Admiring the dedication you put into your website and detailed information you provide.
It's good to come across a blog every once in a while
that isn't the same old rehashed material. Fantastic read!
I've bookmarked your site and I'm including your RSS feeds to my Google account.
Mags - 16 years ago
Word, Doy.
dostoyevsky - 16 years ago
So very cliquey. Nothing changes.
Mags - 16 years ago
I'm going, I'm going. Just stopped by to feed the trolls. Girl's gotta have some time off in the day. Oh, and thank GOD! That Kelley [sic!] thing was KILLING me! (Sorry for the yelling, been trapped in a laptop all day.) You're the Twizzlest!
kelley - 16 years ago
Doy, this will come as a surprise, but I wasn't referring to you.
But since you addressed me.
Trust me. Janet doesn't need me to validate her. It's just a suspicion I have, but I'd say it's pretty safe to assume.
That being said. It's unequivocally putz-like behavior to neener anyone.
Now. No more feeding of the trolls.
kelley - 16 years ago
Don't even. It's Twizzle, not Kelley [sic!] to you, Mags.
But let's be serious. There are worse writers than Dostoyevsky. I'm sure there must be. Somewhere.
P.S. Aren't you supposed to be writing?
-Twizzle, who's supposed to be revising, herself.
Mags - 16 years ago
I'm bothered that you didn't notice Kelley [sic!] was responding to me about the off-color words, not you, Doy. I feel as though you pay no attention to me at all anymore. It's like we don't even talk. How quickly these things go stale. Sigh. Alright then, I'm off to demean myself further by modifying my behavior to suit Janet's needs some more. I know what they are, too. I read submission guidelines! Oh boy!
dostoyevsky - 16 years ago
I'm bothered that you agree with the authoritarian elitist ...you know, Kelley, the off color words, is distracting. I'm not sure what that means. In Ohio, off color meant a curse or swear. Now I may be many things, but I don't recall using off color terms.
I just can't believe y'all line up to agree with the top down discipline demonstrated by the pollster. She could have kept this a private affair between her and the correspondent. But by airing it in this forum, she's able to spin it as a cautionary tale of how not to behave. And you're buying into it.
She is modifying your behavior to meet her needs. It's demeaning. And then to turn it into a poll. Her conscience isn't enough to tell her what is right or wrong about it, but she needs to post it here to be validated by all of you.
It makes me sad.
Mags - 16 years ago
Yeah, I learned some new words off that one, Kelley [sic!]. It's quite a vocabulary she's got!
kelley - 16 years ago
Wow! The original Dostoyevsky was a long-winded mal-content who was totally miserable to read, too. He wrote better, though.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
*sigh*
Good one.
Mags--you're acting delusional again.
You know full well it had LOTS of off-color words, not some.
Mags - 16 years ago
Goodness, Doy! Janet rejected my query ages ago. I believe it had some off-color words and a TRO attached to it. I remember it like it was yesterday...
She's due to reject me again soon. Many are. It's very exciting!
Look, querying sucks. You send out letters, essentially asking to be told "no" many, many times if you follow the statistics. Being catty, unpleasant, needy, and the many other things I see above helps no one, particularly you. You've covered yourself by doing it anonymously, but really, that's just silly.
No retinue for me, thanks. I don't really like crowds. I prefer to fawn solo or in small groups.
dostoyevsky - 16 years ago
Mags, I hope she accepts your query. Every bully needs to have a blindly loyal retinue. And I don't know anything about dostoyevsky, so I would certainly hope he was a better writer than me. Or is it than I am? Thanks in advance.
Mags - 16 years ago
Wow! The original Dostoyevsky was a long-winded mal-content who was totally miserable to read, too. He wrote better, though.
Emily - 16 years ago
Wait! You log every query you have rejected. That's really organized! Do most agents do that? The agency I interned at did not.
Mr. Zen - 16 years ago
Jan,
Face it. You are a vindictive personality. The not-so-subtle "I know everyone in publishing and if you screw with me you'll never work again in this town" subtext of your blog(s) has fostered a unnecessary "fer me er 'gainst me" halo around you.
Somebody else "vindicted" you back. There you go.
And your immediate gut response? "Hmmm. How can I get over on 'em even more than he got over on me? Me and my long memory will screw 'em good sooner or later!"
It's cool. Life goes on. Don't let idiots define you.
'Sall gud. Let it slide.
dostoyevsky - 16 years ago
Actually, Anon, the desserts was intentional, as in sour grapes.
kelley - 16 years ago
Patrick said-That tells me he already had an agent. So this would suggest he was pretty darn tardy letting the other agents know he had secured representation if that was his supposed 'intent'.
Well, playing devil's advocate and not having seen the email, he could have gotten a publisher's offer first. Then he could have gone back and asked an agent to rep him with the offer in hand. And it could have happened fairly quickly. Possibly.
Doesn't mean the email wasn't putz-like behavior, however.
Anon - 16 years ago
It's deserts, by the way, not desserts. As in "what you deserve."
Dostoyevsky - 16 years ago
Wow. Let me get this straight, you rejected him twice - last month - and now just a couple of weeks later, not only did he or she find an agent, but a publisher, too? And now you're bent out of shape that the author let you know - be it neener or not? Man, oh, man; that is rich. Poor little you. C'mon. Are you serious? What an elitist load of garbage. Who do you think you are? And how do *you* want to be perceived or remembered? As a four year old who had her best toy taken away? I wish the guy or gal all the success, and I hope you end up sitting with him or her at an awards banquet. That would be just desserts for this kind of low blow. If you can dish it out via your rejection letters, you should be able to handle it when it comes back to bite you. And to air it out like this on your uber supreme Literary Agent Commandment blog? Sheesh. Your pettiness is showing.
Patrick DiOrio - 16 years ago
I guess I'd have to see the email to really gauge his intent. But I at first suspected he was trying to cover all his bases to let the agents he had queried know he was no longer available. Now I'm with you. As you suspect, it was more than that. We all (most of us, anyway) try to follow the agent/author rules of etiquette and blogs I've read by agents and/or authors make it a point that if you accept representation somewhere you should let agents who you have queried/sent partials/fulls to know you are now agented and put those aside so as not to waste their time. However, what gives some credence to your suspicion as his communication being a 'neenie neenie' is that he ALSO SOLD the book through the agent. That tells me he already had an agent. So this would suggest he was pretty darn tardy letting the other agents know he had secured representation if that was his supposed 'intent'. Nope, on review I have to land on the side he was thumbing his nose at you and any of the other agents he sent his little missive to. Rather unprofessional, actually.
ElissaM - 16 years ago
I think it's possible the author was sort of bragging on getting an agent and publisher, but maybe he didn't intend it in a "neener neener" way. Maybe he was just so excited, he sent the announcement to everyone he thought might be remotely interested. He just didn't realize you shouldn't have been on that list.
Admiring the dedication you put into your website and detailed information you provide.
It's good to come across a blog every once in a while
that isn't the same old rehashed material. Fantastic read!
I've bookmarked your site and I'm including your RSS feeds to my Google account.
Word, Doy.
So very cliquey. Nothing changes.
I'm going, I'm going. Just stopped by to feed the trolls. Girl's gotta have some time off in the day. Oh, and thank GOD! That Kelley [sic!] thing was KILLING me! (Sorry for the yelling, been trapped in a laptop all day.) You're the Twizzlest!
Doy, this will come as a surprise, but I wasn't referring to you.
But since you addressed me.
Trust me. Janet doesn't need me to validate her. It's just a suspicion I have, but I'd say it's pretty safe to assume.
That being said. It's unequivocally putz-like behavior to neener anyone.
Now. No more feeding of the trolls.
Don't even. It's Twizzle, not Kelley [sic!] to you, Mags.
But let's be serious. There are worse writers than Dostoyevsky. I'm sure there must be. Somewhere.
P.S. Aren't you supposed to be writing?
-Twizzle, who's supposed to be revising, herself.
I'm bothered that you didn't notice Kelley [sic!] was responding to me about the off-color words, not you, Doy. I feel as though you pay no attention to me at all anymore. It's like we don't even talk. How quickly these things go stale. Sigh. Alright then, I'm off to demean myself further by modifying my behavior to suit Janet's needs some more. I know what they are, too. I read submission guidelines! Oh boy!
I'm bothered that you agree with the authoritarian elitist ...you know, Kelley, the off color words, is distracting. I'm not sure what that means. In Ohio, off color meant a curse or swear. Now I may be many things, but I don't recall using off color terms.
I just can't believe y'all line up to agree with the top down discipline demonstrated by the pollster. She could have kept this a private affair between her and the correspondent. But by airing it in this forum, she's able to spin it as a cautionary tale of how not to behave. And you're buying into it.
She is modifying your behavior to meet her needs. It's demeaning. And then to turn it into a poll. Her conscience isn't enough to tell her what is right or wrong about it, but she needs to post it here to be validated by all of you.
It makes me sad.
Yeah, I learned some new words off that one, Kelley [sic!]. It's quite a vocabulary she's got!
Wow! The original Dostoyevsky was a long-winded mal-content who was totally miserable to read, too. He wrote better, though.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
*sigh*
Good one.
Mags--you're acting delusional again.
You know full well it had LOTS of off-color words, not some.
Goodness, Doy! Janet rejected my query ages ago. I believe it had some off-color words and a TRO attached to it. I remember it like it was yesterday...
She's due to reject me again soon. Many are. It's very exciting!
Look, querying sucks. You send out letters, essentially asking to be told "no" many, many times if you follow the statistics. Being catty, unpleasant, needy, and the many other things I see above helps no one, particularly you. You've covered yourself by doing it anonymously, but really, that's just silly.
No retinue for me, thanks. I don't really like crowds. I prefer to fawn solo or in small groups.
Mags, I hope she accepts your query. Every bully needs to have a blindly loyal retinue. And I don't know anything about dostoyevsky, so I would certainly hope he was a better writer than me. Or is it than I am? Thanks in advance.
Wow! The original Dostoyevsky was a long-winded mal-content who was totally miserable to read, too. He wrote better, though.
Wait! You log every query you have rejected. That's really organized! Do most agents do that? The agency I interned at did not.
Jan,
Face it. You are a vindictive personality. The not-so-subtle "I know everyone in publishing and if you screw with me you'll never work again in this town" subtext of your blog(s) has fostered a unnecessary "fer me er 'gainst me" halo around you.
Somebody else "vindicted" you back. There you go.
And your immediate gut response? "Hmmm. How can I get over on 'em even more than he got over on me? Me and my long memory will screw 'em good sooner or later!"
It's cool. Life goes on. Don't let idiots define you.
'Sall gud. Let it slide.
Actually, Anon, the desserts was intentional, as in sour grapes.
Patrick said-That tells me he already had an agent. So this would suggest he was pretty darn tardy letting the other agents know he had secured representation if that was his supposed 'intent'.
Well, playing devil's advocate and not having seen the email, he could have gotten a publisher's offer first. Then he could have gone back and asked an agent to rep him with the offer in hand. And it could have happened fairly quickly. Possibly.
Doesn't mean the email wasn't putz-like behavior, however.
It's deserts, by the way, not desserts. As in "what you deserve."
Wow. Let me get this straight, you rejected him twice - last month - and now just a couple of weeks later, not only did he or she find an agent, but a publisher, too? And now you're bent out of shape that the author let you know - be it neener or not? Man, oh, man; that is rich. Poor little you. C'mon. Are you serious? What an elitist load of garbage. Who do you think you are? And how do *you* want to be perceived or remembered? As a four year old who had her best toy taken away? I wish the guy or gal all the success, and I hope you end up sitting with him or her at an awards banquet. That would be just desserts for this kind of low blow. If you can dish it out via your rejection letters, you should be able to handle it when it comes back to bite you. And to air it out like this on your uber supreme Literary Agent Commandment blog? Sheesh. Your pettiness is showing.
I guess I'd have to see the email to really gauge his intent. But I at first suspected he was trying to cover all his bases to let the agents he had queried know he was no longer available. Now I'm with you. As you suspect, it was more than that. We all (most of us, anyway) try to follow the agent/author rules of etiquette and blogs I've read by agents and/or authors make it a point that if you accept representation somewhere you should let agents who you have queried/sent partials/fulls to know you are now agented and put those aside so as not to waste their time. However, what gives some credence to your suspicion as his communication being a 'neenie neenie' is that he ALSO SOLD the book through the agent. That tells me he already had an agent. So this would suggest he was pretty darn tardy letting the other agents know he had secured representation if that was his supposed 'intent'. Nope, on review I have to land on the side he was thumbing his nose at you and any of the other agents he sent his little missive to. Rather unprofessional, actually.
I think it's possible the author was sort of bragging on getting an agent and publisher, but maybe he didn't intend it in a "neener neener" way. Maybe he was just so excited, he sent the announcement to everyone he thought might be remotely interested. He just didn't realize you shouldn't have been on that list.