Ask the Editor is a column for your questions about the editing process and editors themselves. It also features first-page critiques. Want to be considered? Submit your question or submit your pages.
This month’s Ask the Editor is sponsored by Book Pipeline. Late deadline: September 5th for the 2023 Book Pipeline Unpublished contest. Awarding $20,000 to authors across 8 categories of fiction and nonfiction. Multiple writers have signed with top literary agents and been published. Use code Jane10 for $10 off entry.
Question
I am facing writing a query letter about a topic that many have written in. I am making some very bold statements/claims—it’s true crime [about a serial killer]‚ and I worry those claims will ring with editors as “Oh great, another guy claiming he’s solved this!” Because of overwhelming evidence, I have absolute certainty I am correct, but getting editors to even be receptive is my concern.
—A Writer’s Writer Righting Wrongs
Dear Writer’s Writer,
My colleague Allison K Williams often advises writers: If there’s a big, glaring obvious issue with your project or your submission, then “tie bells on it.” In other words, don’t try to hide the problem or pretend the issue doesn’t exist. Address it upfront. Show self-awareness about the challenge and (just maybe) how this could be a strength or selling point.
In the very first paragraph of your query letter, you’ll say something like, “Ever since such-and-such year, thousands of sleuths say they’ve solved [famous serial killer case].” Then you might point to the most recent/popular documentary or article that has recently discussed the case, or gotten the case entirely wrong. This should take about a paragraph.
In the second paragraph, you’ll introduce your book as the definitive solution to the case because of new evidence or research, or whatever sources/access you have that no one else has. This is important for a successful pitch. If this true solution is based on nothing but your armchair musings, editors will indeed have a hard time taking you seriously. Maybe you could get away with it by pointing to some fact that literally everyone else in the world has missed, or a consistent misinterpretation of some kind. But it needs to be a stunning twist or reversal that, let’s hope, is easily understood or explained, because disbelief will take over with lightning speed.
In your other notes submitted with this question, you mentioned, without elaborating, that you are held to a strict non-disclosure agreement. I hope you meant that in regards to submitting your question for this column, and not an NDA that would affect your ability to effectively pitch the book. Editors and agents have little tolerance for authors who play coy at query stage with what they know. They can’t reasonably evaluate a project without you putting all your cards on the table. At the very least, you have to give enough information in the query or book proposal to look credible, and perhaps an agent would be willing to have a phone conversation about how to proceed if you truly have sensitive information.
Unfortunately, most writers I encounter who insist on an NDA or who are working under an NDA never make it to traditional publication. A desire for an NDA can be fundamentally incompatible with the traditional publishing process, and there are precious few people who can insist on secrecy or NDAs—Prince Harry, politicians, or certain celebrities, for example. But these people typically have lawyers on retainer or agents working on their behalf that are accustomed to their special needs, and know how to shepherd them through the publishing process so that everyone is happy.
If you’re an “average” or unknown author? The general response to an NDA will be silent eye-rolling. Agents and editors have seen just about everything under the sun, and you’re not likely telling them anything they haven’t heard before. Your notes mention you’re a co-author on the project, so perhaps the NDA is somehow related to that other person? If so, that puts you in a very difficult position that will likely impede progress.
Finally, your notes also mention that you might need to self-publish due to the sensitivity of the information. Here’s the thing, though: If you’re seeking some level of acceptance or attention from the mainstream media and if you want to achieve the highest possible credibility, then self-publishing may only further reinforce the notion that your information can’t be trusted. While traditional publishing is fallible and notorious for not fact-checking, the top publishers (big and small alike) do exercise some level of quality control. The sales, marketers, and publicists have to be able to pitch the book with some level of confidence or belief in what they’re peddling. And publishers regularly get eviscerated by readers and the media if they put out a book that’s considered harmful or that can be blatantly disproven. (Just see what happened here.)
Self-publishing a book on a well-known serial killer, with the true solution no one’s heard before, will most likely get you shelved with conspiracy theorists and snake-oil salesmen—if the book is discovered at all. The sensitivity of the information shouldn’t affect how you publish. Traditional publishers deal with sensitive information all the time. If this sensitive information can be verified or if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your true solution holds water, then editors and agents will give you fair hearing. But you have to give them the ability to consider your evidence upfront if you want to be taken seriously.
—Jane Friedman
This month’s Ask the Editor is sponsored by Book Pipeline. Late deadline: September 5th for the 2023 Book Pipeline Unpublished contest. Awarding $20,000 to authors across 8 categories of fiction and nonfiction. Multiple writers have signed with top literary agents and been published. Use code Jane10 for $10 off entry.
Jane Friedman has spent nearly 25 years working in the book publishing industry, with a focus on author education and trend reporting. She is the editor of The Hot Sheet, the essential publishing industry newsletter for authors, and was named Publishing Commentator of the Year by Digital Book World in 2023. Her latest book is The Business of Being a Writer (University of Chicago Press), which received a starred review from Library Journal. In addition to serving on grant panels for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Creative Work Fund, she works with organizations such as The Authors Guild to bring transparency to the business of publishing.