Review: RWA Idol;
RWA National 2005 Workshop
Author: Jody Wallace
Original Publication Date in Love Notes: July 2006

Starring Miriam Kriss, agent; Irene Goodman, agent; Lucia Macro, editor; Celeste Bradley, author

RWA Idol was a fascinating live discussion of these publishing professionals’ off-the-cuff opinions of submissions in the pseudo-style of American Idol. Author Celeste Bradley read the submissions aloud and then Ms. Kriss, Ms. Goodman and Ms. Macro made comments. Many times these comments could not have been pleasant to hear, were the anonymous participants in the session, but for those of us who didn’t endure that pain, there’s a great deal to be learned here about how editors and agents skim the slush. The threesome did point out they usually read query letters first, which sometimes would answer questions about the manuscripts, but they also said the page or two Celeste presented was often more than they read when sorting slush.

I will not go into detail about each of the 29 submissions, but I will focus on the highlights. One entry of the 29 received unanimous approval from the judges and one of them requested that the participant submit it. The other 28 received reactions from “not bad but probably not for us” to “Just…no”. Later in the session, one of them pointed out that a “Maybe” was actually a “No”.

One thing I noticed is the judges were usually in agreement on the submissions. This would imply they were using similar criteria to sort their respective slush piles. With Goodman and Kriss, that wouldn’t be unexpected, as they work at the same agency, but Macro is an editor at Avon. I do not say this to start a rumor that a partial has to meet some measurable standard in order to get noticed and if it doesn’t please one or two folks it won’t please anyone. However, here are the general reasons the judges were not interested in the submissions, keeping in mind these reactions are based on the first page or couple of paragraphs:

1) The entry had nothing new about it – eg a chick lit where the heroine bemoaned her “always a bridesmaidness”; an historical where the single hero acknowledged he was going to be forced to search for a wife
2) The entry was lacking in that dreaded “fresh voice”
3) The entry was a catalog of details without any action or anything actually happening
4) The entry had a good first paragraph but then plunged immediately into prolonged backstory or introspection
5) The entry was all action without a chance to connect with the characters – eg an historical that opened with an impersonal war scene or a battle
6) The entry had overmuch physical description of the hero or heroine in a clichéd fashion up front or the heroine looking in a mirror
7) The entry sounded like a product placement ad – eg. a list of or types of items
8) The entry was fraught with overwriting; too many adjectives and adverbs
9) The entry contained overmuch “real
10) Life” that was unsexy – eg a homeless hero. They are looking to fulfill reader’s romantic fantasies.
11) The entry had a heroine/hero bitter because they were dumped for somebody else (see clichéd elements)

Something they did not care about:
1) Historical anachronisms! They wanted the heroine to be proactive, someone with initiative, instead of the more historically accurate submissive or passive female. They also wanted the book to fulfill the romantic fantasy instead of be so stuck to historical details it was gritty or dark –- one of them said this might be why it’s easier to sell publishers on Regencies instead of Medievals.

One word of warning. Don’t take any of these observations as rules. As we all know, there are no rules, only guidelines. What Lucia Macro at Avon doesn’t want might please Monique Patterson and St. Martin’s! To order the session for your own edification in MP3 or audio format, contact Secretary Jody Wallace and ask for 2005 RWA Session 10-61. It is definitely worth a listen.