Michele Mortimer is an agent at Darhansoff & Verrill Literary Agents,
handling rights, scouting for new writers, and representing select projects of
her own. The agency welcomes literary fiction, narrative nonfiction, sophisticated
suspense, the occasional memoir, and children's books. For her own list,
Michele is most interested in picture books (fun, whimsical, weird, easy on the
lessons learned); young adult fiction (contemporary, voice-forward realism or
moody, edgy mystery); adult literary fiction (contemporary, character-driven,
descriptively-rich realism); and noir and detective lit (standalone or series). During
the Missouri Writers Guild “Write Time! Write Place! Write Now!” Conference,
Michele will be listening to pitches Saturday morning.
Sarah: Michele, thank you for taking the time to
answer some questions about agenting, querying and the upcoming conference.
Hopefully, your answers will help attendees decide which projects are best
suited for your review.
Michele: Thanks so much for inviting me, I’m happy
to be a part of all this.
Sarah: To get us started, how did you become an
agent?
Michele: Way
back when, a writer friend of mine hooked me up with some freelance work at her
agency—slush reading a few hours a week.
This was around 2000, 2001. I’ve
been with DVA since. Slush reading led
to manuscript reading which led to more serious editorial work which led to
rights work which led to work as an agent proper. Because we’re a small company, I never traded
in one duty for another, I just added to the desk of responsibility.
Sarah: When
you sign a client what are your expectations from the client?
Michele: Even before the official commitment to work
together—from the time I express serious interest in your work—I expect an
honest and forthcoming dialogue.
Generally, throughout the duration of our working relationship, I ask
for patience with the process. I ask for
expectations to be managed, to be tethered to the reality of this market. I ask that you prepare yourself for all
manner of responses to your work. A
related note: writers have access to so much information these days, thanks to
the internet, message boards, and other social media, there’s a tendency for
writers to tell us what our job is and how we should do it. This, if it must be said, is super
annoying.
Sarah: What
do you think is the most difficult part of your job? Please explain.
Michele: Plain
and simple, not selling work. Sometimes
there are rational, sensible, intellectually comprehensible reasons for why
something didn’t sell but such reasons don’t completely cushion the visceral
blow of rejection. And you spend a
considerable amount of time fielding, parrying, examining, translating, and
persevering through rejection. It’s why
we try, as best we can, to be kind and helpful when we’re delivering rejection
to writers that seek us out.
Sarah: Query
tracker says you’ve read over 200 query letters and accepted about 9. Could you
give us a more accurate estimate of how many query letters you receive, say in
a month, and how many times you request partials and fulls?
Michele: It
varies, depending on the season, but the average is closer to 350 per
month. Last year, we requested about 200
manuscripts, so 16 or so per month. In
the era of digital files, I tend to request full manuscripts rather than
partials.
Sarah: Having read that many query letters, makes
you more than qualified to answer my next question. What is the most common
mistake you see writers make in their query letters?
Michele: Queries
blatantly mass emailed to every agent under the sun; queries that are within a
document attached to an email; queries that provide nothing but a link to an
online excerpt—these earn demerits for being either impersonal or
unwieldy. When it comes to the pitch
itself, I have a few pet peeves. If a
query is windy and rambling, then I assume your book is similarly insufferable. If a query asserts lofty ambitions and themes
and motifs, I will assume your book is similarly abstract and opaque. Keep it short, simple, clear,
persuasive. Tell me just enough to rouse
some curiosity for the story—listing every character and plot point just
clutters up the query. Tell me where
this book would sit on the shelves and perhaps, without reaching, name some
titles or authors you think are kin.
Tell me a little about yourself and your writing history. I typically respond to unfussy, professional
pitches, or those delivered with an unpretentious, natural voice. So many queries we receive fall into two
camps: flat and perfunctory or overwrought and self-important. The middle ground is where real consideration
begins.
Sarah: What are three
words that describe how you read your slush pile? Why did you pick those words?
Michele: Quickly,
intuitively, hopefully. Okay, also,
sometimes, begrudgingly, but that’s because of volume. In one sample pile, there are always a number
of queries that don’t match up to our agency and those are easy, immediate
rejections. Understand, too, interests
are fluid—what we responded to last year is different than what we’re
responding to now—personal tastes evolve, market trends change. Then there are the queries that do match up
to our interests but the writing indicates that the sender is probably best
working with something other than sentences.
There are always a handful of queries that seem promising but betray a
fatal flaw in the work—it’s indulgent, it’s flat, it’s plotless, it’s underdeveloped,
it’s gimmicky, etcetera—we request these sometimes, just in case our instincts
are wrong, and then we end up writing rejections saying it’s indulgent, it’s
flat, it’s plotless, it’s underdeveloped, it’s gimmicky, etcetera. Everything legitimately interesting is still
a maybe. I usually leave potential
queries alone for a bit and then reread them fresh. The thing about slush is that much of it, to
be polite, is rubbish, and when you read though many in one sitting, your brain
adapts to a lower standard; as a result, certain queries standout as relatively notable. If, however, a query survives a second
examination, then I request material.
Sarah: Are you
more likely to request pages for a character driven story or a plot driven
story? Why or why not?
Michele: I
request an even amount of both but I tend to be demanding of character no
matter what kind of plot is at hand and demanding of plot no matter how great
the character work.
Sarah: It seems like
when most agents are asked what they’re looking for in a submission, they
answer, “good writing always stands out,” or something along those lines.
That’s vague. Please name three contemporary authors who define “good writing”
to you.
Michele: I’m going to name more than three but will
keep to those writers that suggest something about my professional taste rather
than touch on all the idiosyncrasies of my personal library. Literary folks: Dan Chaon, Sam Lipsyte,
Richard Powers, Lionel Shriver, Sarah Waters.
Crime/Mystery: P.D. James, Robert Crais, Richard Price, Gillian
Flynn. YA: John Green, Laurie Halse
Anderson, Michael Northrup.
Sarah: For my
last question, I’m curious about your thoughts on pitching since you’ll be
listening to them during our Saturday pitch sessions. Listening to pitches is obviously
a bit different than reading query letters. So is their preparation. What are
some tips writers should consider while preparing their pitches for you?
Michele: I
know the sessions are limited in time but don’t rush through the pitch. Don’t worry about ums or you knows or other
verbal tics. Remember that I haven’t
read every book ever published and may draw blanks at some references. A sense of humor is welcome. Forgive me if I interrupt. Basically, talk to me like you’re talking to
a fellow reader about a book you sincerely think I should read. Finally, let’s make this a useful
conversation even if we’re not a perfect match.
Sarah: Michele, thank you for taking the time to
give us a glimpse into your daily life as an agent. I hope our readers will
have found this interview a useful conversation, even if they aren’t attending
this year’s conference.
Dear Readers, leave a comment, and you’ll be entered into a
drawing to win a Missouri Writers' Guild Conference tote bag. Sharing this blog
via Twitter, Facebook, or a blog post earns you additional chances to win. Just
let us know in the comments.
Don’t forget to register! If you’ve learned something from
reading this blog or are interested in pitching Michele, please consider
attending the 2012 Missouri Writers Guild Annual writing conference. We would
love to see you in April!