Haven't had a good rant in a bit and this one has been teasing at the edges of my brain for some time.

I know many aspiring and even established authors who love these. I don't. (Surprise, surprise, Barb going against the tide)

Why don't I like them? Because while there may be the occasional nugget of useful information in there, it's usually so buried in snark and gross generalizations, that it's like trying to find a tiny diamond in a giant pile of moose dung.

Look, I dig the genesis of these, I really do. Agents and editors have to spend probably 80-90% of their time being if not falsely polite, at least civil. At the same time, they're trying to deal with the questions they get 5,689 times a day, usually in the form of a query letter from some petrified newbie. To which they have to respond politely, or at the very least, civilly.

So yeah, I get that there are only so many ways in which they can 'no' and still feel as if they're offering some sort of feedback. And I understand the necessity of having some manner in which they can blow off steam.
But when they then create an anonymous blog and use it to mock the queries they receive and give primers on how to deconstruct a rejection letter from an editor and/or agent that are full of not only gross generalizations, but mean-spirited gross generalizations that are supposed to be funny?

*throws flag and blows whistle*

And no, you may not hide behind the "this industry is tough, deal or get out" defense. Yes, this industry is tough and it's mentally draining for those trying to break in. Hell, it's mentally draining for those who've broken in because there's always something. We don't need some self-proclaimed wit hiding behind an "anonymous" tag and dispensing their own special brand of "wisdom" making things that much more difficult. Especially when it comes down to gross generalizations. Don't these people understand how insulting it is for them to be speaking for a profession as a whole? I don't care if they all had a secret editor/agent cabal and decided that what they meant when they wrote "pacing issues" in a rejection letter was really "boring." If that's what that one individual who wrote that in a letter means, then fine, but I don't buy it as a statement from every editor or agent in the publishing industry as a whole. Sometimes, pacing issues means just that—that there's some lag in the manuscript but that the story as a whole is good and with some tightening, it should work much better.

Oh, and another thing—

*pauses to throw flag again*

The "I couldn't speak as freely if I was using my real name" defense doesn't fly with me either. Because seriously, if these folks don't have the stones to stand behind what they're saying in these blogs—that this is what they mean when they write a rejection letter—then maybe... just maybe... they shouldn't say it. For my taste, the information loses a great deal of credibility with the hiding behind the veil of anonymity. Kind of in that "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" sort of way. Especially since there are more and more editors and agents who are willing to blog in a considered, informative sort of way, using their *gasp* real names!

For those of you who dig going to these sorts of blogs, for the love of all that's holy, please don't accept everything you read there as gospel truth. You should consider everything you receive from an agent or editor or a critique group/partner or reviewer with a grain of salt. (In the case of the reviewer, usually a whole truckload of salt, but that's a whole 'nother rant, right there.)

Here endeth the rant

I would've thought that even without these, but these just prove HOW made of awesome she is.

Don't send queries claiming that you're going to make an agent lots and lots of money, then, after they very politely reject you, don't send responses along the lines of "Fuck you, your form response, and your little dog too."

It rarely ends well.

Consider this your free tip for the day.