Earlier in the year I took a course called "The First 10 pages" at the Writer's Digest University, at writersonlineworkshops.com.
The reason was simple - I'd sent out a half-dozen queries at the start of the year, and after two months had been rejected by all. No personal rejections, either - standard form - which meant that something might be profoundly wrong with what I'd sent out.
This stunned me - I believed my writing was technically strong and competent and this should show in any opening sample. Surely that's what agents want to see?
But I couldn't imagine a way to get feedback from the agents who had rejected me.
So when I saw this course come up at Writer's Digest University I figure I needed to spend $199 to find out why.
There were 4 parts to the course:
1. Resources on offer at registration
2. Feedback on initial sample
3. Q/A on WDU forum over an afternoon.
4. Feedback on revised version
Three agents from one agency ran the course, which rather than name I'll call Agent 1, Agent 2, and Agent 3 - though the latter was really just an assistant.
1. Resources
These were primarily two Powerpoint presentations which were admitted to be a little old and used.
The first Powerpoint presentation - posted by Agent 1 - was really generic and aimed at people with no understanding of writing. If you've never heard of 3 Act structure, Hero's Journey, or development arcs, you probably shouldn't be submitting to agents, letting alone paying for a query review.
The second Powerpoint presentation - posted by Agent 2 - was much more interesting, as it described how she dealt with queries, not least common reasons for rejections. It was quite detailed and thorough, and honest to the point of being frightening blunt. Which was refreshing and welcome, and much better than treating every aspiring writer like a precious snowflake - which is what normally happens in public.
2. Feedback
I sent my sample to Agent 2, as they had experience of my genre. They came back with a 345 word critique.
It began well-enough:
"This is quite good. The writing is well-crafted; you have a strong grasp of the elements of fiction. You know what you are doing and it shows."
Then three serious criticism were raised:
1) opening is too generic
2) scene is really one big infodump
3) too many characters
The second criticism especially horrified me, because it was absolutely true, and I hadn't even noticed. Even though it's precisely the sort of criticism I commonly level at other writers, not least here on chrons. How could I have been so blind to that?
The other two criticisms I could attend to with editing, but addressing the infodumping would mean completely rewriting the scene, and we only had two days to resubmit for further feedback.
3. Q/A session
This was conducted on a messageboard, each each agent having their own section.
I didn't post any messages, but instead read what was posted.
There was a mix of questions from every different level of writer - it was really eye-opening how many were from people with no idea about anything to do with writing or genre. For example: "Am I still writing historical fiction if I include facts?"
Agent 2 did her best to pretty much answer every question posted to her. Agents 1 & 3 only answered around half the questions posted to them, which I thought was pretty poor going.
4. Feedback
I rushed off a very unsatisfactory revision (it took me another month to get my head around rewriting it, and then cut it down by a quarter).
My initial sample had included part of a second scene, but Agent 2 hadn't really commented on that. I hoped they would in the revision, but they didn't.
Instead, this was all the revision feedback I got:
"Much better! Well done! Love it!"
I would have preferred something a little more honest, such as "I am copy/pasting the same line into everyone's email solely to fulfil my contractual obligations!"
Because that's exactly what it said on the Writer's Digest University website - the agent was only required to send a single line of feedback. I checked and doubled checked the point and was quite disappointed to realise this was the case.
Overall impressions
I went into this with one single aim - find out why an agent might instantly dismiss my submission on the sample pages alone.
And I did get my answer.
Would I sign-up again with Writer's Digest University again? I don't think so - I'm not convinced I really got value for money. For $199 I effectively got a personalised rejection, rather than the revision process I thought I'd signed up to.
If you are thinking of doing one of their courses, do check the terms and conditions very closely to ensure you know exactly what you are signing up for - and expect only the minimum of what they offer to be delivered.
The reason was simple - I'd sent out a half-dozen queries at the start of the year, and after two months had been rejected by all. No personal rejections, either - standard form - which meant that something might be profoundly wrong with what I'd sent out.
This stunned me - I believed my writing was technically strong and competent and this should show in any opening sample. Surely that's what agents want to see?
But I couldn't imagine a way to get feedback from the agents who had rejected me.
So when I saw this course come up at Writer's Digest University I figure I needed to spend $199 to find out why.
There were 4 parts to the course:
1. Resources on offer at registration
2. Feedback on initial sample
3. Q/A on WDU forum over an afternoon.
4. Feedback on revised version
Three agents from one agency ran the course, which rather than name I'll call Agent 1, Agent 2, and Agent 3 - though the latter was really just an assistant.
1. Resources
These were primarily two Powerpoint presentations which were admitted to be a little old and used.
The first Powerpoint presentation - posted by Agent 1 - was really generic and aimed at people with no understanding of writing. If you've never heard of 3 Act structure, Hero's Journey, or development arcs, you probably shouldn't be submitting to agents, letting alone paying for a query review.
The second Powerpoint presentation - posted by Agent 2 - was much more interesting, as it described how she dealt with queries, not least common reasons for rejections. It was quite detailed and thorough, and honest to the point of being frightening blunt. Which was refreshing and welcome, and much better than treating every aspiring writer like a precious snowflake - which is what normally happens in public.
2. Feedback
I sent my sample to Agent 2, as they had experience of my genre. They came back with a 345 word critique.
It began well-enough:
"This is quite good. The writing is well-crafted; you have a strong grasp of the elements of fiction. You know what you are doing and it shows."
Then three serious criticism were raised:
1) opening is too generic
2) scene is really one big infodump
3) too many characters
The second criticism especially horrified me, because it was absolutely true, and I hadn't even noticed. Even though it's precisely the sort of criticism I commonly level at other writers, not least here on chrons. How could I have been so blind to that?
The other two criticisms I could attend to with editing, but addressing the infodumping would mean completely rewriting the scene, and we only had two days to resubmit for further feedback.
3. Q/A session
This was conducted on a messageboard, each each agent having their own section.
I didn't post any messages, but instead read what was posted.
There was a mix of questions from every different level of writer - it was really eye-opening how many were from people with no idea about anything to do with writing or genre. For example: "Am I still writing historical fiction if I include facts?"
Agent 2 did her best to pretty much answer every question posted to her. Agents 1 & 3 only answered around half the questions posted to them, which I thought was pretty poor going.
4. Feedback
I rushed off a very unsatisfactory revision (it took me another month to get my head around rewriting it, and then cut it down by a quarter).
My initial sample had included part of a second scene, but Agent 2 hadn't really commented on that. I hoped they would in the revision, but they didn't.
Instead, this was all the revision feedback I got:
"Much better! Well done! Love it!"
I would have preferred something a little more honest, such as "I am copy/pasting the same line into everyone's email solely to fulfil my contractual obligations!"
Because that's exactly what it said on the Writer's Digest University website - the agent was only required to send a single line of feedback. I checked and doubled checked the point and was quite disappointed to realise this was the case.
Overall impressions
I went into this with one single aim - find out why an agent might instantly dismiss my submission on the sample pages alone.
And I did get my answer.
Would I sign-up again with Writer's Digest University again? I don't think so - I'm not convinced I really got value for money. For $199 I effectively got a personalised rejection, rather than the revision process I thought I'd signed up to.
If you are thinking of doing one of their courses, do check the terms and conditions very closely to ensure you know exactly what you are signing up for - and expect only the minimum of what they offer to be delivered.
Last edited:
