Category: Reblogging Project

I got a question about queries and collaborations and figured that the response I put together might be of some interest to folks here. So, with all identifiers removed:

Start with the collaboration stuff:

An agent will deal with a two-author book in pretty much the same way they’d deal with single author book: Does the query make me want to read the material? If so, does the book make me want to represent this(these) client(s)? Then they’ll go from there.

My agent reps at least one pair of authors and I know others who do as well. The submission will look pretty much the same as it would if there were only one of you, with the exception that you’ll have two names in all the places where there would normally be one. Assuming that you get an agent and they find you a publisher for the book, you might end up under a pen name if the two of you and your agent and publisher decide that’s the best way to market the book, but that’s a ways down the road. Even in that case, your agent would submit it to editors under both names. Pen names really only come into things after a story or book has sold.

Personally, if it were me, I’d want to put the book out under both names for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that if you ever split your writing partnership up it makes it much easier for both of you to maintain writing careers going forward. Somewhere around here I have a link to some things to think about in terms of contracts for books written as collaborations for books sold before being written (which again would be some distance down the road from where you’re at now). If you’d like, I’ll see if I can’t dig it up. Let me know.

Now on to Queries:

Queries are tough. Part of the reason that you’re seeing a hundred different ways to write one is that there really is no standard way to do it. I can point you at a couple of great resources for queries and the plot synopses that go with book proposals. My friend Joshua Palmatier put together a couple of projects where authors in the field posted the query letters that got them their agents and the same with synopses. There’s more on the synopsis project including links to stuff I’ve written on the subject here.

Let me also point you at another set of useful resources. First, Kristin Nelson is a very smart agent who blogs, and she put up a bunch of really fantastic posts on querying and pitching. I’ve linked some of them here. And of course there’s info at the Wyrdsmiths blof. Most of wyrdsmiths writing posts up to about the middle of last year have been indexed by topic here. Also, I’ve put together a topical index of the Miss Snark agent blog which includes tons of good advice on the agent process. That’s here.

That’s all for now.

(Originally published on the Wyrdsmiths blog April 15 2009, and original comments may be found there. Reposted and reedited as part of the reblogging project)

It is with extreme caution that I dip a toe in these waters, but several people have now asked me what I thought of the Author’s Guild position on the Kindle II, and particularly how it may cause real harm to blind or visually impaired readers, and…I do have an opinion. I know that’s a shocker, isn’t it.

To begin with and just to be absolutely clear, I’m in support of the Kindle’s voice feature being generally available. I feel that the benefits to those who have difficulties reading are greater than the potential future hazards to author income.

Now, on to the explanation, which requires some set up. Start with my understanding that (due in part to ADA mandates) all modern American book contracts always include a voice rights for the disabled clause. So, for example, when Minnesota Radio for the blind wanted to broadcast WebMage, that was automatically an allowed usage. I didn’t even hear about it until the book had been running on the radio for several weeks. Had it been the case that they’d had to ask, I’d have been delighted to give permission, but that’s neither here nor there. The important first point is that audio rights for the disabled are automatic, and I don’t know of anyone who is opposed to that.

Next step, the Kindle II and what the author’s guild is trying to do. If the Kindle’s voice feature was aimed only at the disabled audience I am quite certain that the AG would not oppose this. However, it’s a generalized feature and that means that anyone can use it.

Now, an excellent argument can be made that this in no way competes with actual audio book rights because there’s simply no comparison between a talented voice actor and a machine conversion of text-to-speech. A counter argument can be made (and this is I think at the core of the AG objection) that that’s true now, but…what if in 20 years text-to-speech advances enough that it does become a real competitor? If that happens and no protest was made at this point, a court could well find that in not protesting the Kindle II, authors waived their rights to protest the new advanced technology for which they are now not going to be paid. For that matter, what about non-fiction where intonation and story-telling don’t really matter?

Since the publishing industry has a long established tradition of grabbing rights and not paying for them, the changing technology puts the AG in the position of either protesting Kindle II in a way that makes them look really bad right now, or not protesting it and possibly causing significant loss of revenues to their membership at some unknown future point, or, possibly, tomorrow for non-fiction. Now, as I said at the outset, I think the generalized good of allowing the Kindle to use text-to-speech outweighs the possible risks to future authorial income, but at the same time, I sympathize with the fact that it puts the AG between a rock and a hard place. It is not nearly as easy a question as it seems.

So, no, the AG is not insane or evil, just in a difficult position and quite probably wrong.

(Originally published on the Wyrdsmiths blog April 13 2009, and original comments may be found there. Reposted and reedited as part of the reblogging project)