[neilmarr]

***OTOH some agents (like John Jarrold) don't want to see a synopsis at all***

Right you are, Redfox. John's approach is effective if somewhat unusual even for an agent. He consistently offers excellent work. An admirable operator. He, though, is looking for a client's long-term publishing potential more than merely weighing up single titles (he does that well, too).

Most, though (I'm an editor, not an agent), tend to adopt my approach to submissions. I don't have time to help develop authors who we have not worked with in the past. From a well, written and tight synopsis, I get a pretty good idea of the potential of a story and its characters. From a couple of sample chapters, I can weigh up whether the author is YET skilled enough to follow through.

A couple of examples from this morning's work for instance ...

One submission from a US author provided a synopsis which, although clumsy, outlined a pretty neat and original crime story. So I dived into the partial ms. I very soon discovered that the chap couldn't yet write for toffee. Ridiculously heavy on exposition, POV switches from third- to first-person, tense changes, stiff dialogue, terrible grammar and spelling.

Rejection note with the best advice I could spare the time to offer for revision. My small editorial team doesn't have time to write an author's book for him

The second example is from another US author. Her synopsis -- again a little awkward -- suggested a good story with strong characters. So I got to work reading the first two chapters, doing, as I often do, a simple line edit on the fly. It's second nature and doesn't distract me and also serves as a handy guide to an author if I must decline.

Now this lass had it in her. She horrendously overuses tag lines, repeats words and ideas, etc, etc, etc. But that is repairable at my end. And her handling of dialogue is knockout. Very, very impressive. There's no need for massive author revision, as far as I've seen so far; it's simply a matter of sound editing to polish the diamond. So I've asked to see the entire manuscript for a full assessment.

Some houses will immediately knock back an author if it looks like there's a lot of nit-pickin' editorial fiddling involved. We don't mind that work -- tedious as it can be, it goes with the territory -- but we will not attempt make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Total re-writes and tutoring are not part of our job description.

John Jarrold is in the business of spotting author potential rather than cold single-title value, nurturing and coaxing the talent he spots over a period of years ... and he does a bloody fine job ot it.

His reward is when an author he's selected -- not necessarily an isolated title that caught his eye -- produces work, with his expert support, infinite patience and long experience (as a quality author in his own right as well as an agent), that he can then dangle like sparkling gems before an acquisitions editor who has trust in John's ability only to recommend fine, polished work from authors who know what they're doing. John saves an acquisition a heck of a lot of wasted time, as well as serving his scribes well.

Very best. Neil