Fit? What do you mean, FIT?!

In a world where we know our sizes for everything--down to our shoes, socks, mittens--it seems strange when we can't predict what will fit and what won't.

Especially when it comes to manuscripts.

Of course there are some guidelines. And I've certainly received emails like, "You say you represent my genre. How, then are you not a good fit? You lied. You all lie. Agents--you're just a bunch of...[insert unflattering descriptions here]!"

And a comment on the pies brought this to my attention again: I think it's interesting that very few of the queries are rejected because they aren't a good fit. Especially when the majority of form rejections usually say something to that effect.

This is a very good point. "Fit" can be both very broad (things that are not a good fit) and very narrow (things that are). It's difficult to classify. It has to do with timing, usually has to do with genre--it has to do with skill and preparation and sometimes platform and often research, editing, and planning. It also has to do with chemistry. You can predict a person's taste in manuscripts (and books) about as well as you can predict their taste in significant others--but for both, you have to know them well--and, even then, you can't be sure.

The truth of the matter is--EVERYTHING in the pie charts below can fall under the umbrella of "fit." Writing, concept, voice, appropriateness, uniqueness, timing, saleability--it's a combination of all of these things. What "fit" really means is "right for me" or "not right for me."

So, in my pie charts, this was a slice of pie that simply meant, "I can't articulate it. It just isn't right for me--I just don't love it."