Pitch Wars is gone. Here’s what I know: when something that big disappears, it leaves a vacuum, and the only thing I remember from science class is that nature abhors a vacuum. So something (or more likely, somethings) are going to show up in the space.

So, here’s some advice from someone who has seen Pitch Wars from pretty much every angle. Take it or don’t. I was going to say I don’t care, but I do. If you’re going to do something for the writer community, I’d love for it to be as good as it can be. But I also recognize that if you’re doing it, it’s up to you.

And I know you didn’t ask my advice. That’s fine. But then…you clicked on the link, so please don’t blame me if what I have to say isn’t what you want to hear. This is just one man’s opinion, and you’re free to take it or leave it.

Please don’t take any of this as me taking shots at any program that existed in the past or exists today. I’m not perfect, and neither are you. Also, don’t take this as me taking shots at mentors or mentees. Everybody comes to a program with their own set of skills and their own expectations. They have their own reasons for being there. Expecting that to not be the case is ridiculous.

Do mentors sign up in order to further their own careers? Sometimes, of course. Do mentees show up not to learn, but because they think it will get them ahead? Sometimes, of course. And that’s okay! We can all act in our own best interest. Let’s just not pretend that it doesn’t happen.

I want to say up front that this isn’t targeted at any existing mentorship program. Can they apply some of it? Sure, if they want. But I didn’t write it in response to something that already exists. I’m on writer twitter, so I’m vaguely aware of a few programs that are out there. But they don’t apply to me, so I haven’t spent much time looking at their specifics.

Generally speaking, if you’re doing something and it’s working, keep doing it.

And though I’m going to talk about how I’d do things different than Pitch Wars, don’t take any of this as a slight on that program. The people who ran it know me, and they know how I feel about them. These are things I’d consider now, not things I’d have necessarily applied to a program that was already up and running.

Here, in no particular order, are some of my thoughts.

1. Mentoring and editing are not the same thing, nor are they necessarily the same skill set.

In Pitch Wars, we called people mentors, but most of the actual requirements we put on them were editing. A PW mentor had to provide an edit letter. I would argue that to be really good at it, a Pitch Wars mentor had to be both a good editor and a good mentor. It’s possible to be good at one and not the other.

In 2016, I was a good mentor but not a good editor. I just didn’t have the skills yet to take apart a book and put it back together. I didn’t know that at the time, but looking back from when I was mentoring in 2020, I could see how much better I was.

The lesson here? Decide what you want to be. Are you providing mentorship, or are you providing editing? Yes, you can do both. But you don’t have to. And it’s a lot easier to screen for one of those skills than a combination of both. I know there’s one program out there already where their editors have to take a test.

You could have a mentorship program that didn’t even involve editing. SFWA does. In their program, experienced writers share their experiences with people behind them in the process. Personally I’ve been mentoring a lot of debut authors lately. Why? Because I was there not too long ago, and I know things that can help them. We don’t call it a mentorship program, but it is. There is no formal agreement, but they know they can DM me whenever they have a question.

Are there people who can both mentor and edit? Sure. We had a lot of them in Pitch Wars, and they make for the very best mentors. But even they would tell you that they got better with experience.

2. Vet your mentors, but know that no amount of vetting is going to be enough.

I’ve seen a ton of ideas about this, usually from unhappy former mentees. They want vetting, and you should do that. They want mentees to give feedback — I’ll talk about that in a bit, because it’s problematic too.

But no amount of vetting is going to get you a 100% success rate. Because everybody means well. Nobody signs up to be a mentor thinking, oh, I’m going to do this really poorly. But you can’t see everything. You can ask the right questions (Pitch Wars did.) But people can answer one way and then act another. Or things can just change. A mentor who meant well could go into a bout of depression, or have a massive change in family situation, or any number of things.

Or, more commonly, a mentor could think they have the skillset when they don’t. Like I did in 2016. I tried hard. I tried really hard. I put in tons of work. But I just wasn’t a good enough editor yet to do what my mentee needed.

Can you screen out some problematic people? Of course. Can you use references? Maybe…but it would be hard to judge those references. Even problematic people have friends. And even previous mentees aren’t always going to help. There may have just been a personal disconnect, or, maybe the mentor has grown. What if you asked my 2016 mentee for a reference and she said that I wasn’t a very good editor? (She was my co-mentor in 2020, so I think we’re fine. But still, the point stands.) Would that even apply in 2020 when I’d written and edited multiple additional novels? I’m a better editor now than I was in 2016.

And this is important: you get what you get. We’re talking about volunteers, and we’re usually talking about genre specific mentors. In some genres and/or age categories, maybe you’ve got an abundance of choices. In others, maybe you don’t. And while it’s easy to say that you’ll just not select mentors, it gets a lot harder when you’re answering questions about why you’re underrepresenting a specific genre. (Finding enough qualified adult fantasy mentors is always a challenge. Because so many people write adult fantasy and will enter your program.)

And your mentor vetting process is biased. That’s not an insult or an indictment. It just is. We ALL have biases. You can definitely minimize this by putting the right mix of people in charge of selection. But to do that, you’ve got to have the right people on board. In my experience, more people think they’re the right people than actually are. Are you going to say no to your critique partner or agency sibling or someone who you perceive as important to your career if they’re not the right fit as a mentor? Maybe. But it’s not easy.

3. Take a look at who is running your program.

I have two points here. The first one is easy, so I’ll start there. You need leadership. You need somebody who, when times get tough (and they will) has the skills to respond with wisdom and grace. You need somebody who, when they speak, they garner the respect of everyone in the program–at least the mentors. Because guess what? Mentors are all going to have their own ideas. And when things get tough (and again…they will) if you don’t have somebody dealing with it firmly and fairly, people are going to be (righteously) upset.

That was the easy part. Now here’s where I make some people mad. I can live with that. Something about not shooting the messenger probably applies. But if you want to come at me, that’s fine too. At least that means you heard me.

Take a look at your board of directors. Seriously…take all of their profile pictures and put them on one page. What do you see? Does everybody look alike? That’s a problem. Because what your leaders look like is what your program is going to look like.

Just so there’s no ambiguity in what I’m saying, here it is, spelled out plainly: If your leadership is all white ladies, you have a mentoring program for white ladies. And this isn’t an insult — it’s just reality. I know you mean well. I know you want to be inclusive. I’m not saying you’re a bad person. But I also stand by what I said.

I also need to be clear here that I’m talking about real leadership involvement. This isn’t about tokenism. It’s about having the right people in place to address the needs and concerns of the entire writing community.

Before you come for me in a furious twitter storm, let me address your arguments.

a. But Mike, we want to lift up writers from across the community! We’re open to everybody, and we’re going to stamp out racism wherever we see it!

Okay. I hear you and I know you mean it. But nobody believes you. It’s not your fault. You’re dealing with the baggage of the entire publishing industry, and…this just in…the publishing industry hasn’t done a very good job of being inclusive. So why should people who don’t know you believe that this will be different? Sorry. We don’t. Is that fair that we’re judging you before you get started? Well…is it fair that the publishing industry has been historically non-inclusive?

b. But Mike, we’re going to have a diverse group of mentors!

Will you? Will you get quality mentors from diverse backgrounds when there’s no representation in your leadership? (See: trust, above)

c. But Mike, we’re going to expressly state that we’re open to mentees of all backgrounds!

Will you be, though, if you don’t have mentors that reflect those backgrounds? Are you suggesting that representation doesn’t matter?

Are you seeing a pattern here?

d. But Mike, we are diverse. We fully represent the LGBTQ+ community.

Excellent. That’s important too. So is disability rep. So is any other kind of rep you can think of. But that doesn’t change the original premise that your leadership is a picture of the community that you intend to serve.

e. But Mike, we’ve asked all the diverse writers we know and nobody wants to do it.

Huh. Maybe ask yourself why that is. Do a little self-examination. I’m not casting stones, and I’m not going to tell you what you’re going to find. But I would suggest that if you can’t assemble a diverse leadership group in 2022, maybe you’re not the right person to be running a mentorship program. Yeah, I know that some people are going to take that personally. It’s not intended that way, but I get it.

f. But Mike, we’re picking the most qualified people regardless of identity!

Yeah…if this is your argument, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. But on a positive note, if this is truly your belief, we’ve discovered why you can’t get diverse leadership for your program.

Look…I know this is going to make a lot of people angry. Again, it’s not personal. If you take it personally…well…again, maybe you’re not the right person to be running a mentorship program. Because when you run one, people are going to come at you. Sometimes it’s going to be over legitimate mistakes (we all make them). Sometimes it’s not. But in either case, if you take things personally, it’s not going to go well.

How important is this? If anybody asks me to participate in a mentorship program in any way, this is my first question: who’s running it? If it’s not a diverse group, I’m out. No other questions needed. And I’ll say as much to any potential mentor who asks me about it. I know this sounds harsh, but I also know that I’m not alone.

With all this said, do what you want. Build the leadership that you want and serve the writers that you want. And if you want to curse me out, my DMs are always open so you don’t have to do it in public.

To end this section on a positive note — to offer a solution — do this. Build your team first. Get the right people on board before you announce your program. Take your time and get it right. If you truly mean well, talk to people. Workshop your ideas with as wide a community as you can reach. Ask for help.

And on a more general note, for everyone, not just people looking to start a mentorship program: engage with the wider community before you find yourself asking for help. Listen and learn and look for ways to support in a real and non-performative way. Look for what you can do, not what you can get.

If I screwed this section up, I’m sorry. There are certainly people who speak better on this topic than I do. I highly encourage you to go find them and listen.

4. Probably avoid an agent showcase.

A lot of the problems that arose from Pitch Wars came from expectations. Agents add expectations. They also add an element that you don’t control. I know that several programs that have sprung up have done so without an agent element, and as far as I know, they’re happy with that decision (But also, go ask them. Get input from people who have done it.)

If you do decide to have an agent element, reach out to me directly. I have some ideas based on my time as the agent liaison for Pitch Wars. But I’m not going to share them here because they’d take up a lot of space and my main advice is to not do it.

5. Start small.

I know you want to help everyone. But the bigger you get, the harder it becomes on so many different levels. From the tech involved to getting the right mentors to level of scrutiny you’re going to face to the expectations on your program, everything is affected by scale.

It is my considered opinion that a small program executed really well is better than a large program executed poorly. One helps a few people. The other helps nobody.

6. Don’t do one on one mentorships without supervision.

Here’s another controversial one. Because didn’t Pitch Wars do that? (Yes. This is a lesson learned. No shade, just something I’d do differently, knowing what I know from watching PW)

90 percent of your problems are going to come from one on one conflicts, and no matter how hard you try to get to the bottom of why that conflict happened, you can’t.

Take this example (which, trust me, happens a lot.) A mentor does an edit letter for a mentee. The mentee doesn’t apply the edit letter. The mentor gets frustrated by the fact that they put 30 hours of work in and the mentee isn’t using it, so the mentor shuts down. After all, why do more work when the mentee isn’t listening? At the end, the mentee is dissatisfied because the mentor didn’t help them enough, and complains. The mentor is frustrated and doesn’t want to mentor again.

So…what happened? Let me list for you all of the possibilities that lead to this situation (and an unsatisfied mentee.)

First, the two extremes (which are rare, but absolutely happen)

a. The mentor did a crappy job. Either through inability or lack of effort (even if there’s a good reason), they gave the mentee a bad edit letter, and the mentee rightfully ignored it.

b. The mentor produced a great edit letter. The mentee over-valued their own ability and in that arrogance wasn’t going to change anything, even if they got the best edit letter ever. Or, along the same lines, the mentee never saw it as a mentorship. They came in just for the status (or, in the case of Pitch Wars, because they thought the showcase would help them.)

Again — those situations are rare, but you’re going to get at least one of each of those in any group of a hundred. Sometimes more.

Here are the more likely causes, all of which happen rather often.

c. The mentor produces a reasonable edit letter. The mentee tries really hard, but because of a lack of experience isn’t capable of implementing it, and the mentor (possibly due to a lack of experience) doesn’t realize that. The mentee often also doesn’t realize that (because they are inexperienced), and though both try, both end up frustrated. (Note: This doesn’t usually end in a complaint…at first. Because maybe the mentee doesn’t even realize they didn’t accomplish what they hoped. They rewrote, and they’re ready to query. But as the rejections come in, then they feel like someone let them down.)

d. The mentor delivers a reasonable edit letter, the mentee does a reasonable job of executing it. While the mentor meets the requirements of the program and the mentee is initially satisfied, the mentee sees/hears about other mentees who have mentors going above and beyond, either because the mentor is more skilled or has more time. The mentee decides that their mentor didn’t do a good job by comparison. So while the mentor did an average job, the mentee feels robbed because they weren’t one of the very best mentors.

e. The mentor produces an edit letter that meets the requirement, but is maybe a little too specific, and the mentee bounces off of a lot of the ideas. The mentee, either through fear of the power differential or inexperience, doesn’t communicate that, or, along the same lines, the mentor isn’t a good communicator and doesn’t receive that (or, you know…some combination of both where they don’t communicate), and so the mentee follows their own vision.

Note: Most of the time this is the mentor’s fault. A good edit letter helps the mentee achieve their vision, not the mentor’s. But at the same time, a lot of mentees enter a program without necessarily having a clear vision, and I’ve seen some really successful partnerships where the mentor helped provide it. It’s complicated.

f. The mentor puts in the work but doesn’t have the experience, so they either take too long or over-edit, producing an edit letter where there’s not enough time or where it’s just too much. They’re a good person and did their best. Along a similar line, maybe the mentee needed a bit more than the mentor knew how to give.

g. Both mentor and mentee do a solid job and the mentee’s manuscript gets better. But through the randomness that is publishing, the book doesn’t go anywhere. An immature mentee sees their peers having success, and decides that someone must be to blame for their own lack of success, and the mentor makes a good target (Note: this isn’t all that common, but I’ve absolutely seen it happen).

I’m sure there are more–combinations of some of the others–but you get the point. So…say you do a survey at the end to get the mentee’s opinion, and the mentee says things weren’t good. How do you determine which of the above things are the cause? You can’t. Because the mentee is only one side of it. They are not an impartial arbiter any more than the mentor is. It takes two to have a dysfunctional relationship.

And sure, you can ask mentees to report problems as they arise. But mostly they won’t. Because they’re scared. There’s a power differential. And even if they do report it, how do you make it better it without telling the mentor that there’s a problem? It’s hard, and it puts everybody into an awkward spot.

Reading all that makes it sound horrible. Why would anybody want to do this? Because mostly these things are minor or don’t happen. 80 to 90 percent of mentorships (at least in Pitch Wars) are somewhere from okay to awesome. But it’s that last ten percent that are going to cause you 90% of your problems.

So…if I say not to do one on one mentorships, what are your other options? I’m glad you asked, because I have some ideas.

Group mentorships. Take six mentors and their mentees and make them into a cohort. Put them all in the same slack group, and do all your communication through that instead of email, with each mentor having their own thread within the group, but the communication being available to everybody. Mentors can see what other mentors are doing/saying.

There are a few benefits to that.

a. It provides mentor to mentor accountability. If there’s a mentor who doesn’t show up, the other mentors can see it without the mentee having to say anything. Or, if the mentee does say something privately, there’s a record that everyone can go check.

b. Mentors can learn from each other as they’re mentoring. If I’m not great at something, I can look at how another mentor is doing it and copy them, or ask them for advice on how I can do it better.

c. If the mentors are inclined, you could gain some synergies in teaching aspects. One mentor could teach something to all the mentees and another mentor could teach something else, for example.

d. You have a natural cohort of contacts and information sharing about agents, etc.

Senior mentors. Have a senior mentor for each group of 6 or 8 mentors. CC the senior mentor on all communication between mentors and mentees and give the senior mentor the job of helping the mentors become better at mentoring. This would do a few things:

a. Provide accountability for the mentors who interface with mentees. After all, if the mentor knows that somebody is watching, they’re more likely to do the work. It’s human nature. And, if they don’t…if they ghost…the senior mentor can see that without the mentee having to say anything.

b. Provide development for the mentors. Granted, you’d need to pick good senior mentors. But if you do, then you’ve got somebody who can help the mentors not only with mentoring, but with aspects of their career. Say your mentors were debut authors or agented authors without book deals, and your senior mentor was someone with multiple published books who had been around for awhile. There could be value in that, and it would give mentors a reason to participate beyond just giving back.

Multiple mentees per mentor. In this one, instead of the mentor editing, they take on a group of mentees and teach the mentees to provide feedback to each other. The mentees, because there are more than one, provide a way to get more accurate feedback if there’s a problem with the mentor. Because when it’s one on one, it’s hard to tell who is the problem. If there are four mentees and they all have a problem, it’s pretty clear. Plus, with more of them, they’re more likely to have the courage to raise an issue.

Granted, this would be a change from the idea of editing an entire manuscript into a model where instead you worked on developing the skills that the mentees needed to take them to the next level. Perhaps the mentor would critique some part of each mentee’s work, but it couldn’t be the full novel.

You’d also need a group of mentors with the right skillsets, which would inform your selection process.

It would also be a change from where the mentee just shows up as a consumer and expects to receive something (which is it’s own issue.) In this model, they have to put in to get out. Inevitably some won’t, so you’ll need some criteria for removing people from the program. On a positive note, it would eliminate the mentees who were just there because they thought it looked good on their CV.

---

I think that’s enough for now.

I just want to reiterate that I’m not telling you that you have to do all these things if you want to run a successful mentorship program. I’m am not the Grand Poobah of writer mentorship programs, and you don’t need my permission (or anybody else’s).

I’m providing my ideas based on my experience. Some of them are more important than others. Take what works for you and leave the rest.

Tags: Pitch Wars, Pitchwars, Writing Mentorships