How I Sold My First Children's Book

An unexpected way into children's literature.

There’s a saying in Hollywood: There’s the way you’re supposed to make it, and the way everybody actually made it.

The same could easily be true of kidlit. The way it’s supposed to work is you submit your work to an editor or agent, they call you back and your book is sold. That’s it – clean, simple, wipe your hands and start your next book.

But not so fast. Consider these three.

• Mo Willems went and won six Emmy’s as a writer for Sesame Street. That got him an agent. Two-and-a-half years later, he (and the Pigeon) had a book deal. That’s nearly two Emmy’s for every year he had to wait!
• Jon Sciezska got thirty rejections for his first picture book. Then he found out his wife worked with the wife of an illustrator – Lane Smith. Lane agreed to illustrate his book, and one of the editors he’d already sent it to now decided she liked it. I can’t tell you how many rules were broken here (resubmitting? Having your own illustrator? My God!), but that’s how The True Story of the Three Little Pigs found its way into print.
• Nick Bruel (Bad Kitty) was working in a bookstore when he noticed one woman always coming in and buying children’s books. When he asked her about it, she said she was a children’s literary agent. He said he had some illustrations he’d like to show her. That’s how he got his agent. No conferences, no referrals, no cold submissions. Just a book store and a lot of talent.

The story of how I got my first kidlit publishing contract isn’t so dramatic, but it does show there are other ways in the door. I answered an ad on a website. They said they were looking for writers to write children’s books about celebrities from the ‘40s and ‘50s. They already had Frank Sinatra, but were looking for others.

I thought about this for a while. I figured everyone would pitch Elvis or Marilyn, or maybe Deano to complement Frank. Maybe even the Duke. Who could I pitch that somebody else wouldn’t? Nat King Cole? Buffalo Bob? Trigger the Wonder Horse?

And that’s when it hit me – if there’s one celebrity from that era that children still know, it’s Judy Garland. Shirley Temple had faded, and so had Mickey Rooney. But The Wizard of Oz has kept Judy Garland in front of millions of kids, even today. And that’s how I pitched them.

Seven days later, I was asked to draw up an outline for the book based around the Frank Sinatra model. I did, and four days later, they hired me.

But here’s where it gets really interesting: they wanted three books at three different levels – K-1, 2-3, 4-5. The books were not going to be sold to the public, but were to be distributed to long-term care patients. And it was a flat-fee freelance job with no royalties or advances or future books.

Nothing glamorous. No pigeons driving buses; no wolves setting the record straight, or bad kitties flipping through the alphabet, just three biographies on Judy Garland. But it counts. That’s my entre into children’s publishing, and I’m thrilled to be there. It goes in every query letter I send out – you know, while I’m trying to land that editor or agent. 

Because that’s how you’re supposed to do it…

Even when you’re not.

KidLit Buzzwords: What Does It Mean to Be Commercially Unpublishable?

It’s one thing to be unpublishable; it’s another to be commercially unpublishable.

Unpublishable means you can’t write. The work is drivel and probably deserves a place in the dustbin.

Commercially unpublishable means you can write, your work is really good and probably deserves a place in the dustbin.

Commercially unpublishable is far more kind and perhaps that’s why it’s being tossed around so much. It came up at least twice at the 2011 Rutgers One on One, and I’d heard it used several times before that.

What Commercially Unpublishable Means in Children’s Literature

Commercially unpublishable means that there’s no demand in the market for it. This doesn’t mean the piece isn’t good; it doesn’t even mean the intended audience wouldn’t love. It’s just that agents or editors don’t see a place fore it in the market. Take this example:

A picture book is written for children 5-8 years old. The intended audience will love it, says the editor or agent, but the picture book market for 5-8 year olds is dead because parents believe children that age should be reading chapter books so they can start getting ready for college.

Five or ten years ago, that manuscript might have been publishable. It’s well-written, has a great story arc and follows certain picture book precepts. It might even be publishable in another 5 years, if the market changes. But right now, it’s commercially unpublishable.

Consider other "dead" children’s markets:

Young Adult: vampires (market is glutted)

Middle Grade: historical fiction (sales down)

Picture books: Halloween (market is glutted), rhyming books

At least that’s what I’ve been told by various editors. They simply aren’t looking for them, though they always add the caveat: “Of course, there’s always room in the market if it’s well done.”

Which is the point Jon Sciezska, Harold Underdown and others made at Rutgers : it’s only commercially unpublishable until it’s published and someone buys it. Sciezska struggled to publish The True Story of the 3 Little Pigs, but it turned out it was commercial after all. Mo Willems struggled to see Don’t Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus in print and then it took off, launched a series, and spawned a terrific career.

The market may not have known it, but it was commercially publishable after all.

Summary: Commercially unpublishable is frustrating but not as bad as unpublishable. At least it means you can write, but the market has no idea what to do with you.

Or so  I've been told.
Good luck!

What I Learned At Rutgers – Not the University, the Council on Children’s Literature

I attended the 42nd annual Rutgers Council on Children’s Literature this past weekend. It is a writers conference of high renowned and in that regard, did not disappoint.

Before we get into the words of wisdom and the what-editors-are-looking-for nuggets, let me say that I was happy to see three other children’s writers from the Capital District (yeah, us!) in attendance. Heather Schwartz (Women of the U.S. Air Force; The Foul, Filthy American Frontier), Victoria DeAngelis and Dan Masucci, all talented in their own right.

Rutgers One on One

My One on One was with Emma Ledbetter, assistant editor at Atheneum. We went over Leaping Lemmings for about 20 minutes or so. She provided several good ideas and seemed adept at working with writers, asking me for my input, etc. It was less a lecture or critique and more of a collaborative effort. We then talked about other projects I’m working on. She seemed most impressed with an middle grade I’m working on which is good, because starting that project was inspired by another editor at Atheneum. I’ll have to get back to that middle-grade manuscript very soon.

Rutgers Five on Five

Emma, of course, was also part of the five professionals in our five-on-five, in this case four editors and one author. Let’s hit the highlights of what they agreed on are industry trends.

• Mash-Ups. Everyone’s in love with mash-ups, you know, those books that take two archetypes and bring them together. Everyone was looking for the next Shark vs. Train (kids love sharks and trains. It’s a natural), or something similar to a new book from Atheneum, Zombies in Love (can be promoted on Halloween and Valentine’s Day).
• Crossovers. Something that can be sold in more than one genre, particularly with undiscovered adult appeal. A lot of YA has this (adults love dystopian almost as much as teen-agers), but so do some picture books, like It’s a Book. Also Zombies in Love. The book is shaped like a coffin for that reason, and filled with dating references and frustrations adults (zombie or otherwise) will get.
• Trends in Children's Literature. All the editors are looking 3-5 years out to figure out what the next big thing is. For instance, if three years ago you guessed food as this year’s hot topic for teens, you’re a big winner. I’m guessing if the economy doesn’t improve, food will continue to be big in three years. And so will starvation.
• Interactive Apps. No one seems to know exactly which way the e-book industry is headed, but it’s certainly going to continue to grow and print books will someday be a novelty item. With that in mind, editors are keeping an eye open for books that come with all sorts of bells and whistles to keep young readers entertained. Probably easiest for the board book, picture book, chapter book, and non-fiction markets, but all books can have pop-ups, links, maps, graphs, etc. Even dark, dystopian YA. After all, readers need to know their way around those mean streets, too.

Finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say a word about the day’s keynote speaker, Jon Scieszka. His speech was funny (as expected), but had its underlying serious side, first with Guys Read, an organization he began 10 years ago to encourage boys to find the books they enjoy. As he said, he read Dick and Jane in school, but home had the books he couldn’t put down. As boys fall further and further behind girls in school, particularly in reading, it’s an important message and important work.

But then he talked of rejection, a big topic at every conference, as publishing houses struggle to turn a profit and seem to sign fewer and fewer writers, or keep signings close to the vest. He discusses his own struggles in the late ‘80s, with plenty of rejections for The True Story of the 3 Little Pigs and The Stinky Cheese Man. He kidded the four or five dozen editors in the room with the pain of that time. At least it felt that way, because editors often made absurd suggestions about his submitted manuscripts. Called them “commercially unpublishable” (another buzzword at the conference. It came up at least twice, plus I heard it on Thursday from an agent). He told them they “need to get out more” and said, only half-jokingly, “you are the enemy.”

Can’t say I’d go that far, but I understand the sentiment, even if, for him, it’s coming 20 years later.

To sum up, while Rutgers didn’t turn out to be my best networking conference, it turned out to be the second-most instructive and the most business-oriented. I think I’ll apply next year. Maybe with that middle grade Emma seemed to like…