You're often advised to namecheck an editor/agent's existing authors in submission letters, or describe your book as 'Marian Keyes on acid' or 'Stephen King in crochet', or whatever will sum it up nicely and show you've researched your market and the publisher's catalogue.

Will it sound daft, is it a good idea, and if so, how to do it well? Editorial Anonymous has a good piece here (scroll down to 'One Workman to Another)


http://editorialanonymous.blogspot.com/


Emma

It isn't something I've ever done or would do, not so much out of a sense of being precious about my own work, as respecting others. To say 'this is like that best-selling novel you released some time back' might come across as arrogant. In the blog you mentioned, the guys reaction of 'yeah... right' and turning the page strikes me as how most editors would feel.

I also think the 'next Harry Potter' comment is misleading. I think all that means really is publishers hope for a novel of equally astonishing success - not a novel in the same vein or drawn from the same themes.

As an aside, when I first entered into discussions with my agent, he asked me what genre I saw my book in - comedy or dark fantasy. The genre itself seemed more important in terms of marketing it. I'd now describe my WiP, in all seriousness, as 'post-modern Sword & Sorcery'.

Interestingly, when I met the agent, he mentioned three novels he thought were similar to my own but I hadn't read one of them.

So...in summing up, I'd never compare my work to another author's out of principal.

JB

So...in summing up, I'd never compare my work to another author's out of principal.

Except, JB, that is what Agents expect - at least some of them. A fact that was also pointed out by an Agent on The Book Show. Obviously there are writers who would feel uncomfortable doing so, but when one is hoping to join an Agent's list, it is useful to know who one may be rubbing book spines with.

The piece is making a distinction between the different kinds of comparison you might make, in a submission letter - some a good idea, some a bad one. It made a lot of sense to me.

What she's talking about is about not bigging-up your book in foolish-looking ways, but understanding and using how the booktrade thinks about things: it's genuinely hard to sum up a book for someone who hasn't read it, and then be sure you've done so in a way that makes them think it might fit their established market and publishing practice.

I might well do the same in explaining a book of mine to a bookseller at a trade dinner (fine-tuning for whether it's Tesco or Waterstones, of course. Journalists get a completely different sell): 'It's the same kind of beast as X,' I'd be saying, 'And I think it's particularly appealing to people who like books which Y. And the book groups, of course.'

Emma

I can see how some agents might expect that. I'm glad mine isn't one of them. I think its slightly denigrating to the author, like someone saying 'what's your child like, compared to next door's All School Award Winning Champion?'.

However, in terms of theme and genre, it's acceptable for an agent, in my opinion, to ask you where you see your book in a book shop.

JB

Thanks, Emma - that's a very interesting piece.

I always found that part of the submission letter a real minefield - so much so that I gave up including it altogether. It always seemed a bit like teaching your granny to suck eggs anyway. Surely if you'd already described your novel as a lighthearted romantic comedy, you wouldn't need to explain to someone in the business that it's aimed at the same market as, for example, Sophie Kinsella.

This piece gives a good insight into how to do it in a meaningful way.

lighthearted romantic comedy, you wouldn't need to explain to someone in the business that it's aimed at the same market as, for example, Sophie Kinsella.

True. But if it was a light-hearted romantic crime novel, it might help to describe it as a mix of Kinsella and McCall-Smith.

Absolutely, Naomi. I think I just never really 'got' what was required in that part of the letter and always got it wrong. This piece explains really well how you can say something meaningful about your book with it, instead of just stating the blindingly obvious.

Yes, I posted it because I, too, found writing covering letters incredibly difficult, and I did them very badly - the few I've kept of mine make me cringe! It makes a lot more sense now. I still think, though, that you're probably better off saying, "Dear X, I'm enclosing XYZ in the hope that you will be interested, your sincerely," than writing a really cringe-making effort at the comparison thing. As Sidewinder says, they're mostly better fitted to decide these things than we are.

I think it was partly because I've never been able to formulate what it is that I write in even a million sentences, let alone two really snappy ones, and I'm not convinced that it's essential to be able to, whatever whoever-it-is says. I've no idea what the market for my work is, or what other books it's like. (I know now, a bit, but only because my publishers have told me!) And I don't think that says that my work is less saleable or valuable than anyone else's. When I discovered that in book-trade terms it's 'crossover' in half-a-dozen different ways, I forgave myself for those rubbish letters, at last.

Emma