Tag: Querying

In addition to having an editor look at my query letter, I had them review my synopsis as well. Unlike the teaser description that’s in a query letter, a synopsis includes spoilers. Basically, it’s your opportunity to demonstrate that your story has a coherent plot with ups and downs, some surprises, and a satisfying ending. 

I’ll confess, trying to summarize a 95,000-word novel in around 600 words was a challenge, so I was grateful to get feedback on it. Here are the high points of my editor’s feedback:

1. Start with establishing the world

I didn’t do this well in my teaser description, and I didn’t do it well in my synopsis either, but it’s a must for sci-fi. Thankfully, it was an easy fix. It only cost me 45 words at the top of the synopsis.

2. Answer the big story questions only

A synopsis isn’t just a series of events. You have to explain their relevance and their impact on the characters. But you can’t explain everything, so you have to leave some things out.

That calculus is tough. My editor hadn’t read my novel, but they wanted more details about some points, and thankfully they were happy to have a few details I’d included cut.

3. Only name major characters

My novel has an ensemble cast, so the vast majority of characters aren’t mentioned in the synopsis. But I had included five named characters. 

In response, my editor suggested, “If a character only shows up once or twice in the synopsis, and it’s not absolutely vital we know who they are, it may be worth removing or just summarizing.”

They singled out one of the five characters, which is definitely not a major character—neither in book 1 nor the trilogy—unlike the other four characters. So, they got anonymized to “friend.”

4. Give major characters their space

My novel has three major characters that get nearly all of the POV time. However, my original synopsis gave one of the three a lot less attention word-wise than the others, which made their role unclear to my editor. When I revised my synopsis, I rebalanced the attention paid to each (132, 148, and 149 words) and wove their storylines together more evenly to more accurately represent their importance to the story.

5. Spell out the stakes and consequences of failure

The stakes in my story are big, but I didn’t 100% spell them out—mostly because I was economizing on words and thought I’d inferred enough. But when the stakes aren’t clear, the story’s not clear. So, I cut other material to clarify the stakes for everyone.

In conclusion: Writing a synopsis is tough. It’s full of difficult choices as you try to highlight the most important and compelling plot points and moments, while omitting the rest so as not to confuse or distract. It’s a delicate balancing act.

---

Related posts:

My updated query letter and synopsis are being reviewed by an editor

My query letter editor’s feedback

5 ways my unsuccessful query letter could have been stronger

---

To get future posts … 

Query letters are expected to do four things for the literary agents who receive them: 

1. Establish your novel’s genre
2. Present a few comparable books
3. Share a teaser description of your novel
4. Introduce you as the author

After unsuccessfully querying my novel two years ago, I worked with a developmental editor and then not only revised my query letter, but hired a query letter editor to review it.

Well, I now have their feedback and wanted to share how I did, in case it helps someone else. I’ll share the feedback based on the four goals of a query letter.

1. Establish your novel’s genre

I referred to my book as a “dystopian near-future sci-fi novel.” My editor gently pointed out the redundancy inherent in that description. Dystopian is a kind of sci-fi, so strike “sci-fi.” And the query letter itself establishes that I’m pitching a novel, so strike “novel.” They also thought “near-future” was unnecessary, which I agreed with since my description talks about the year 2104, which establishes it as near-future. 

So, in the end, “dystopian near-future sci-fi novel” was shortened to just “dystopian.”

2. Present a few comparable books

This is one of the elements I really failed on during my first querying attempt. The two comps I stressed the most were from 2010 and 2013. The expectation is for comps to be within the past 5 years, and ideally within the past 2. My new comps? Published in 2020, 2023, and 2025. My editor didn’t have any feedback on those.

However, I also namechecked the Pacific Rim and Hunger Games franchises, as a way of further defining the audience for my novel. I mentioned those in the opening paragraph as well, but my editor moved them after the description. So, those older titles are still in there, but deemphasized. Seems wise.

3. Share a teaser description of your novel

Unlike a synopsis, which includes spoilers, the description is similar to what the jacket copy would be. In my teaser book description, I jumped right into the two main characters and their circumstances and goals. While that’s fine for most genres, my editor recommended doing some upfront worldbuilding for my sci-fi novel, similar to what the jacket copy for The Hunger Games does.

It made perfect sense once it was suggested. In fact, each of the books in my trilogy begin with a one-page Star Wars-esque, Greek chorus-like intro that firmly establishes the context of the world and recent action. Of course I needed to bring that element into my summary teaser.

In addition to that, I was too coy about the antagonists of my story, referring to them as “mysterious forces.” Upon revision, I name them: “a trio of artificial intelligences and the resistance group Stateless.”

4. Introduce you as the author

I thought my revised bio paragraph was much better than my original—particularly in establishing why I wrote the story—and my editor agreed: “This is fantastic! A compelling reason for writing the book, great prior experience, and mention of platform.”

All in all, not huge changes, but substantial ones for sure. It’s definitely stronger now. We’ll see if it’s strong enough when I resume querying next month. Wish me luck!

---

Related posts:

5 ways my unsuccessful query letter could have been stronger

My updated query letter and synopsis are being reviewed by an editor

---

To get future posts … 

Before handing off my updated query letter to my editor, I made significant revisions based on the errors I’d learned I’d made after querying my first 30 agents in 2024. Here are the five biggest mistakes I now know I made:

1. I picked the wrong comps.

I’d read what I thought was plenty of advice about pitching agents, but it was only after sending out my queries that I read this advice from Leigh Stein, this advice from Allison K. Williams and this advice from Lauren Kay. All of them recommend comps from the past 2 years—the past 5 years at most.

Unfortunately, the comps I stressed the most were from 2010 and 2013. [sad trombone]

Halfway through querying I started to include a longer list of comps with some more recent titles. However, only two were from the last 5 years, and none were from the last 2 years.

I felt less bad about my poor comp choices after reading Kate McKean’s Dispatches from the Slush Pile article, which highlights some of the most common bad comps used today. But I’m glad I was able to identify much more recent comps, which I’m almost done reading.

2. My summary didn’t include my protagonists’ motivations.

I included their goals, but not why they were pursuing them. Including the Why makes them much more relatable.

3. I waited to start building my fiction author platform. 

Like a lot of first-time novelists apparently, I thought it would be easier to establish my author platform once I (hopefully) had an agent, which I’m sure is true. I also assumed agents would see that I built a solid nonfiction author platform and could therefore do it again.

For those reasons, I waited until after my initial batch of queries were out to launch ChadSWhite.com and my presence on Instagram and Substack. I regret waiting. I’d forgotten how long it takes to build up a positive reputation with Google and the social media algorithm gods.

4. My story question wasn’t strong enough.

My story teaser ended with a question, but it wasn’t strong. Now it expresses a clear goal for my heroes and clear stakes should they fail. 

5. I didn’t say why I was the person to write this story.

Despite being over 100 words long, my initial bio didn’t explain why I wrote this story. My revised bio answers that in the first sentence: “This novel was inspired by the loss of my daughter, who I’ve reimagined as Octavia.” That’s what has allowed me to keep my writing momentum going. I made that change and then pared my bio down to 82 words.

Although technically not part of the query letter, I also didn’t format my manuscript to industry standards. We’ll call that an unofficial sixth thing that could have been better.

And now I’m waiting for my query letter editor to presumably add a few more items to my list of needed improvements. I’ll share those soon.

---

Related posts:

My updated query letter and synopsis are being reviewed by an editor

Query response rates and times: QueryManager and QueryTracker vs. email submissions

QueryTracker vs. ‘The Guide to Literary Agents

---

To get future posts … 

After unsuccessfully querying my dystopian sci-fi novel (Project: T.A.G.) a couple of years ago, I decided to work with a developmental editor, which was a fantastic decision. With substantial revisions nearly done, I’ve revisited my query letter and synopsis, making updates to those, too.

To prep for my initial and now revised versions, I read a bunch of articles and social posts, watched How to Write a Synopsis that Hooks Literary Agents by Rebecca Pickens, and read How to Write a Sizzling Synopsis by Bryan Cohen. Other books I read also had sections on queries and synopsis, including the Guide to Literary Agents by Robert Lee Brewer, Get Signed by Lucinda Halpern, Funny You Should Ask by Barbara Poelle.

Honestly, I read more stuff after my initial failed querying attempt than before, so I now know I had significant flaws the first time around. But hopefully I’ve fixed those problems.

To be sure, at the urging of my wife Kate, I’ve hired an editor, Sean, to review both my query letter and synopsis. Kate worked with a book proposal editor for her first solo nonfiction book and was able to fairly quickly get an agent and attract offers from two publishers. Fingers crossed that a well-edited query letter and synopsis will bring me similar success.

Fellow authors…

Have you worked with an editor on your query letter, synopsis, or book proposal? If so, do you have any learnings to share? What were your blind spots?

---

Related posts:

Query response rates and times: QueryManager and QueryTracker vs. email submissions

Query response: ‘This project is too similar to one already on my list’

QueryTracker vs. ‘The Guide to Literary Agents’

---

To get future posts … 

I’ve kept detailed records of all 30 of my query submissions to date in a spreadsheet and I’ve found the query response rate varies wildly based on whether the submission was made via QueryManager or QueryTracker or via email. However, the difference in query response times is much more muted.

Query response rates

Of the 14 queries I submitted via QueryManager and QueryTracker, I’ve heard back from 100% of them. Of the 16 queries I submitted via email, I’ve heard back from only 38% of them.

In the defense of email submissions, the vast majority of the agents said they didn’t always respond with rejections and to assume that no response means they’re not interested. Given the low response rate, I appreciate that so many of them set that expectation.

That said, most of the rejections I got via QueryManager and QueryTracker were generic rejections, which begs the question: If literary agents using those platforms can copy and paste a generic rejection into the system, why can’t agents using email do the same and close the loop on the submission?

I assume it’s because emailed rejections probably invite more follow-up emails, but perhaps the responses could include a line that discourages replies. I don’t know if that would help, but I do know as an author that it’s really nice to have a definitive answer and not wonder if your email was overlooked or <gasp> routed to junk.

Query response times

Regardless of the submission method, response times averaged 49 days. For submissions via QueryManager and QueryTracker, I heard back in 54 days, on average. For submissions via email, it was 44 days.

However, the spread was huge. I got three responses in less than a day—with all of those submitted via email. One of those speedy responses was a request for the full manuscript, which felt awesome, despite it leading to a “great writing but not for me in the end” rejection. 

At the other end of the spectrum, I got 5 responses after more than 100 days. None took more than 6 months to respond—which I’d heard was not completely out of the question. Even with these late-comers, I was grateful to have responses.

Query feedback

While authors like Jennifer Fawcett say, “Rejection can be a goldmine of feedback,” my experience so far as been in line with that of editor and ghostwriter Jacqueline Salmon. She says, “Gone are the days of polite rejection letters—typed, mailed, and sometimes even offering helpful feedback or suggestions for improvement.”

As expected, the form rejections didn’t include any useful feedback. However, there also wasn’t any in the positive-tilting rejections like the “great writing” one and another saying, “This project is too similar to one already on my list.”

Of course, 30 rejections is feedback in and of itself. Some introspection led me to:

1. Rework the first 50 pages to accelerate the introduction of characters and conflict
2. Identify and correct weaknesses in my query letter
3. Decide to work with a developmental editor

Once I’ve finished edits from them, I’ll do another round of outreach with a stronger manuscript and query letter, and hope for better traction.

---

Related post:

QueryTracker vs. ‘The Guide to Literary Agents’

---

To get future posts… 

When I first read this query response from one of the agents I reached out to, I was bummed. They already have a novel that’s similar to mine, I thought.

Then I became concerned. Oh no, they have a novel that’s similar to mine. I need to make sure mine is published first. I thought about how I might accelerate my timeline—which essentially meant abandoning querying and self-publishing.

Is being first really better?

But then I realized that publishing isn’t about being first. If anything, it’s about NOT being first. That’s why literary agents want to see successful comps—and ideally very recent comps—and most ideally lots of recent comps. They want as many reassurances as possible that they’re not going out on a limb.

There’s safety in numbers, which is to say that’s what creates established audiences. The more successful books there are that are similar to yours the better, because people seek out books that are similar to ones they’ve already read and enjoyed.

So, I’m taking a deep breath and sticking with my original plan and query more agents after I’m done working with my developmental editor. And if this other book beats mine to market, that’s all the better.

In the meantime, the fact that a major literary agent has signed a book that’s similar to mine is a form of validation. It means there’s a higher chance another agent will see the value of my novel. It’s far from a guarantee, but it’s a positive sign. At least that’s how I’ve chosen to see it.

---

To get future posts…