Why "no response means no" is flawed
Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 9:59 pm
Everyone who's querying or has even thought about querying knows about the often discussed "no response means no" policy that so many agents have adopted over the years. I've always argued that that's a flawed system and that, aside from being somewhat rude and possibly more time consuming overall (due to people who resubmit because they never heard back) it requires, at very least, an auto-response so the writer knows the query was at least received.
Why am I posting this rant now? Because I just got an email, from a very well-known, well-respected literary agency, in response to a query I sent in September 2010. Yes. 2010. The email states that it has just come to their attention that several queries have wound up in their spam folder and that they're very sorry and if the book is still available and I'm still seeking representation to please contact them.
The book in question is no longer available---it was contracted to a small press, by me, without the help of an agent and it's due out on 8/26/12. That's not the point. The point is that for the past 19 months I've assumed the agent I queried at this agent had rejected me with a "no response means no" rejection and that was clearly not the case. That makes that method flawed.
I have no regrets about the course I've taken with this particular project. I'm quite happy with my publisher and I'm thrilled the book will be out soon. Today's email just leaves me wondering how many query letters I sent out that never reached their intended agent...how many rejections I assumed I had that were actually a simple case of no one ever getting my letter. My guess is more than this one. Given the amount of time and energy writers put into crafting query letters, researching agents, querying according to every last detail of each individual agency's specific requests regarding format, content etc it just seems really, really ridiculous for us to assume that no response means no when it may actually mean "yeah, we never got this email."
Rant over. Go back to whatever you're doing.
P.S. I'm in the midst of querying a brand new project so I *may* be a little hyper-sensitive about this topic as I'm constantly refreshing my inbox.
Why am I posting this rant now? Because I just got an email, from a very well-known, well-respected literary agency, in response to a query I sent in September 2010. Yes. 2010. The email states that it has just come to their attention that several queries have wound up in their spam folder and that they're very sorry and if the book is still available and I'm still seeking representation to please contact them.
The book in question is no longer available---it was contracted to a small press, by me, without the help of an agent and it's due out on 8/26/12. That's not the point. The point is that for the past 19 months I've assumed the agent I queried at this agent had rejected me with a "no response means no" rejection and that was clearly not the case. That makes that method flawed.
I have no regrets about the course I've taken with this particular project. I'm quite happy with my publisher and I'm thrilled the book will be out soon. Today's email just leaves me wondering how many query letters I sent out that never reached their intended agent...how many rejections I assumed I had that were actually a simple case of no one ever getting my letter. My guess is more than this one. Given the amount of time and energy writers put into crafting query letters, researching agents, querying according to every last detail of each individual agency's specific requests regarding format, content etc it just seems really, really ridiculous for us to assume that no response means no when it may actually mean "yeah, we never got this email."
Rant over. Go back to whatever you're doing.
P.S. I'm in the midst of querying a brand new project so I *may* be a little hyper-sensitive about this topic as I'm constantly refreshing my inbox.