It might be right for some people, but it's not right for me. (And it's not the donation, I gave $500 to the Red Cross alone this year.)
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
It's a recipie for disaster. I mean, giving unsolicited material serious critical appraisals...that's already asking to get a bunch of enemies-for-life. Pre-screening it by only doing this to people who donated to your favorite charity...I cannot fathom this person's mind at all.
Posted by franc li (Member # 3850) on :
Maybe they don't like the charity. How can we apply this to our own advantage? Muwahahah.
Posted by Ahavah (Member # 2599) on :
I actually think it's pretty fantastic. He's giving people an honest-to-goodness opportunity to be reviewed and personally critted by an established agent. $75 isn't all that bad (although, honestly, it's too much for me right now). If I had the money and a good manuscript, I may take him up on it.
It is odd, though, and I can't help but wonder how successful he'll be. The cancer society might get an extra $3000, but he'll be stuck reading many crappy manuscripts for weeks to come...It'd be interesting to see whether even one of them is picked up by his agency.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Gah, if this guy is lucky he'll only get forty unsolicited manuscripts with hopeful donations attached. And all of them will be terrible. And he'll have to actually read all of them and give feedback, because even though he's not the one getting the money these people did pay for work he promised to do.
And he'll have to keep in mind, while reading these manuscripts, that every one represents the heart and soul of a person generous enough to donate to his favorite charity and naive enough to be swayed by his offer.
What goes through a person's mind the morning after making a promise like that to the entire internet? I have no idea.
Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :
Other than the possible volume of response, although that is tempered by the donation, this seems no different than having a critique done at a writer's conference for a fee. Granted, $75 is a little steep comparatively speaking, but the concept is the same. As far as the charity goes, that's Zack's call and whether to respond or not is ours.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Um, I think that offering it at a writer's conference is different in terms of the author selection you'll be inviting to participate. And that makes it different in terms of how seriously the more serious writers will take such an offer. You'll get a few clueless manuscripts, but most of them will be from people that are actually looking at the field.
No mistake, I love the internet. But I think I'm being realistic about the difference between an ad hoc offer in a blog and a service offered at an organized event designed specifically for such things. For some things, it doesn't matter much except in possible response volume. But for this, it really matters.
Still, part of that idea is bias induced by my own natural critiquing style and what I know it can do to people
Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :
There is some truth to quality of author response, since writers attending a conference have put money down to get there, which in itself is a qualifying action. I'd guess the steep fee for the charity offer is meant to be a similar buffer. Plus, the offer was on an agent's website and now other writer sites like this one (He did say to spread the word. ), not on the whole Internet. (Actually, I'm not sure how/if you could put something on the whole Internet, where everybody on the Net would see it. Anybody?)
I thought the offer interesting, nonetheless. I took a shot at it. Besides the fact that I've found professional critiques at conferences helpful, I'm also curious how this'll work.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited October 23, 2005).]
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Well, I suppose that you could use a bunch of those spam-botting viruses...though even that wouldn't do it for sure. And if you identified yourself in the spam, you'd just end up getting lynched or sent to jail.
A website that can be accessed by anyone on the internet is on the "whole internet". It really is. Like you say, there is no way to put it more "on the internet" than that.
Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :
Wasn’t a bad deal, actually. According to the Zack Agency website, as of November 2, 2005, they had gotten $1510. With a minimum $75 contribution, that’s 20 daring folks who went for the bait. The deadline was extended to January 10th, but I don’t see any figures for the extension.
I was happily surprised how quickly I got a response – two or three weeks. (It’s already been a while since then, so I don’t remember exactly.) A rejection, yes, but I didn’t have to wait the usual lengthy response time. In fact, the agency closed off general submissions so it could deal with those it already had and the charity submissions. To quote from the Zack website blog on November 30th:
quote:Yes, the sample chapter offer related to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society is still open. I made that offer in good faith and will continue to honor it. If you aren’t familiar with the details, please read my earlier posts on this blog. If you have already sent in a sample chapter as a part of this offer, please know that I have been working through such sample chapters and writing specific responses to them. Part of the reason I’m closing to new submissions in December is to give me the time to review these sample chapters.
Plus, I got a letter with some helpful comments. Best of all, this’ll be the first time I’ll be able to deduct a rejection from my income taxes!
Posted by rcorporon (Member # 2879) on :
I wonder if they simply sent out a block of rejection letters to everybody who participated....
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 2240) on :
Andrew Zack also posts on a thread at Absolute Write. He seems to me to be quite honestly interested in helping writers become better at their craft.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Well, I'm going to cross my fingers and hope that all the writers were around Kolona's level (or even better ) and thus the fellow was able to hold onto his sanity.
Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :
Why thank you, Survivor. You probably didn't mean that as a compliment, but I'll be a sucker and take it that way.
Rcorporon, if they did send out block rejection letters, then all the submitting writers wrote about the same characters and plot line. The letter from Mr. Zack was specific to my work.
Obviously, I think the whole thing was an interesting divergence from the usual way of doing business.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited January 24, 2006).]
Posted by rcorporon (Member # 2879) on :
Glad to hear it Kolona! I'm just a natural skeptic I guess.
Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :
Aren't we all. I'm sure if the Zack agency had had a questionable background, I'd never have gone along with it, but I felt comfortable with what I knew of it.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
I don't do compliments. I'm just estimating that a reasonable person wouldn't suffer any dire consequences from reading twenty or so of your stories. I was worried that this fellow might be getting...oh, the kind of stories that make me tear my hair and gnaw my bleeding flesh.
Heck, maybe he did get a bunch of those and your story was the only thing that kept him alive. That's even better than donating to fight leukemia. Well, at least worth $75. It's like a double donation.
Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :
I am humbled -- another almost-compliment from Survivor. (Be still my beating heart.) <swoon>
Ok -- gotta stop this before people start throwing empty ink cartidges.
), not on the whole Internet. (Actually, I'm not sure how/if you could put something on the whole Internet, where everybody on the Net would see it. Anybody?) 