Do-It-Yourself Masks
As a public service, here's how to make your own mask. Has it really come to this?
Another Edit Down
When last we visited my travails regarding the publishing, or non-publishing, of my latest book, I was reassessing the viability of my manuscript. After all, I had sent out several dozen queries with only a couple of nibbles and lots of rejections from agents, even though I was and remain convinced that my book tells a powerful story with verve and humor.
Nevertheless, with the help of an outside consultant, we determined that it was time for another round with a professional editor. Since it's difficult to be objective about the quality of your work as a writer after slaving on draft after draft over a period of years, tapping the insights of a qualified source to evaluate your work makes sense. So through an online resource called Reedsy, I hired an editor with vast publishing house experience who had edited and written several books for audiences similar to my target audience.
She was expensive, but her input should prove invaluable. Her line edits really tightened my writing and she made several insightful suggestions to improve plot dynamics. Most important, to me at least, she reassured me that, with a few relatively minor tweaks, my book will be pretty much as good as I think it is. She did say there was a glut of books along the same thematic arc as mine, but that my use of humor and voice differentiated it from the others. She gave me some positioning suggestions to use in my query pitch that may yield more positive results than what I've seen.
As previously noted, this is my second comprehensive edit from a professional editor, which is not unlike getting a second opinion from a doctor. Since my first editor was very good, the changes recommended by this second editor are not nearly as extensive. Once I'm finished with the latest round of edits over the next few weeks, I think the manuscript will be in its best possible shape and I'll resume querying.
But publishing these days being such a crapshoot, there's no guarantee that my new, improved manuscript will have any better luck in the marketplace. It's all a matter of finding the right agent, at the right time, on the right date, in the right mood...
But at least I know that what I'm submitting is worthy.
Nevertheless, with the help of an outside consultant, we determined that it was time for another round with a professional editor. Since it's difficult to be objective about the quality of your work as a writer after slaving on draft after draft over a period of years, tapping the insights of a qualified source to evaluate your work makes sense. So through an online resource called Reedsy, I hired an editor with vast publishing house experience who had edited and written several books for audiences similar to my target audience.
She was expensive, but her input should prove invaluable. Her line edits really tightened my writing and she made several insightful suggestions to improve plot dynamics. Most important, to me at least, she reassured me that, with a few relatively minor tweaks, my book will be pretty much as good as I think it is. She did say there was a glut of books along the same thematic arc as mine, but that my use of humor and voice differentiated it from the others. She gave me some positioning suggestions to use in my query pitch that may yield more positive results than what I've seen.
As previously noted, this is my second comprehensive edit from a professional editor, which is not unlike getting a second opinion from a doctor. Since my first editor was very good, the changes recommended by this second editor are not nearly as extensive. Once I'm finished with the latest round of edits over the next few weeks, I think the manuscript will be in its best possible shape and I'll resume querying.
But publishing these days being such a crapshoot, there's no guarantee that my new, improved manuscript will have any better luck in the marketplace. It's all a matter of finding the right agent, at the right time, on the right date, in the right mood...
But at least I know that what I'm submitting is worthy.
Don't Sell!!!!!! Part 2
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down about 33% since its high water mark in early February, putting us well within bear market territory for the first time in 12 years. Plus, we're probably in a recession already and things may get worse before they get better.
So were you stupid to listen to my advice about not selling stocks in my last post about a week ago, right? No, you were smart. You were smart because you didn't lock in a large loss. Sure, our stock portfolios are down a lot, but those are paper losses. Eventually the market most likely will make up for those losses.
Of course there are no guarantees--you know, the old saw about past performance isn't indicative of future returns, etc. But the past is all we have to go on, since none of us can predict the future. And stocks have always performed better over the long run compared with any other investment. But also keep in mind that stock investing should always be about the long run, which means holding them for at least five years, preferably longer, because stock markets can be extremely volatile over the short and intermediate term (like today and the next several months for sure).
Besides, now is not the time to invest in ANYTHING! Bonds are a crappy investments now because interest rates are so low (low interest rates mean expensive bond prices). Real estate is over-valued and also extremely volatile, commodities are for specialists and suckers.
So what if you suddenly come into a lot money through an inheritance or the lottery? How do you invest a windfall in today's financial mess? Stocks are iffy right now because you don't know how low the market will go when it's all said and done, so I'd go with safety. A bank account, money market, short-term bond funds. When things finally get squared away with Covid-19 and the economy starts recovering, then start investing s.l.o.w.l.y in a broad market stock mutual fund. A little each month so that you'll capture most of the market recovery and less of a loss if the market tanks again.
What about gold? A lot of people are investing in gold now because that's what people do in a panic. Gold is tangible, pretty, and a store of value. But compared with stocks, it's a crappy long-term investment. Stocks eat gold's lunch.
So were you stupid to listen to my advice about not selling stocks in my last post about a week ago, right? No, you were smart. You were smart because you didn't lock in a large loss. Sure, our stock portfolios are down a lot, but those are paper losses. Eventually the market most likely will make up for those losses.
Of course there are no guarantees--you know, the old saw about past performance isn't indicative of future returns, etc. But the past is all we have to go on, since none of us can predict the future. And stocks have always performed better over the long run compared with any other investment. But also keep in mind that stock investing should always be about the long run, which means holding them for at least five years, preferably longer, because stock markets can be extremely volatile over the short and intermediate term (like today and the next several months for sure).
Besides, now is not the time to invest in ANYTHING! Bonds are a crappy investments now because interest rates are so low (low interest rates mean expensive bond prices). Real estate is over-valued and also extremely volatile, commodities are for specialists and suckers.
So what if you suddenly come into a lot money through an inheritance or the lottery? How do you invest a windfall in today's financial mess? Stocks are iffy right now because you don't know how low the market will go when it's all said and done, so I'd go with safety. A bank account, money market, short-term bond funds. When things finally get squared away with Covid-19 and the economy starts recovering, then start investing s.l.o.w.l.y in a broad market stock mutual fund. A little each month so that you'll capture most of the market recovery and less of a loss if the market tanks again.
What about gold? A lot of people are investing in gold now because that's what people do in a panic. Gold is tangible, pretty, and a store of value. But compared with stocks, it's a crappy long-term investment. Stocks eat gold's lunch.
Blue Line=Stocks, Gold Line=Gold. (Covers March 1990 through today)
(Graph courtesy of macro trends.net)
So, again, this is no time to make major investment decisions. In fact, if you need to liquidate your stocks to get cash, it's a much better idea to, instead, take out a personal loan or draw on your home's equity if you can, because interest rates are historically low. Please, please, please, don't follow the herd and lock in your huge stock losses now.
Your main focus today is to stay healthy and keep your social distance. Try not to think about your stock portfolio. I'm trying to put it out of my mind. Bourbon also helps.
Don't Sell!!!!!
With the world falling apart, we interrupt this highly personal and informative blog for a public service announcement:
KEEP YOUR COTTON-PICKING HANDS OFF YOUR STOCK INVESTMENTS!
Before I began my intrepid journey seeking to crack the elite cadre of published authors, I was a marketing communications director for a large investment company for nearly 30 years. One of my main duties was writing investment strategy materials for non-investment professionals, especially for times like these. So here's what I would advise investors to do right now with your stock portfolio:
NOTHING! KEEP AWAY FROM THE SELL BUTTON! Here's why:
From 1995 to the end of 2015, the STOCK MARKET averaged nearly a 10% annual return.
During that same period, the AVERAGE INVESTOR averaged just over 5%. (All numbers are from the S&P 500 and compiled by Dalbar, Inc.)
Why did investors make half the gain of the overall market over the last 20 years? Because of panic selling.
Two emotions rule the stock market: greed and fear.
Greed: When the market is going up, everyone piles in and buys and stock prices skyrocket.
Fear: When the market crashes, everyone sells as prices plummet. In other words, the average investor buys high and sells low. The result: most investors do much worse than the market over time.
So my advice? Ignore what's happening in the market. You don't know how long or how much it's going to drop. You also don't know when and by how much it's going to recover. Instead, invest according to your goals. Are you saving for retirement? A house? For education? Those are the things that should drive your investment decisions--not how fast the market is dropping or rising. That's a fool's game.
Proof? Me. I weathered the Dot Com bust in 2001, the Great Recession in 2008 and was able to retire at age 62. How? By saving real hard and never letting the market dictate my investment decisions. I didn't beat the market, but I didn't underperform it either. I put my money in broad index mutual funds and, most important, LEFT IT THERE!
I know it's tough. Today we officially entered a Bear Market (a drop of 20% or more from a recent high). The temptation to sell is super powerful. But if you sell now, you're locking in your losses and the potential gain when the market turns around--and it will.
Most bear markets recoup their losses in under two years. So make sure you have enough LIQUID INVESTMENTS (savings, CDs, money markets, short-term bonds) to get you through at least two years without selling any stocks and you'll be fine.
Let me know if you'd like more of my priceless investment wisdom in this blog.
KEEP YOUR COTTON-PICKING HANDS OFF YOUR STOCK INVESTMENTS!
Before I began my intrepid journey seeking to crack the elite cadre of published authors, I was a marketing communications director for a large investment company for nearly 30 years. One of my main duties was writing investment strategy materials for non-investment professionals, especially for times like these. So here's what I would advise investors to do right now with your stock portfolio:
NOTHING! KEEP AWAY FROM THE SELL BUTTON! Here's why:
From 1995 to the end of 2015, the STOCK MARKET averaged nearly a 10% annual return.
During that same period, the AVERAGE INVESTOR averaged just over 5%. (All numbers are from the S&P 500 and compiled by Dalbar, Inc.)
Why did investors make half the gain of the overall market over the last 20 years? Because of panic selling.
Two emotions rule the stock market: greed and fear.
Greed: When the market is going up, everyone piles in and buys and stock prices skyrocket.
Fear: When the market crashes, everyone sells as prices plummet. In other words, the average investor buys high and sells low. The result: most investors do much worse than the market over time.
So my advice? Ignore what's happening in the market. You don't know how long or how much it's going to drop. You also don't know when and by how much it's going to recover. Instead, invest according to your goals. Are you saving for retirement? A house? For education? Those are the things that should drive your investment decisions--not how fast the market is dropping or rising. That's a fool's game.
Proof? Me. I weathered the Dot Com bust in 2001, the Great Recession in 2008 and was able to retire at age 62. How? By saving real hard and never letting the market dictate my investment decisions. I didn't beat the market, but I didn't underperform it either. I put my money in broad index mutual funds and, most important, LEFT IT THERE!
I know it's tough. Today we officially entered a Bear Market (a drop of 20% or more from a recent high). The temptation to sell is super powerful. But if you sell now, you're locking in your losses and the potential gain when the market turns around--and it will.
Most bear markets recoup their losses in under two years. So make sure you have enough LIQUID INVESTMENTS (savings, CDs, money markets, short-term bonds) to get you through at least two years without selling any stocks and you'll be fine.
Let me know if you'd like more of my priceless investment wisdom in this blog.
Reboot
After a productive consultation with The Book Doctors, we were able to perfect my query letter and agree that my diagnosis regarding the lack of traction on the agency front was probably correct. In other words, it's time for another edit.
Some tightening of the book's opening chapters is called for, which can usually be accomplished with a line edit. It has already been through a developmental edit, but I'm still not sure that all the elements that go into a great novel are embodied in my masterpiece. So I'm going back to the drawing board. I have engaged a highly experienced editor in my genre (young adult dystopian fiction) to do an in-depth developmental and line edit of the entire thing.
As you can guess, this is not an exactly an inexpensive proposition. But if you've ever tried to get a first novel traditionally published, you have to produce an impeccable manuscript and then hope to get lucky. I can do my best to achieve the former, but there's not much I can do about the latter. In the past I have actually written a highly praised manuscript, only to be told by several agents that, as much as they liked the book, there was simply no market for that kind of story! So luck does matter.
Fortunately, I'm in a position in which I can invest in my publishing endeavor. It's my hobby and my passion, and it's still cheaper than golf!
Incidentally, Part 1: The cost of securing a professional editor varies depending on their experience, track record, and breadth of services offered. I've seen prices ranging from $600 to over $4,500 for a 90,000-word manuscript. My first developmental edit ran closer to the lower figure. My second, more comprehensive edit, is a bit closer to the second figure. GULP!
Incidentally, Part 2: If you're looking for editorial services, proofreading, preparing a manuscript for self-publishing, I highly recommend Reedsy.
Some tightening of the book's opening chapters is called for, which can usually be accomplished with a line edit. It has already been through a developmental edit, but I'm still not sure that all the elements that go into a great novel are embodied in my masterpiece. So I'm going back to the drawing board. I have engaged a highly experienced editor in my genre (young adult dystopian fiction) to do an in-depth developmental and line edit of the entire thing.
As you can guess, this is not an exactly an inexpensive proposition. But if you've ever tried to get a first novel traditionally published, you have to produce an impeccable manuscript and then hope to get lucky. I can do my best to achieve the former, but there's not much I can do about the latter. In the past I have actually written a highly praised manuscript, only to be told by several agents that, as much as they liked the book, there was simply no market for that kind of story! So luck does matter.
Fortunately, I'm in a position in which I can invest in my publishing endeavor. It's my hobby and my passion, and it's still cheaper than golf!
Incidentally, Part 1: The cost of securing a professional editor varies depending on their experience, track record, and breadth of services offered. I've seen prices ranging from $600 to over $4,500 for a 90,000-word manuscript. My first developmental edit ran closer to the lower figure. My second, more comprehensive edit, is a bit closer to the second figure. GULP!
Incidentally, Part 2: If you're looking for editorial services, proofreading, preparing a manuscript for self-publishing, I highly recommend Reedsy.
Another Quality Check
So far I've had 23 official rejections out of the 63 agency queries I've sent out for my novel COME THE HARPIES. Of course the number of "unofficial" rejections is considerably higher, since many agencies do not send out rejections at all; they just don't respond. Since I will never assume that my submission package is perfect until I start getting more requests for material, I periodically engage professionals through workshops and other means to critique my materials.
I think my current query letter is very strong and that perhaps it is my opening chapter sample that is not gaining traction with agents. As alluded to in previous posts, it's critical that the first five to ten pages of a novel be amazing in order to capture an agent's interest. Thus, I'm constantly going back and tinkering with my first chapter to make sure it's as clean as I can make it. I've participated in a couple of agent-led workshops, one of which did critique my sample and suggested a few minor edits. One nice bonus was the agent requested additional material based on the quality of the sample. (I have yet to hear back from her!)
My plan is to reach out every few months for additional critiques of my work from legitimate agents and other outfits with proven expertise in the current publishing industry--there is no shortage of agencies and other entities willing to provide such services for a fee (usually ranging from $100 to $300). It ain't cheap, but I'm committed to investing in my publishing effort since I have a lot of faith in my manuscript.
Another potential benefit of taking this approach is to raise the visibility of my work. Agents receive hundreds of queries and proposals a month, and in their rush to cull the slush pile, they probably end up rejecting a lot of seriously great books. But when you are paying an agent to analyze your query and sample, they're forced to slow down and really evaluate your work. In my case, the two times I've had my work evaluated, the agent found value and requested additional samples, so I consider the money well spent.
It seems in the submission business, there are many ways to skin a cat.
I think my current query letter is very strong and that perhaps it is my opening chapter sample that is not gaining traction with agents. As alluded to in previous posts, it's critical that the first five to ten pages of a novel be amazing in order to capture an agent's interest. Thus, I'm constantly going back and tinkering with my first chapter to make sure it's as clean as I can make it. I've participated in a couple of agent-led workshops, one of which did critique my sample and suggested a few minor edits. One nice bonus was the agent requested additional material based on the quality of the sample. (I have yet to hear back from her!)
My plan is to reach out every few months for additional critiques of my work from legitimate agents and other outfits with proven expertise in the current publishing industry--there is no shortage of agencies and other entities willing to provide such services for a fee (usually ranging from $100 to $300). It ain't cheap, but I'm committed to investing in my publishing effort since I have a lot of faith in my manuscript.
Another potential benefit of taking this approach is to raise the visibility of my work. Agents receive hundreds of queries and proposals a month, and in their rush to cull the slush pile, they probably end up rejecting a lot of seriously great books. But when you are paying an agent to analyze your query and sample, they're forced to slow down and really evaluate your work. In my case, the two times I've had my work evaluated, the agent found value and requested additional samples, so I consider the money well spent.
It seems in the submission business, there are many ways to skin a cat.
The Deafening Silence of an Agent's Non-Response
I belong to a writing group whose members have set receiving 100 rejections as a goal for the year 2020. The rejections can be for poetry, short stories, fiction or non-fiction books, essays or articles. The obvious thought behind this goal is to acknowledge that writing is a rejection-intense labor of love and the importance to keep plugging away even when the market responds unkindly.
The problem with this goal is that you don't always know when your work is being rejected. For example, of the more than 60 queries that I've sent out for my novel, COME THE HARPIES, I've received less than 20 rejections. Does that mean that more than 40 agents are still considering taking me on as a client?
The answer is no.
The reason is that many agents say that they are so inundated with queries that they don't have the time to respond unless they're interested in reading more of an author's manuscript. Keep in mind that most submissions are done by email and that it takes all of about 10 seconds to hit "Reply" to an email and add a brief message like "Sorry, not for me." One can construe this non-response policy from agents as a lack of empathy or just plain arrogance.
I don't like it much because, like all authors, I track my submissions and hate to be left dangling with non-responses. But I tend to cut agents some of slack in this regard because I absolutely believe that in the age of electronic submissions, agents do get overwhelmed with queries simply because it is so cheap and easy to submit.
Years ago, before email, everything was done via the postal system and writers had to make a real commitment to submit. Between queries and manuscripts, I spent a small fortune in paper and postage when I tried getting one of my books published back in the 1990's. While book agents have always had a heavy load of submissions to wade through, the advent of electronic submissions (and MFA programs!) has made that workload many times larger.
Still, my sympathy for the agent community goes only so far. If an agent doesn't have 10 seconds to respond to a query, perhaps they're over-extended and should stop accepting queries for a period until they can catch up with their backlog. I don't know about other writers, but I spend hours researching appropriate agents and customizing queries for my particular book. At the very least I would appreciate the recipient of my query to spend a few seconds on a response.
Until then, I don't know if I've had 19 or 40 rejections for my novel. So how will I know when I've reached 100 rejections for the year?
The problem with this goal is that you don't always know when your work is being rejected. For example, of the more than 60 queries that I've sent out for my novel, COME THE HARPIES, I've received less than 20 rejections. Does that mean that more than 40 agents are still considering taking me on as a client?
The answer is no.
The reason is that many agents say that they are so inundated with queries that they don't have the time to respond unless they're interested in reading more of an author's manuscript. Keep in mind that most submissions are done by email and that it takes all of about 10 seconds to hit "Reply" to an email and add a brief message like "Sorry, not for me." One can construe this non-response policy from agents as a lack of empathy or just plain arrogance.
I don't like it much because, like all authors, I track my submissions and hate to be left dangling with non-responses. But I tend to cut agents some of slack in this regard because I absolutely believe that in the age of electronic submissions, agents do get overwhelmed with queries simply because it is so cheap and easy to submit.
Years ago, before email, everything was done via the postal system and writers had to make a real commitment to submit. Between queries and manuscripts, I spent a small fortune in paper and postage when I tried getting one of my books published back in the 1990's. While book agents have always had a heavy load of submissions to wade through, the advent of electronic submissions (and MFA programs!) has made that workload many times larger.
Still, my sympathy for the agent community goes only so far. If an agent doesn't have 10 seconds to respond to a query, perhaps they're over-extended and should stop accepting queries for a period until they can catch up with their backlog. I don't know about other writers, but I spend hours researching appropriate agents and customizing queries for my particular book. At the very least I would appreciate the recipient of my query to spend a few seconds on a response.
Until then, I don't know if I've had 19 or 40 rejections for my novel. So how will I know when I've reached 100 rejections for the year?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)