Preparing for October #P2P16

Pitch to Publication October 2016 has been announced! *mad squealing and running around with arms in the air*  =*D I had so much fun last time and could not be more thrilled to participate in this Twitter contest again. *more squealing*

Whether you're just hearing about this contest for the first time or have done it before, this post is meant to help you decide whether you'll be ready to submit in October and, if so, what you should do to prepare.

Are you ready to submit in October?

Your Pitch to Publication query letter

Query letters are tricky beasts, difficult for most authors to write. Going in, we know this. But your query letter is important because it's what's going to get me excited about reading your first five pages and, more importantly, give me a sense of what I'm not seeing: namely, p. 6 to the end. It's going to clue me into whether you know what your book is about, whether the narrative arc makes sense, and whether you have a story I can invest myself in.

There are LOADS of posts all over the Internet about how to write a tight, enticing query letter for an agent. See for example Jane Friedman's, the one on Writer's Digest, or the oft-cited Query Shark site. This post is about how to write an enticing query letter for Pitch to Publication.

How is the P2P QL similar to a QL for an agent?

It's not that writing a query letter for Pitch to Publication is entirely different from writing one for an agent; there are definitely some guidelines that apply to both.

Your Pitch to Publication query letter should include the book data (title, target audience, genre, word count, comps if you can/want to), hook, bio, and thank you.

As with any good hook, I want to know about the setting, MC(s), premise, goal, and stakes. The best query letters also have a strong voice that reflects the voice of the novel; it's a window into what I can expect when I get to the pages. Your hook is the mini-synopsis; it should be no more than three paragraphs, and aim for 7-11 sentences total.

Pitch to Publication: Reflections on the Editing Round

That time I thought I'd only take on 1 manuscript...

In March and April I was a participating editor in #P2P16. As a follow up to my post about the selection round, I wanted to share here some of my reflections on the editing round, which ran from March 12th to April 15th, and the goal of which was to work with my chosen authors to get their manuscripts ready for the agent round, April 16th-22nd.

My P2P authors & their manuscripts
I chose to work with Tabitha Bird on THE EXQUISITENESS OF SEEING because the voice was lyrical and distinctive; the premise captivating; the theme of healing oneself from past trauma something I'm personally passionate about; and because the final pages reached into my body, grabbed my insides, pulled them out and laid them bare. This was the manuscript that got me sobbing just from the partial.

In response to Tabitha's partial

Pitch to Publication: An Editor's Perspective

Last month I participated for the first time in Pitch to Publication, not as a writer but as an editor. I had no idea what to expect, but I'm so glad I did it. In this post I reveal the work I did during the week of March 6th and how I made my decisions. I hope it will be helpful (or at least interesting) to writers who are thinking of submitting to P2P in the future.

Round 1
I received 86 queries, most of which fit my manuscript wish list (MSWL). Deciding early on that I would only have two piles, a Maybe pile and a Pass pile, I read the query letters and usually just the first 2-3 pages of the writing sample.

Those that made it into the Maybe pile had a well-written query letter that gave me a sense of the premise, plot, stakes, and character(s) - some or all of which resonated with me on a personal level - and pages that started in a scene with some sense of stakes, emotion, and/or intrigue. The most common reasons I passed were that the submission didn't fit with my MSWL or the story didn't start in the right place. There were a couple of cases where the first five pages were actually outstanding, but the premise or main characters just weren't my cup of tea.

I did notice that I became pickier about halfway through the submissions, which would suggest that those who submit early have a slight advantage. That said, there were definitely some very strong submissions that came in later, several of which made it into my Maybe pile and I think one or two even made it to Round 3.

Pitch contests

If you are an author who has finished writing The Thing and wants to get it published traditionally, there are many reasons to consider pitch contests.

Much has already been written on this subject by other bloggers, so instead of rehashing here, I'll point you to some of the articles I like:

• On her blog Writability, Ava Jae has discussed the whys and why-nots of entering Twitter pitch contests. (She also has a host of other helpful posts on the topic, including several on pitch critiques.) 
• Christina Dalcher has blogged about The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly of pitch contests; I found her cautions in the last section particularly helpful. 
• Literary Agent Carly Watters wrote a succinct yet comprehensive guide to Twitter pitch contests. 
• And on Carissa Taylor's blog you'll find a fairly comprehensive list of pitch contests that seems to still be relevant despite the fact that it's a few years old.

What I want to talk about is Pitch to Publication (#p2p16), a pitch contest organized by Samantha Fountain (@FountainWriter) with help from my colleague Becca Heyman (@RFaithEditorial) that's different from any others I've heard of. Most pitch contests involve a writer pitching to agents. Sometimes the prize includes critique. But Pitch to Publication has two rounds and includes not just critique but actual editing.