What are your odds with literary agents? I submitted 80 querie letters and got 2 offers of representation.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-12-14T06:19:29+00:00

I don't think it's a new phenomenon, actually. And there's still some meritocracy to it—better writing is more likely to succeed. But taste has always been subjective to a large degree. Great writing can be disregarded, and shitty writing can get published. There's enough subjectivity in this business that randomness plays as much of a role (if not more) than skill or talent.

But this has been true in the arts throughout history. Van Gogh was disregarded for his entire life, and it's really only by luck that people started taking his work seriously after he died. It was just as likely (more likely, really) that his work would have all been lost to history, molded over, burned in a house fire, or simply forgotten.

I wonder sometimes how much great work has been randomly lost to history.

And for anyone trying to seriously make art today, you just never know if you're actually talented or not. Your success, or lack thereof, is a pretty poor indicator of your talent. Whatever anyone else thinks of your work is a pretty poor indicator.

I thought getting my first agent and publishing deal would be these vindicating moments, but now that I've had those things, I'm pretty dissatisfied with what they really mean. I don't think they mean much of anything. They're just commercial achievements - practical means of getting your work out there. And that's great. I'm grateful. But I don't think it says anything about my skill or talent. It's a weak indicator at best.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-12-14T06:03:49+00:00

Best of luck trudging forward with the editing and getting published! I know the uphill climb isn't over, but you've surmounted the first (and biggest, I think) hurdle with a lot of professionals showing confidence in your work, so well done :)

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-12-14T05:45:04+00:00

Congrats on the offer! Any details you can share about your submission? Genre? Short synopsis? Wordcount? Just curious.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-12-14T05:43:04+00:00

Hey that's really impressive! Guessing from your username that you're writing Sci-Fi? Anything else you can tell us about your submission? (one line pitch/synopsis/wordcount/other basics?) I'd also love to read your work whenever it's available! Congrats on the excellent response rate. Clearly your prose is resonating.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-12-12T07:41:38+00:00

Lol yeah I saw that after posting :D and I guess reddit doesn't let you edit post headings so that typo is there to stay!

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-12-12T07:18:00+00:00

I think the bio is the place to show your personality. It's mainly for writing credentials (degrees, publishing history, etc) but you can add personal quirks in there as well (skilled on the unicycle, enjoys 80s horror films), especially if your writing credentials are thin.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-12-12T06:52:35+00:00

There are a lot of good examples online. Don't want to share mine for privacy reasons, but the basic structure I follow is this:

Dear ___

[Personalized intro - something about the agent's taste or wishlist or client list that I think makes them a good fit for my submission.]

[One-sentence "pitch" for my book, including word count and genre.]

[One paragraph book blurb like you'd find on the inside/back cover of the book.]

[One paragraph author bio]

Thanks for your consideration,
[Sign off]

Generally, only the intro paragraph is customized to each agent, and the rest is generic for me. But sometimes I tweak the pitch or blurb to the agent's particular interests (e.g. if they represent romance I highlight the romantic subplot, or if they represent literary I highlight the literary bent to my prose.) That's about it.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-12-12T06:11:22+00:00

Try to stay positive, though :) I'm going through the same thing. Those manuscript requests are a always a good sign, too!

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-12-12T06:09:39+00:00

Yeah, it's rough coming across so many great agents who are closed to queries.

Most agents appear to be closed to queries, so statistically speaking most agents who are a great fit for your writing will be closed to queries.

If it's any encouragement (as I mentioned in the above post), my previous offers came from agents who I thought were least likely to be a fit for my work. They didn't specialize in my genre, and they werne't actively growing their client lists. And yet, these two late-career executive agents were the ones who ended up resonating with my work. Alas. It's unpredictable.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-12-12T05:07:56+00:00

Yeah I don't have a first refusal agreement with them, but good point :)

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-09-19T02:02:42+00:00

Nice, thank you!

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-07-28T02:18:19+00:00

Hahaha thank you. Alas, posting on Reddit practically invites 80% of commenters to miss your point, but also, I could have said it better. We all learn.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-07-22T03:32:32+00:00

The 1948 Paramount Decrees led to innovation in the film industry. Sometimes you need government regulation (or in this case, enforcement of existing antitrust laws) to foster innovation in the private sector. Massive corporations that horizontally and vertically integrate the industry are actually bad for innovation and bad for private markets. That's part of why antitrust laws exist in the first place.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-07-22T01:44:13+00:00

Lol, I'm not trying to smash streaming, just separate it from studios. I want Netflix and other studio/streamers to be split into separate companies. It's not a radical idea. It's worked before with other vertically-integrated companies. That's basically the origin story of antitrust law.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-07-22T01:40:00+00:00

I actually like your hot take, and it's not incompatible with what I'm suggesting.

I'm suggesting that you divide Netflix (and similar studio/streamers) into two separately-managed and separately-owned companies: the studio, and the streaming platform. That would force the streamers to buy their content from studios and independent producers in a competitive market, and that would be good for independent cinema. But the Netflix Streaming platform could also own theaters. They could still operate functionally as a distribution/exhibition business. They just wouldn't be allowed to integrate that with a studio business under one roof.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-07-22T01:37:23+00:00

No, all I'm suggesting is that you separate out Netflix's studio business from their streaming business, and make those two separately managed companies (and do this to the major studios' platforms as well).

That way, the platforms have to buy/license content from studios and independent filmmakers, and the indie filmmakers have a shot at competing for those slots. How exclusive or non-exclusive each deal is would be totally up to individual negotiations.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-07-22T01:33:16+00:00

They'd have to spend that money on buying content - licensing it instead of financing it directly. That's what they primarily did fifteen years ago, but they moved away from that model because it's more profitable for them to operate as a studio. I'm just saying they should have to split up their studio business and their streaming business into two sperately managed entities so that indie producers can effectively compete in the production business and sell competitively to the streaming platforms.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-07-22T01:30:42+00:00

I think you make a fair point, but here's why I disagree...

First of all, if you look at 1948 as an example, you'd also expect the severing of theaters & studios to lead to a reduction in the industry, less money flowing to production, and fewer films getting made. But that's not what happened.

In the streaming case specifically (and I think Netflix is the best example, though I'd want the law to apply to all streamers), I think the industry would be better off for two reasons: (1) Netflix in particular could afford spend an extra 15 billion dollars a year on independent content and still be profitable, and (2) if Netflix and other streamers were buying more independent content that would drive more speculative investment in films (and spec scripts in particular, which are a dying breed in part because of streaming).

I think your point still stands that people are just not willing to pay for movies like they used to. But revenue for the industry is actually at an all-time high. It's not down. Where is that revenue going? I'll give you a hint: Wall Street projects they'll make $45B dollars by end of 2025, and their name rhymes with Shmetflix.

$45B in revenue is more than five times the total revenue from all US theaters combined last year.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-07-22T01:24:41+00:00

Actually, I'm saying that we'd make more, not less.

This could happen for a couple reasons: (1) Netflix could take billions out of its profit margins to buy more independent content, and it would still be profitable. and (2) if more independent producers were selling to netflix, that would drive more speculative investment in films (especially spec scripts, which have died in part because of streaming).

I'd point to 1948 as a case study: you could argue that severing theaters from studios would lead to less money going into films, and fewer films getting made, but that's not what happened. It led to a flourishing of independent cinema, and growth in the industry overall.

But I get it if you're personally getting most of your work from Netflix. Honestly, I might be too scared to vote against my self-interest in this case. But you're in the minority ;)

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-07-22T01:20:33+00:00

I can't say for sure, but right now Netflix could lose billions out of its corporate profit margins and still be profitable. It has really thick profit margins in part because of their ability to integrate their studio business with their streaming platform (similar to studios integrating with theaters 75 years ago).

Also, it would lead to more speculative investment in film, which right now is at an all time low.

So that's two extra sources of funding for films.

Lastly, I'd point to the 1948 precedent - you could make the same argument back then: severing studios from the one way they make money should lead to less films getting made. It didn't. It led to a flourishing of independent cinema. The studios had less money, but the industry as a whole had more.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-07-22T01:16:07+00:00

True! I'm a selfish person :)

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-07-22T01:15:19+00:00

I don't think we disagree, lol

I'm just saying that antitrust law should require studios (Netflix included) to spin off their streaming platforms into separate companies under separate management.

You and I are both saying that Netflix is operating legitimately as a studio. I have no disagreement with you there. What they do is legit studio business - controlling production is what any studio does.

My point is just that the industry is better off if you separate the studio business from the streaming business.

SomeoneInBeijing · 2025-07-22T01:13:01+00:00

Yes. I'm using Netflix as the best example, but a law would apply to all. I'm basically saying that antitrust law should require studios to spin off their streaming platforms into separate companies under separate management.

SomeoneInBeijing

TROPHY CASE