Protective/private

[maestrowork]

I've found that most writers (and I say "most," not all) I've talked to are very private/protective about who their agents are.

Just curious. Why is that?

[Gala]

Because it's nobody's business.

[SRHowen]

And most of us have learned the hard way when our agent gets tons of letters saying we recommended them to so and so. And we also get nasty e-mail if someone manages to dig up some dirt on said agents, even if the dirt isn't true. Why people do this i have no idea.

And the truth is I have recommend people to my agent. But only if their writing blew me as an editor off the planet.

Shawn

[maestrowork]

I suspected that Shawn's answer is true. I still wonder though, why it's just writers? I mean actors tell each other who their agents are ALL the time (and such information is easy to find -- all you have to do is look up the SAG directory). In the corporate world, we are not squirmish about telling people who we work for and that my boss' name is Joe Jerk at XYZ, inc.

I personally think it's interesting.

[Gala]

It's not secretiveness. It's business smarts, as Shawn has explained.

Writing business is miles different than acting and corp life. I've been involved with actors (playing in the pit) and yeah they love to talk...but not so much when Spielberg calls.

Writing is a lonely art, introverted unlike acting and corp. I don't often mind bragging about who I audition for on violin, because there's more than one violinist needed and if they want to go for it, fine. Auditions are public knowledge, usually.

Also depends on who ya tell. I was hesitant to name my Microsoft bosses, co-workers and business unit to wanna bes. "How'd you get in??" But I also gave many many people good contacts...and most of those people didn't follow through, or squandered opportunities I set up for them. Weird.

I've no problem sharing solid info with people who respect boundaries. I share my writing contracts and agreements with serious proven writers I trust. Very few live ones in that group.

Maestro, I'm sorry to say I've seen a kind of jealousy among writers I've never seen in any career or art I've been involved in. What a shocker...the gossip, backbiting, "he submitted and they said make a few changes and he said he couldn't for ethical reasons yeah right his book is crap and he can't get published after 17 novels..." (true story.) I'm sure the protective aspect is prudent for those reasons.

Everyone thinks they can write. If they just had time.

Not everyone thinks they can act, work in a fortune 500 company, or play the violin.

Last night I shared a big writing success with a person in a volunteer org, Christmas party. She'd asked, "How's the writing going?" You know.

She's a writer, but not much published, that's fine. It takes time. She congratulated me, but her eyes weren't in it. They were darting, they were almost angry...and I didn't dare tell her the best part; as it was I toned down my success. I hate it when I do that! What a pity for her though, her insecurity.There's enough success for everyone.

[SRHowen]

I think that's where the "your agent sucks" e-mails come from. They query, they say you recommended them (let me give you a clue, my agent always checks with me to see if I do know the persona dn if I told them to contact him)(second hint, if i am going to recommend you to my agent, I let him know that I've sent someone his way), agent rejects ms--they send angry e-mail to you saying your agent sucks and they found this and that out about them.

If someone says, hey I am an actor--do people say oh I've always wanted to act, or say oh yeah I have a great idea how to act? Rarely.

You say I work for Sperion (Dell Computers here in Austin) do people say oh yeah I always wanted to be a programmer. Nadda.

But say I am a writer or an editor--better have hip boots on cause here it comes by the dumper load. I always wanted to write a book. You know I wrote a short story once and so on.

People, by nature are story tellers and everyone always thinks their story is the best so how dare someone have an agent or a publisher that isn't them.

Shawn

[maestrowork]

If someone says, hey I am an actor--do people say oh I've always wanted to act, or say oh yeah I have a great idea how to act? Rarely.

:rollin Actually, I've heard that plenty. People think just because they were in a high school play or that they're kind of attractive that they should be actors.

I never minded telling people who my agent was. I think the difference is that when you go into an interview with a talent agent, it doesn't matter who you know -- you're on your own. Just because you're Tom Cruise's cousin doesn't guarantee representation, and everyone knows that. So you seldom gets that "your agent sucks" email or phone call. And my agents had interviews all the time. So whether it was Joe Blow from the street or someone who claimed to know me, didn't matter to him.

Also, the difference between a talent agent and a literary agent may be: a talent agent would reject you, but also tell you to get some acting lessons and maybe call them again in six months. A literary agent might just reject you... "and don't write back."

p.s. I did have someone call me and said, "I've always wanted to work with computers. Can you hook me up with your employer..." Seriously. So I know what's it like....

[Gala]

If someone says, hey I am an actor--do people say oh I've always wanted to act, or say oh yeah I have a great idea how to act? Rarely.
Good one, SRH! No one has ever said, "Oh I always wanted to play Beethoven's Eroica". Usually it's, "I played in 4th grade and realized it wasn't for me."

I don't tell people what I earn either, I send them to the library, monster.com or AW, or make general comments, "enough to pay for my cat's shots with a little left over for coffee budget."

:eek

otoh, some of the greats do disclose their agents or personal publishing contacts, and dedicate books to them. Like Steinbeck whose contact became best friend.

[vstrauss]

>>I still wonder though, why it's just writers? I mean actors tell each other who their agents are ALL the time<<

If we're having a conversation and you ask me who my agent is, of course I'll tell you. I'm just not going to post it on a public message board, for the reasons Shawn mentioned.

- Victoria

[maestrowork]

Victoria, but I'm saying about writers who I talk to, as in having a conversation with. Writers I know, and who knows that I'm not some wackjob. Granted, like I said, there are writers who don't mind... and I'm not even asking for a referral. :-)

[preyer]

i... could have... BEEN... the next... will... yem SHATner!!

or so i take it when an older woman at work once told me, 'you know, you're pretty enough to be an actor on a soap opera.'

gee, thanks. i think.

i'd e-mailed a writer once and asked very politely who his agent was, but i understood if he didn't want to say. he wrote back the next day and told me, but rather made it sound as if he wasn't the best in the world as he now used a lawyer as an agent instead as he was now doing scripts. anyway, my single experience so far has been if you ask politely enough, they'll tell ya. i mean, honestly, how much stock does an agent put into statements like, 'so-and-so told me you were the guy to hook-up with'? not much, i'd think, especially in this cyberworld.

[SRHowen]

Like Victoria, I will tell anyone who asks, but no longer post it in public. Then it seems that they don't think I am offering them a boost in the door.

Shawn

[Gala]

well for some the fundamental may be as simple as personality. I'm assuming an actor is a bit of an extrovert, or an introvert who has developed extrovertism.

some folks will tell anyone anything any time. and the grays in between that and one who stays incognito about everything.

business acumen may have nothing to do with it.

I'm personally just bored of explaining my life and my success to people. This too shall pass.

[SimonSays]

Maestro -

I've never experienced that in Hollywood - screenwriter's unwilling to divulge their agents. In fact if they've got a big one or are repped by a prestigious agency, they are more than happy to share that.

I agree with Shawn though, that it can make things uncomfortable. I won't refer someone to my agent unless I'm familiar with their work and I know it's good. If someone uses my name in the query simply because they know me, it can make things awkward on all ends. My agent will feel obligated to read it because the person knows me, and then I feel bad because my agent's wasting his time, and then the person feels slighted because my agent says 'no.' I only had that happen once, but it was really uncomfortable.

[Jamesaritchie]

Like victoria, I don't usually mind telling people who my agent is in private, but my agent simply does not need any new writer sending her queries. I made the mistake of telling someone online who my agent was a few years ago, and suddenly the writer I told was telling everyone he knew.

The way it works for me is this: If I know you, and read something you've written, and you ask, I will, if I like what you've written, call my agent and ask if she'd like to see it.

Sometimes she'll ask me to read a page or two over the phone, sometimes not.

But it simply isn;t the same as in Hollywood. There's no point in not telling someone who your agent is if asked because it can be looked up very quickly, and that agent isn't going to get deliged with new mail because of it.

[katdad]

My agent does not disclose the client list or name a specific client unless given permission by the author.

My agent is also reluctant to have her name generally out there, because she will be deluged by people who will use the author's name as a reference, without prior clearance.

To find my agent, a writer I know recommended me, but first he called the agency and checked with them. So they knew I would be querying them. And of course he'd read my stuff.

In the future, if a prospective writer comes to me and asks for a recommendation, I'd first want to read the stuff, and then if I thought it met the agency's categories, I'd ask my agent if she minded my giving out her name.

[maestrowork]

Some agents advise their clients to not read any unpublished work. An author friend of mine refused to read my samples because of that, even though she wanted to help. And because she couldn't read my work, she couldn't recommend me.

[Jamesaritchie]

Some agents advise their clients to not read any unpublished work. An author friend of mine refused to read my samples because of that, even though she wanted to help. And because she couldn't read my work, she couldn't recommend me.

I have a clause in my contract that says I can't read unpublished work sent to me by other writers. It isn't enforced, and is really one of those "just in case" clauses, but it's there.

But any writer should be very careful about who he recommends to his agent.

[katdad]

I have a clause in my contract that says I can't read unpublished work sent to me by other writers.
That's surprising. My contract makes no mention of this, and my agent's an AAR and Author's Guild signatory.

And my "angel" (a world renowned mystery writer) has gladly offered to read some of my first forays into mystery writing, and offered kind & helpful suggestions. I of course have no idea whether his own contract forbade this.

But I'll email him and ask him, just to find out, and let you know.

[SRHowen]

my contract also makes no mention of this. But it is an easy scape goat isn't it? My contract says I can't read your work.

And my agent is also an AAR member on their royalty board.

Shawn

[Jamesaritchie]

I know I replied to this post, but it's gone, or I just can't find it, so I'll reply again.

This isn't a standard clause, and I know maybe three or four or five other writers who have it in their contracts. It's just something my agent and I both thought a good idea.

It's there for two reasons. We thought it might help guard against those writers I've never heard of, but who insist on sending me things that show up in my e-mail or at my door. They then threaten a lawsuit if I write something that's even in the same genre.

It's also a very good way of saying "No" in those times when, for whatever reason, you really don't want to read someone's manuscript. I don't mind occasionally reading the work of a writer I know, but when someone I've just met shoves a 250,000 manuscript at me and says, "Will you please read this," I can truthfully say, "Sorry, my contract has a clause stating that I can't."

[macalicious731]

So James, just out of curiosity, would you be able to read unpublished work not specifically sent to you? Ie, something posted on the SYW board?

[maestrowork]

James brought up a good point, though.

[Please pardon the thread drift... but it's my thread, so I'm allowed... :-) ]

What if you read someone's ms., and this person really is not very good, even a lousy writer, but he has a killer idea and a very good story? But he can't write if his life depends on it. What would you do?

a) tell him to take some time off, learn the craft, then come back and rewrite the fantastic story?

b) offer to work with him (as in co-authoring)?

c) offer to book doctor for him? Or ghost write for him for a good fee?

d) tell him to find a ghost writer?

e) tell a white lie and tell him to start submitting it?

The best way to avoid this situation is of course never read someone's ms unless it's someone you know who can write...

[Gala]

this person really is not very good, even a lousy writer, but he has a killer idea and a very good story? But he can't write if his life depends on it.

The best way to avoid this situation is of course never read someone's ms unless it's someone you know who can write...

This must be very difficult for you as one who has set themselves up as able to critique other's work and moderates the SYW board.

Too often in history people have decided they know if others have talent. Often, these are teachers, editors and publishers, and idiots in critique groups. They're easy to spot because they thrive on gossiping about how terrible writers are. (and they usually have lit or eng degrees of some sort.)

But I digress. If a person loves any artistic endeavor, if they get joy from it, they can develop some craft.

I have read manuscripts that were rife with poor syntax, story dev, and boring plot. But I, yes lil' 'ol me, have the ability to see through all of that and have done so. I can often spot talent beneath those technical distractions. It it a good story? Ok. There's promise. If only some of the "good" writers out there had great stories.

If the writer is open to it, I give him editing tasks, and studying tasks. I don't lay everything on him at once; I give him enough to handle without overwhelming him. In one case I didn't hear from the person again (but money and time were also issues). In most cases the author thanks me and does the work. Homework separates the men from the boys.

Lawrence Block talks of a friend who quit his day job and announced he was going to write a novel. He alerted Block to talk to his agent. The writer sat down a typed a novel, a bad one. Larry suggested he pursue another career, an easier one...something like that.

The guy's second novel was better, but still not good.

Third novel was set for publication. There ya go.

Anyone who wants to write novels will do so, no matter what it takes, no matter what others tell them. Let them decide to give up--there are enough obstacles w/o being told they suck. Who needs that in life?

I'm trying to hide my anger here, and my anger has nothing to do with any of you. It is the unpublished novelists and writers, and the under-published novelists, who think they have some idea of what prospective novelists should do.

The ability to spot talent is far afield from the ability to write one's own novel, though for obvious reasons the two overlap.

Most agents, editors and publishers are not novelists (thank god) but they can spot the chemistry (often) of a good story teller who has craft potential.

I have more experience with those who think they know who's good and who isn't than I'd like, hence the soapbox. No one has every told me I'm anything but a good writer, but I've been told I wasn't "designed" for other careers in my youth...they were wrong wrong wrong.
---
The best way to avoid this situation is of course never read someone's ms unless it's someone you know who can write...
I find it impossible to know what I'm dealing with unless I read a little of their work. Or do you suggest telepathy? ;)

[Jamesaritchie]

I have read manuscripts that were rife with poor syntax, story dev, and boring plot. But I, yes lil' 'ol me, have the ability to see through all of that and have done so. I can often spot talent beneath those technical distractions. It it a good story? Ok. There's promise. If only some of the "good" writers out there had great stories

So can I, when there's something worth spotting. Most of the time there isn't, and that's just the plain truth. I don't care if they get instrution from God, and spend the next forty years wandering around the desert, writing the whole way, the majority of wannabe writers out there are never going to see the promised land of publishdom.

I know all about the Lawrence Block story, and I've seen the same thing happen. And for every time I've seenit happen, I've seen a thousand times where it isn't ever going to happen.

And a surprising number of editors and agents are novelists, and thank God for it. They almost always make the best editors and agents, in my opinion. I've yet to work with a really good editor who wasn't also a writer of some sort, though I know there are some out there.

Being able to spot talent is what good editors do, and being able to spot the lack of it. I often can't tell whether or not a new writer will make it, but I can nearly always tell when he won't. Any good editor can. Efditors don't only spot talent amd potential talent, they also spot lack of talent and can see when a writer simply isn't going anywhere. You can't do one without being able to do the other.

I'm not sure you ever have to tell anyone they suck at writing, but doing so would be the kindest cut of all in many cases. Many who try writing do suck, and always will, the same as many who try any field. There's nothing kind about pretending everyone has the potential to succeed as a writer. It simply isn't true, and being able to spot talent and being able to write absolutely do go hand in hand.

And it's fine to help a new writer. I've tried to help quite a few. But there's a limit to the numbers I can help one on one, a very sharp limit, and there are many I simply can't help. And believe me, I can tell a writer with potential from one who simply isn't going to make it barring an act of God.

[maestrowork]

I hope your anger is not directed at me. It was just a question.

I never said anything about talent. Talent and skills are different. When I first started to write, I was a lousy writer. I publically admit it. It didn't mean I got no talent -- I just didn't have the skills I needed. Lousy I was.

But the truth is some people truly don't have any talent. I can't pretend that they do. It might be a PC thing to say everyone can be a good writer, but I won't say it.

As for the SYW, I can tell you that I'm the "Work with them and show them what I've learned over the years" type. I don't claim to know everything and definitely I myself have a lot to learn. I don't expect others to listen to me as gospel -- most often I put a disclaimer saying that it's just my opinion, and nothing more.

Also, I don't read every post, or comment on them. As moderator, I am to make sure people play nice in that forum, and no inappropriate things go on there. Sometimes I comment on people's WIP because I see where I can help. I don't say anything if I don't know the answer. Sometimes I do it because I hate to see someone put their heart and soul out there and no one is criting it. That makes me unhappy.

The best way to avoid this situation is of course never read someone's ms unless it's someone you know who can write...

In case you haven't noticed, that statement is "tongue in cheek."

[Jamesaritchie]

So James, just out of curiosity, would you be able to read unpublished work not specifically sent to you? Ie, something posted on the SYW board?

Yes, and I can also read work someone gives me. As I mentioned, this is not a clause that's enforced, it's a just in case clause.

I have friends who are writers, and I read their work frequently. I also occasionally read work when someone I meet on a forum asks me to, if the times is available to do so.

But like any full-time writer, my time is very limited. Those who don;t write, and even many who write part-time, think a full-time writer has an abundance of free time, and it usually just isn't so.

Sometimes I'll go a couple of months with a good deal of free time, and I use it on forums, or reading other writer's work, or relaxing, reading, whatever. But there are also times when I'll go six straight months with something that needs to be done from get up to go down.

I'm about three weeks from one of those busy periods right now, and I'm sorta looking forward to it. I already have as much work lined up for 2005 as I've done in the last three years put together.

[Jamesaritchie]

What if you read someone's ms., and this person really is not very good, even a lousy writer, but he has a killer idea and a very good story? But he can't write if his life depends on it. What would you do?

a) tell him to take some time off, learn the craft, then come back and rewrite the fantastic story?

b) offer to work with him (as in co-authoring)?

c) offer to book doctor for him? Or ghost write for him for a good fee?

d) tell him to find a ghost writer?

e) tell a white lie and tell him to start submitting it?

I don't believe in killer ideas. Ideas are a dime a dozen, and no idea is any better than the writer trying to turn it into something useful. And I don't think you can really have a good story without at least competent writing.

But I always do two things, if I see any potential at all. I tell the writer to work harder at the craft, and try to show where and how and what needs improvement. And if it's in my power, I edit the manuscript. If he wishes, I'll even rewrite a short story, or a substantial portion of the novel, just to show him how I think it would best be done.

This rewriting is for demonstration purposes only, never to say my writing is the best way. He can keep what he likes, or discard everything. The idea is to help the writer find his own voice, not yours.

There's never a need to co-author. If he can't write, I don't need him. I have more ideas and more stories than I'll use in a hundred years.

And I don't think it's a good thing when ghostwriters work this way. Such ghostwriting usually means taking a wannabe writer's money for nothing.

But if the person really can't write at all, if he is truly lousy, there's nothing useful to tell him, and no real way to help him. In such cases I just tell the truth. I tell the writer there's nothing I can do to help, to work hard, read much, write everyday, and see me again in a year or two.

[mr mistook]

I think fasion and plain old opinion account for a whole lot more than anybody's admitting out here when it comes to the question of "talent".


If Picasso were trying his best to paint like DaVinci, then we could all agree, he failed miserably. We could say that Picasso's work was so pathetically far from adequate that he must quit painting forever.

If Picasso simply rebelled against DaVinci, and painted things in a childish way because that was the best he could do, and if he then proclaimed himself to be a genius, we could at least congratulate him for his courage, but we could blow him off as a hack with a loud mouth.

The truth is, Picasso mastered the style of DaVinci before moving on to develop cubism. Therefore he is very much a genius, because every line in the painting is done with both inspiration and authority.

In the end it's the same damn painting we're talking about. The final judgement depends on who is viewing it, and what they know about Picasso.

[Gala]

I've seen a thousand times where it isn't ever going to happen.
You've seen a lot more than I have. Thanks for sharing.

Some years ago, a woman was invited to join my then critique group. Her writing needed work in every way. Her idea was good, her passion strong so, I'll admit, we tolerated her.

Last year she joined my writing workshop. Long-short: I had to get rid of her. She didn't write, didn't listen, brought in drawings, disrupted the group.

She called me last week. Now it's years since I first met her. She's in the same place writing wise. I advised her as before: "If it's taking you 15 years as you say to write the first installment, you should focus on a form expression that is not so difficult for you."

She says she is destined to do this work, no matter how long it takes. Who am I to say not? Even so I'm not obligated to continue helping her. In fact she taught me I am way too tolerant. She lacks talent sure; worse--she won't do any work. She seems to think it's gonna fall out of the sky.


In the beginning and middle of the years I gave her benefit of doubt due to her degrees, including an MFA in creativity. I don't help her any longer, even talking on the phone or the grocery store about writing. She wants to have written that's clear.

So yeah, some people aren't meant to be writers. I've never been good at telling people, "you're fired". My way is to guide them to that conclusion, and if they don't get it shortly, sever that part of relationship.
====
I figured God would post very shortly and brag about his ability to know who has talent and who doesn't and never will. I wasn't banking Him knowing thousands of times though. God is busy. Nothing personal, God. We all know what we know. I feel this "knowing" about musicians on occasion, but even the ones lacking talent who do a bit of work can play in certain groups. I've found the same with writers.

Not everyone that wants to be a published novelist gets to be one. But if a person has passion, I consider it my duty to help them focus that passion where it can best be expressed. If only more people had the gift of passion!

[katdad]

I asked my agent about this clause, forbidding the reading of someone else's work.

We agreed that the purpose of this is ostensibly to prevent the author from accidentally absorbing an idea or concept, then later using it, making him susceptible to lawsuit.

This is why most production companies will not even read an unsolicited script, and will return it unread (or trash it).

Anyway, my agent said she had heard of this clause but it was quite rare and never heard of any problems arising from the misuse of it. The clause is certainly not part of any AAR-signatory boilerplate contract for representation.

And she said she trusted me not to rip off anyone else anyway.

I of course responded that I'm such a GOOD writer that it would be a step down to do so anyway. Ha ha.

Seriously -- she understood the intent of the clause but thought it was unnecessary.

[katdad]

but he has a killer idea .... etc
First of all, I have no problem with reading excerpts sent by friends or acquaintances who genuinely ask for my feedback.

I'm very happy to do so if I have the time. Nowdays however I'm essentially on deadline and can only afford to read a chapter or two at most.

What do I do? I'm honest with the person and straightforward, but try to also be kind.

I recommend the novice learn the ropes, learn typography, composition, and so on.

I also suggest that the person read a LOT of the genre the sample is from. It's helped me to read detective fiction as I have developed my own voice in that area.

I would not consider a joint venture. I simply don't want to be a ghost writer or a hack for someone else. I tried a cooperative effort a few years ago between an artist. She wanted the book written and I spent many hours preparing and researching the subject, only to have her get cold feet and quit the project. So I'm not very amenable to joint projects.

What I've found is that people normally accept criticism, if it's delivered properly. I've taught too many classes and conducted too many seminars not to have learned those skills.

So, in short. Yes I'm happy to read excerpts from a friend's work, and offer some helpful criticism.

[maestrowork]

Same here. I'm in a crit group now and I treat my group as family and I read their work with great interest and their writings inspire me to write better. At the same time, I'm glad that I can help them whenever I can.

As for steeling ideas, I think there's a genuine concern among some people because it happens and authors/publisher/movie studio gets sued. But it's rare enough... and most self-respecting writers would never steel. Besides, a simple idea can also spawn many different things. There is a line between inspiration and outright plagiarism, however.

[Jamesaritchie]

Anyway, my agent said she had heard of this clause but it was quite rare and never heard of any problems arising from the misuse of it. The clause is certainly not part of any AAR-signatory boilerplate contract for representation.

And she said she trusted me not to rip off anyone else anyway.


It isn't about trust. My agent trusts me and I trust her, or we wouldn't be working together. It also isn't about stealing someone's work, it's about what happens if you're accused of stealing it, and this can happen to any professional writer at any time.

The clause deals specifically with unsolicited work, meaning work that writers I don't know send to me out of the blue, either by snail mail, e-mail, or in person. The clause can help me, and can help my agent, should someone take something like this to court.

I learned a long time ago that there is no such thing as a "boilerplate" contract. New writers usually sign whatever contract is given them, and this probably isn't a bad thing, as long as it's with a reputable agent, but a "boilerplate" contract is just a starting point, and many things are negotiable.

My agent removed one standard clause from our contract, and added added one other, and modified yet a third in addition to the one I've been talking about. One clause deals with money, and the other deals with what happens should my agent and I decide to go our separate ways.

These clauses and modifictaions were my idea. One reason such clauses are so rare is because writers generally accept contracts, rather than negotiating them. New writers usually have little choice in the matter, I blindly signed my first contract, but more experienced, selling writers can and should make sure the contract is as much to their benefit as possible, and negotiation is a perfectly acceptable way of doing this.

[vstrauss]

>>It also isn't about stealing someone's work, it's about what happens if you're accused of stealing it, and this can happen to any professional writer at any time.<<

I agree. It has nothing to do with stealing. As with the waiver that screenplay agents and production companies require writers to sign when they submit, it's a way of protecting yourself from frivolous lawsuits.

- Victoria

[pdr]

Wasn't playwright Arthur Miller taken to the cleaners by one person who once sent him a play script? I think the story goes that it was a deliberate attempt to obtain money and the script was an appalling mishmash of every possible theme! Miller was sued for plagiarism. Does anyone know if this is true?

[HConn]

Re: Killer ideas:

Watt-Evans' Law of Literary Creation: (http://www.watt-evans.com/lawsoffantasy.html) There is no idea so stupid or hackneyed that a sufficiently-talented writer can't get a good story out of it.

Feist's Corollary: There is no idea so brilliant or original that a sufficiently-untalented writer can't screw it up. (Raymond Feist came up with this one in response to my ''Law of Literary Creation.'')

[maestrowork]

Then isn't it ironic that an agent/editor would only look at the story/plot in a query to determine if the project/author is worthy of pursuit?

[HConn]

If you're talking about query letters, isn't a writer's ability to compose decent sentences demonstrated by the letter itself?

[maestrowork]

It is, but it isn't. Obviously if you can't write a decent letter and synopsis, you're an automatic out. But even when you do, you always get those "not for me" or "not interested in this story" type of rejections.

[HConn]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Those "automatic outs" are valuable. They're similar to the cover and jacket copy of a unpublished manuscript--it lets the person decide whether they want to read it or not. Does the story sound interesting? Is it presented with a reassuring competence?

It's not a guarantee that it'll be accepted, but there are no guarantees. I've certainly disliked books that were well-written and had plot summaries that sounded compelling.

[Jamesaritchie]

Watt-Evans' Law of Literary Creation: There is no idea so stupid or hackneyed that a sufficiently-talented writer can't get a good story out of it.

Feist's Corollary: There is no idea so brilliant or original that a sufficiently-untalented writer can't screw it up. (Raymond Feist came up with this one in response to my ''Law of Literary Creation.'')

I've never heard these, but they're true. Funny how a good law always seems to have a corollary that backs it up. You come up with a good law, Feist finds the Corollary.

[Jamesaritchie]

Then isn't it ironic that an agent/editor would only look at the story/plot in a query to determine if the project/author is worthy of pursuit?

Actually, many agents who say "Query only" will look at partials.

But obviously agents and editors don't make decisions about buying anything from a query letter. No agent and no editor can tell how well you write fiction from a query letter.

In truth, most ideas and plots you find in query letters seem pretty much the same, so unless the idea and plot are really poorly presented, this is seldom the deciding factor in saying "yes" to a query letter.

Editors and agents can tell whether or not you can write legible sentences, whether or not you make sure everything is spelled correctly and all the grammar and punctuation is in place. They can tell whether or not you can present an idea in an interesting manner. It's presentation, not specific idea or plot, that usually grabs attention.

They can also tell whether or not you've done your homework, meaning whether or not the query is aimed at a specific agent or editor, instead of being a generic query with a different name stuck at the top.

And the biggie, they can tell whether or not you have a track record.

As I've heard more than one editor, and even some professional writers say, a query letter isn't really a tool for finding those who can write good fiction, it's a tool that lets an agent or editor quickly and efficiently reject those who can't even get this much right.

Even the best query letter doesn't sell anything, and the vast majority of writers who receive a "yes" to a query letter still receive a "no" to the manuscript.

But query letters cut down greatly on how many bad manuscripts an agent or editor has to wade through.

[katdad]

New writers usually have little choice in the matter (etc.)
I'm by no means a new writer but this recent contract I signed with the agency is my first contract for representation I've had in a while.

I also added a clause to the contract, an amendment in the clause about copying fees, where the agency charges x-amount per page. I can get copies made a lot cheaper since I know someone here in the biz, so I modified the contract to allow the agency & me to use my own copies as an alternate source. They said "fine" and that they didn't care so long as the copies were on time as needed. By the way, their per-page fee is exactly what Kinkos charges so they aren't making money on the deal.

The rest of my contract is placid. It describes my specific novels, the agency name and my name, addresses and such. It says that the dollar amounts & sales are confidential.

It gives the agency 15% of whatever the book(s) make, and that they will pay me the balance within 7 days.

It allows 30 days for either party to dissolve the contract, and it lets the agency continue to earn royalties, etc. from any sales it made while representing me, even after the contract is terminated.

It says the agency will keep me informed of all negotiations and contacts with publishers.

It's written in clear and understandable English, legalese kept to a minimum. Nothing about my reading other writers' works.

Pretty standard contract, similar to others I've had. 2 pages nicely spaced.

So I signed the thing.

[katdad]

Actually, many agents who say "Query only" will look at partials. (etc)
Agreed. I've included a brief 2-page outline of my mystery novels along with query letters and never had any negative feedback.

I don't think it's a problem to send a VERY brief 1-2 page description of your project.

What agencies who say "query only" do NOT want is a thick envelope showing up if they didn't ask for it. It takes them time to simply send it back, assuming there's a SASE included.

As for an agency rejecting solely on the query? Maybe not the most perfect system but what's a busy agency to do? A legit agency won't charge reading fees and is swamped enough (assuming the agency is a decent one) taking care of existing clients.

I've had queries given a "TBNT" not based on my content but that the agency is full up. They've often said "try back in 6 months".

As I see it, this is good. A sham agency will take on all comers and then squeeze the naive wannabees with placement fees and redirections to Edit.Inc and so on. A legit agency may simply be too busy to take time to carefully consider new clients.

And another point. The query letter DOES tell a lot. Take a look at some of the queries you've seen submitted here -- misspellings, bad structure, lack of clarity, etc.

People who ask me about a query, I tell them it's like a resume you're sending to a company, applying for a job. You won't get the job on the basis of the resume but you'll get an interview if the job is a good match and the company thinks you look okay, based on that resume. A foot in the door, as it were.

Astounding some of the query letters I received while I was a division manager for a computer software firm. They may as well have been written in crayon. Misspellings, bad grammar, sloppy typography.

No, I wan't hiring English majors, but if the person didn't have sufficient language skills to write a simple resume, I doubted the wisdom of hiring the person. If someone is "challenged" in these things, it's a good idea to let a sharp pal look the resume over and fix it up. That at least indicates enterprise.

For example, although the particular language is now "legacy", Cobol was once very popular. We were engineering & scientific, and we only used Fortran, C, C++, as well as Unix OS, but I would stilll get resumes (and cold phone calls) asking whether I needed a "Cobalt" programmer.

"No, sorry. We're full up on cobalt programmers. Got any manganese programming skills? How about tungsten?"

[maestrowork]

:lol good thing I know Java, and have never heard someone ask, "And you want a biscotti to go with that?"

[Jamesaritchie]

It gives the agency 15% of whatever the book(s) make, and that they will pay me the balance within 7 days.

This was something I had modified. The clause in my contract originally read something like, "Balance to be paid within six weeks." This seemed a little too long for me, so I asked for this to be changed, and it was.

And I'll reiterate, the clause about not reading published writing wasn't in my contract, either. I asked that it be put in.

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about copying fees with this agent. She has a high tech copier in her office that spits out copies in nothing flat and for an incredibly low price. Cheap enough that she doesn't even worry about the cost.

My agent also has a division in Hollywood, and one abroad, and the contract mentions these, as well, so this makes it a bit longer and more complicated than other contracts I've had.

[Jamesaritchie]

What agencies who say "query only" do NOT want is a thick envelope showing up if they didn't ask for it. It takes them time to simply send it back, assuming there's a SASE included.

Actually, a goodly number of agents who say "query only" will look at the first three chapters and an outline. You just have to know who these agents are, and ask when in doubt.

[SRHowen]

My agent also has a division in Hollywood, and one abroad, and the contract mentions these, as well, so this makes it a bit longer and more complicated . . .

My agent has contacts in all those places as well.

Shawn

[Jamesaritchie]

My agent has contacts in all those places as well.

I think it can help. One of the reasons I went with this agency was because they have offices in several cities around the world, and an agent or three who specializes in any form of writing.

[SRHowen]

sigh, well now everyone knows who my agent is--oh well. Let the weird e-mails begin.

LOL

Shawn

[katdad]

I think you were correct in modifying that 6 week delay before you get paid. That seems excessive. The 7 day turnaround on my contract is reasonable, and about what most other agencies have.

The 7-cents/page my agency charges for copying is fairly standard, and that is about what Kinkos will come to if you run the copies off there.

Good that your agent has a fast copier -- a definite plus.

To comment on the general thread: A new writer should definitely question any clause in a contract that seems odd. It may be benign or it may not. If an agency won't consider a reasonable change, I'd suspect the situation.

When I checked with my agency about the copying fee, I was apprehensive (I naturally didn't want to hack off a new agent from the beginning), so I took it very easy and asked "around the edges".

But she immediately said "Get lost, newbie!" (just kidding)

She seemed actually surprised that I brought up such a teeny issue, and said "Sure. Go for it, We don't care how the copies get here, just so they're clean and on time for our needs."

Frankly, I've been treated VERY nicely by this agency, top down. They have answered all my questions, have responded promptly via email, phone, or snailmail, and have not given me the slightest negative feedback.

Of course it now remains for them to place my novel, but hey, that's the biz.

I look at it this way -- and I don't think I'm being naive -- here's this AAR & Author's Guild signatory agency who were recommended to me by one of their clients. They have sold his books and optioned his scripts, too.

They took plenty of time evaluating my books, and had clear and reasonable feedback.

They have signed me to a very straightforward contract, and thus far I have not shelled out a red cent for any reading fee, evaluation fee, etc.

So I'm out nothing except for getting a pal to run off some copies for me at 3 cents/page, and a few bucks FedEx ground.

This agency is a small one (4 agents) and (as required by AAR), has a modest sell list and a few fairly popular books. I've seen two of their clients' books hawked on network shows. They must be doing something right.

And it's kinda hard for a non-fee charging agency to stay in business for 17 years without selling enough books to keep the doors open.

Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I'll know eventually. And I will share news of my success or lack of it with everyone.

[Jamesaritchie]

One thing every writer should do is make sure the contract spells out what happens if you and you agent part AFTER that agent/agency has sold some of your novels. This can be crucial.

[katdad]

what happens if you and you agent part

Boy do I second that remark!

We had a recent posting from someone whose contract stipulated perpetual rights on behalf of the agent. Jeez.

My contract clearly states that the agency ONLY has claim to property that was sold by the agency when they were my agent, and that such contracts for payment of royalties, etc. in that contract stays with the agency even if we split.

This is logical and correct. Beware of any "perpetual" property agreements.

[Jamesaritchie]

My contract clearly states that the agency ONLY has claim to property that was sold by the agency when they were my agent, and that such contracts for payment of royalties, etc. in that contract stays with the agency even if we split.

This is logical and correct. Beware of any "perpetual" property agreements.

If there's a new sale of one of those novels to a different publisher, or if new rights are sold that the orginal agent had no part in, they shoudln't be paid anyhing.

Soem agents want to be a part of a book they've handled for the rest of their lives, even if the book has been out of print, and is then picked up by a new publisher through a new agent.

No book should be paying royalties to two agents for the same rights.

[vstrauss]

Once you get a book contract, you also need to look carefully at the Agent of Record clause. At least one major agency has begun inserting perpetual representation language into these clauses.

More info here: www.sfwa.org/news/contractalert.htm (http://www.sfwa.org/news/contractalert.htm)

- Victoria

[katdad]

If there's a new sale of one of those novels to a different publisher, or if new rights are sold that the orginal agent had no part in, they shoudln't be paid anyhing.

Correct. My contract properly specifies that the agency only gets money for sales they made for me while we had a contract. Of course, royalties paid out for that original sale still accrue to them, as they should.

Oh by the way, while signing my contract, I asked my agent about the 7 day delay for payment of my part of the dough (the 85%). She said that normally they can do an EFT if I wish, and can get me the money 1 day after the agency gets paid from the publisher (or when the publisher's check clears).

For those of you who may not know the process, when you get a sale to a publisher thru your agent, the publisher pays the agent the full amount, the agent takes their 15% (or whatever), and passes the 85% on to you as quick as feasible. That's a standard procedure. So if you're not familiar with this, don't get scared if you see this described in the contract with your agency.

In other words, the agent gets the money first, goes to the nearest casino, puts it all on Red, and hopes it comes out okay. ha ha