So what isn\u2019t a slushpile submission? Examples would be:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- One of an agent\u2019s existing clients recommends a particular new writer, and the agent looks at that writer\u2019s work.<\/li>
- An agent comes across a broadcaster or journalist with interesting things to say on a particular topic, and makes contact directly to enquire about a possible book.<\/li>
- One literary agent leaves her firm and her clients are parcelled out to other agents.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
And so on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yes, these can all be important channels of client-acquisition for an agent. And yes, more senior, more experienced agents may source quite a high proportion of their new clients through routes like these.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But at pretty much every literary agency in London and New York, the vast majority of incoming submissions will come via the slushpile \u2013 people like you, packaging up their work and sending it off, with fingers crossed and candles lit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And at pretty much every literary agency in New York and London, those submissions will be sifted, sorted and taken seriously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And no wonder! JK Rowling came through the slushpile. So did Hilary Mantel. So did Dan Brown. So did \u2026 well, most authors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And that\u2019s why, though the term \u201cslushpile\u201d sounds dismissive, it really isn\u2019t. It doesn\u2019t mean \u201cthese manuscripts are rubbish.\u201d It means, \u201cthese manuscripts are the feedstock for our industry\u201d. Yes, there\u2019s trash in there, but there are nuggets of pure gold as well. So don’t be put off; “slush pile hell” really isn’t all that bad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Slushpile Myths \u2026 And Slushpile Realities<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Myth #1: Agents Don\u2019t Want Slush Pile Submissions<\/strong>.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s true that there are some<\/em> agents who really don\u2019t. Those would include (a) agents winding their business down prior to retirement, (b) those agents who are senior enough that they can find good new authors via private recommendations, etc, (c) those who source a majority of their new clients from the media and other \u2018celebrity\u2019 type sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But those guys are in a minority \u2013 and are usually very easy to spot. Basically, high profile agents are usually in that category.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ditto many (but not all) older ones. Ditto those with a client list stuffed full of bestsellers. Unless you have a media\/celeb background, or you have real reason to think your work is remarkable, you should simply avoid those agents. They\u2019re probably not right for you. (After all: would you really want to be those guys\u2019 least important client? I\u2019m thinking not.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Apart from those guys \u2013 who account for maybe only 5-10% of all agents \u2013 pretty much everyone wants submissions. We know incredibly reputable, well-established agencies with fabulous clients who have consulted with us to discover exactly how they can increase<\/em> their slushpiles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why? It\u2019s simple: the slushpile is where the brilliant authors lie<\/em>. After all, as every literary agent <\/a>knows, J.K. Rowling came from the slushpile. So did Zadie Smith. So did Hilary Mantel. (See for example this interview.<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So, if to comes to that, did I, along with pretty much ALL new writers. Apart from existing celebrity and media types, pretty much every single new fantastic author emerges from the slushpile or, these days, from an out-of-nowhere self-publishing success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because agents know that and because agents have to keep their client lists replenished with new talent, they care about the slushpile. In those hills, there be gold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Myth #2: Agents Don\u2019t Look At 99% Of The Manuscripts That Get Submitted.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
They do. OK, there may be times when agents are just overwhelmed with work and things go pear-shaped, but those times are exceptions, at any rate in any well-run agency. But good agencies, nearly always, will look at everything<\/em> that comes in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But notice that I say \u201clook at\u201d, not \u201cread\u201d. The truth is that about 90% of manuscript submissions reveal themselves as not-good-enough very quickly indeed. There are three basic ways a submission can fail. Those are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- A writer simply can\u2019t put a sentence together. Those famous \u2018green ink\u2019 manuscripts are actually relatively rare. They\u2019re the smallest category we\u2019re dealing with here. If you\u2019re together enough to be reading this blog post, you\u2019re almost certainly not in that category. Some agents have actually died from an excess of bad grammar.<\/li>
- The concept for the book just can\u2019t work. A Young Adult book that\u2019s 150,000 words long? A cosy little book about the author\u2019s talking parrot? A highly didactic work of fantasy-fiction aimed at teaching 8 year old kids about groundwater pollution? There are, unfortunately, books which fail before you hit the opening sentence. The most common problem is that they haven\u2019t answered the question of what would make this book stand out from the crowd. You must have a good answer to that question.<\/li>
- There are signs of clunky, awkward or amateurish writing on the opening page. Our friends at the Writers\u2019 Workshop periodically run events called \u2018Slushpile Live\u2019, where (remarkably brave) writers read their opening page out to a panel of literary agents. Those agents then play Simon Cowell and say what they really think, live, with no previous exposure to the writer or the manuscript. And the good manuscripts are really, really easy to spot. Ditto the ones that are clearly not yet strong enough. That sounds brutal, but it\u2019s not really. There\u2019s a quality threshold to enter the industry. You have to meet that threshold. If you don\u2019t, then no one wishes you ill, but your work is not yet ready.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
If your work fails any of these three tests, it\u2019ll be rejected \u2013 and the agent may spend as little as a minute making the decision. That\u2019s not because the agent is evil, but because you haven\u2019t yet met the standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you pass the opening scrutiny (good concept, check; decent writing, check), the agent simply has to read on. If your first three chapters still glitter with promise, they have to request the rest. And if the rest of the manuscript <\/a>is wonderful \u2013 well, hell, you\u2019ve got representation. (Did we hear someone whimpering in there?)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Myth #3: It\u2019s An Agent\u2019s Job To Deal With The Slushpile.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
It isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Talk to any agent at all and they will tell you that their regular day job (from, say, 9 am to 6 pm) is to work constantly on behalf of their existing authors: negotiating contracts, chasing up royalties, solving problems, meeting publishers. Of course agents know that if they don\u2019t take on new and fabulous authors, their business will slowly wither \u2013 but 99% of agents will be dealing with their slushpile material during evenings and weekends. (These guys work hard: they\u2019re always<\/em> reading.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That means you need to cut agents some slack. There just will be times when life goes crazy for them. The big book fairs (London, Frankfurt, Bologna) are always very intense. If several existing authors deliver manuscripts at much the same sort of time, the agent in question HAS to prioritise those and will simply have to neglect his growing slushpile until they\u2019re properly dealt with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It also means you need to take care of the agent\u2019s reasonable needs. If your covering letter is a little too long, or unclear about what kind of book yours is, or makes any of those other niggly-but-annoying mistakes that agents often talk about \u2013 well, hell, remember that the agent is probably reading your stuff at 9.30pm, after<\/em> a full day in the office. That\u2019s not a good time to start annoying somebody with trivial little details that it was your job to get right in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So get them right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Myth #4: Good Agents Will Offer Feedback To Slush Pile Writers.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Not true. Never true, in fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yes, if an agent loves a book, they might offer representation even though they know that that book will need to go through another couple of drafts. (Or more. I spoke to one agent recently who was working with a writer on his sixth<\/em> draft. So don’t be afraid to be your own editor, but also know that you can query an agent with your work before it’s ‘perfect’.) But agents can only offer that much input to actual or probable clients. There\u2019s no way they can get into discussions on the 999 in 1,000 manuscripts they don\u2019t take on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(And, anyway, if a detailed editorial input is what you\u2019re after right now, why would you go to an agent whose main job is about selling manuscripts, not editing them?)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/jerichowriters.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/slush-piles-2.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nMyth #5: Agents Get Their Assistants To Do The Work For Them.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
This is sometimes kind of true, but the implications are way different from what you think.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When you see writers on the Internet saying, \u201cOh, that agent, I know he never read my work because [whatever particular piece of evidence is summoned in this particular instance,\u201d they might actually be right. Basically, as agents get more senior, they\u2019re increasingly likely to delegate chunks of their day to day activity. So, very roughly, the picture looks like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- New\/young\/hungry agents<\/em>: they want to actively build client lists, as they don\u2019t have a body of existing authors to sustain them. Those guys can\u2019t afford to delegate anything to anyone, and probably don\u2019t have assistants anyway. Every single interaction you have in relation to these manuscripts comes straight from the agent him or herself.<\/li>
- Established agents<\/em>. These guys are still open to new clients. They might take on 1-2 new authors a year, straight from the slushpile. But a lot of these folks will have some kind of assistant, and a big part of that assistant\u2019s role is to do a first-cut filtration of the slushpile. It\u2019ll work differently in different agencies (one notable agency, for example, employs a reader whose only job is to reduce the slushpile). Others will use their PAs as first-cut readers. Or whatever. But even so, these people will be looking at the top 1-5% from their slushpile and making their own decisions. If you get rejected before this stage, you may well get a note from the assistant\u2019s desk. After that, the note will more likely come direct from the agent.<\/li>
- Senior agents<\/em>. These guys may never directly read a slushpile submission, but they will have a system that places the very best-of-the-best manuscripts on their desks \u2013 perhaps at the rate of 1-2 a month. It\u2019s unlikely that these folk ever send a sorry-but-no message, unless yours is that truly exceptional manuscript which gave them pause.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Now if you get rejected by an agent\u2019s assistant (or reader, or even receptionist) you might think that you simply haven\u2019t had an opportunity to put your work in front of the only person whose decision matters. But that\u2019s not true! Any half-competent agency knows that the slushpile could well contain the next JK Rowling, the next Stephenie Meyer. They can\u2019t afford to let those gems get away \u2013 and they mostly don\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I know one leading London agency whose receptionists are hired, mostly, for their literary skills. Yes, they need to be able to answer the phone without dropping it, but their essential function is to act as really thoughtful, careful readers of a manuscript. They are trained very carefully and supervised very closely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And they get it right!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It just isn\u2019t that hard, in truth. Most manuscripts that come to any agency are just clearly not good enough. As the quality level rises, the decisions get tougher \u2013 but those decisions are passed upwards in the chain until they reach the person competent to make the decision. But absolutely no one can afford to be the person who said no to Rowling\/Meyer\/Suzanne Collins\/whoever, so if your MS has real merit it will<\/em> come to sit on the right desk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Myth #6: Agents Only Care About Bestsellers, They\u2019re Only In This Game For The Money.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Just wrong, this one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No one goes into the literary business for money. I mean, that would be like going to the Sahara for its watersports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Every single agent I know is in the biz because they love books, love stories, love writing, love authors. They love written culture and being in the swim of its creation. I don\u2019t know a single agent who would take on a work he didn\u2019t like (*) just for the dosh. It just doesn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
All that said, of course agents are keen to represent books that may sell a lot of copies. That\u2019s called being a sane businessperson and doing a great job for your clients. If my agent didn\u2019t want my books to sell by the truckload, I\u2019d get a different agent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[David Godwin<\/a> took on Pippa Middleton for her party book. Since David Godwin is noted for his high-end literary list, her addition to that list raised a few eyebrows at the time.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Myth #7: Agents Care About Your Social Media Profile.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Of course they don\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you got a manuscript in your slushpile that was just as amazingly brilliant as Wolf Hall<\/em>, why would you give a tuppenny damn about the author\u2019s Twitter following? Answer, you wouldn\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are exceptions, of course, but they only work positively, not negatively. So Ben Goldacre (author of Bad Science<\/a>, etc.) has a massive online presence and that presence would impel any sane agent\/editor to offer hm a deal. But you need Twitter followers in the tens of thousands (ideally hundreds of thousands) to make a real difference there. Ditto, when it comes to blog followers. If you have that, great. If not, don\u2019t worry about it. Few writers do, and very<\/em> few novelists do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Myth #8: Agents Care About Who You Are, What You Look Like, How Old You Are, Etc.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
They don\u2019t. Or rather, it\u2019s the same as above. Most writers (including yours truly, Harry Bingham) are middle-aged writers of no particular beauty or celebrity, and that\u2019s just the way it is. Which is fine. No one cares. Indeed agents will often remind you that Mary Wesley<\/a> began a string of bestselling books in her seventies<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Established agents<\/em>. These guys are still open to new clients. They might take on 1-2 new authors a year, straight from the slushpile. But a lot of these folks will have some kind of assistant, and a big part of that assistant\u2019s role is to do a first-cut filtration of the slushpile. It\u2019ll work differently in different agencies (one notable agency, for example, employs a reader whose only job is to reduce the slushpile). Others will use their PAs as first-cut readers. Or whatever. But even so, these people will be looking at the top 1-5% from their slushpile and making their own decisions. If you get rejected before this stage, you may well get a note from the assistant\u2019s desk. After that, the note will more likely come direct from the agent.<\/li>
- New\/young\/hungry agents<\/em>: they want to actively build client lists, as they don\u2019t have a body of existing authors to sustain them. Those guys can\u2019t afford to delegate anything to anyone, and probably don\u2019t have assistants anyway. Every single interaction you have in relation to these manuscripts comes straight from the agent him or herself.<\/li>