10/1/25
This morning I finished writing query letters to literary agents. It's very much a long shot for many reasons, the obvious one being that they are risk-averse. They want a sure thing from an established author, or someone who brings his own fan base to the table. They also want a track record of expertise, which is to say, official expertise. In many respects, I'm the opposite. I have the bare requisite academic credentials, i.e., a master's in counseling. Other than that, all my expertise comes from self-study; and much of it is in areas which don't even exist to these people (mysticism, the paranormal, and historical authors Mathew and Abby Whittier).

On the other hand, I've proved that Charles Dickens wasn't the original author of "A Christmas Carol," and I know that it was far, far better before he got his grubby paws on it. I know who did write it, and I know that they were world-class authors who shaped 19th-century literature from behind the scenes.

So I'm thinking, either an agent would have to be so big that he or she could afford to gamble on one author; or so small that he or she would say, "What have I got to lose?" Anybody in the middle wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole.

But there is one more class--a visionary. And this is the only person who would ultimately be able to work with me, successfully--someone who gets it. Unfortunately, I've had enough trouble finding anybody at all who gets it, no less a literary agent.

I'm going to give this a full month, to make sure they have all had a chance to respond. I've already gotten 10-15 polite, mostly canned rejections. Then I look for those publishers who will accept queries from first-time authors, which is probably a much shorter list.

I always give over the results to my Guru before embarking on any endeavor. Otherwise, I couldn't handle the kind of overwhelming rejection I've received over the past 20+ years, since I released my documentary. But this much I will tell you--with this new book, we are no-longer in the territory of "I might be right, or I might be wrong." I have had concrete and logical evidence, before, but this is--well, this is like a tennis match where the score is 6-0, 6-0 ("bageled," as the commentators say). There is not even a shred of a doubt that I'm right, with this research effort. The only solution to this, for the cynic, is to find an excuse not to expose him- or herself to it. "Too long; too dry; it's too disrespectful to Dickens; I'm too busy." If you don't expose yourself to the evidence, it doesn't exist, for you.

On the other hand, if you read this book word-for-word, all the way through, it's a done deal. Charles Dickens was an imposter, a very nasty character, and he stole this novella from two exemplary persons. He hastily and direspectfully dumbed down and sensationalized their sacred novella, turning it into a ghost story for quick cash. And his own writing, where one can isolate it in the manuscript, is decidedly inferior. In other words, he was a phony, and a very unpleasant one, at that. Whatever admiration people feel for "A Christmas Carol" is displaced when it is directed at Charles Dickens.

I have no idea if that would ever sell, but it's the truth and I've proved it. One would think it might be of interest.

Best regards,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.