While funny – and sad (the epitome of the over-under shotgun of drama) – listing this as first among Query Letter No-Nos is a bit far-fetched. Though after viewing the Top 10 list, it does take the cake of cliched errors in judgment.

I do recommend subscribing to the free Writer’s Digest e-newsletter, for there’s always something to be picked up, something to be learned or observed, something to be added to the toolkit. However, in this instance the editor’s letter, while doing its job in compelling me to follow the link to the article, actually ended with a negative result.

For when one exuberantly cries, “Here’s a list of 10 Query Letter No-Nos that you should consult before sending out every query letter. Consider it a final-edit checklist” one should realize that almost everyone who reads that will follow the link – expecting at least one (but more like 50+%) of the 10 golden nuggets to NOT be fool’s gold. This is, after all, billed as the ‘final-edit checklist’ one ’should consult before sending out every query.’

There’s nary a sliver of gold on the list, unless one seeks only entertainment.

No fault lies with list author Ann Rittenberg (unless she equally mislead in its presentation in its original source, Your First Novel, which I have no reason to suspect); this humorous though singular waste of my time is due entirely to the presentation decision of Newsletter Editor Klems. Although he did help me generate another post on the long-dormant-yet-struggling-to-revival von Darkmoor’s thoughts

Presentation, my dear Watson; it’s all in the presentation. Or as someone else once put it, presentation, presentation, presentation!