All right, perhaps I should throw in my comments.
The list of ten is quite excellent, and articulated very well, in eight of its points. I really think every aspiring author should know those things, and should take them to heart.
I quibble soundly with the two that are being debated here, however. On the SASE--I have heard numerous editors and agents say that they throw away, without reading a paragraph, any submission that arrives without a SASE. This goes for both prose and queries. Their rational? That if a person can't read their submission guidelines--which usually ask for a SASE--and do what they're told, then they aren't going to be someone professional enough to work with.
Remember, editors and agents can be a picky bunch. Not sending a SASE certainly has some flair to it--however, my instinct is that for every editor with whom you gain a bit of psychological ground by not sending a SASE, there will be ten whom you annoy, and therefore toss your query out of spite.
My agent sent be back an acceptance via letter. (Acceptance meaning "Sure, let me see the first fifty pages.") Then, he rejected that submission via letter. He's one of the particular ones (any of you who have met him can vouch for this.) If I hadn't sent a SASE, he wouldn't have responded to my query--the query that eventually ended up fostering a long-term professional relationship between us.
The argument against sending one just sounds too weak to me. It seems that Mr. Savage is stirring up a hornet's nest intentionally (Which, honestly, isn't a bad thing--that's one of the things authors do. They create discussions.) However, this just strikes me as something that he can claim is 'mind blowing new advice' in order to hook people in to his lecture.
As for the photo...well, seems like good advice in some markets, which are more bestseller-driven. In sf/f, I'm not convinced. One of my students asked me about this, actually, long before this conversation started. I guess he'd heard one of Mr. Savage's lectures. So, I emailed my editor. I'll share part of the response here:
(My question, in full:)
>Today in class one of my students mentioned that an author he knows recommended putting a photo of oneself in with every submission. The rational is that the editors want to see that an author is photogenic before they commit to a book.
>> What do you think? (So that I can tell my students.) What would you think if a photo came with a submission? Would you think it was strange, or would you appreciate it?
(Moshe's--editor at Tor Books--response:)
What an interesting question.
My answer: I would think it was strange.
In my opinion, anyone who bought a book, or didn't buy a book, because of the author's appearance, is an idiot. After all, you don't have to show an author photo if you don't want to, and most authors don't even get the chance to be on TV. What matters is the text, and how readers respond to it.
Sure, a handsome or pretty author is a promotional advantage, but luckily, it's editors who buy the books, not the publicity people. (Actually, smart assery aside, most publicity people I know would rather have a great book and an ugly author rather than an average book and a beautiful one.)
So, while I think Mr. Savage has some excellent points, and is good at making a discussion, I don't really agree with his two controversial items.
