100%

The last few months I have kept myself sane by working on what I term "the prequel" but even it has reached that point where you have to either develop a structure and take the project seriously or keep writing for fun and acknowledge that most of what you have done will later be undone when you try to transform "fun" into a marketable piece.

I never came to terms with this when the final book in my series started kicking about in my mind again, more like an emotional haunting, where I find myself trapped in the characters' angst.

So what does this mean?

I heard fabulous news from a colleague of mine from the Greater Lehigh Valley Writers Group (GLVWG), Kathryn Craft, whom I respect as a writer and for her diplomacy, wisdom and personality. She signed with an agent at Donald Maass' agency.

She had queried 129 agents prior to the one who signed her.

Meanwhile, other friends wait for news from small publishers, agents and contests. Other friends walk the "Indie" route and explore E-publishing, self-publishing and developing their own small presses.

And then people ask me what I'm doing. I'm sitting on my work.

I am still not confident the concept is 100% and I am close to nailing down what it should be. I want to see more of where the publishing industry is going. When I enter this game again, I hope to have three solid manuscripts and other projects in the works. That way if one doesn't sell, I have two others to hawk. And if the first one sells, I have the material for a multi-book deal.

But the key here is 100%. Because I think-- in anything in life-- you must stand behind it and be 100% confident. If you're not, those you're trying to impress will find your weakness and exploit it and crush you.

Query... or not to query

I queried a major publisher today that is having an open submission period. Querying can be thrilling, it reminds you of the juicy parts of your work and why you like it, but it's also draining. Most queries of even the best writers end up rejected. That's the nature of the beast.

So, there is something troubling about putting those words together, writing those letters and a synopsis. Every once in a while, there's a line that inexplicably feels weak, and you can't label why and you dicker with it. In some cases you "fix" it, in others you merely improve it.

Queries are like waving your arms in a crowd of people yelling "PICK ME!" when everyone else is waving their arms and yelling "PICK ME!"

And I imagine myself, as I peruse the tweets by agents and editors, reading others' queries and snickering or wondering if something could have merit. How can you tell by a letter?

Some interns, agents and editors are picking through the coins looking for treasure, and we all have an idea what we consider treasure.

Everything we all write is treasure. Problem is finding someone who is seeking that treasure.

In the 16th century, salt and gold were treasures. Pepper and rhubarb before that. Everyone-- even today-- will agree that gold is a treasure. But salt? And pepper? Needed to preserve meat for the winter.

Spices, coffee, chocolate, all once luxury goods. As was sugar. Europeans grew accustomed to the new sensation of "sweet" in the 17th century, thus sugar became a treasure.

A diabetic would not agree with that treasure.

Don't lose heart. Even if your manuscript is the "rhubarb" of queries. Which ironically, rhubarb was prized for its laxative qualities. But I'm not saying your manuscript is poop.

Uggh.

Preparing the agent submission as requested by the agent.

I got a request for synopsis plus three. That's pretty standard.

I freshened up my synopsis. (The agent's web site does not dictate a length for the synopsis, and I opted not to go with either my one page synopsis nor my five page, I edited a new 2.5 page synopsis.)

But I'm striking out on the query.

None of them sound right. I feel extra pressure since I did so uncharacteristically poor at the pitch.