June: The Monthly Round-up

Hi, I'm Crystal, Andy's new summer intern, and here is the June monthly round-up:

• 43 queries received; 27 declined
• 6 sample chapters received; 2 declined
• 0 proposals received; 1 declined
• 4 manuscripts received; 1 declined

We are currently waiting on:

• 8 sample chapters
• 1 proposal
• 0 manuscripts

We currently have on hand and need to read:

• 6 sample chapters
• 1 proposal
• 8 full manuscripts, plus 3 full manuscripts from current clients

The sample chapters and proposals still under consideration, in the order in which we expect to read them, are:

1. Salpeter
2. Stojak
3. Barrett
4. Markowitz
5. Rogers
6. Katz
7. Corsini

The manuscripts still under consideration, in the order in which we expect to read them, are:

1. MacKinnon
2. Perrota
3. Hanford
4. Fett
5. Schrader-Seccatico
6. Wexler
7. Mulrooney
8. Dracoules

If your name is on one of these lists and you have accepted representation or found a publisher, please let us know immediately so that we can remove your material from our reading list.

In June, Andy did not offer representation to any new clients.

Crystal

A Quick Reminder

As noted on the Comments page, we don't publish anonymous posts or comments. You don't have to register with Blogger. Just sign your post with your full name, city, and state. However, if you are registered with Blogger or another site that allows log-ins to Blogger, you can just use that log-in.

Z

What Keeps Me Up at Night

I'm currently reading MAGICIAN: APPRENTICE, by Raymond Feist, and I like it. I'm noticing, though, that there are a few things he does that I would probably have urged him not to do, mostly involving POV, and I am somewhat surprised by the number of elements he's tossed into the mix and I'm not even halfway through.


As an agent, I often get queries or sample chapters and synopses and as I'm reading them, I wonder, "Where is the kitchen sink?" And this novel is somewhat getting there. Which makes me wonder if I had received this as a submission, would I have accepted it for representation? Obviously, the book has been around a long time and spawned many sequels and has many fans. So not taking it on would have been a mistake. Yet I wonder if I would have.

I've had lunch with more than one editor who told me that he or she had read THE DA VINCI CODE and would have rejected it had it been submitted to him or her. A huge mistake, obviously, if they had. Yet I couldn't get through the book. I thought it a Hardy Boys novel for adults and nothing more.

Then I look at an author like Nelson DeMille. A success, for sure, and in my opinion generally a better writer than Feist or Brown or Ludlum. Yet he has enjoyed nothing like the success of the latter two. The first, he likely has. Why is this? Why do some writers—clearly better writers—fail to be as successful as weaker writers?

I used to say that Grisham's THE FIRM was such a hit because it was written at a sixth-grade reading level. I don't know that for a fact, but it's my guess. Should writers intentionally write more simplistically and at a lower reading level to get more fans? After all, one source I just found says the "average American" reads at an 8th- or 9th-grade level. Thus, if you write above that level, you are potentially limiting your market.

Now, though, we have these doorstops about Harry Potter that are being read by 6th-graders and beyond. Is that because 6th-graders have gotten smarter? Or because the book is appropriate for their age and the rest of the reading audience is a bit dumber and attracted to an entertaining story?

Am I, as an agent who majored in English and clearly prefers a good narrative over a light, dialogue-driven popcorn read, more likely to miss the next big book because of it? Or do I stick to what I believe works and not sell out to the apparent cravings of the masses for the literary equivalent of Skittles?

This shit keeps me up at night.

Z

Bookscan: More Holes than Swiss Cheese

To those authors who don't understand what exactly goes into getting a book sold, either by an agent or by the publisher to stores, I imagine the Bookscan discussion is a bit esoteric. But the truth is, whether or not your book is well written, it may die a quick death because of things like Bookscan and other publishing and bookselling practices or behaviors which have little to do with what's between the covers.

This morning I received an email from Brianna Buckley, Sales Coordinator, Nielsen BookScan, who offered the following information:

Yes, I read blog posts as I come across them, but don’t comment on them. J I will, however, respond directly to the poster if I’m able to correct misquoted facts or answer a question.

“…Bookscan, according to one comment, doesn't include grocery and drugstore chains. I actually didn't know this”

“…I also wonder about airport bookstores.”

Yes, we track food & drug stores, they are tracked in the “Non-Traditional” store stratum, which was added as new in 2008.

We also track Borders airport locations, as well as the Hudson Group’s airport, train and bus terminal locations.

A list of the major participants in our US Consumer Market Panel may be found here:
http://www.bookscan.com/uploads/fs_USAConsumer%20Market_Jan09.pdf

Go ahead and take a look at that list. I'll wait. (Humming theme from JEOPARDY....).

Done? Okay. Notice anything interesting about that list? Like how many places are missing?! Where is Safeway/Vons, probably the largest grocery chain on the West Coast? Where is CVS, one of the largest (and getting larger) national drugstore chains? Where is Duane Reade, the largest pharmacy chain in New York City? These folks count for a lot of books. Where is Overstock.com? Buy.com is worth having, but not Overstock? I'd love to hear from you on these stores, Ms. Buckley.

I heard from one commentator directly last night that Wal-Mart will never report. They are so big, they don't have to do anything they don't want to and apparently they don't want to assist their many publishing vendors and the authors of the millions of books they sell every year by participating. Kind of arrogant, isn't it? Again, I'd love to see the Authors Guild get involved on the Wal-Mart reporting issue and also on the Bookscan issue in general. Authors' careers and being made and more often broken by Bookscan data. Why doesn't the Authors Guild seem to care? Or maybe Bookscan could just pay them to participate. Surely Wal-Mart is interested in money. Make them an offer they can't refuse and then charge publishers and other subscribers an extra fee for Wal-Mart data. You know you'll get it.

And while many of the comments yesterday praised the potential uses of Bookscan, the majority agreed that editors know the Bookscan numbers are "a crock." So why do they ever bring them up? It raises an important question, which is: Why do editors have access to Bookscan and should they? Don't get me wrong, I think that the Sales department should be using Bookscan and possibly marketing and advertising. Presumably those departments know how to interpret the numbers correctly. But editors were mostly English majors, not statistics or accounting majors. Their brains are about words, not numbers. And most seem to be using Bookscan like a big, dead stick with which to beat authors and agents over the head. Is it just an excuse to reject something they didn't like for other reasons but preferred to blame Bookscan figures, as one editor suggested? Or do editors really not understand the limits of Bookscan?

More than one commentator said that Bookscan really only tracks hardcover sales well. In my recent experience, we were dealing with trade-paperbacks. So if Bookscan really only tracks hardcovers well, why would an editor bother to look up an author's prior books if those books weren't hardcovers? Given the back-and-forth I had with the editor, I presume that she really was using the Bookscan data as a reason to reject and not an excuse because she didn't like the book for other reasons. Which leads me to believe that this editor hasn't been fully briefed on exactly what types of sales Bookscan tracks and that Bookscan is a terrible tool for acquiring editors to use in reaching acquisition decisions. Ask the agent for the statements, instead. They may be months out-of date, since publishers issue statements 90-120 days after the period those statements cover ends, but at least they are full reports (or as full as the publisher will provide—don't get me started...), which Bookscan is not. If the agent doesn't have them or won't provide them, then the editor can just presume the worst and say, "no thanks." They reject plenty of books for far less.

If Bookscan is such a great tool, as some said yesterday, perhaps the problem is at publishing houses. Perhaps publishers need to restrict the information from Bookscan to those who can properly interpret it, and keep it out of the acquisition process, since clearly it does not provide anything close to a complete picture even for that which it tracks best: hardcovers.

Z

More Bookscan B.--er, Discussion

To say that I'm surprised by the number of comments my little "rant" about Bookscan yesterday has received would be something of an understatement.  Judging by the lack of information about some of the folks leaving comments, I halfway wonder how many work at Bookscan.  Feeling defensive, perhaps?

Clearly, though, some are acquiring editors and I have broken my rule about anonymous comments being rejected, because I can understand why an acquiring editor doesn't want to leave his or her name while expressing favor or criticism about Bookscan.

Let's look at a few of those comments:

Bookscan doesn't include Wal-Mart, because Wal-Mart won't agree to report, as I understand it.  Also, Bookscan, according to one comment, doesn't include grocery and drugstore chains.  I actually didn't know this.

Now, I'm not privy to much in the way of actual publishers' sales reports, but I'm fairly confident that Wal-mart, grocery, and drugstore chains constitute a huge part of the marketplace, especially in areas where B&N hasn't felt the need to build a superstore.  I also wonder about airport bookstores.  Do they report?  Because if they don't, why the heck does anyone care about Bookscan?  You would never buy stock in a company if the information about it was as incomplete as Bookscan's information is about books being sold.

"Bookscan numbers give insights, not precision into what happened in the PAST. Comparing POS numbers with Royalty statements is bad practice."--This is an interesting point, if it is accurate.  Seems to me that if it is accurate, then publishers could use Bookscan to determine exactly where books are in the supply chain.  But publishers can already get daily rate-of-movement data from B&N directly, and likely every other chain or large seller.  So why do they need Bookscan, again?

Also, I don't know that comparing the numbers is bad.  Remember that statements are issued 90-150 days after the close of the period they are reporting.  Agents know how to read them and factor in the reserves being held to tell if a book is really selling.  (Plus Random House already provides sales by month with nearly every statement, something other publishers could adopt if they want to improve communication with authors and agents).  If there is a discrepancy of one-hundred to one-thousand percent between the two, then either the statements are wrong or Bookscan is wrong, and my money is on Bookscan, because we know that Bookscan doesn't get reports from all selling sources, but that publishers certainly know what they shipped out and got back.

What Bookscan might offer is a route to a shorter reporting cycle, but publishers would have to require their customers to report to Bookscan, or at least the biggest ones such as Wal-Mart.  Because if publishers have POS information, they can calculate that those books aren't coming back as returns.  Using that data, they could more confidently start paying authors for actual copies sold, rather than keep large reserves for returns.  Of course, this means that publishers can't sit on authors' money for months and months, interest-free, which makes me think it's less likely to happen.

I'd like to see the Authors Guild get up in Bookscan's grill.  Bookscan is costing authors deals and reducing authors' advances.  Therefore, the AG should have a motivation to go to them and demand better reporting.  It should also be pursuing Wal-Mart to start participating in Bookscan.  If Bookscan is so important to the publishing industry, it should be important to the Guild to make sure that authors' interests aren't being negatively influenced by its existence.

My issue yesterday, though, was that an editor told me she was making acquisition decisions based on Bookscan, and I stand by my position that that's a very, very bad practice.  The Bookscan numbers simply aren't accurate enough.  If the editor wanted sales data, all she had to do was ask me for the royalty statements.  And that's something editors very rarely do, which has always surprised me.

Clive Cussler recently lost a lawsuit with the makers of a movie based on one of his books.  One of the contentions of the movie folks was that the sales figures quoted were inaccurate. Didn't anyone ask for proof?  Sure, agents might balk at sending actual statements and certainly publishers have other resources (like looking the author's titles up on the B&N system, to which most publishers have quite easy access), but why not just ask?  If the agent balks, presume that the numbers are bad and pass. If the agent provides them, and they are good, then it's a win/win.  Of course, one agent's opinion of what good sales numbers are and one editor's opinion of what good sales numbers are may vary as much as the agent's and editor's opinions on whether or not a novel is any good.  But at least the agent and the author and the editor know the numbers should be accurate (or as accurate as anything that's looking back at a period that ended 90-120 days earlier can be).

Don't get confused.  I think that it is perfectly acceptable to not take on an author who doesn't sell.  But you'd better have your figures right before you make that decision, or you might just pass up an author who could be making your publishing house some decent cash.  And I'm pretty sure that's what all the houses want right now.

Z

The Lie that is Bookscan

Today I had a project rejected by a publisher.  It's the author's third book and the prior two books had been well received and have sold well.  But according to this publisher, "the Bookscan sales of his two titles have been modest in comparison to the great praise and attention his work has received, and in this economy that’s a very difficult obstacle for us to overcome with our accounts and booksellers."

There's only one problem with this argument:  The Bookscan numbers are wrong.

According to the royalty statements I've received, the author's first book has net sales of just under 14,000 copies.  According to this editor, Bookscan shows sales just over 7,200 copies.  That's nearly a 100% difference!

Questioned about this, the editor responded, "Bookscan is indeed an imperfect tool, but it’s also enormously helpful to us, and we do interpret the information with the proverbial 'grain of salt.' Our rule of thumb is that Bookscan captures about 70% of retail sales, give or take. In this case, Bookscan shows sales of just over 7,200 copies for the ___________________ book, so it seems that the accepted formula may be a bit low here.  14,000 copies is a strong performance for this title, and it’s great that this one has earned out for the publisher."

A bit low?!  Bookscan is reporting half of what the author's own royalty statements show and, in the case of the author's second book, Bookscan is reporting approximately ten percent of what the statements show.

Are publishers really so dense that they haven't compared Bookscan's figures with their own sales figures?  Surely if they have, then they would have stopped paying Bookscan for its clearly and outrageously wrong data and put it out of business for lack of subscribers.  Because, you see, Bookscan is pretty much only of use to publishers and to, say, news organizations writing about publishing.  Sure, it's supposed to be the Nielsen Ratings of books, but Nielsen Ratings for TV and radio have a purpose:  they tell advertisers where it's worth spending money on what shows.  But books have no ads, so what is the purpose of Bookscan?  To prove that the NEW YORK TIMES best-seller list is wrong?  That the number one book this week is not RELENTLESS, by Dean Koontz?  That the number two book isn't THE PHYSICK BOOK OF DELIVERANCE DANE? (Really?  That's the number two book?)  Do we need some ultimate decider beyond the NYT or Barnes & Noble or Amazon?  I don't think so.

I am one-hundred-percent sure that if Bookscan were reporting higher numbers than publishers, publishers would pull their subscriptions and put them out of business.  Why?  Because agents and authors would be hammering publishers and demanding to know why the publishers are reporting lower numbers and where the hell are our royalties?!  But because Bookscan reports lower numbers, publishers happily use its data to crush authors and insist that they can't pay what the author or agent believes a book is worth because Bookscan says the author isn't selling as many copies as the author says he or she is.  Even presented with actual royalty figures, publishers seem to still favor Bookscan, which I think puts a burden on publishers to ensure that Bookscan gets it right.

Thus, I propose that publishers should have to report their sales to Bookscan and Bookscan should have to reconcile the differences.  After all, don't publishers want accurate reporting?  Doesn't Bookscan?  So if Wal-Mart or Amazon or Target or whomever that isn't reporting to Bookscan won't provide the figures, why shouldn't the publishers?  Sure, the publishers would be reporting wholesale numbers and not point-of-sale figures, but certainly that's better than having no data at all?

C'mon, Nielsen, put your money where your mouth is.  And publishers, too.  If you want to make or break authors' careers and base your acquisitions on Bookscan data, then you need to have accurate data, which you don't.  So, please, put up or shut up.

Z

A Disturbing Trend

I got a call today that was another example what appears to be a disturbing trend among publishers:  Offering rights they do not control.

For those not intimately familiar with publishing, the area of subsidiary rights is likely unfamiliar. Subsidiary rights are rights other than the simple right to publish the book in the United States.  Thus the rights to publish audio, electronic, British, and translation editions are all subsidiary rights.

A US literary agent may license World rights to a publisher, which gives it the right to publish a book in the US and throughout the world, but few publishers actually publish around the world.  Most sublicense the rights they licensed from the author to a publisher in the UK or in foreign countries.  Thus, a book like THE DA VINCI CODE could have many publishers around the world.

Now, a US literary agent may also choose not to license World rights and instead to license only US rights or World English rights.  In such cases, the agent would try to license those rights for the author directly.  The author generally makes more money this way, as the advances from these non-US licenses are not applied to the US advance, which is the case of the US publisher controls the rights and licenses them, plus the author is not giving up a 20-50% piece of the pie directly to the publisher as its "share" of rights income.

In the past year, I've had two publishers contact me and say they wanted to license rights they did not control...as in, the contract with those US publishers did not include the authorization to license the rights in question.  And in the case of today's call, it was apparent that the publisher had been actively negotiating to sell rights it did not control and had no right to be shopping.

Folks, imagine if I called you up and told you that I had an offer for your house.  But you never engaged me to sell your house.  Heck, you barely know me.  I just happen to work at a company with which you have done some business.  That's pretty much the call I got today.

Earlier this year, another publisher called me up and wanted me to let them sell rights they did not control.  I told them I would be happy to deal directly with the other party, but I was not about to authorize them to license additional rights.  That would be like letting the guy down the street sell your car and take a cut, even though you happen to own a car dealership.  Crazy, right?

When I get a call about rights I do not control, I refer the person to the party that does control the rights and that's it.  I don't try to horn in on the action.  And I certainly don't try to sell rights I don't control.  How would the US publisher feel if I was out shopping the translation rights?  Those rights were licensed to the US publisher as a part of the US publication deal and it's up to the US publisher to find those foreign publishers.  In doing so, the US publisher will get at least 25% of the income on the deal and get to apply the author's 75% to the advance paid for the US edition, so likely the author will not see any more money for years.

Publishers, unless you want agents out there selling rights you control, you should stop trying to sell rights you don't control.

Z

Letterman vs Palin

I've been watching with some amusement the growing controversy regarding David Letterman's jokes about Sarah Palin's daughter. I watched the now-famous non-apology and I thought he handled it pretty well. I might have actually gone in a different direction, though, if the facts support it.

You see, my guess is that the jokes were written by someone or several folks who didn't bother to check on which daughter was traveling with Palin. So they wrote a bunch of jokes that were fair game for an eighteen-year-old but not a fourteen-year-old. Dave could have gone on the air and said something like this:

"We've been getting a lot of calls and emails and reading in the press the comments about former VP candidate Sarah Palin complaining about the jokes we made about her visit to New York, some of which included jokes about her daughter. According to Govenor Palin, those comments were directed at her fourteen-year-old daughter, Willow, and the govenor has called me a pervert and her husband has accused me of promoting the rape of fourteen-year-old girls.

"Nothing could be further from the truth.

"I am completely aghast at the concept that anyone out there thinks these jokes were about Willow. I would never joke about a young girl in such an inappropriate manner. I am a parent and I completely understand the powerful emotions such comments would bring about in the Palins...if I were actually talking about the fourteen-year-old daughter, Willow.

"Which, of course, I wasn't.

"You see, we're running a talk show here, where we tell jokes. This isn't THE NEW YORKER or THE NEW YORK TIMES. So sometimes our fact-checking isn't the best. You see, we thought it was the other daughter traveling with the govenor. You know, Bristol, the eighteen-year-old daughter, the one of legal age, and also, not coincidentally, the one who got knocked up and had a baby out of wedlock. The jokes, which we admit might have been a bit tacky, were aimed at her. But, then again, have you been watching our show? Because not being tacky isn't exactly something for which we are famous.

"So, to the Palins, and to Willow, I apologize. I absolutely wasn't talking about Willow and I wish her well and hope that she understands that sometimes people make mistakes. Just like her parents did, when they didn't teach her sister, Bristol, to be safe and use birth control if she was going to have sex with her boyfriend.

Thank you."

Z

What I Do All Day

Have you ever wondered what a literary agent does all day?  Think we just read and search for wonderful new authors?  Think again.

Today I spent close to an hour filling out a form 8802 for two clients.  This is the form that lets them get a form 6166, which will let their Spanish publisher only deduct 5% income tax from their whopping 300 Euro payment instead of 24%.  Paid the fees online and emailed the form to the clients to complete and fax to the IRS.  Now I get to wait 45 days for the response.

I emailed a client some supportive (I hope) thoughts on his mother dying.

I followed up with a film agent/manager.  Possible lunch in LA to come.

I logged receipts on some submission follow-ups so that when the editors claim not to have heard from me, I have proof they opened the email.

I pulled the trigger and authorized an Australian web firm to redesign the TZC website in Joomla.  Will be adding eQuery form so that I can put an end to accepting paper queries.

Emailed old high-school friend who is now a graphic designer about fixing logos for TZC and my other company.

Spoke to the wife two or three times about how much of each bottle my son is drinking.  Consulted with nanny on baby’s eating, sleeping, and, of course, pooping.

Went to the Postal Annex and picked up mail.  Bought bananas, lettuce, and fudge-covered grahams.  Don’t tell wife about the latter.

Remembered mail in trunk of my car.  BRB.

Received one full ms from author saying he was “inclosing” per my request.  Hopes for next best-seller quickly faded.

Received another full ms with SASE into which ms would never fit and which I will never use because we don’t return full MSS because PO won’t accept such a big package with stamps.  Total waste of expensive stamp and large envelope.  Though, if I take him on as a client, I guess I can send his rep agreement in it.  Pretty sure it is 10-point Times Roman.  Good thing I’m seeing the eye doctor tomorrow.

Received a THIRD full ms (holy crap!) that author says is mine exclusively (though I did not ask for it exclusively).  Looks like 10-point Courier New.

Pondered why I bothered to put MS formatting guidelines on website and note in request letter to go look at and use them.

Wife called to ask how to open gas tank on her new car.  I had no idea.

New ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY and KIPLINGER’S PERSONAL FINANCE in the mail.  First tip in KIPLINGER’S:  “Don’t waste your money on magazines that have no meaningful purpose, like EW.”  Ah, irony.  Yes, I’m kidding.

Holy crap!  Adam Lambert is GAY!???

Miss California is fired.  Alas, Trump didn’t do it himself as he is apparently allowed only to say “You’re fired” on THE APPRENTICE.

More irony but in no way funny:  Pro-life group wants to buy clinic of doctor who was shot dead by pro-lifer.

Guard gets killed by white supremacist at the US Holocaust Museum.  The alleged killer was James Von Brunn, 88-years-old.  So much for getting wiser as we get older.  Apparently this guy just got more pissed off.  Irony is that I’m pretty sure that guard wasn’t Jewish and that the killer apparently wrote a book called KILL THE BEST GENTILES.  Non-Jewish guard working at the Holocaust Museum?  Well, buddy, looks like you got your start.  Too bad we can’t gas you and cremate you.  Now THAT would be irony.

Got what I believe is the ELEVENTH copy of the Google Class Action notice, this time for a dead, former client.  Please Google, stop sending these and stop your stupid scanning program and just spend the money on literacy.  It would be a better cause.

Wrote a letter to a client who is completely MIA.  Work email bounces and home phone number seems to be a fax line but won’t accept a fax.

Double-checked that publisher got the cover fixed on Amazon for client’s book.

Followed up with another publisher about an egregious act involving contract amendment and royalties.  Still waiting for them to fix that.

Followed up on D&A payment due client; over a month has passed since delivery of the ms.

Followed up with local comic-book publisher about lunch meeting.

Email in-box now has only 56 emails in it.  Not bad.

Still need to process the new submissions, read the query that came in today, and by then it will be time for the nanny to go home and me to take over.  Whoo hoo!

Z

 

 

Job Hunting?

Recently I noticed this ad for an Associate Publisher at Touchstone Fireside.  I thought I would post it here because I think it's a wonderfully concise description of what exactly a "publisher" at a publishing house does and therefore highly worthwhile for authors to read.

The Publisher of Touchstone/Fireside, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, is seeking an Associate Publisher to handle all the logistics of publishing approximately 50 titles a year. From marketing and publicity to sales, this is an excellent opportunity for a candidate who is a “jack of all trades” and looking to be the second-in-command at a dynamic imprint. Strong interaction with all departments within S&S -- and with authors and agents -- is required.

Responsibilities include:

Primary point person/liaison for sales division, including: coordinating all sales meetings; pub grids and schedules; preparing agendas for focus and positioning meetings; identifying lead titles; responding to issues on call reports; attending sales calls with reps as needed; brainstorming backlist promotions; and identifying opportunities. Liaison for supply chain, including: attending all reprint and first print signing meetings; monitoring all inventory issues; and tracking turn-around times. Interaction with marketing, including: overseeing TIP sheets (researching competitive tiles & brainstorming selling points); approving marketing materials, sell sheets, and ads; coordinating all marketing plans and promotions on white sheets; and approving and trafficking catalog passes and layouts.

Contact with authors and agents, including: communicating with them and responding to all queries; monitoring their expectations; and communicating sales figures, publicity and marketing campaigns. Additionally, this position will work closely with the editorial department to secure advance quotes for books; determine necessary sales materials, final approval on TIP sheets.

Requirements: Seasoned (7 plus years), highly pro-active team player with a passion for book publishing; excellent writing, organizational and administrative skills; meticulous attention to detail; a mind and eye for numbers and budgets; and an ability to juggle multiple priorities in a fast-paced environment; and polished communication skills. Ideal candidate will have either a sales or marketing background, or a combination of both. College degree required.

Z

QuickBooks Sucks...Just a Little Less?

None of my blog posts here have received more comments than the one I wrote on QuickBooks 2009.  I said, in short, that it sucks.  And it does.  In fact, it sucks so bad that I expect that we will see some major changes in the next version, if you are willing to pay for yet another upgrade.

I recently noticed an interesting workaround to one of the biggest points of "suckage" in QB 2009, which is the Online Banking center.  Oh boy, does it ever suck.  Like a ten-year-old trying to get the last little bit out of the bottom of a milkshake.

I use account numbers.  However, if you have account numbers turned on, the QuickFill function doesn't work in Online Banking.  It still works in plenty of other places, but they changed the way Online Banking works and for some reason they refuse to change it back.  So they broke it, they know how to fix it, but they refuse to do so.  Go figure.

Recently, though, I noticed a new tab on the Edit Vendor screen.  I don't know if this has been there all along or if it just showed up during a patch.  Either way, it does create a workaround. It's called "Account Prefill."  Fill in the account (QuickFill works just fine here; again, go figure) here and when you download your transactions in the Online Banking center, the account will be prefilled for you.  Of course, this only works if you don't have a bazillion vendors and you use the same accounts for the same vendors over and over.  For example, every time I buy gas, it goes to a generic vendor called "Gas Station." So this just goes to the right account for Automobile Expense or Fuel and Transportation or whatever you choose to call it.  Over and over, the same every time.  This is fine.

However, if you go to Staples and buy office supplies and a new computer and a new desk, you might have a problem, since that's likely three different accounts.  QB allows you to have three different accounts in "Account Prefill," but I haven't played with the function to see what happens if you have more than one.  Maybe your dropdown list in Online Banking would be limited to those three?

So, as I said at the top, QuickBooks 2009 may suck a little less, but it still sucks.  I wish Peachtree or Microsoft would create an easy-to-use, easy-to-change-to program that would let us communicate effectively to Intuit what we think of its programs, but so far they haven't done that, so we're all stuck.

Z

Supporting Writers' Groups

Recently I decided to join three writers' groups to show my support for writers in those genres.  The groups are:

• The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America
• The Romance Writers of America
• The International Thriller Writers

I've previously been a member of SFWA, but not of RWA or ITW.  ITW is actually fairly new, but I've been impressed by its newsletter and its goal of expanding readership of their genre.

RWA has long had a reputation for working with publishers to improve the quality of romance novels published and its members are among the most professional of writers.  And now that I represent romance, it seems appropriate that I should join.

I look forward to exploring the online communities of these organizations and receiving queries from their members.

Z

The Process of Elimination

Perhaps it's some spring-cleaning impulse or just the fact that we bought a new car this weekend and will now once again have car payments, but I have been ripping through sample chapters and proposals eagerly trying to find something promising.  Alas, I'm not really finding it.  Today I declined eight sample chapters and proposals, which leaves me with four to read. Yes, four.  I don't think I've ever gotten it down this low.  And one of these I can't even read, because the author emailed me from Sri Lanka to ask if he can send in a revised version and I said yes.

So, by process of elimination, if your last name isn't one of the following and you have a sample chapter or proposal on submission with us, I'm sorry to say we've passed on it (if you haven't heard from us yet, it's on its way):

• James
• Young
• Salpeter
• De Livera

Here are the folks we are waiting on:

• Brown (Grady):  full ms
• Barrett:  proposal
• Dracoules:  full ms
• Grant:  sample chapter
• Katz:  sample chapter
• Mulrooney:  full ms
• Stojak:  sample chapter
• Watt: sample chapter
• Wexler:  full ms

Please note that if we don't hear from you within a month, we'll probably follow-up, but after that we presume you are no longer interested and will discard what we already have from you (query or sample chapter).

Here the folks whose manuscripts we still have to read:

• MacKinnon (one negative reader's report; one positive)
• Hanford (one positive reader's report)
• Fett (one positive reader's report)
• Schrader-Seccafico (resubmit of revised; unread)
• Perrota (two positive reports; one negative)
• Connor (being read)

If you are the author of one of these manuscripts and you have already found representation or a publisher, please let me know immediately so that we don't waste valuable time giving it further consideration.  Otherwise, I appreciate your patience and I am working as quickly as I can to get through things.

Z

The May Monthly Round-Up

I've been pretty good about getting through the partials and proposals, so here is the May monthly round-up:

• 35 queries received; 23 declined
• 7 sample chapters received; 22 declined
• 2 proposals received; 1 declined
• 1 manuscript received; 1 declined

We are currently waiting on:

• 3 sample chapters
• 1 proposal
• 4 manuscripts

We currently have on hand and need to read:

• 19 sample chapters
• 3 proposals
• 6 full manuscripts, plus 3 full manuscripts from current clients

Several of the full manuscripts have had favorable first and even second reads, but I haven't read them personally yet.

In May, I offered representation to two new clients.

Z

Not Hooting Over the STAR TREK Reboot

So I should first say that I'm writing this entry using Adobe Contribute for the first time.  I actually have no idea how this will work.  My guess is either perfectly or so horribly that I'll end up losing the entire blog in a fiery crash.

Speaking of fiery crashes, I saw the new STAR TREK movie a couple of weeks back and have had the chance to digest it and all I can say is that if someone wants to give me $200 million, I can get you a better movie, or at least a better script.

Not that I thought the movie was terrible.  It just wasn't GREAT! in the way that all of the other reviewers seem to think.

What I'm curious about is whose idea was it to completely break with the past, rather than reinvent the past.  You see, in all other Star Trek movies that involve time travel, the goal is always to "restore the timeline," lest you create alternate timelines that alter history and create paradoxes that could, ultimately, tear apart the fabric of time and space.  In fact, in ST:TNG, ST:DS9, ST: VOYAGER, and even in ST:  ENTERPRISE, there appeared references to and appearances by Federation time cops, whose job it was to get the timeline restored.  Yet the movie ignores all this.  Maybe they are saving it for the sequel?

Hey!  Bill Shatner, I just figured out how you can be in the next movie!  Since a completely alternate timeline has just been created, maybe you didn't die in the arms of Patrick Stewart in this one.  Hence, you can come back in the next movie.

You see, unless you are pretty much a Star Trek geek, you probably don't get this, but this movie is not a "reboot" or "new origin" story.  By including Leonard Nimoy as old Spock, complete with Spock's memories and experiences of the old timeline, they didn't start fresh, they just, literally, changed history enough so that everything that happened before didn't (or might not) happen.  Now they can have Kirk and Spock meet Q (calling John de Lancie), rather than have Q's first encounter be with the Next Generation.  They can encounter the Borg.  They can pretty much do whatever they want because what came before doesn't matter.

And this pisses me off a bit.  It's a cheat.  Ironically, it's like Kirk's treatment of the Kobayashi Maru test.  He couldn't beat it, so he reprogrammed it.  JJ Abrams and his writing partners couldn't overcome all of the history of Star Trek but they also couldn't overcome their desire to get Nimoy into the picture, apparently, so they cheated.  They created an alternate timeline and then ignored what is literally known as the Temporal Prime Directive.

For those who are not deeply immersed in the shows and prior movies, this is no big deal, but for the fan base that kept Star Trek alive long enough to be worth making this movie, this is pretty much an insult.  There is so much about Star Trek and its universe that has never been explored and rarely touched upon, and so many options to explore, even using Nimoy as a framing device in some fashion, that I just don't see why they couldn't have been more original and creative than they were.

From a script perspective, my biggest issue was with the dialogue of the Romulans.  The Romulans have always been presented as a proud and intelligent people.  I wonder, sometimes, if they were based on the Japanese.  But Nero comes off as a thug and not even that intelligent a thug.  And would he really come on the view screen and say, "Hi, I'm Nero"?  I didn't imagine that, did I?

I'm not sorry I saw it and I'm sure I'll watch it on cable again sometime, but I really had higher expectations and wish the reviewers were being a bit harder on these guys so they'd know to try harder next time.

Z

Can Publishers be Easier than Agents?

I have been on your newsletter list for a year or so, and I enjoy reading your sometimes agent-wisdom, and sometimes agent-chiding to absentminded writers.

Which brings me to my point. I have for some time now been wanting to tell an agent my story, having been trying for about 4 years to find an agent having written queries, proposals, et al up the wazzoo. I finally got tired a few years ago, and started querying publishers. I had my book on Costa Rica picked up and published hardcover. (That publisher's query was the same as to the agents.)

So then I tried 15 agents on a fine biography by a famous sculptor who wrote of his travels in the west in the 1870.s - Indians, grizzlys and a lot more - but no agent was interested. I sent the same query (adjusted by the word "publisher" instead of "agent") to 5 publishers. HarperCollins, and a major University Press asked to read the ms.

Yesterday a publisher picked up my 3rd book after trying to get an agent for 6 months. I solicited interest from 8 publishers.

My question for you is "Why did every single agent of all stripes and sizes have no interest when publishers were prompt to ask for "more". The three books are narrative non-fiction. And yes, I did my homework, and solicited only agents who had the specific subject matter as a primary interest. If anyone were to ask me I'd say "Query publishers, agents are too tough to interest."

My kindest personal regards,
Alfred Stites

Dear Mr. Stites:

Agents are usually looking for fairly low common denominators or at least books that will appeal to a wide number of editors and readers and, ideally, elicit very large offers or at least offers that will pay the bills. Not knowing more about your books, I can't say why agents weren't interested and publishers were, but I'd guess that the agents you queried simply didn't see the market or thought the potential market was too small and that the offers they might get wouldn't justify the time and effort required to find a publisher for the works.

After all, agents are in this as a business and to make money. I regularly turn down perfectly fine material or just don't request material because my feeling is that the number of hours I would have to spend trying to sell the book would not warrant the return I would receive. And plenty of books that I thought would be "easy" sells turned out to take years.

I guess there's no good answer to your question, because if I had one, I'd only take on books that were easy sells, just like every publisher would only take on books that would be best-sellers.

Z

Not My Two Cents, Please

In case you haven't noticed, the postage rates just went up and much to my surprise I'm still getting query letters with SASEs bearing only a forty-two-cent stamp.

Folks, the US Postal Service announces these things waaaaaaay in advance. And no agent responds to every query the day he or she gets them, so you really need to anticipate and put the right postage on your self-addressed, stamped envelope (SASE). Don't expect the agents to be making up the difference. Do you know how many queries some agencies get? Dozens a week; sometimes hundreds. We may not, but our time is valuable, also, and running down to the PO to get two-cent stamps to make up for authors who didn't plan for the increase is not currently on our to-do list.

If we've had your sample chapter or manuscript for a while and need to respond using the SASE, we will certainly pop for the two cents, but if you queried us on Friday, May 8th, and the rates were going up on Monday, May 11th, and you just put a forty-two-cent stamp on there, don't blame us if the USPS brings it to you postage-due.

Z

The SCRUBS Finale, Please

So I was watching the "season" and perhaps "series" finale of SCRUBS and I have to say, they may have done the best job of any series I have ever watched in coming up with a last episode. In fact, I seriously hope that it is the series finale and not just the season. I say "perhaps" above because there has apparently been no final decision on whether or not to renew it for next season. My hope is that they won't. Not because I don't completely enjoy the show, but because that last episode was the perfect note to go out on and trying to pick it up next season would be as dumb as AFTER M*A*S*H. Remember that cluster-frack? Oy, it's so sad they even tried.

But SCRUBS got it right. Nearly perfect, except that in the long list of guest stars that came back to say goodbye, they left out a few that would have been amusing to see. But, hey, people are busy.

So, good-bye SCRUBS. Now please do us the favor of enjoying your millions in syndication fees and go off and write and star in new and entertaining projects, instead of trying to come up with something that will top this season.

Z

The April Submissions Round-up

Greetings from Corrie, your favorite TZC intern! I’m sure you’ve all been waiting with baited breath for our April round up, and here it is!

In April 2009, We….

* Received 31 queries and declined 25
* Received 5 sample chapters and declined 8
* Received 1 manuscript and declined 2

We also:

* Requested 8 sample chapter
* Requested 1 proposal
* Requested 2 manuscripts

As of May 7, 2009, we have on hand to read the following:

* 6 manuscripts
* 3 proposals
* 40 sample chapters

We are also waiting to receive the following:

* 12 sample chapters
* 2 proposals
* 2 manuscripts

We have read all sample chapters dated through January 15th 2009. If your cover letter on your sample chapter was dated before that and you sent an SASE and you have not heard back, please contact us.


CB

Ugh.

I am battling a cold and the title of this blog says it all: "Ugh." Caught it from my son, who caught it from his grandparents. The wife has it now, also. You know it sucks because I'm actually watching the clock for when I can next take something. I took straight cough medicine and not a multi-symptom product this morning and my nose is feeling left out.

On the business side, my day is a big "ugh," also. After fourteen or so months, I finally concluded a negotiation for a new deal with for one of my clients. When the final contracts showed up, I got them out to the client the same day. The client turned them around the same day. It is nearly two weeks since they were returned to the publisher and do I have a fully executed contract or the payment due on signing? Of course not.

So the question to me is, Should my client's deadline be changed? Why, after all, should he be expected to start work before he has a signed contract and payment?

An old girlfriend of mine once did some TV work for a division of Viacom, which also owns Simon & Schuster. I was complaining to her that I was waiting and waiting for a check from S&S and she said, "Why? I can get a check hand-cut the same day if I need it." My head nearly exploded. Why could one division get things done so much quicker than another? Why, for example, does one publishing company cut all of its checks from an office in Colorado or New Jersey, then send them to NYC, where they are sent out to agents? Why not send them straight out from the source? Why not source them in NYC?

Publishers blame agents for making the relationship with authors acrimonious or adversarial, but the truth is that it is the publishers' own corporate policies that more often than not earn them the anger of authors and agents. Contracts are negotiated for weeks and sometimes months. It's not like the publisher didn't know this deal was happening and that payment would have to be made. When the contracts go out for signing to the author, why isn't a check request done then, so that the check is ready when the contract comes back signed by the author? Why on earth does a contract have to sit on anyone's desk for days or weeks before signing? Your Contracts Deparment negotiated that agreement, possibly for weeks and even months. Can't you trust them and sign the damn thing?

Maybe what we need to have in publishing is "closings," like on real estate in NYC. All the parties in the room and cashier's checks drawn and ready to go. Everyone signs, the checks change hands, everyone is happy.

Z

Guilty Pleasures and Writing Lessons

I confess I’m a bit of a TV junkie. I watch shows that don’t deserve watching, perhaps, and I should probably turn off the TV and read more, I admit. But with a young child in the house, momentum and inertia are powerful forces. Once your butt hits the couch, inertia settles in. Once you’ve watched one show on the DVR, momentum pushes you to the next.

Yet TV can be very important for a guy like me. For starters, I’m always working to get my clients’ works read by folks in TV or movies, so it’s important for me to recognize what’s working or not working.

I’ve recently been amused by the new show, CASTLE, starring Nathan Fillion, in which Fillion plays Richard Castle, a mystery novelist (think James Patterson, who actually had a cameo on the first episode) who gets “partnered” with an actual NYPD homicide detective and ends up solving quite a few of the crimes. His partner, played by Stana Katic (yeah, I’d never heard of her either, but I like her), is the classic straight (wo)man to Fillion’s Peter Pan-ish Richard Castle.

Ignoring that this has about as much potential of happening in real life as me becoming a navy SEAL, I think the characters are well drawn, including Castle’s quirky mother, played by Susan Sullivan (Greg’s mother on DHARMA & GREG), and his perhaps-too-serious daughter, played by Molly C. Quinn. So far Castle and his daughter have engaged in apartment-wide laser tag and a fencing match (aided, of course, by Castle’s humongous-by-NYC’s-standards apartment). What next? Judo?

I think authors can take a few notes from this show. The little bits of characterization are being dribbled out and they work well. Katic’s detective character has issues surrounding her deceased mom. Castle is apparently friends with everyone in NYC and is a crack shot with a 9mm...on the range, at least. The daughter would rather take her calculus test than go shopping with her mom, Castle’s over-the-top actress ex.

The actors all seem to have chemistry and the writing is solid, if a bit too fast-paced and coy in a manner reminiscent of—but not as eager as—an Aaron Sorkin drama.

The plaguing question, of course, is when does Castle have time to write? There are hints that he does it long into the night and uses a laborious outlining process. Strangely, though, the few pages shown are not double-spaced (just block paragraphs) and there has been no discussion of his agent or his publisher, which, given that Castle has just had a new book published in the first episode and is apparently as big an author as Patterson, surprises me. Where is the national book tour and obsession with the best-seller list rankings? Where is the agent calling to update him on foreign rights sales or progress with the movie deal? Where is the editor asking him what he’s going to be doing next?

Alas, as far it goes, CASTLE is certainly entertaining, but there are no lessons in how the real world of publishing works here. But there may be some lessons in writing interesting and three-dimensional characters and that makes it worth watching for you, I think.

Z

An Update for Our Troubled Times

With CNN and CNBC bringing us ever-worse news about the economy, I wanted to speak directly to our potential clients regarding how TZC is approaching these tough economic times and fairing in general.

I’ve been fortunate enough to have had an excellent intern in Corrie Buck this semester and much housekeeping and updating has been accomplished by her, allowing me to focus on working with existing and new clients to polish their books.

Polishing is without a doubt the most important thing an author can do in this market. Editors are being laid off and lists are being cut back. Fewer titles are being acquired and some that were acquired are being delayed. It’s therefore not unusual for us to ask an author to revise his or her proposal or manuscript several times before we submit it.

Style is as important as substance. We provide manuscript preparation guidelines to every new client and they are on our website for potential and existing clients to reference as needed (http://www.zackcompany.com/submissions/ManuscriptPrep/manuscriptprep.htm). The cleaner and more professional your manuscript or proposal is, the easier it is for editors to focus on the content and not be distracted by funky spacing or extra tabs, etc.

Publishing is not recession-proof. What it sometimes does is lag the recession, as people move from more expensive ways to pass time to less expensive, e.g., fewer dinners and movies out and more reading at home. But libraries are a huge market for publishers and during times of budget-cutting, they take a hit, which means they order fewer books. And when the economy bounces back, it can actually take a while for it to hit publishers. Books are sold six months in advance, in general, with publishers soliciting orders and then basing print runs on those orders. Six months down the road, the economy may be great, but the books being published then will have been ordered now, when the economy sucks, and those orders will be fewer. Thus fewer copies may be sold. Fortunately, publishers have gotten better and better at doing fast reprints and I’m sure there will be competition at the printers for reprint press time eventually. Just not so much now.

If JK Rowling wanted to do publishing a favor, she’d come up with something new in the Harry Potter world quick. Harry Potter is a sure seller and bookstores could use the cash.

Publishers are going to be looking harder and harder to find just the best-sellers. Midlist, which has been writhing on its death bed for quite some time, is probably ready for Last Rites. There are truly only two markets in fiction: best-sellers and category-filler. A book better scream “KEEP READING ME!” by page ten, or editors are going to move on, which is oh-so-much-easier now that every editor seems to have an eBook reader of some kind.

The days when an editor would bring a manuscript home and might end up continuing to read because they just brought the one home are over. Imagine this: Editor brings one manuscript home and starts reading it. It’s a bit slow, but it’s the only manuscript she brought home that night. So she keeps reading. And what do you know? It picks up. Hmm, thinks the editor, if I can just get the author to cut a bit at the beginning and pick up the pace, we’ll have something here. I’m sure that scenario played out dozens of times every year. Maybe hundreds. But not anymore. Now editors have eBook readers and download the electronically submitted manuscripts to the reader. Get in ten pages and find the book slow? Move onto the next. After all, you’ve got ten or twenty on that reader. Fiction manuscripts have, it seems, become screenplays. It has long been said that a screenplay must seize the producer’s attention on the first page, and while I think book editors and agents have slightly longer attention spans, I also think those attention spans have been drastically shortened over the years. Working on eBook readers where the next book is just a Delete-key-away can’t help.

On the nonfiction side, the biggest issue continues to be the author’s “platform.” If you’ve never done so, definitely take a look at our website’s What We Want page (http://www.zackcompany.com/submissions/what_we_want.htm) where I talk a lot about platform. Authors need to build their platforms but also need to be able to QUANTIFY their platforms. Saying that you have a syndicated column is great, but being syndicated in three newspapers is not the same as being syndicated in 150. Saying you have a blog is not the same as saying you have a blog that receives 150,000 unique visitors each month. Being the keynote speaker at several management meetings per year is different than being a speaker with more than a hundred speaking engagements per year. When you write your proposals, you want to be able to quantify your platform so that publishers understand that you have an existing audience that will come to your book. Your platform has to sell the book, as the book cannot be your platform.

I cannot lie. Generally speaking, business sucks. It sucks for bookstores, it sucks for publishers, and it sucks for agents and their authors. But publishers will always need great books. They never stop buying great books. They stop buying the less-than-great books because they need to pick and choose what they present to the accounts more carefully. And agents must follow suit. Thus, I am taking on fewer and fewer clients every year, because I must truly believe in a project to put in the effort required to find it a home. The days of “Okay, let’s give this a shot,” are over.

That said, we need great books, and I confess that a few of our clients have been long silent on their next books. Marketing backlist is something we always do. And we never stop marketing unsold projects, generally speaking. Editors come and go and new publishers start up, and we continue to try and sell those projects we have not yet sold. We would not have committed to representing them if we did not believe in them. But sometimes it makes sense to strategically withdraw, to put a book on the shelf and try to sell something else, something new, something that may fit the changing marketplace better. If you are one of those authors who has been flogging the same old manuscript to agents and editors, you might want to ask if the time has come to move on.

In the coming months, we will continue our efforts to digitize contracts and royalty statements. We will continue to ask publishers to reprint out-of-print books or revert them. We will continue to suggest that backlist titles be reissued in new formats so that they find wider markets and reap both publisher and author greater profits with higher cover prices. We will continue to upgrade and develop our software and website to make them more efficient and help us improve sales of our clients' works both to publishers and the public. And we will continue to serve our clients the only way we know how: with commitment, with loyalty, and with the same persistence that has sold more than a few books after more than a few editors said no.

Z

Marketing Idiots

Gatorade has a new commercial that is as good as its commercials usually are, until you get to the slogan: "Less Calories. For More Athletes." Way to teach our kids proper grammar!

As any idiot knows, it should be "Fewer Calories."

There should be a law that all advertising must user proper grammar and spelling. Advertising is one of the most potent forces in our culture. When it reinforces bad grammar or incorrect spelling it does damage to our society and we hardly need any more.

Z