated an interest in seeing that manuscript – "when it's ready."
The great news about this development is, first of all, I now know what she's looking for, not only in general but specifically in relation to my writing – to which she is already somewhat favorably inclined. Second, I've entered this work into the Amazon Breakout Novel Award competition and put up the first chapter on their "preview" page so that other readers and writers can give me feedback. I did this last year and the feedback I got on Lying in Judgment was invaluable (if insufficient, the fault for which is completely mine). So far, the feedback on the new work, The Mountain Man's Dog, has also been very insightful.
The lessons learned are:
- In the search for an agent, the manuscript being pitched is an important thing, but it's not the main thing. Two other things trump it: one is the writing, and the other is developing the relationship. The manuscript is one of many examples of one's writing that the agent sees, including the pitch letter, the synopsis, and any other written dialog that ensues. The good agent is interested in all of a writer's work, not just the one great idea the writer may have at the time he or she makes first contact.
- Thus, have a body of work ready. The time to pitch may not be when the book itself is ready – it's when the writer is ready. The writer is the commodity, not the manuscript.
- Get to know your prospective agent a little bit – and let him or her get to know you. That's key to the first lesson above – developing the relationship.
It might be fair to point out that perhaps I should have known this sooner. Yeah, yeah. Thanks. Isn't it more fun to learn the hard way?
Stay tuned for the next post, which will bring news and information about The Mountain Man's Dog.
No comments:
Post a Comment