fyi, i've already had a career in traditional publishing, was a highly-paid [$150/hr back in the 80s/90s] writing consultant in my 'old life' and have so far mentored thousands of writers who are/were aiming for one, which is from whence i speak... you're entirely welcome in re the pejoration [though 'twas unintended] and cuteness [didn't know i was!]... ;-) happy writing!... and good luck with sales of your work... hugs, m
I would take those comments with a grain of salt. The first comment just means that the writer did not get a good agent. Even if we assume that the writer did her research, the fact that she had one bad experience does not mean all agents are bad. As for the second comment, I couldn't help but laugh when he said that writers give up 15% when getting an agent. While that is true, you can't just look at it from the point of view of percentages. Suppose a writer gets an advance of $5000. And then suppose an agent gets another writer a deal for $10,000. Even after paying the 15%, the writer with the agent gets more. I actually read an article in a magazine a few months ago that compared the advances of writers with and without agents. Those with agents got around twice as much more than those without an agent. So the numbers I posted above aren't that unrealistic at all. If I remember the name of the article I will post it here. (There's a similar study for fantasy novels that I found online. It shows the same trend.) While I agree that no one really needs an agent, it is very beneficial to have one. Oh, and I forgot to mention that agents help with foreign and movie rights as well.
Grain of salt? There's many more comments on the agent posts from writers who've had terrible experiences with agents (including top agents). The point is to go into any business relationship with your eyes open, and don't be afraid to fire an employee if they aren't working for you. It is also fully possible to sell foreign and movie rights on your own. A good agent can help with that, but a bad one can ruin your career. Just use common sense and don't believe that all agents are equal or that you absolutely have to have one to have a career writing fiction. That's all I'm trying to get at. (I've seen the studies you are talking about. The numbers for agents aren't twice as good, though they often are better/slightly higher. Of course, these studies don't take into account authors who sold the books/got the offer on their own and THEN went and got an agent to negotiate the deal, which is exactly what I'm planning on doing. So I hope to make the best of both worlds and end up with an agent who works well for me while keeping control of my own part of the business- ie the writing and selling. I intend to use an agent to negotiate contracts and possibly help with sub-rights sales if that agency is good at that- not all agencies are strong in foreign or movie rights selling.) Not all agents are equal. Do your research, don't settle for just any agent that will take you on (agents work for the author, not the other way around), and don't think that you can't get an offer from a publisher without an agent. Be smart about your business if your business is writing, that's all I'm trying to say (also, where did my former post with the links go? I'm going to laugh if the truth of these authors stories (one of whom has sold I think 18 novels so he does know what he's talking about) was censored because this information is tough to hear...)
It is extremely hard to do on your own (take a look at the process involved and you'll see what I mean). This is one of the cases where having an agent helps a ton. I'm not saying all agents are good. But I am assuming that a serious and smart writer will have done research on the agent/agency before initiating contact. There's a study you can google called "Author advance survey for SF and Fantasy writers." It has all the stats you need, including average advances for writers with and without agents. The advances for those with an agent are roughly twice as high. As I mentioned before, it is very amateurish to keep a publisher waiting while you look for an agent (hearing back from an agent can take months). I highly doubt most publishers would be willing to wait, especially on an unknown writer. Anyways, this is getting to become a pointless argument. I'm just not sure why you are not looking at all the positive things an agent can offer. But if you want to take advice from an author who doesn't seem to be very qualified in these matters, then go ahead.
Don't be such a conspiracy theorist. It was removed because it was a post consisting entirely of links, which this site frowns upon.
Ah, about the links, I did have text with them. Wasn't aware that two links would constitute "entirely of links". I'll pay more attention to that in the future, thanks. For the final time, I'm not saying don't use an agent. I'm saying be informed and that you don't really need an agent to sell your book (for god's sake, I've said multiple times I intend to get an agent as soon as I have an offer by picking up the phone and calling them.) As for the making the editor wait, well, I'm still not sure why you think that won't be okay. If an editor makes an offer, negotiations then happen, whether that editor makes the offer to you directly or through your agent. That means that yes, the editor expects that you might want to take time to a) see if there are any counter offers or b) just consider the offer. They don't expect you to say YES to everything the moment they make the phone call. So asking them to wait while you have your agent or lawyer get in touch with them is totally acceptable. In fact, it is more than acceptable, it's common place and normal. Hearing back from an agent when you have an offer on the table takes a phone call, not months. As for Dean Wesley Smith, he's published over 100 books and over 100 short stories. He's run his own publishing house, started a magazine that sold to Algis Budris (if you don't know who that is, you really don't know sci/fi publishing), worked as an editor for Pocket Books (a major imprint of a major publisher), and is currently a judge for the Writers of the Future Contest. He makes his living writing, as does his wife (who was an editor at Fantasy & Science Fiction magazine for years as well as a massively published author). If you read the comments and posts on his site, you'll see there are many posts from well-published authors, often thanking Dean for his willingness to say true, but unpopular things, and often supporting with personal stories exactly what he's saying. Think about it.
Thirdwind- because you pick up a phone and call the agent you want and ask them to represent you. The query process is used to determine if an agent thinks the novel could be saleable. Guess what? By selling the novel to a major publisher on your own, you've already proven that you can write publishable fiction. Of course, not all top agents will say yes (some have full client lists, etc...), that's why you have a previously researched list of reputable agents you'd like to have work for you (and hopefully an idea in mind of what kind of agent/author relationship you want to have). If you have an offer from a NY publisher in hand, there are plenty of agents who will take you on and take their 15% to negotiate the offer for you and handle the details. So you can just pick up the phone, say "Hi, I'm so and so, I have an offer on a novel (in a genre the agent represents) from X NY publisher, and I'd like to talk about the possibility of you representing me through the publishing process." My basis for assuming this is having spoken with authors who got their agent this way. By having an offer in hand, you've proven already you can write books that sell. That's what an agent wants to represent- books that sell. It's tougher to get a top agent without an offer in hand as a previously unpublished writer because you haven't proven that you can write a book that will sell to a publisher. Agents take a risk taking on unsold projects. They might love a book, but it just doesn't fit any market and doesn't sell. That happens. So they take a risk. With an offer in hand, the project is sold and the agent is guaranteed to earn 15% since the money is already on the table (and again, the initial offer an editor makes can usually be negotiated, so that agent, if they are good, will hopefully earn their 15% through their knowledge of contracts and ability to get a better deal). I'm not anti-agent. I just think that it's better to have as few middlemen in the selling process as possible and, again, this is how I feel and see it for me, I'd rather have an offer before I hire an agent. To get a book published only takes one. One editor to love your work and push for it. If you add an agent into the mix before you've sold the book, now it takes two. An agent to decide they could maybe sell it, AND then an editor. I'd rather sell the book myself and then be able to call an agent (or literary attorney) and hire them to handle the negotiating and contracts for me.
how many times have you, as an unpublished 'nobody' called an agency and actually gotten past the receptionist and assistants, to speak directly to an agent? if it were as easy as you claim, agents would spend their days on the phone with wannabe authors, instead of shopping their existing clients' work around and schmoozing with editors, to get the best deals for them...
Maia- you don't call them until you have an offer from a NY publisher, obviously. I am not suggesting just calling a top agent out of the blue, I'm saying that once you have an offer from a top publisher, THEN you should pick up the phone.
and, being a new and unknown-to-them writer, it still won't be that easy to get an actual agent on the phone, iza... nor is it likely that such a writer will get an offer from a major publisher, with an unagented query... you're dealing here with several next-to-impossible 'if's... and new writers need to be filled in on the reality of the writing/publishing world, not just the miraculous extremely rare exceptions/possibilies...
And I maintain that your assumptions are off here. If it were so difficult to get publishers to look at a good book with a good query, then I wouldn't have a full request right now, nor would people I know be getting full requests or even publishing offers without agents. But hey, we'll see, right? If in a couple years I've sold a book or two, I'll let everyone know (of course, then the people who are hardcore "must have agent to sell!" will tell me I got lucky somehow, just as they tell me now that the people I know who sell without agents get lucky, but whatever. Some people will never be convinced )
People are not downplaying the quality of the work when we say they got lucky. No matter how good you are, when a publisher gets a thousand quiries a week, you are lucky to get noticed.
I appreciate what you are saying, Rei, but I don't call writing a good, professional query and synopsis "luck". It doesn't take that much to stand out from the slush according to the editors I've listened to. A professionally written, interesting query, showing the book might fit with the editor's line, puts a writer in the top 10% (or better). So a good query, synopsis, and sample pages don't have to shine as 1 in 1000, it is more like 1 in 100, and those are far far better odds.
I'm with Rei on this one. Publishers look for how well a book will sell. Good writing helps, but luck plays a role in this too. If the publisher thinks that your book won't be read by many people, then they will reject it, no matter how well written it is. On top of all this, as Rei pointed out, publishers get a ton of queries, and there are quite a few good writers out there that the publisher can choose from. Luck really is a factor in the whole process when you think about it.
That's pretty arrogant to claim that out of the thousands of quiries they get, yours was one of the only good ones. My rejection letters, if they give a reason at all, tend to say they can't take it because they have too many projects going at the moment or they already have a similar one. It doesn't mean my submission was not as good as the others. It just means I didn't get there fast enough.
sorry, Rei, I didn't mean it like that. Rejections like the one you are talking about are either form letters, or it just means exactly what it says, that they have too many similar things. But what that does mean is that your query is getting read and you are likely not being rejected based on quality of your query (though if you never get a single full request, you might want to revisit either where you are sending or revise your query letter to have more hook to it).
The ones I'm talking about have a checklist of reasons, so I know that is exactly what they are saying. And again, you're claiming luck is irrelevant. We know that a good letter sent to the right agent or editor increases your chances, we know that rejections are usually form letters, and we know that we need to recheck the quality of our letters or who we're sending them to if they aren't biting. But since we have no way of predicting when they are overloaded or when they have similar projects, how can luck not play a part in it? I'd take 1 in 100 over 1 in 1000 any time, but that's still only a 1% chance.
I guess I just get a little defensive when "luck" gets mentioned like that, sorry It's true that there's a possibility that if you keep working on your craft, keep writing, and keep sending out queries to editors, you'll still never get published. There is an element of luck, I see what you're saying. However, publishing is in the end a numbers game. It only takes one editor to like your work and push for it, but if you only ever query one editor with one project, you have to get a little lucky (as you said, Rei- 1% chance, maybe a little better). There's ways to increase your odds, I guess is what I'm saying. Write the good book, the good query etc... But also write lots of good books and queries and mail to lots of editors. Even though I've got a full out at a major editor, I'm not putting all my hope on this book (or this editor, I will keep mailing queries). If it never sells, oh well, that's why I intend to write 5 or 20 or 50 more if that's what it takes. It's like any other business, someone may not love and want to buy the green mittens, but they might be in the market for a coat. If all I have to sell is one set of mittens, it will be harder to find a buyer. But if I have lots of varied products, odds increase that one of them will be a hit with someone. And again, one editor is all it takes.
Are literary agents helpful or harmful? It depends on the agent, and on where you are in your career. And like many things in this world, the answer is complicated. As a general rule, you do want an agent - to negotiate contracts for you, and to help arrange book signings and such for you if you are in demand for some reason but also have a deadline to meet, or if someone from Hollywood or wherever would like to option something you've written. Some of them are experienced enough to give you advice about how to improve your book, if you are in the editing phase. However, not all people have good experiences with agents, particularly when the writer is trying to sell their first few books. Some writers are under the impression that agents are supposed to do the selling work for them - and to be fair, some agents do play key roles in formatting cover letters, sending out queries and the standard first-forty-pages to editors who might be interested. But not all agents are good, and not all agents are experienced, and not all agents have the time and energy to try to pitch a first novel out to editors who aren't really impressed. Some agents, because they are not themselves professional writers, do not like to receive rejection letters, and will give up on a novel very quickly if it is rejected a handful of times. Other agents - only a very small minority - will refuse to send out a new writer's novel unless the writer re-writes it precisely to their specifications. So. You almost certainly will want an agent, because they are the folks who negotiate contracts for you and make sure you're getting a fair deal. However, you should not take this as a sign that your job is to write a book, send it to them, and they do all the work afterward. Nope, that's not how it works. Some agents, some of the time, will be able to work out a deal for you - for example, an editor might tell them "Hey, an author we had lined up got sick and can't finish his book on time. Do you have a book you might be able to send in?" and your agent might grab your manuscript and send it right then and there. But getting the book published - by sending it to editors - may continue to be your job your whole career, if you get a good agent who is too swamped to handle it himself. And I have indeed read horror stories from writers whose agents were swamped and didn't tell their clients, with the result that the book went out to just one publisher over the course of a year. Some authors have gotten burned so badly that they use literary lawyers to negotiate contracts, instead. Well ... that's their choice. I won't knock it if it works for them. But for most of us, book-writers in particular, an agent is someone you will want to have on your side. They'll look over the contracts for you, make sure no one is trying to pull a fast one on you (such as the "right of first refusal") and take their well-earned 15%. Just don't expect them to sell your first book. Maybe they will -- but in many cases, that job will go to you. Disclaimer: Not going into the previous discussion because it became both sad and lolsy. Different authors have different experiences. A professor at MIT, Joe Haldeman (maybe you're heard of him?), talked about the pros and cons of getting an agent before you've sold your first book, and said that agents are very useful. But I have heard from others as well. For many people, selling the first book comes before getting an agent, and for a few people literary lawyers are more convenient for the things an agent would do. That doesn't mean there's only one right way to do things, or that one person's experience invalidates someone else's.
Nine days? Was it in Greek, 900 pages? He should be mad at himself for being such a slow reading editor.
Horuseye- sure, if all he had to do for his job was read one manuscript. He's the head editor. I imagine that Mr. Anders has a ton of other work as well. And anyway, the point is that pissing off an editor is a terrible idea, especially for an agent. I wouldn't want that agent as my employee knowing that he/she might be burning all sorts of bridges doing poor business this way.
