>And add that I think 91k is perfect. As someone in the
>query process (who reads agent blogs and tweets like
>some sort of creepy stalker and sometimes feels nearly
>like a whore) I have maybe once heard an agent
>complain of a manuscript being too short (and that was
>about 60k). They all complain of being pressed for
>time and some won't even look at an ms over 110
>claiming they already know it will be "overwritten"
>"bloated" etc.
>
>Congrats again, Debi. Your persistance is impressive.
I hope all this is going to weigh in my favor when (note the positive attitude) when I get this looked at by an agent/publisher. That part of the process terrifies me no end. I don't read a lot of blogs, don't haunt other writing sites, basically, it's just you guys and my computer. So the query stuff will be a little leery for me. But I shall persevere!
