tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597446736200108024.post8136458932284056097..comments2024-03-28T00:28:02.920-07:00Comments on Navigating the Slush Pile: Query Letter Rejection RateVickie Motterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15791034462866079818noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597446736200108024.post-80209215709155576162010-09-21T09:34:28.994-07:002010-09-21T09:34:28.994-07:00Ricardo, I may be mistaken on the Twilight count, ...Ricardo, I may be mistaken on the Twilight count, but I did count one page of text and multiply it by the page numbers and came up just under 100k, not by much mind you, but it was under.<br /><br />Thanks for your questions (I'm still in the learning stage of the blog posts), I'll address the "bad bad bad query" in another blog post. Briefly, the difference is that a "bad bad bad query" defies every single query writing rule known to man. "Simply not interesting" fails to get my attention even if it is a good query letter, ie unoriginal plot.Vickie Motterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15791034462866079818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597446736200108024.post-11546918052907606542010-09-21T07:05:05.584-07:002010-09-21T07:05:05.584-07:00Hey Vickie--interesting info, especially the ratio...Hey Vickie--interesting info, especially the ratio of rejects to partial/full requests. <br /><br />In your list of top reasons why you reject queries, it's not entirely clear what the difference is between "bad bad bad query..." and "simply not interesting." I *think* I know what you mean, but I'm not sure. <br /><br />Also, are you sure about Twilight being under 100k? It remember it being sort of cinder-block-like! I thought it was around 120k, though clearly it seems to be an exception in terms the usual YA book work-count.Ricardo Barehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08865608484479976530noreply@blogger.com