Which comes first, the agent or the publisher?

Andrhia · Jan 8, 2010

I've seen sources that say you should query only agents and let them market your novel to the exact perfect editor once you've signed. I've seen sources that say that you shouldn't ever bother trying to get an agent until you have a contract from a publisher in hand, because an agent won't otherwise give you a first glance, much less a second one.

Why is there this sharp difference in opinion? Is this something that's changed over time, or varies a lot by genre and type of novel?

Feathers · Jan 8, 2010

If you have a publisher first, you have a better chance at getting an agent as well; but it's hard to get a publisher, and can change the way your future relations work. Getting an agent first is pretty much the standard everywhere I've seen.

OctoberLee · Jan 8, 2010

I would guess there are a lot more agents than there are publishers. So your chance of getting an agent is probably higher than your chance of getting picked up by a publisher. Also, many, many publishing houses don't even accept unsolicited submissions. And the ones that do have to get through the mountain of slush before yours even gets looked at.

So by searching for an agent, rather than sending a whole manuscript, you're giving them a small representative sample of your work, which allows them to respond (ideally, anyway) quicker than a publisher would.

(see below as others will have much better advice

wise AW-ers, feel free to contradict any of the above)

jvc · Jan 8, 2010

At the end of the day it's a personal choice for you whether you want to try publishers first or agents. The common thinking, and the best thinking, is that you should go for the agents first. Then the agent can sell your work to the publisher. There is also a problem if you start with publishers, and they all reject you (not saying they would

), then you get an agent, then that agent cannot now submit your MS to those publishers who have rejected it. So, based on this alone, it's better to with the agent hunt first.

Andrhia said:
I've seen sources that say that you shouldn't ever bother trying to get an agent until you have a contract from a publisher in hand, because an agent won't otherwise give you a first glance, much less a second one.

Whoever said that is a probably an idiot.

Madison · Jan 8, 2010

Chicken or the egg?

Haha. Well, not really. It's possible to get a publisher first, I guess (I know a writer or two who's done it that way) but MUCH more chancy. The big-name people won't even look at un-agented manuscripts.

I know everyone says that agents don't take on first time writers, but that's not true. My agent took me...

So I say agent first.

Sandy Shin · Jan 8, 2010

Depending on your genre, many publishers (especially the bigger ones) don't take unagented manuscripts, so by submitting to publishers first, you are limiting yourself to fewer publishing houses.

You can always try submitting to publishers after you've exhausted your agent list. There's no harm. The reverse is untrue.

I've seen sources that say that you shouldn't ever bother trying to get an agent until you have a contract from a publisher in hand, because an agent won't otherwise give you a first glance, much less a second one.

This is a false statement. I know a lot more people who got an agent before a publisher than I do those who got a publisher before an agent.

waylander · Jan 8, 2010

Agent first.
The majority of publishers will not look at unagented manuscripts from previously unpublished authors. Those that do take geologically-significant time periods to reply.

The sources that say an agent will not look at you unless you already have a contract are, at best, ill-informed on current practice

IceCreamEmpress · Jan 8, 2010

Agent first in the US.

Unless it's for very specialized non-fiction, in which case publisher first. If your book is about how to get your bike ready for snow or best kosher restaurants for kids, go right to the publishers who do that kind of book.

Andrhia · Jan 8, 2010

I've generally concluded that querying agents and not publishers was the more sensible thing to do. I guess what I'm wondering is what the logic is in doing it the other way, and why some otherwise-sensible individuals would be telling me that trying to get an agent is a fool's errand. They're so *vehement* about it, too.

Jamesaritchie · Jan 8, 2010

Fifteen or so years ago, it was much easier to get a publisher first, and an agent second. Now you can't even approach many of teh best publishers without an agent, and many of those you can approach never actually buy anything directly from writers..

kuwisdelu · Jan 8, 2010

Except for a few genres and smaller presses, most publishers don't take unsolicited manuscripts. Unless you happen to be in one of those, getting an agent first will be much, much easier.

PGK · Jan 8, 2010

jvc said:
There is also a problem if you start with publishers, and they all reject you (not saying they would ), then you get an agent, then that agent cannot now submit your MS to those publishers who have rejected it.

But if those publishers have already rejected the MS why does it matter if the agent can't submit it to them on your behalf. If they rejected it by the writer's hand doesn't it stand to reason that they'd reject it by an agent's hand also?

If not, then that implies a certain bias within the industry that says "if your work was good enough for an agent it is good enough for us --though we wouldn't have liked it if it wasn't good enough for an agent."

Unless I'm missing something.

Wordwrestler · Jan 8, 2010

waylander said:
Agent first.
The majority of publishers will not look at unagented manuscripts from previously unpublished authors. Those that do take geologically-significant time periods to reply.

The sources that say an agent will not look at you unless you already have a contract are, at best, ill-informed on current practice

This bolded part is one of the most important reasons to go for the agent first. Here's one of my experiences:

Queried major publisher who accepted unagented queries

8 months later, partial requested

12 months after that, full requested, with apology for taking so long.

13 months after that, I sent status query.

No response.

6 months later, I sent another status query.

That was about 3 years ago. I never heard back. Now I have an agent, and a different novel on sub. I prefer never to be left in limbo for that long again.

By the way, it only took me a few months to get an agent once I polished my query, did my research, and really began querying in earnest. I am completely unknown. I don't think this experience is atypical for those who really do their homework. There are no guarantees, of course, but stick around here and you'll see that it happens a lot.

Amarie · Jan 8, 2010

Andrhia said:
I've generally concluded that querying agents and not publishers was the more sensible thing to do. I guess what I'm wondering is what the logic is in doing it the other way, and why some otherwise-sensible individuals would be telling me that trying to get an agent is a fool's errand. They're so *vehement* about it, too.

It might just be discouragement. Querying is not for the faint of heart or those expecting quick results. Just for some real numbers-I'm in a group of authors whose first books are coming out this year, and of 55 surveyed, 45 had an agent first. Of those 45, about 80% got an agent through a slush pile query.

Wordwrestler · Jan 8, 2010

PGK said:
But if those publishers have already rejected the MS why does it matter if the agent can't submit it to them on your behalf. If they rejected it by the writer's hand doesn't it stand to reason that they'd reject it by an agent's hand also?

If not, then that implies a certain bias within the industry that says "if your work was good enough for an agent it is good enough for us --though we wouldn't have liked it if it wasn't good enough for an agent."

Unless I'm missing something.

Because many agents will work with the author to get the novel into better shape than the author could by herself before the editors ever see it.

A good agent can also make sure you get a read by an editor, while subbing on your own, who knows who read it? And you can't send it again because "no means no."

PGK · Jan 8, 2010

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

suki · Jan 8, 2010

PGK said:
But if those publishers have already rejected the MS why does it matter if the agent can't submit it to them on your behalf. If they rejected it by the writer's hand doesn't it stand to reason that they'd reject it by an agent's hand also?

If not, then that implies a certain bias within the industry that says "if your work was good enough for an agent it is good enough for us --though we wouldn't have liked it if it wasn't good enough for an agent."

Unless I'm missing something.

Wordwrestler said:
Because many agents will work with the author to get the novel into better shape than the author could by herself before the editors ever see it. My novel that's on sub now went through several rounds of revisions and is much stronger for it. My agent helped me see problems that I couldn't put my finger on myself (and neither could my beta readers).

A good agent can also make sure you get a read by an editor, while subbing on your own, who knows who read it? And you can't send it again because "no means no."

This. In today's market, the manuscript needs to be in even better shape when it's pitched to editors than it needed to be even a few years ago.

And not only will an agent work with a writer to make the manuscript better and more marketable, but a good agent will know which editor at which publishers will be most likely to love the book. And so it's not just that the publisher is now unavailable to the agent to pitch, but that the publisher might be unavailable because the writer pitched the wrong editor at the house, but a no from one generally means a no from all.

In today's fiction market especially, it's better to find an agent first.

And not to query editors/publishers before or at the same time as trying to find an agent on the project you are querying to agents.

~suki

jvc · Jan 8, 2010

PGK said:
But if those publishers have already rejected the MS why does it matter if the agent can't submit it to them on your behalf. If they rejected it by the writer's hand doesn't it stand to reason that they'd reject it by an agent's hand also?

If not, then that implies a certain bias within the industry that says "if your work was good enough for an agent it is good enough for us --though we wouldn't have liked it if it wasn't good enough for an agent."

Unless I'm missing something.

Wordwrestler said:
Because many agents will work with the author to get the novel into better shape than the author could by herself before the editors ever see it. My novel that's on sub now went through several rounds of revisions and is much stronger for it. My agent helped me see problems that I couldn't put my finger on myself (and neither could my beta readers).

A good agent can also make sure you get a read by an editor, while subbing on your own, who knows who read it? And you can't send it again because "no means no."

Wordwrestler did a good job at giving a reason why

(I would, however, change the bolded word to 'himself'

)

Wordwrestler · Jan 8, 2010

jvc said:
Wordwrestler did a good job at giving a reason why

(I would, however, change the bolded word to 'himself' )

Ha! I was going to go for him/herself, but that's just so ugly, so I opted for self-centeredness instead!

Andrhia · Jan 8, 2010

Melia said:
It might just be discouragement. Querying is not for the faint of heart or those expecting quick results. Just for some real numbers-I'm in a group of authors whose first books are coming out this year, and of 55 surveyed, 45 had an agent first. Of those 45, about 80% got an agent through a slush pile query.

Wow, that's some very compelling evidence right there. Thanks!

job · Jan 8, 2010

With many exceptions, you get an agent first if you are interested in print publication with a major publisher.

A good agent will not merely get your ms in the door and get it seen sooner, a good agent puts your manuscript on the right desk inside the publishers. She pays for herself with the first contract, where she keeps you from making mistakes.

Ummm ... a blog post on this here.

scope · Jan 8, 2010

Jamesaritchie said:
Fifteen or so years ago, it was much easier to get a publisher first, and an agent second. Now you can't even approach many of teh best publishers without an agent, and many of those you can approach never actually buy anything directly from writers..

I think this is not only accurate, but the perfect answer to your question.

LuckyH · Jan 8, 2010

The proper procedure is to submit to a proper agent, who, if he signs you up for his 15%, will then try and sell your manuscript to a proper publisher. A proper agent will seldom fail to sell your work.

The waters have been muddied in recent years mainly because of technological advances. To set up as an agent nowadays, all you need is some computer knowledge, and, sadly but similarly, the same applies to small presses.

Those markets may work in the future, or disappear again; at the moment they have led to inferior books flooding the market without any chance of making money for the author.

Jamesaritchie · Jan 9, 2010

PGK said:
But if those publishers have already rejected the MS why does it matter if the agent can't submit it to them on your behalf. If they rejected it by the writer's hand doesn't it stand to reason that they'd reject it by an agent's hand also?

If not, then that implies a certain bias within the industry that says "if your work was good enough for an agent it is good enough for us --though we wouldn't have liked it if it wasn't good enough for an agent."

Unless I'm missing something.

Of course there's a bias. Anyone who has read a slush pile is going to have a bias against manuscripts that haven't been through some sort of filtering procedure. You expect novel in the slush to be bad, and tehy almost always are. You expect agents to weed out most of the bad, and the good agents almost always do.

So slush manuscripts may be read by some guy just promoted from mail clerk to slush reader, or, if the slush gets deep enough, the editor may hold a "slush party", pulling everyone in the building, including the janitor, in order to turn a slush mountain into a slush molehill.

On average, you expect much, much better manuscripts from agents, and you receive much, much better manuscripts from agents.

Why shouldn't there be bias?

scope · Jan 9, 2010

LuckyH said:
A proper agent will seldom fail to sell your work.

Simply put, this isn't accurate.

The waters have been muddied in recent years mainly because of technological advances. To set up as an agent nowadays, all you need is some computer knowledge, and, sadly but similarly, the same applies to small presses.

What about knowledge of the industry, books past and present and upcoming, editing - to some degree, printing - to some degree, knowledge of the publishers handling the genres you agent, same of the editors within in house and the development of same sort of personal relationship with them and their assistants -- and the the very long list goes on.

Those markets may work in the future, or disappear again; at the moment they have led to inferior books flooding the market without any chance of making money for the author.

It seems to me that there are more literary agencies today than ever before.

,

Which comes first, the agent or the publisher?

emerging from the writing cave

Destroying something beautiful

Fearsome Dragon Mod

summertime...

procrastinating, clearly

Who's going for a beer?

Hapless Virago

Revolutionize the World

They put those words in my head!

carpe libri

They put those words in my head!

Opinionated

Fearsome Dragon Mod

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

Commonsensical Maverick

Oh, really?

Commonsensical Maverick