The Value of Agents (was Pet Peeve #1)

[wqw]

This is the start of my list of pet peeves about agents' and publishers' rules for submissions. Sorry if it overlaps what others have said.

1. "No simultaneous submissions."

Let me start by stating that I understand this rule. No one wants to find themselves in a bidding war on a manuscript. Got it. But with the thousands (?) of queries that go out in a day or a week, the odds of a bidding war for a particular manuscript is ridiculously high.

Okay, the first and most obvious point is- How the hell will they know? I mean, seriously. It's a silly demand. And it seems to be a demand. What are they going to do? Turn you down because they get a call from their source in another agency referencing the query they just fell in love with? It's almost insulting because it's so unrealistic.

Second, think what it says about what they think of writers. They think I am going to sit around and wait the requisite 2-4 weeks for each individual query response before mailing out the next one. And my life expectancy is steadily increasing to 200, and I don't mind waiting until I'm 150 before my first acceptance.

Third, as usual, those who follow the rules are penalized. There are those exceptionally good-hearted and polite folks who will hate to think they are violating the rules (so earnestly stipulated by every agent and publisher) and will do the 2-4 week (or greater) wait. It is a shame to insist on a rule that they KNOW they cannot in any way, shape or form verify, just to punish the virtuous. (I do not include myself in that group.)

And last(ly), there is the most subtle and insidious group of all, those who "accept simultaneous submissions" if they're notified. So, here we have a little honesty test for us would-be's. They know full well we are sending simultaneously, but they want to hear us say it. Except this is a very small % of the total, so if we're notifying them, we're either sending to the others who accept simultaneous subs, OR we are obviously breaking the rules of the vast majority who don't want them, meaning we are almost definitely dishonest in some fashion. And then when all the agents and publishers get together for the Tuesday meetings, this small, elite group can share this information with the others and unmask us, and blacklist us, keep us down, stop us criticizing their cabal. This is my first pet peeve...

[Silver King]

Lest anyone thinks this is a flounce in the making, I'm going to scour the forums and find a better place for this thoughtful missive.

Be right back, and the rest of you be NICE.

[Silver King]

This looks like the right place.

Peeve away. :)

[ChaosTitan]

"No simultaneous submissions" refers to actual submission of written materials, such as partials or fulls. Not queries. Queries are a whole other animal. Agents know authors send out queries in batches, they expect it and would be foolish not to. So rest easy and send out those queries.

On the other hand, the rare agent might say "no simultaneous queries." It is very rare indeed, but it does happen.

[Billingsgate]

Both agents and publishers admonish "No simultaneous submissions!!!" But agents I've worked with always send queries or full MSS of my work out to several publishers at once. In one case a publisher responded right away to the agent, asked "Who else has got this?" (as if they expected it was on several editors' desks at once) and swiftly sent over a contract. So, are agents exempt from this rule? Are only US writers such lowly, contemptible beings that only we must raise our hands to speak, or send out one submission at a time?

[jchines]

My agent submitted to three publishers at once; I believe that's standard practice.

Likewise, I queried at least 30 agents, none of whom required exclusivity on queries. And only one of the agents who requested the full asked for an exclusive.

[Will Lavender]

Both agents and publishers admonish "No simultaneous submissions!!!" But agents I've worked with always send queries or full MSS of my work out to several publishers at once. In one case a publisher responded right away to the agent, asked "Who else has got this?" (as if they expected it was on several editors' desks at once) and swiftly sent over a contract. So, are agents exempt from this rule? Are only US writers such lowly, contemptible beings that only we must raise our hands to speak, or send out one submission at a time?

Yes, different rules apply there. A publisher, when they are given the work by an agent, works under the assumption that the novel is out to many other publishers at the same time. This is the benefit of having an agent. And it can be a leveraging tool: if you want it, you better make a decision...

And I'm not sure what the OP is peeving about. Writers should feel free to query as many agents as they want, right?

[Jamesaritchie]

First, "no simultaneous submissions has nothing to do with queries. You can send out as many queries at one time as you like. Though I think it's just plain dumb to send out a bunch at one time.

I can't for the life of me understand why any writer thinks simultaneous submissions are a good idea in any area. Just about the only thing a writer gains by going this route is a record number of rejections in record time.

What they usually think about writers is that most of us are smart enough to know that simultaneous submissions are not a good idea for anyone concerned, including the writer. Especially for the writer.

The best way to land an agent, or an editor, is to do your research, pick and choose wisely, and then write a query that's perfect for that agent or editor. Should that agent or editor say no, you then have the opportunity to write a different query that's perfect for a different agent or editor.

Whether dealing with queries, partials, or fulls, numbers do not land agents or editors, quality does. And part of quality is not sending out shotgun, one size fits all queries or manuscripts.

When you send out a bunch of queries at the same time, or a bunch of partials at the same time, what you send had better be perfect because you just lost several opportunities to make changes. Send out ten, and if they all receive a no, you just lost nine chances to make changes that might have made the difference to one of these agents.

I'd also add this. It's a truly stupid idea to begin a serious relationship by lying to the person you're having the relationship with. Don't pretend you're following an agent's wishes, if you have no intention of doing so. At least be honest enough to admit that you're sending out simultaneous submissions.

If you want an acceptance, then do your homework, pick the right agent, and write something worth accepting.

And forget about waiting. You aren't supposed to be waiting for anything. You're supposed to be writing.

[Will Lavender]

And forget about waiting. You aren't supposed to be waiting for anything. You're supposed to be writing.

Good advice here.

In fact, it's advice I wish I would have taken. I signed my contract, waited until summer began...and really struggled to pull a legitimate second novel together in the short time I had given myself.

IMO, the best thing you can do when you get an agent? The way to celebrate? Begin another book.

[ORION]

I will disagree with James here. I did send queries out in batches of 10 at a time and yes I got many rejections on my first novel but I also continued to write and by the time I was querying LOTTERY (my third novel) I was already working on my fourth.
I don't think it is efficacious to sent one query letter at a time and wait for the response before sending another and yes you SHOULD be continually writing your next project.
I think querying different projects allowed me to see from the get go that something was special about LOTTERY.
But YANNO everybody has a different idea on what works - You have to listen to those who obtained representation and whose work sold and is published IMHO.

[victoriastrauss]

Both agents and publishers admonish "No simultaneous submissions!!!" But agents I've worked with always send queries or full MSS of my work out to several publishers at once.This is one of many reasons why it's a good idea to have an agent, if your goal is one of the larger publishers: agents aren't subject to the "no sumultaneous submissions" rule.

- Victoria

[Will Lavender]

I will disagree with James here. I did send queries out in batches of 10 at a time and yes I got many rejections on my first novel but I also continued to write and by the time I was querying LOTTERY (my third novel) I was already working on my fourth.
I don't think it is efficacious to sent one query letter at a time and wait for the response before sending another and yes you SHOULD be continually writing your next project.
I think querying different projects allowed me to see from the get go that something was special about LOTTERY.
But YANNO everybody has a different idea on what works - You have to listen to those who obtained representation and whose work sold and is published IMHO.

I agree.

James says it's dumb to send a bunch at a time.

But I'm not sure why.

(However: what qualifies as "a bunch"?)

I queried in batches of about 10 as well. You're not doing a service to the novel if you don't put it out there a lot. I got agents right away who said, "You know, this is a great idea and I would love to take this on but I don't have the time..." I took that as an affirmation of the sale-ability of my story. Yet it took those agents sometimes months to respond. I had one big-time agent tell me how many queries he received on top of the clients he already had. Can't remember the exact number, but it was staggering.

If you sit back and query in little doses, you could have a good, marketable manuscript that goes unrepped for a hell of a long time. In a perfect world, you'd get bites right away and have no problem getting representation. (It took me two months, maybe.) But the fact of the matter is that competition is FIERCE; gotta stack the deck in your favor. Have to play the odds if you believe in the work.

[Julie Worth]

This question comes up constantly.
The answer is to ignore the "no simultaneous" statements. Ignore questions about where and with whom you've submitted, if you possibly can. Don't agree to exclusives unless you're desperate, and then only on the full MS, where the time frame is reasonably short. And don't send out a synopsis unless it's required. In fact, don't send an agent anything that isn't required.

[ORION]

Yeah!!!!!Julie!!!!! You GO girl.
What she says...

[wqw]

First, let me point out that this rant was originally in the "Office Pool" room and was supposed to be humorous. It was moved here by one of the moderators, which is cool, that's their job, and I appreciate someone taking the time. So I'm glad because I've learned some things here, but am still somewhat confused.

"No simultaneous submissions" doesn't refer to queries, okay, if that's the consensus, because I'm still not sure it is. But if so, then it is still them rigging the game in their favor, and it's nonenforceable. If I am fortunate enough to receive 2 contract offers, I will go with the better one. They don't have to know that, and this is business. You play your cards close to your chest. My point all along was that they will never know what we do or whom we submit to. Until we sign the contract, agent or publisher, it's our ball to play as we wish.

As for multiple queries, I don't get the concept of waiting on any level. Sure it takes a while to write each one, and if you print out 10 quickly you'll increase the odds of making a mistake. But most of us have a goal of being published. It's one of the reasons we write. I'll tell you what my goal is not, and that's researching the other books some agent or editor has worked on so I can include flattery about how I know their work. That's my Pet Peeve # 2, soon to come...

[victoriastrauss]

I'll tell you what my goal is not, and that's researching the other books some agent or editor has worked on so I can include flattery about how I know their work. That's my Pet Peeve # 2, soon to come...The point of this kind of research isn't flattery. If you don't research an agent's track record, or make sure that a publisher is actually marketing and distributing its books, you are likely to a) wind up with a scammer or amateur, or b) query someone completely inappropriate.

Not so funny.

- Victoria

[Will Lavender]

"No simultaneous submissions" doesn't refer to queries, okay, if that's the consensus, because I'm still not sure it is. But if so, then it is still them rigging the game in their favor, and it's nonenforceable. If I am fortunate enough to receive 2 contract offers, I will go with the better one. They don't have to know that, and this is business. You play your cards close to your chest. My point all along was that they will never know what we do or whom we submit to. Until we sign the contract, agent or publisher, it's our ball to play as we wish.

Not sure what you mean by "contract offers." Are you talking about agents in this paragraph? I'm confused.

[Azraelsbane]

If I am fortunate enough to receive 2 contract offers, I will go with the better one.



Contract offers? Ha! I'd be happy if someone just asked for a damn partial. ;)


And yeah, when they say simultaneous submissions they're not talking about queries.

[talps]

You can send out as many queries at one time as you like. Though I think it's just plain dumb to send out a bunch at one time.

Raise your hand if you feel like you were just called dumb...

<my hand shoots straight up>

Though I have but a year of the literary world under my belt, I also respectfully disagree with this. Most of aspiring writers are not in the position where our name in the return address line automatically makes our query great. We cannot possibly assume that if we fail with one query, we'll probably get it right on attempt #2 or #3. And just getting it wrong once doesn't conclusively mean it's a bad letter in need of work, it means that that agent didn't take to that letter. Others might.

I certainly agree that mass-mailings are self-sabotage, but I have to believe that my own routine - sending out 2 queries every 4 days - is far from dumb.

And since expecting rejection should be a writer's default setting, does it really matter how many come within a short time period? Isn't it perhaps better to have several in play & thus allow the writer even the simple illusion of hope?

I also think that given the growing number of agents who don't reply to email queries as their rejection, just waiting to hear back from one before sending another seems like a bad idea. Sure, you can assume that after a few weeks of silence you've been rejected. However, I recently got a request for 3 chapters on an email query submitted last April. Should I have waited for this to play out and perhaps send query #2 after the agent rejects the partial sometime in January?

Will said the following: "the fact of the matter is that competition is FIERCE; gotta stack the deck in your favor. Have to play the odds if you believe in the work." I subscribe to this as well. The more darts thrown, the better the chance at a bulls-eye. Still, you do need to exercise discretion. If a dozen query letters have flopped, sure rewrite it. But I don't think it's necessary to rewrite with every single rejection if you believe in your work.

[aadams73]

I'll tell you what my goal is not, and that's researching the other books some agent or editor has worked on so I can include flattery about how I know their work. That's my Pet Peeve # 2, soon to come...

No need. I think we get the picture.

[aadams73]

I certainly agree that mass-mailings are self-sabotage, but I have to believe that my own routine - sending out 2 queries every 4 days - is far from dumb.

And since expecting rejection should be a writer's default setting, does it really matter how many come within a short time period? Isn't it perhaps better to have several in play & thus allow the writer even the simple illusion of hope?


I think your method is probably not what James is talking about. There are, however, those who will fire out twenty or more queries at a time. IMHO that's just shooting yourself in the foot, because what if your query is ineffective? I send out just a few at a time, then adjust my query accordingly.

[Silver King]

First, let me point out that this rant was originally in the "Office Pool" room and was supposed to be humorous. It was moved here by one of the moderators, which is cool...
The humorous aspect escapes me, hence the move to a more suitable forum. You're in luck, though, since a number of fine writers and personalities, some of whom never enjoy a dip in the "Office Pool" and would've missed your thread, have joined the discussion here to offer advice.

[ChaosTitan]

"No simultaneous submissions" doesn't refer to queries, okay, if that's the consensus, because I'm still not sure it is.

It isn't about a consensus. It simply does not refer to queries. A query is a letter that basically says, "This is my project, this is what it's about, interested in reading it?" A submission is a chunk of the written work, be it three chapters, fifty pages, or the full manuscript.

Simul-sub rules tend to be for people who bypass the query stage and simply send out unrequested material (partials or fulls that the agent or editor hasn't specifically asked for).

They don't have to know that, and this is business.

It is a business, which is why many editors have the no simul-sub rule. Editors don't want to spend hours reading a submission, passing it along to co-workers, getting approval from TPTB, only to offer a contract and find out that another editor has it and the author is "waiting for them to respond." It's a fast way to make enemies and get a speedy "never mind" from the interested editor.

My point all along was that they will never know what we do or whom we submit to. Until we sign the contract, agent or publisher, it's our ball to play as we wish.

The funny this is, though, agents and editors do talk to each other. I wouldn't advocate any action that would get you labeled as dishonest, not when it's already so hard to get that elusive contract.

[wqw]

The humorous aspect escapes me, hence the move to a more suitable forum. You're in luck, though, since a number of fine writers and personalities, some of whom never enjoy a dip in the "Office Pool" and would've missed your thread, have joined the discussion here to offer advice.

The humorous aspect was where I was saying all the editors and agents get together on Tuesday night, etc. Also the idea of a rant on anything to me is funny, because of course when you attack a subject on 10 levels you'll be off the mark on 5. I missed the boat on simultaneous queries- I looked it back up and in the Literary Agents guide most of the descriptions say, "considers simultaneous queries." But no complaints and this has been educational, so thanks.

[Andrew Zack]

I never ask for an exclusive. What I do ask is that if you get an offer of representation or you accept such an offer, you let me know immediately. Then I can either rush the read and get back to you, or not waste my time reading something that is no longer available.

As for editors...editors who read something and are interested usually call the agent and let them know they are getting other reads. The agent then will probably call every other editor who has it and tell them to get on the stick. Some will. Many will immediately reject the book or tell you to take the other offer, because they either weren't enthusiastic about the pitch or they simply don't feel they have the time to do an overnight read and start beating the bushes in-house for permission to make an offer.

I find that with nonfiction proposals, letting folks know you have interest gets them reading. With fiction manuscripts, it usually gets them to read a chapter and let it go if they don't fall immediately in love with it. But if that "interest" doesn't turn into an offer—as happens often—you lose a little credibility with each editor you tried to rush with the news of that interest.

Z

[Kendra]

Unless one has an expected lifespan of 200, it doesn't make sense to send out just a single query. I haven't bothered with agents much, but when I did, I would spam out dozens of queries via email. I wouldn't bother with those who insisted on hard copy by snail mail. I signed a couple of contracts with non fee-charging agents. At that time, I thought a writer had to have an agent, to make it into the bigger houses. But that's not always the case. I've done it both ways, with and without agents. I suppose it's a matter of personal preference.

[wqw]

All summed up, what I'm trying to say is we are the artists here. We should be making the rules, but instead it is the process that eats us up, as we become steadily more cowed and "civilized" at each step by being expected to make the subtle little compromises it takes to move each step closer to the grand goal of being published. And who makes the rules? The clerks, the bean-counters, the sales-pitchmen, the shmoozers and "networkers"- you know, the people who took Revolution and turned it into a Nike ad. We are expected to kiss the asses of the very people who ultimately denigrate what we stand for, and it's just this kind of attitude that will keep me from getting published, won't it? Good thing I'm anonymous on this board.

[ORION]

I disagree. I have never had to kiss ass or be denigrated. I just had to write a great query and communicate what my book was about and my agent in turn had to do the same to make a sale. Everyone. From the "bean counters" (and by this I assume you mean marketing or sales) to the secretaries to the publicists have been more than kind. I do not think just by being an "artiste" it means the world should revolve around you. My book got published and I didn't have an "IN" with anyone.
I am not cowed.
The rules are actually made by the readers who buy books.
Oh.
And I am not anonymous. If someone wants to email me and discuss my views, they know where to find me.
Patricia@patriciawoodauthor.com

[Kendra]

Agents have made life a lot harder for writers. For one thing, they have done their level best to talk publishers into not accepting unagented submissions. So far, they have not been successful. Let's hope they never will be. Now so many of them are charging fees -- albeit in a sly way -- so what is a writer to do?

It's all very well to say NEVER pay an agent a penny, and I certainly second that. However, when I was trying to get my first novel published, I refused to pay an agent his pound of flesh. While another writer I know paid him, and he found her a publisher quite quickly. Therein lies the dilemma. Financially speaking, I would probably have been further ahead to pay the agent, even although I know this is wrong.

BTW Does anyone know when agents first insinuated themselves into the publishing process? But whenever it was, they've certainly become the top man on the totem pole, with writers grovelling at their feet. It's quite incredible.

[ORION]

I so disagree with this. Without my agent to handle the foreign rights sales and contracts I would be in difficulties.
Agents do far more than just make sales. They also guide careers.
I do agree that in ALL professions there are less competent individuals, however, to say that agents have somehow banded together and made it difficult for writers on purpose is IMHO over reactive. Again I do not grovel. I did not have to grovel to get my agent,

[Perks]

My book got published and I didn't have an "IN" with anyone.
Crap. I was so looking forward to having an 'in' to the business through kissing your ass over your book.

-sigh-

Ah well. I guess I'll just have to settle for enjoying it. Lottery is terrific.

Patricia is worth listening to on these matters. She's just done what we're all trying to do - and in some spectacular fashion.

[Toothpaste]

Argh! I didn't want to join in because ORION was doing such a lovely job, but I really have to second everything she has said. There is this strange thought that agents are evil, doing everything in their power to prevent writers from getting published, when really they have helped writers not get in over their heads or screwed over by the publishers. If it weren't for my agent, all my foreign sales wouldn't have existed because that first publishing house would have taken my world rights (that includes the amazing USA deal I got a few months later). If it weren't for my agent, I wouldn't have had a go between to smooth things over when issues with the cover/title of my book came up, when issues with due dates came up.

I don't know what agent you encountered who charged a fee and got your friend an amazing publisher, it makes me suspicious to say the least. I have paid not a cent (aside in the very well earned 15% from my advance) to my agent. None of my friends who have agents have paid them a cent. It was the agent that convinced Harper Collins to give my friend (an unpublished author) the chance to write a couple chapters on spec for them. Now she has a two book deal with them. Do you think my friend could have convinced HC on their own? "Hey I've never had anything published, let's work together on a project" ? Not a chance.

I had no ins in the industry. I had never been published before. I was found in the agent slush pile. And I know a lot of others with the exact same story.

I love my agent. She has been there for me so much, she is so smart when it comes to the business. she knows things I never knew I needed to know.

Okay, I'm done ranting. I just . . . man I just get pissed off reading such negative crap about agents.

BTW - I never once groveled. I sent a professional package of cover letter, synopsis and first three chapters. Again, I am not sure which agents you are dealing with, but I wouldn't want an agent who was so unprofessional they needed me to grovel at their feet.

[C.bronco]

Pet Peeve # 3: When they say "no." That irks me. Then I eat chocolate and eventually forget what I was talking about in the first place.

[ORION]

ha ha ha bronco!!!! Just a sec.
*tosses some M&Ms down throat

er uh what were you saying?

[Shadow_Ferret]

Agents have made life a lot harder for writers. For one thing, they have done their level best to talk publishers into not accepting unagented submissions.
Where do you get this from? Agents didn't talk publishers into anything. Publishers did it to reduce the slush piles they have to wade through and are using agents as their slush piles now to help seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Agents are our friends and are on our side.

And I say that as a struggling writer who doesn't have an agent yet.

[ORION]

Like ferret said...

[Perks]

I'm amazed that most agents haven't lost their will to live, so I'm always grateful when they're pleasant.

[rwam]

The beginning of literary agents was merely a natural evolution in the maturation of the publishing industry. Somebody saw a need and the opportunity, took a chance, ventured out on his/her own, worked hard and succeeded. Meanwhile, hundreds of others who were watching took suit and followed. The rest is history. Do publishers and agents have a relationship that could be abused? Sure. So do realtors and buyers/sellers.

Fortunately, though, it's an industry where reputation and results mean everything, and the highly informed and patient writer with a quality book in hand has little to fear.

If you have a special book, and - maybe more importantly - have the confidence in knowing it's special, be patient and move forward. As a debut novelist, you may not land the most famous of agents, but you will eventually land a good one. And a good agent will land YOU.

[RedScylla]

Perhaps the main reason to limit the number of simultaneous queries you send is to avoid burning prospects. Say you have a list of 60 agents to query. If you query only a few agents, and after a few rejections realize your query letter could be better (and really, couldn't they all? ;)), well, you've still got the rest of your list to query. If you query 30 agents at once, and then realize your query letter could be better, well, you've just burned half your list of prospects instead of 2 or 3. Just a thought...

[ORION]

Red- you make a very good point- I did them in batches of 10. It's not so much the query letter as it's your project- is that as good as it can be? That's why you continue to write new projects, edit old ones and query.
Eventually you figure out what the problem is - even if you go through your original list of agents you can re-query on a different project-
As I have said before perseverance is a writer's friend and cynicism and poor attitude is a writer's foe.
You have to want to WRITE more than you want to be PUBLISHED

[Kendra]

It's all a bit of a crapshoot really. Quite apart from *killer* queries and the like, it's mainly a matter of luck -- getting the right manuscript, onto the right desk, at the right time. My third novel did really well, and I got there without an agent. However -- and this is something of a hoot -- that's when the agents started contacting me! They smelt profit. :-) I ignored them.

I've only signed contracts with two agents, and that was for a different genre, from what I usually write. It wasn't really me, and I couldn't be bothered pitching it to publishers. You've got to watch out for them though, they're slippery as eels, and they'll try and get their meat hooks on everything you've ever written. I'd advise having a legal adviser look over a contract from an agent. I haven't found the need to do this with publishers.

As for agents being the writer's friend, I got a good laugh out of that one. Thanks. :-) All I can say is with friends like that, who needs enemies? I mean, if they were dumped from the publishing process tomorrow, it wouldn't all grind to a halt. But you can't say the same if writers or publishers bowed out.

[Kendra]

You have to want to WRITE more than you want to be PUBLISHED

I couldn't agree more. If you're not happy before you're published, you won't be happy afterwards.

[Toothpaste]

Wow. Obviously you've had some bad times with agents.

Orion and I (and other of my friends) have had amazing experiences. Maybe we should just agree that like in any profession there are people good at what they do and those who are horrible at it.

As for their "meat hooks on everything you've written", well for me personally it was my agent that suggested writing a clause into our contract that said that anything I write for theatre is mine and separate from them. So I dunno, sounds like you've simply been around some bad agents.

Back to my friend, her agent is so supportive of her and this was when every publisher was refusing her MS, and even though they went over a year without selling it, her agent still had huge faith. That's why she suggested my friend to write that book on spec.

The fact that you haven't had anyone else look over your publishing contracts means nothing. You could have been missing things but you wouldn't know as no one has looked over the contract but you. Publishers usually try to give you the bare minimum. Even they admit to this. I've had my agent negotiate escalating royalties for example.

Agents are there to protect writers. Agents are there because they love books. I'm sorry you've met some crappy ones, but all the agents I have met are book geeks. Are constantly in awe of what writers can do, love their jobs and are pretty smart people.

My job is to write books. And I love that if a problem comes up, I don't have to deal with it, I can ask my agent to do that.

Anyway, point is, there are good 'uns and bad 'uns, and I am sorry you've only encountered the bad 'uns. That's unfortunate.

[Kendra]

Anyway, point is, there are good 'uns and bad 'uns, and I am sorry you've only encountered the bad 'uns. That's unfortunate.

Well one was from a well-known agency, but I don't want to mention any names, that would be unethical. My major gripe with agents is that they jerk writers around and waste time. They also may cost money, if they insist on regular mail submissions. Plus, after all the hoopla there's only a fifty-fifty chance of them selling your book to a publisher.

My advice is to keep pitching publishers. Don't get sidetracked with the quest for an agent. They're not the Golden Fleece ya know. :-) Although, by golly, they might fleece YOU.

[Toothpaste]

Yes but .. . but . . . that's just your experience. I have never been jerked around, in the beginning i was in touch with my agent several times a week (and it wasn't just me calling them). I have had to pay no money at all, and in the UK they use way more paper etc than in USA.

I agree that nothing is the be all and end all, but I mean, when you get a good agent they are so worth it (and again, I don't think I said anything about whether or not your agent was from a well known agency, people can suck at any level of the business - as you yourself can attest - I was merely saying it was too bad you'd had sucky agents).

Can't we just say, be professional, know what you want, do your research, have respect for yourself AND the industry and above all don't take anything too seriously (including and possibly most especially your own 'art')?

Why must it be a be all and end all? If you want a big publisher you need an agent - they simply do not accept unagented submissions. If you want a smaller one (which can be just as good as well, and in some cases better), then submit direct. There are options.

[Kendra]

If you want a big publisher you need an agent - they simply do not accept unagented submissions. .

Wrong. This is a common misconception. All imprints in the same house may not accept unagented manuscripts, but some of them do. You're in the UK. Well Macmillans is one of your majors and they accept unagented submissions. http://international.macmillan.com/author.asp

Also, some of the overseas branches of the New York publishers accept submissions without an agent. Check around. Don't believe agents when they say it's a closed market. That's just wishful thinking on their part.

[Toothpaste]

Sigh . . . okay I guess I wasn't specific enough for you. You are determined to think ill of agents and in no way wish to consider that possibly there are good people and bad people in every field. I think you probably think I am a pansy for having an agent and that when I get screwed over you'll be able to say you told me so. Whatever.

Yes I know some big publishers take unagented MSS. And even if they say they don't want any unsolicited material that can still mean they will accept a query. I'm not so stupid as you think me.

Nonetheless . . . many of the big shots don't. And even if you don't need an agent for selling a MS, I still think they are worth it for the foreign sales etc. I suppose you have someone at Frankfurt acting on your behalf right now, or are there yourself right now?

Look, seriously, I never said you needed an agent. I said I thought it was a good idea. I never said all agents were gods, I was just pointing out that they weren't all evil the way you seemed to be making things out.

But you are determined to think ill of everyone, and I should just really give up on this. I have nothing to prove, just wanted the lurkers reading this thread not to think all agents were as you put them. Hopefully I have made my point.

[Brian Johnpeer]

I am new to the game.
"Submission" means that an agent will accept my whole manuscript?
I always thought you had to query first, and that was considered a submission?

[Toothpaste]

Well what confused me at the beginning was that some publishing houses will state "no unsolicited submissions", to me I thought this meant that unless you have an agent submitting your work, or the house specifically asked you to send them something, that they were off limits. What it turns out to mean is that you are still allowed to query, and then once they ask for a partial or full, well that is solicited.

It is a bit odd, as the houses that that will accept unsolicited material are still looking for a query - but there you go. It also may be the difference in the UK between the usual submission package of letter, synopsis, and first three chapters vs just a letter (in the states from what I understand typically you just send the letter first).

It ain't fun if it isn't really confusing right?! :)

[Kendra]

I'm not so stupid as you think me..

I, in no way, think you're stupid. My apologies if that is the impression I gave you. We have differing views on this topic, but that doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong. And, of course, there are good agents.
As for me being in Frankfurt -- gee I wish I was. I'll put that on my must visit soon list. :-)

[lkp]

I, in no way, think you're stupid. My apologies if that is the impression I gave you. We have differing views on this topic, but that doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong. And, of course, there are good agents.
As for me being in Frankfurt -- gee I wish I was. I'll put that on my must visit soon list. :-)

Kendra, what Toothpaste meant by mentioning Frankfurt was that the Frankfurt Book Fair is going on there right now. It's the bggest book fair in the world for foreign rights, and publishing companies from all over the globe are there right now, talking to agents and snapping up rights for books published and written elsewhere. My agent is there and probably Toothpaste's and Orion's, or someone delegated by their agents. As an author, it is not something you could be expected to know a huge amount about. Your agent would handle it for you, if you had one.

I'm saying this, again, mostly for the newbies. I am so thankful I am writing during the age of the agent!

[Kendra]

Thanks for explaining that to me, IKP. And here I was thinking Frankfurt was only for those nice weiners. :-) Ah well, you live and learn.

And I'm saying this, again, mostly for the newbies. I am so thankful I am writing during the age of free choice. i.e. Agents haven't cornered the market,YET,to the point where you HAVE to have one.

Cheers

[lkp]

Kendra, there is one more truth universally acknowledged: Having no agent is better than having a bad agent. Sounds like you have had only a bad agent, in which case you are certainly better off at this point.

I would really encourage you to go to the Bewares and Background checks part of the forum, check the index to see if your former agent or his/her firm is listed and either in that thread or a new thread (if he/she/it is not listed), let us know what went wrong. The point is not to bash anyone, but to keep us all informed. The way we make sure at AW that we all have good agents and none of us have bad ones is by letting each other know who is good and who is problematic.

[Toothpaste]

I, in no way, think you're stupid. My apologies if that is the impression I gave you. We have differing views on this topic, but that doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong. And, of course, there are good agents.


Cool, I mean that was all I was trying to say too, that there are good agents and bad agents (and I think I just got a bit hot under the collar, I in no way actually thought you thought I was stupid, sorry for getting silly).

Though I do agree with lkp that it would be really beneficial to members here to hear about your particular agent experience in the Bewares section, so that they don't have to deal with the same stuff that unfortunately you had to go through!

[dantem42]

Even among publishers who accept unagented submissions, if you are an unpublished author, your chances of publishing there are probably about as good as digging up a 100-carat diamond in your back yard. Most of the unagented submissions that end up accepted are from authors with publishing track records who may have ditched their previous agent.

Also, those houses who accept unagented submissions from unpublished authors often have a kind of two-track system. Manuscripts submitted without an agent may be looked at, but probably not for a while. You could find yourself waiting six months to a year for a response. On the other hand, manuscripts that they receive from reputable agents get much more immediate attention.

[popmuze]

You could find yourself waiting six months to a year for a response. On the other hand, manuscripts that they receive from reputable agents get much more immediate attention.


My case exactly. An editor at a major house once enthusiastically agreed to see my manuscript. Six months later, after I'd found an agent, she still hadn't read it. So I withdrew it. I'm sure if we send it to her again, she'll be a lot quicker to read it.

[popmuze]

I think your method is probably not what James is talking about. There are, however, those who will fire out twenty or more queries at a time. IMHO that's just shooting yourself in the foot, because what if your query is ineffective? I send out just a few at a time, then adjust my query accordingly.


I took somewhat the opposite approach, with equally disastrous results. I had strong solid leads and contacts to maybe half a dozen agents, all of whom responded quickly to my query, asking to see the full manuscript.

Unfortunately, I did this too early in the game, with a novel that I see now was not at all ready. Although I got a nice set of personal rejections, no one asked to see a revision and I wasted all those wonderful contacts.

I did finally get an agent, but it took several more rewrites and a couple of years.

[donroc]

I have encountered the entire spectrum of agents both in Hollywood and in the book world. I agree none is better than a bad one.

May I add a peeve regarding fiction and agencies? I have refused to submit to any that require a marketing plan.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[nerds]

Interesting thread. I think the way the (legitimate) industry is set up is just fine. It certainly forces me to get better, work better, write better. I have huge trouble with querying; I am lousy, lousy, lousy at it, and I daresay I may have recently made an ass of myself with one in particular. However, that's what makes me learn and draft and improve. It would be a messy world indeed if there were no standards.

Good, reputable agents are worth their weight in gold, and if I'm ever skilled enough to get one, well, then I'll know I'm finally writing right.

[ORION]

donroc
I think the days are over where writers just sit and write. Although I write fiction both my agent and my publisher (and publicist) involved me in an intensive conversation (both written and oral) about marketing plans. Who was my target audience? Did I have any ideas of groups that would have an interest in my book. What specifically would I be willing to do (tour, signings, interview). Marketing plan? Hell yeah you better have a REALLY good idea on who will buy your book. Authors HAVE to be proactive in promotion and marketing. The marketing plan they are asking for at the query level is not like what my husband produced for his MBA assignments but it allows the agent to see how savvy the author is with respect to the business of publishing. There are some really good books out there that talk about this and Bella Stander has a great class.
Sorry for the rant.

[Kendra]

Now as far as I know, an agent requires absolutely no qualifications -- education, degrees etc. -- before hanging out her shingle. (and I say *her* because most of them are females) I don't believe they even need a business license. I took a quick glance at some of the listings recently, and was amazed at how many of them there are. Agenting must be a lucrative business. They're swarming like flies around s**t. :-) I think a lot of them must have stumbled upon the potential gold mine as failed writers.

[ORION]

Kendra are you just trying to stir us up? What "listings" are you talking about? Most agents do NOT advertise. When I walk into William Morris Agency in New York the agents seem to be pretty evenly split between male and female - not that it is a real concern of mine. Most agents are very low profile so you wouldn't generally know what their sex is. Gold mine. Hmmm. No qualifications. Hmmm.

"Now as far as I know" You are operating from little or inaccurate information.

I can tell you if you are an agent and want to work for WMA you need qualifications and you have to intern and work as a trainee before you are a bona fide agent. My own agent has been doing this for many years and has her MFA from Iowa.
You seem to be focused on inexperienced wannabe agents and (scammers) those who charge but an agent cannot simply "hang out their shingle" and be "successful" and again...
You seem to be talking about scammers - those who charge, who are unethical, or incompetent and here I agree with you. NO agent is better than a BAD one. But you cannot tar and feather an entire profession because of scammers.
Of COURSE you need a business license if you are doing legal business on your own in any state. I have to have one as an author even though I am a sole proprietor. A business license does not make a scammer honest.
Writers who are trying to be published are desperate and are easy targets for scammers. That's why preditors and editors and AW serve as such great resources.
I notice you only have 59 posts so I realize you are new here-- those of us responding are doing so for the many new writers who don't necessarily participate in a discussion but learn from it.
All the best to you and I hope you find a legitimate, competent agent in your search.

[Kendra]

Kendra are you just trying to stir us up? What "listings" are you talking about?

http://www.writersservices.com/agent/uk/index_2.htm
http://www.writersservices.com/agent/us/agent_us.htm

And these are only the tip of the iceberg. There are an estimated 900 agents in the US alone. Good golly, at this rate there will soon be more agents than publishers and writers combined. This is not a top heavy industry, it's a middleman heavy one. Oh and BTW, thanks for the well wishes, Orion, but I am not...and I repeat NOT looking for an agent. :-)

[Toothpaste]

Okay now I am just curious, without naming names, can you tell us what happened with you and your two agents you mentioned? You really seem to hate them with a passion, and I am genuinely curious as to what your experience was. I know you'd rather not name names (though it would be super helpful to people here) but maybe the specifics would be a good learning experience for others. Seriously just really curious!

ETA: Again I repeat - I agree there are bad agents and no agent is better than having a crappy one and to each his own and there is free choice and it is up to the individual what they want to do (in case there were going to be any accusations of me pushing my pro agent dogma down anyone's throat).

[Kendra]

donroc
I think the days are over where writers just sit and write.

I'm afraid you're right, and it's too bad. I have no taste for the marketing end of it at all. As far as I'm concerned that's up to the publisher. Maybe I'll branch out into heavy metals trading or something? :-)

[Nathan Bransford]

Now as far as I know, an agent requires absolutely no qualifications -- education, degrees etc. -- before hanging out her shingle. (and I say *her* because most of them are females) I don't believe they even need a business license. I took a quick glance at some of the listings recently, and was amazed at how many of them there are. Agenting must be a lucrative business. They're swarming like flies around s**t. :-) I think a lot of them must have stumbled upon the potential gold mine as failed writers.

I r an agent and I dudn't graduate high school and I like too swarm on riters becauze I cain't rite gud.

[ORION]

HA HA HA HA HA Nathan.
Very good.
I kin cee yer don ned none ov us to hep difend yo

[qdsb]

Interesting that marketing should come up...I just read this article (http://www.writersdigest.com/articles/alexander_james_boice.asp) in Writer's Digest about a published novelist who, so far, insists on the "just sit and write" stance and shuns self-marketing. Interesting how his position results in a kind of marketing through this article. :)

[ORION]

hey he's in writers digest and on the today show AND submits and gets published in esquire. That's not what I'd call not promoting. Yes he does not go on tour but that's not what I mean by promoting. Book tours are not what sells books and most publishers do not send authors out unless they are jody picoult etc...
Not promoting would be not even answering Writers Digests calls and ignoring the today show requests...IMHO I don't think it's a wise position to take for most writers.

[lkp]

donroc
I think the days are over where writers just sit and write. Although I write fiction both my agent and my publisher (and publicist) involved me in an intensive conversation (both written and oral) about marketing plans. Who was my target audience? Did I have any ideas of groups that would have an interest in my book. What specifically would I be willing to do (tour, signings, interview). Marketing plan? Hell yeah you better have a REALLY good idea on who will buy your book. Authors HAVE to be proactive in promotion and marketing. The marketing plan they are asking for at the query level is not like what my husband produced for his MBA assignments but it allows the agent to see how savvy the author is with respect to the business of publishing. There are some really good books out there that talk about this and Bella Stander has a great class.
Sorry for the rant.

I thought this was a realy interesting post. Pat, can you tell at this point which promotional things that have been done for Lottery (whether by the publishers or on your own) have been the most helpful? Least?

[ORION]

Yup.
For example my work in education and disability made LOTTERY attractive to teaching groups, book clubs with teachers, ARC and other organizations for those who are mentally challenged. Most of the promotion has been in trade magazines (Ingram the big distributor, Brodart- these are targeted to book sellers and librarians and I spent time doing interviews for them) It is REALLY hard to figure out how effective certain things were - for example when I was on TV in Portland because my book was AM Northwest's book club pick - there was a bump in sales but when the great Washington Post or USA today interviews/reviews are reprinted I don't necessarily know what happens. I will say the reason for going to a place and doing signings is to get some type of media coverage- whether it be a local paper or larger regional one.
I think online (internet) is under utilized by publishers (IMHO) I think my blogging has helped but only because I was a blogger before my book was published and I enjoy it--
The key is getting your book into book stores and having book sellers recommend it.
A reader can't read your book if they can't find it in the store.
It is VERY hard to bring your book to the attention of the average reader- they don't frequent writers' blogs or read Publishers Weekly.
It's GOT to be word of mouth - even with all the publicity that Putnam does it all comes down to the book store and the reader.
Very tough.

[Brian Johnpeer]

So, a submission is a full manuscript, unless stated in the agents submissions outline?

[lkp]

Thanks, Pat, that is really helpful. I find it interesting and encouraging that they made use of your "platform" (in quotation marks because I know it isn't the same as for non-fiction) to help market your book.

Brian, I'd say that a submission is a query letter plus the first five or so pages unless otherwise stated. If I am understanding your question.

[ORION]

Brian - first you query and then if agents are interested they will either ask for a partial manuscript or a full manuscript - at that point you have been requested to send material - it is solicited. In my case Dorian asked for the full right from the query and bypassed the partial step - some agents will do this.

[Will Lavender]

I'm afraid you're right, and it's too bad. I have no taste for the marketing end of it at all. As far as I'm concerned that's up to the publisher. Maybe I'll branch out into heavy metals trading or something? :-)

Getting in late here, but I want to agree with ORION and Toothpaste (and others) and point out that Kendra's experience is very unique. In fact, if it's in some strange way advice (and I'm not sure if she means it that way or not), then it's harmful advice and should be taken with a bucketful of salt.

This business is nearly impossible without an agent. A good agent can do so many positive things for a book that sort of turning up a nose and deciding that agents are in some way harmful is in itself harmful. My agent not only sold my book, she also proofread it (countless times), edited it (a few times), passed it around to readers at the agency, and is now working with another agent to promote the thing. All this for, really, a small part of what I made in the sale itself. I look at the checks I get, and the agency commission is barely registered there; the idea that one is "paying" for an agent is...well, it's a steaming pile of bullshit.

One doesn't have to have an agent, of course, but it's almost damn near impossible to do anything without one. I love mine, and even if I could have positioned my manuscript in such a way as to sell it, I know so very little about economics and (let's face it) common sense that I would have bungled the entire thing.

Do you best to get an agent, folks, as I know many of you are.

[Kendra]

No, my experiences with agents was in no way unique. The very opposite, in fact. There are a lot of bad apples in that particular barrel. It's wrong to rely on someone else to "get you there." Really, you can do it by yourself. And you're doing a great disservice to inexperienced writers, if you encourage them to believe otherwise. Try and get an agent, if they so wish, but meanwhile query publishers. NEVER put all your eggs in the same basket.

An agent can jerk you around and waste too much of your precious time. And just give them one manuscript, to see how they do with it. NEVER give them dibs on everything you've written. There are many successful writers who did it without an agent. Of course, if you're lazy about querying publishers etc., and don't like handling your own business affairs...(well I don't actually, but I do it anyway :-)

What I'm trying to say here, is that there are many different routes to a desired destination. Never let yourself get boxed in to believing there is just one. Diversify, it is the key to success.

[Toothpaste]

OMG. I don't recall ever insulting you Kendra. I don't recall ever saying that the way you go about your business was bad or wrong. To imply I am lazy and don't take care of my own business is deeply insulting to me. You know what, you refuse to share your stories, or talk any specifics, you say you know lots of people who have been screwed over by legitimate agents, and that agents don't require qualifications, but offer no proof of how you came to these conclusions.

On the other hand, we have shared real stories about ourselves and others who have had a great experience with agents. We have shown you how you need qualifications to be an agent. In fact all you are doing is blowing friggin' hot air. I'm sorry, I'm mad, I'm mad because you just want to insult me when I am seriously friggin' trying to enter into a dialogue here. You refuse to offer any concrete examples because of your morals or something. BS.

You admitted ONCE that not all agents are bad, but have the proceeded to hide that statement away by the bile and generalisations you spew here towards a group of people. Um yeah, hey there's another thing, agents, they are people! Human beings. You talk about them like they are less than human. There are good ones and bad ones. But to suggest, which you are by every post you make, that they are basically all bad, well that is as much a friggin disservice as you claim others are making.

Sigh.

I'm sorry everyone. I know I'm rising to the bait. Sigh.

[ORION]

I for one have met many successful midlist authors. I do not know of one in my acquaintance who does not have an agent. All the NYT authors I have met at the Maui conference (for example) have agents. I can't think of a single one who doesn't. I will repeat. I am proactive in my business plan but publishing contracts are NOTORIOUSLY complex and require expert help. Although Steven King does not have an agent he has a bevy of lawyers who specialize in publishing to help him-
Again as previous AWers have said, it is important not to give misguided advice.
There are many more authors who have agents successfully selling their work than there are writers who get a publisher to take their work unagented.
I know a unusual case that happened at the Maui Writers Conference where Neil Nyren (editor at Putnam) found an author whose work he liked and helped her get an agent to negotiate the contract- Publishers PREFER agented authors- it makes it easier to do business.
Laziness and not wanting to handle your own affairs has nothing to do with it.

[Kendra]

Of course, if you're lazy about querying publishers etc., and don't like handling your own business affairs...(well I don't actually, but I do it anyway :-).

Well golly, I thought everyone would realise my tongue was firmly pressed in cheek here. You know joke...joke? Guess I was wrong. (LOL) I mean I even included myself in the equation...oh well. My most sincere apologies to those who just didn't get it.

[ORION]

No fair editing after we've all responded!!!! LOL!!!!!
Yes different routes within reason.
I agree with you there.

[Toothpaste]

Hard not to take offense at something that is written in the exact same tone you write the rest of the negative stuff towards agents. Still I'm sorry then that I misread. It really upset me.

And yeah, no fair editing your post post our replies! Totally, different routes within reason.

I'd still like to see some proof that back your statements. I notice you kind of ignored that part of my post.

[J. R. Tomlin]

*gets bag of popcorn and sits back to watch the fisticuffs*

Edit: And no, I have no opinion on the topic. I'm not sure that I really do need an agent. Are foreign rights REALLY important enough to give up a 15% cut? Maybe. Dunno. I'm a babe in the woods, yet.

[Toothpaste]

Um yeah. I won't go into figures, but they can contribute quite nicely to the bank account.

[J. R. Tomlin]

Um yeah. I won't go into figures, but they can contribute quite nicely to the bank account.Interesting. I've heard of people selling them, but somehow never imagined them being a big deal. But like I said, I'm pretty clueless yet. Just trying to learn. :)

[Toothpaste]

Well you can get an advance, like with your "normal" book deal. Of course they can vary in amount, as any advance does, but some of them can be very worthwhile.

[ORION]

JR-
I'll give you specifics. So far LOTTERY has sold to 12 other countries. EACH have paid an advance varying from a low of $5000 to a high of $50,000. Nothing else is required from the author. The foreign publisher pays for the translation and (so far) I've only gotten an occasional email with a translation question and easily answered. Worth it? Hell yeah!
The commission for foreign rights is a standard 20% (10 goes to the foreign agent and 10 goes to your US agent)
Keep in mind a good agent can market your foreign rights throughout the life of your book.
The contractual and tax issues are complex so that's why you need an agent for this- For example my Italian contract came in ...Italian!!! (Who knew?)

[J. R. Tomlin]

JR-
I'll give you specifics. So far LOTTERY has sold to 12 other countries. EACH have paid an advance varying from a low of $5000 to a high of $50,000. Nothing else is required from the author. The foreign publisher pays for the translation and (so far) I've only gotten an occasional email with a translation question and easily answered. Worth it? Hell yeah!
The commission for foreign rights is a standard 20% (10 goes to the foreign agent and 10 goes to your US agent)
Keep in mind a good agent can market your foreign rights throughout the life of your book.
The contractual and tax issues are complex so that's why you need an agent for this- For example my Italian contract came in ...Italian!!! (Who knew?)Wow. I had no idea. Thanks for the heads-up.

Amazing how complicated the publishing business is, which is one reason for looking for one of those agent thingmabobs. :D

[Kendra]

Interesting. I've heard of people selling them, but somehow never imagined them being a big deal. But like I said, I'm pretty clueless yet. Just trying to learn. :)

I have a literary attorney who handles all foreign sales, and any other complex issues that might arise. I prefer to go this route for a variety of reasons. I would advise you to look into this option, before deciding whether you need an agent or not.

Good Luck.

[ORION]

Yes but Kendra they don't MARKET your book to other countries - that's what the foreign rights agent does. How in the world could I market LOTTERY to Russia? Or Taiwan? Or Korea. Or Italy. Or ? (insert country here) I don't know the publishers AND more importantly I do not speak the language. Do you know how difficult it is to get a GOOD literary attorney that is experienced in these matters? Even the intellectual property rights lawyers (that's what you call them BTW) that I had discussions with said I was better off with William Morris Agency.
My CPA gets tons of help from my foreign rights agent- Not to mention LOTS of smaller publishers from other countries have a habit of not paying- you want to try to collect from Russia???? I think not.
So Kendra.
Which countries have you sold to?
Did your intellectual property rights attorney help you fill out the exemption tax forms? Did he/she provide advice as to whether it was better to have the foreign taxes refunded or to deduct them from that year's taxes?
Just curious.

[Will Lavender]

I have a literary attorney who handles all foreign sales, and any other complex issues that might arise. I prefer to go this route for a variety of reasons. I would advise you to look into this option, before deciding whether you need an agent or not.

Good Luck.

As I said above:

This is godawful advice for a variety of reasons. The number of good, reputable "literary attornies" out there are few and far between. And many have to be "paid" (Kendra's language) just like agents. There is nothing wrong with them, per se, but if you can get an agent for the love of Christ almighty get an agent.

[Kendra]

The number of good, reputable "literary attornies" out there are few and far between.

One could say the same about literary agents! :-)

[Kendra]

Even the intellectual property rights lawyers (that's what you call them BTW)

(LOL) That's quite a mouthful though, isn't it? i.e. "I'm going to see my intellectual property rights lawyer today." Thanks for the info, but I believe I'll just stick with the *incorrect* "literary" lawyer. Oh and BTW, Predators and Editors, among others, call them literary lawyers. So hey, what's good enough for them is good enough for me.

Cheers

[Will Lavender]

One could say the same about literary agents! :-)

Possibly true.

But I have one. So do many on this board. So do the thousands of authors who thank theirs on the acknowledgements pages of our favorite books. It's obviously not this impossible task or anything like that.

And if we're measuring the weight of lit agents' overall effectiveness against literary attornies, then it isn't close. An attorney does not do the same things as an agent; their job specifications are different. To suggest to any new or aspiring writer that he or she does not need an agent or should not aspire to get one is a bit disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst.

[Kendra]

It's time to move on. I don't believe I can contribute anymore to this topic without becoming repetitive. But in leaving, I'll give the final word to the great Stephen King. His First Rule of Writers and Agents is as follows:

"...You don't need one until you're making enough for someone to steal ... and if you're making that much, you'll be able to take your pick of good agents."

[ORION]

Okay folks move on...there's nothing to see here...the show's over...move on...
Toothpaste? Will? either of you want the last word?
LOL

[victoriastrauss]

"...You don't need one until you're making enough for someone to steal ... and if you're making that much, you'll be able to take your pick of good agents."This kind of thing is often said by writers who got their start before the 1980's. It was true then, but publishing has changed a great deal, and it's not true now. With all due respect to Mr. King, it's extremely poor advice to be handing out to aspiring writers nowadays.

I hope that Kendra is serious about letting this argument go. It has more than run its course.

- Victoria

[Kendra]

This kind of thing is often said by writers who got their start before the 1980's. It was true then, but publishing has changed a great deal, and it's not true now. With all due respect to Mr. King, it's extremely poor advice to be handing out to aspiring writers nowadays.

I hope that Kendra is serious about letting this argument go. It has more than run its course.

- Victoria

Just dropping by to refute the part about King's advice being outdated. There are many writers who got their start today, who feel the same way as Stephen King. They don't have an agent and they don't want one. Here is one of them:

http://www.barbarakanninen.com/why_i_don_t_have_an_agent__or_doing_the_math

[ORION]

Read the rest of her post.
Barbara is very specific about it being because she does children's picture books and does admit she has very specific reasons for doing so -- she plays the devils advocate. At the end of her post she gives a link to her friend who talks about the pro side of having an agent.

[popmuze]

My case exactly. An editor at a major house once enthusiastically agreed to see my manuscript. Six months later, after I'd found an agent, she still hadn't read it. So I withdrew it. I'm sure if we send it to her again, she'll be a lot quicker to read it.


Just thought I'd throw this back into the mix, as I think it is an important point for all unagented writers to consider in their quest to go it alone. By the way, I've had 11 books published by major houses.

[Toothpaste]

Orion, I have nothing to add but "sigh". Kendra has purposefully hedged around my questions (and yours) for proof that supports all her claims. I can't continue a debate with someone so obviously not fond of facts, and who has some personal vendetta going on.

I think the point we can all at least agree on is that for each writer to do their own research and make up their own mind. That there are many paths, and to each his/her own.

[dantem42]

The main reason that the agent system is there is to act as a filter to cull out the few worthy manuscripts from the mountains of dreck that are produced by writer wannabes. Forty or fifty years ago, it was indeed optional to have a literary agent. Publishers back then received relatively few manuscripts compared to what they would receive directly now were they not "intercepted" by the agent system. I read somewhere that something like half a million books get written per year in the United States alone, and more than 90 percent of them should not have been. It's simply impossible for publishers to handle this volume of manuscripts themselves.

As to there being 900 or so agents out there, probably only three or four hundred are full-time, first-tier agents who make a living solely in the agenting business. The rest are the dabblers, the scammers, and the plain unsuccessful.

[Irysangel]

There are lots of benefits to having an agent - contract wrangling (which eternally impresses me), foreign rights sales, editorial relationships, and a constant stream of inside information are just the top ones that come to mind. I tell my agent what I'm interested in writing, and she constantly has her ear to the ground looking for leads. We have several on my next book that's heading out the door.

An agent is an author advocate. Do you want to spend 15% of your money for future benefits? It's something you have to decide, of course. I think this argument will end up split on the side of opinion no matter what is said.

However, if you're a starting author, I'd argue that the amount spent on a literary lawyer is probably close to the same as an agent's take on a small book advance. So it's up to you to decide how you want to spend the money.

[Will Lavender]

Just dropping by to refute the part about King's advice being outdated. There are many writers who got their start today, who feel the same way as Stephen King. They don't have an agent and they don't want one. Here is one of them:

http://www.barbarakanninen.com/why_i_don_t_have_an_agent__or_doing_the_math

Of the people who are making money, I'd say you could find 8 or 10 people in the world who agree with King's advice.

As Victoria said, it's not good advice. Nor does it make much sense. I want to know how much money one believes he can make without an agent. How do you get to the point where you're making a stealable amount when you have no representation to sell your books and then decode the contract language?

How is that done?

Let's face it. It take a hellacious amount of luck to actually make a substantial amount of money without an agent. That's what we're talking about here, at least that's my angle -- money. Not indie publishing. Not small publishing. I'm talking the big houses. Sure, you can sell your book without an agent to low-paying or non-paying markets. You might even get dragged out of the slush, but of the 5 or 10 authors who are taken out of the slush at the big houses each year (those who actually will take unsolicited slush), how many are getting decent contracts for those novels?

Your argument reminds me of the creative writing teacher who told our class once that she didn't like to submit her fiction because of all the rejections she'd received in the past. I remember thinking, Why? It is a business, isn't it? You act surprised (or appalled, rather) that agents wanted your services after you had a book deal.

Newsflash: agents, and many writers, do what they do for money. It is, after all, their jobs.

[victoriastrauss]

Tobias Buckell's latest survey on first novel advances (http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2005/10/05/author-advance-survey-version-20/) in the SF/fantasy field demonstrates what an agent can do for an author, advance-wise.

16% of our authors with multiple books sold over multiple years had no agent.

The range in agented advances is from $1000 to $600,000

The median agented advance is $12500

The range in unagented advances is from $0 to $21,500

The median unagented advance is $7250

These figures have noticeable differences across the board. Not having an agent looks to cost one well more than the agent’s percentage on average, and certainly most of the higher ranging figures come from people with agents.- Victoria

[dantem42]

Tobias Buckell's latest survey on first novel advances (http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2005/10/05/author-advance-survey-version-20/) in the SF/fantasy field demonstrates what an agent can do for an author, advance-wise.

- Victoria

Indeed, aside from the number of major publishers who print in their websites, absolutely positively no unagented submissions. These include the likes of Random House. Why start off depriving yourself of a shot at the likes of Doubleday, Bantam, William Morrow, et al? It's like putting together a pro baseball team composed of one-eyed players.

[lkp]

Wow, Victoria, that's pretty telling, especially since I believe SF/F is one of the genres where you can still get a read as an unagented author (Romance being the other).

Not that I needed to be convinced.

[barbk]

Hi everyone,

Thanks to Google Alerts, I saw that my "why I don't have an agent" article was cited above. I thought I'd drop by and share a few thoughts on this issue.

The best advice I ever got on the question of "agent or not" actually came from the children's lit agent, Barry Goldblatt. He said, "Do you WANT an agent?" Seems like a tautological response to the question, but over time (like, years), I came to realize his answer was exactly correct. And it happens to explain why this question gets so fervently debated on message boards. Opinions vary because writers vary.

Barry said a second, equally brilliant thing the day I saw him speak. Paraphrasing, he said that no agent, no matter how good, can make people (consumers) buy your book. In other words (and putting my own spin on this), how much money you make really depends on how good your book is. No contract, no matter how well-negotiated, will earn you royalties. It's ultimately about whether or not people buy your book in the bookstores. Agents do not do this part of the business.

That's why, in my article, I look at how much money a book will make in the LONG run, after the advance is earned out. That's what we authors should care about. Sure, a high advance is great. But I'd rather keep earning over the years.

Here's my basic advice:

1. Know your niche. Are you commercial fiction or literary, for example? The large houses tend to publish commercial and offer higher advances. If you write literary, you'll probably end up at a smaller house with a modest advance. What you write has a great deal to do with how much money you can ultimately make, which affects your personal calculus on whether or not an agent is going to be good for you.

2. Get to know the business by listening to authors, editors and agents on all topics related to the business of acquiring and selling books. As you listen, take note of which niches these people represent.

3. Read (good books), write, revise, repeat. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether you're agented or not. If your book is good, it'll get acquired. And if it's really good, it'll sell well enough that your original advance won't matter.

Finally, just a little note about statistics (my profession). I like the SF survey cited above, but I want to make sure everyone understands just what those numbers say. According to the survey, agented authors get higher advances. I've found the same in my own picture book author survey. But you have to keep in mind that this comparison is not as clearcut as it seems. Agented authors are, on average, more experienced authors. The unagented-author category contains more first-time authors. So, the agented authors are going to get higher advances just by nature of where they are in their careers.

Good luck!

[Will Lavender]

Barry said a second, equally brilliant thing the day I saw him speak. Paraphrasing, he said that no agent, no matter how good, can make people (consumers) buy your book. In other words (and putting my own spin on this), how much money you make really depends on how good your book is. No contract, no matter how well-negotiated, will earn you royalties. It's ultimately about whether or not people buy your book in the bookstores. Agents do not do this part of the business.

Thanks for stopping by, Barbara.

First, I will say that the things mentioned in your website don't really apply to me. You mention foreign sales -- I (and others on this thread) have made a lot of money from foreign sales. You also mention film rights -- film rights are important to me, as I have a Hollywood agent and it's a definite possibility that the film rights will be sold for my novel (others in this thread are in the same boat, I know). Also, I don't write children's books.

So perhaps it isn't fair for me to respond.

But I will anyway, to the quoted passage above.

I just don't agree with Barry.

Theoretically, he's right. In theory, an agent doesn't sell books. (Nor do they claim to.) But it is very difficult, at least in adult publishing, to get your book sold if the deal isn't substantial to begin with. I buy as many books as anyone; I have over 4,000 in my stacks. I never buy books that I do not read about on the web, or in various reviews. Nor do I buy books published by small houses -- because, obviously, you don't hear about them in reviews.

What this means is that an agent can place the book at a publishing house that has the resources to put behind your book. The difference between what Random House and what even a mid-sized pub can do for a book is immense. This makes a world of difference into how many books the author will sale. Right?

Without an agent, it's virtually impossible to get your book at one of those six or seven major houses. And if you're not there -- well, if you're not there, then you are going to find it difficult (though not impossible) to sell books.

[victoriastrauss]

Thanks for stopping in, Barbara, and for your good advice.

However, I have to take exception to this:
Agented authors are, on average, more experienced authors. The unagented-author category contains more first-time authors. So, the agented authors are going to get higher advances just by nature of where they are in their careers.Here's what the survey has to say about first novel sales:

"58% of our first time novelists had an agent, the other 42% sold the book without an agent, and a high number indicate they got agents right after or during the sale of the book.

The range in agented advances is from $1500 to $40,000

The median agented advance is $6000 (the average is $7500)

The range in unagented advances is from $0 to $15000

The median unagented advance is $3500 (the average is $4051)."

Not just the median advances, but the range in dollar amounts show a significant difference between agented and unagented sales.

Also, the fact that the unagented range starts at zero tells me that at least some of the authors responding to the survey were dealing with publishers that don't typically work with agents, which skews the survey results somewhat.

- Victoria

[Toothpaste]

And I'll add that almost every author I know right now (including myself) is a first time author. All of whom are agented.

Of course if you do picture books, that is such a different story. From what I understand it makes more sense not to have an agent in that area.

[ORION]

Hey I love Google alert too!! Your article on being agented I thought had much to offer those who do children's picture books- those of us in adult and YA fiction (as Will says) have to deal with foreign rights, film, and other rights (large print, audio, books on tape, literary guild - to name a few) this adds to the complexity. Plus it is not entirely true that it is primarily the readers - it's the BOOK SELLERS who are important- your books have to be stocked and more importantly RE stocked and hand sold by the bookseller- this is critical. Of course the author has to market BUT you can have lots of readers demanding your book but if they can't get it in bookstores it's a moot point.
Most readers will not go the extra step (if they don't find it in their bookstore) of ordering it on Amazon.
For example.
I have not toured in the midwest (Minn, Wisconsin,michigan) but my book is doing really well there - Why? because it's being hand sold at various indi bookstores. How do I know that? Because readers are emailing and telling me and I get google updates from bookstore newsletters.
So it takes both. Because of my sizable advance my publisher has put more marketing behind me AND my agent has negotiated this for me. I would never have known the importance of Co-op placement (where your book is located in a bookstore) except for the fact my agent told me -- I would have assumed doing tours and signings were more effective - but they're not--
Again children's books are entirely different - you EXPECT to see them in the children's section not necessarily at the front of the bookstore. You can also take advantage of marketing in the schools (like toothpaste does and Chris Paolini (sp?) did).
By the way I was NOT experienced before I got my agent and before being published
I hope this helps new writers make informed decisions.
Thanks again Barbara for responding!

[barbk]

Hi --

Thanks for the welcome. A few follow-up points.

First, again on statistics. Don't mean to harp, but I love this stuff. I gave one factor that obfuscates the statistics on advances but there are actually many. This is a market, after all, an equilibrium (if you believe in such things) among buyers, sellers and middle-people. Let's assume we agree on a basic point regarding agents -- that they know their business well enough to know how to recognize marketable manuscripts when they read them. Basically, from this premise, we can easily conclude that they are likely to ultimately represent the highest-value manuscripts they can find. So, by definition, agents -- on average -- represent higher-value manuscripts and therefore get higher advances. Note, this does not mean they represent the very best manuscripts, nor does it imply that they don't contribute a service. It's just another way of showing that statistics tell many stories.

Several of you commented on the difference between my line of work and yours. Exactly. We have to know our own niches and it can take a while to figure this out. In my case, I write quirky, academic-ish picture books. I am fortunate to have found a publisher that targets schools and libraries and continues to promote their backlist. This fits my niche perfectly -- far better than Random House would have. I am also fortunate to have gotten a starred review in Publishers Weekly. So, my book is doing quite well in the trade market, too. In the long run, though, it's the school-library market that will keep the paychecks coming in. Of course, I wouldn't turn down a film offer...

[edgyllama]

For a small press, an agent is not needed, usually, but once you start getting into the middle and top tiers, yup, an agent will certainly help you get much better than the standard boilerplate contract.

When it comes to agents and negotiating a sale, it's all business. It is easy to take it personally. Don't. Agents wants a good MS they can sell and they want to get the best deal for you, and for them. The publisher wants the best deal for them.

That's why agents get paid, to this kind of stuff.

[dantem42]

Theoretically, he's right. In theory, an agent doesn't sell books. (Nor do they claim to.) But it is very difficult, at least in adult publishing, to get your book sold if the deal isn't substantial to begin with. I buy as many books as anyone; I have over 4,000 in my stacks. I never buy books that I do not read about on the web, or in various reviews. Nor do I buy books published by small houses -- because, obviously, you don't hear about them in reviews.

What this means is that an agent can place the book at a publishing house that has the resources to put behind your book. The difference between what Random House and what even a mid-sized pub can do for a book is immense. This makes a world of difference into how many books the author will sale. Right?

Without an agent, it's virtually impossible to get your book at one of those six or seven major houses. And if you're not there -- well, if you're not there, then you are going to find it difficult (though not impossible) to sell books.

I wouldn't turn my nose up at the smaller houses. The successful ones have devoted followings. In the field of commercial fiction, especially genre fiction like crime thrillers, they're very often the ones who publish the truly original stuff. A lot of the big publishing houses are looking for the next John Sandford lookalike, chasing what they feel is the surest bet. The marketing arm often has the final say versus the editors. This is why several years ago we got fifteen or twenty authors putting out stuff bearing a remarkable resemblance to The Da Vinci Code. Most of them flopped.

The road map to success may be a bit more tortuous with the smaller houses than the larger ones. For example, a novel may sell reasonably well in hardcover. Then it may do very well in a foreign market through a foreign rights sale (and the best foreign publishers are very good at finding gems even among the smaller U.S. publishers). That success may create the circumstances for the novel to be released stateside by a larger publisher in paperback.

And if you've written a knockout novel released by a smaller publisher, it will certainly get reviewed. Perhaps not as quickly, but it's a word of mouth business. A good reviewer wants to make a true discovery and champion great work, not just dutifully knock out reviews of what the big guns say is good writing.

Also, Orion has had a very good experience with a large publisher, but it's by no means universal. Often, first time authors even getting nice advances can get lost in the sauce if a couple of major blockbuster launches coincide with theirs. Even if you've gotten a hundred thousand advance, if there are several books about to hit the shelves where the advances are in the middle six figures or higher, you may find yourself not getting the attention you think you should.

[wqw]

Now you've all taken over my thread and my original idea of ranting against the system is being slowly obliterated. It's all well and good when you've HAD the luck (and skill, I know, but luck is involved) to get a good agent and GET published, and goody for you, but this whole rant is for the still-as-yet-unpublished unknown anonymous shmoes like me to get us all worked up about how the system keeps us down! So just because you won the Lottery doesn't mean I have to listen to you preach and tell me I'm just one of the unwashed and unpublished masses who doesn't appreciate your wonderful experiences.

Speaking of lotteries, I have a question for the experts on here. This whole agent system, the whole Kafka-ian (okay, Kafka-esque) edifice that stands between me and PUBLISHING NIRVANA (and if I'd rather be published than write, that's also my beeswax), is based on one simple premise. That premise is that there are WAYYYYY more writers than there are "slots" for published books. There will be a certain number of books published per year (minus textbooks) so let's call that number X. There are a certain number of manuscripts whose writers desire their publication, let's call that Y. I have the idea that Y FAR EXCEEDS X, that there are millions of manuscripts floating around. But that's far-fetched, because there aren't that many people in the U.S. (at least) literate enough or persistent enough to write an entire book. So what is that ratio of X to Y? Am I 1 in 1000 being rejected, or 1 in 1,000,000?

[Nathan Bransford]

Barry said a second, equally brilliant thing the day I saw him speak. Paraphrasing, he said that no agent, no matter how good, can make people (consumers) buy your book. In other words (and putting my own spin on this), how much money you make really depends on how good your book is. No contract, no matter how well-negotiated, will earn you royalties. It's ultimately about whether or not people buy your book in the bookstores. Agents do not do this part of the business.

I think you make some interesting points in your post, but I actually don't agree with this part, that an agent can't help an author sell books. I mean, I'm not standing in bookstores telling people to buy my client's books (most of the time), but a good agent can influence the way a publisher will market a book (unfortunately we can't control this process, but just keeping on top of things is influential), will be able to offer expertise to clients as they try and promote themselves, will sell rights in all possible markets (such as translation, audio, etc.) so there are more versions out there for consumers to buy, and heck, I know people who bought my client's books because I featured them on my blog, so I really did sell those books.

So yeah, ultimately it comes down to the book (which is probably what Barry was saying), but I really disagree that agents don't influence how many copies and where a book sells. It's not everything, but it definitely has an effect.

[rwam]

WQW. Yeah, the numbers definitely indicate the odds are against the average writer. I know you've probably heard this before, but if your writing is good and your story is compelling AND you can write a kick-ass query that grabs the attention of agents, you stand a much better chance at beating these odds.

I think the key to all of the above is patience and belief in yourself. Focus on your craft. Focus on your product. I promise you, though, if you focus more upon being published than upon your writing, well, it probably isn't gonna happen.

I know you're probably frustrated, but trust me when I say we're all here to help each other. Success stories like Lottery should serve as an inspiration to writers like you and me. It's proof that the system works. We NEED that proof sometimes. So, the last thing we should do is shun the advice of those who've successfully navigated the long odds to publication.

Now you've all taken over my thread and my original idea of ranting against the system is being slowly obliterated. It's all well and good when you've HAD the luck (and skill, I know, but luck is involved) to get a good agent and GET published, and goody for you, but this whole rant is for the still-as-yet-unpublished unknown anonymous shmoes like me to get us all worked up about how the system keeps us down! So just because you won the Lottery doesn't mean I have to listen to you preach and tell me I'm just one of the unwashed and unpublished masses who doesn't appreciate your wonderful experiences.

Speaking of lotteries, I have a question for the experts on here. This whole agent system, the whole Kafka-ian (okay, Kafka-esque) edifice that stands between me and PUBLISHING NIRVANA (and if I'd rather be published than write, that's also my beeswax), is based on one simple premise. That premise is that there are WAYYYYY more writers than there are "slots" for published books. There will be a certain number of books published per year (minus textbooks) so let's call that number X. There are a certain number of manuscripts whose writers desire their publication, let's call that Y. I have the idea that Y FAR EXCEEDS X, that there are millions of manuscripts floating around. But that's far-fetched, because there aren't that many people in the U.S. (at least) literate enough or persistent enough to write an entire book. So what is that ratio of X to Y? Am I 1 in 1000 being rejected, or 1 in 1,000,000?

[dantem42]

Speaking of lotteries, I have a question for the experts on here. This whole agent system, the whole Kafka-ian (okay, Kafka-esque) edifice that stands between me and PUBLISHING NIRVANA (and if I'd rather be published than write, that's also my beeswax), is based on one simple premise. That premise is that there are WAYYYYY more writers than there are "slots" for published books. There will be a certain number of books published per year (minus textbooks) so let's call that number X. There are a certain number of manuscripts whose writers desire their publication, let's call that Y. I have the idea that Y FAR EXCEEDS X, that there are millions of manuscripts floating around. But that's far-fetched, because there aren't that many people in the U.S. (at least) literate enough or persistent enough to write an entire book. So what is that ratio of X to Y? Am I 1 in 1000 being rejected, or 1 in 1,000,000?


This isn't really the issue. The issue is whether you're really good, or just self-delusional. The great majority of people who write novels are, unfortunately, self-delusional. If you're a bad writer, you're in the reject column. If you're a really good writer, and you do the fieldwork (landing a good agent, etc.) you are sure to publish eventually. Maybe not the first novel you write, or the second, but sooner or later you will fine tune the process and hit that magic moment.

[ORION]

wqw -- No you don't have to listen to any of us. That's absolutely true. But when I started out -- experienced writers here on AW helped me, gave me advice and were invaluable -
It's easy to be bitter and can be satisfying to rant but it doesn't get you published any faster.
Is the system unfair?
Maybe.
Is there a better way to do it?
Probably.
But that really isn't the point.
The point is-- working within the existing system-- to increase your odds of attracting an agent, selling your work to a publisher, and giving something of value for people to read.
I don't consider myself "better" because I'm published and I don't consider you less worthy because you're not.
I merely offer up my direct experience in good faith without condescension.

[barbk]

Boy, this thread keeps getting interestinger and interestinger. I can't seem to stay away.

First, let me make clear, for Barry G's sake, that what I said above was MY take on his talk. I don't want anyone to conclude from what I said that Barry doesn't do everything he can for his clients. I'm sure he does. Like Nathan above, he champions them wherever he goes and I wouldn't be surprised if he had something to do with getting at least one amazing cover on one of his client's bestselling books...

As for the original rant, yes, one way of framing the problem facing new authors is to say that there are way more manuscripts getting submitted than there are publishing slots. But I'd argue that's not the real issue. Suppose, for example, that somehow, miraculously, a bunch of new publishers entered the system and suddenly, there were enough slots to publish every manuscript submitted. Okay, so a lot of mediocre books would get published and, guess, what, no one would buy them. See, it's not enough to get published, just published. People actually have to want to read your book and be willing to buy it. The whole industry is struggling with the fact that people in this country just don't read that much. I think a lot of unpublished authors would do themselves a great service by asking themselves *honestly,* is my book so good that people (besides my parents) would actually pay $25 for it and then devote a weekend to reading it, when they have the option of going to see the Bourne Ultimatum, instead? I don't mean to be mean. I asked myself this question a few years ago and concluded that, no, they wouldn't. So, I worked harder. I forced myself to come up with new, better, more interesting ideas. Hey, I even figured out how to be funny, which is not something that's easy for me! The bottom line is, your work doesn't have to be just as good as what's getting published. It has to be better. When you meet that standard, yes, you will find that agents and publishers are noticing your work (though, it's still a search to find the right match).

[victoriastrauss]

Also, the fact that the unagented range starts at zero tells me that at least some of the authors responding to the survey were dealing with publishers that don't typically work with agents, which skews the survey results somewhat.
Tobias Buckell, the author of the advance survey I've quoted, sent me this response to my comment above and to the discussion here, and requested that I post it:

The number of data points with 0 dollar first advances is 4. They actually don't change the Median result of $3,500 for an unagented first novel, but they do change the Average up slightly if I take them out of the dataset, but it's negligible.

The person arguing with the data might be better off saying that my sample size is too small, they have some experience with stats, but the median number for first novel sold remains steady and it looks like less money is advanced to unagented writers with first novels.

Her argument that overall people will make money off royalties, so advances are meaningless, is surprising to me.

Anyway, I'd hoped the data might help give you some more info in your discussion,

Best,

Tobias Buckell

[victoriastrauss]

As for the original rant, yes, one way of framing the problem facing new authors is to say that there are way more manuscripts getting submitted than there are publishing slots. But I'd argue that's not the real issue. Suppose, for example, that somehow, miraculously, a bunch of new publishers entered the system and suddenly, there were enough slots to publish every manuscript submitted. Okay, so a lot of mediocre books would get published and, guess, what, no one would buy them.This has already happened, with the PublishAmerica-style author mills and the scores of amateur micropresses that have sprung up over the past decade or so, spurred largely by the cheapness and availability of print-on-demand technology. A new one seems to arrive practically every week, and we discuss them just about every day in the Bewares & Background Check forum.
I think a lot of unpublished authors would do themselves a great service by asking themselves *honestly,* is my book so good that people (besides my parents) would actually pay $25 for it and then devote a weekend to reading it, when they have the option of going to see the Bourne Ultimatum, instead?I completely agree. Unfortunately, between the amateur micropresses, the author mills, and the pay-to-play companies, writers don't have to ask themselves that question anymore. Practically anyone can be "published" these days, if they're not picky about the meaning of the term.

- Victoria

[Kendra]

Speaking of lotteries, I have a question for the experts on here. This whole agent system, the whole Kafka-ian (okay, Kafka-esque) edifice that stands between me and PUBLISHING NIRVANA (and if I'd rather be published than write, that's also my beeswax), is based on one simple premise. That premise is that there are WAYYYYY more writers than there are "slots" for published books. There will be a certain number of books published per year (minus textbooks) so let's call that number X. There are a certain number of manuscripts whose writers desire their publication, let's call that Y. I have the idea that Y FAR EXCEEDS X, that there are millions of manuscripts floating around. But that's far-fetched, because there aren't that many people in the U.S. (at least) literate enough or persistent enough to write an entire book. So what is that ratio of X to Y? Am I 1 in 1000 being rejected, or 1 in 1,000,000?

Only one in 5,000 manuscripts is accepted for publication.
Only 21 per cent of books sell more than 99 copies.
Only about .04 per cent sell more than 100,000 copies.
Out of every 10 hardcover adult books, seven lose money, 2 break even and one is a hit.
Industry average returns of books 30 to 40 per cent.
Industry routinely inflates sales figures.
Agents sell only 50 per cent of the books they represent.
Most authors never earn over their advance.

These figures were taken from the Neilson Bookscan and other credible sources.


http://www.ewritingtoday.com/info/Book-Publishing/Straight-From-the-Publisher---The-Odds-Against.html

http://warrenjamison.com/?p=14

[victoriastrauss]

Only one in 5,000 manuscripts is accepted for publication.
Presumably, this is meant to describe the acceptance habits of commercial publishers, since self-pub services, author mills, and amateur publishers may accept 100%, or close to it, of what's submitted.

This statistic is deceptive, because it encourages people to assume that all 5,000 of those manuscripts are equally worthy. In fact, only a very small percentage of manuscripts even approach publishability (10%, maybe--many people say fewer), and an even smaller number are actually publishable.
Only 21 per cent of books sell more than 99 copies.Again deceptive. This statistic includes ALL books, including those from PublishAmerica and the amateur mom-and-pops, which not only publish non-publication-worthy books but have no means of marketing or distributing them, and as a result have tiny sales numbers. If you considered only commercially-published books, the figures would look a lot different.

(The main interest of this statistic, IMO, is to suggest what a vast number of books is pumped out by non-commercial enterprises.)
Only about .04 per cent sell more than 100,000 copies.And....?
Out of every 10 hardcover adult books, seven lose money, 2 break even and one is a hit.Okay.
Industry average returns of books 30 to 40 per cent.Everyone agrees this is a problem, but I don't see how it applies to agents.
Industry routinely inflates sales figures.And print run figures. But not on royalty statements. Unfortunately.
Agents sell only 50 per cent of the books they represent.I challenge this statistic. I'd like to see the source.
Most authors never earn over their advance.True. Which is why it's good to get one.
These figures were taken from the Neilson Bookscan and other credible sources.I suspect they were taken from Dan Poynter's website.

All in all, what do they prove?

- Victoria

[Kendra]

I suspect they were taken from Dan Poynter's website.

All in all, what do they prove?

- Victoria

Nope, never heard of Dan Poynter. And actually the one in 5,000 figure is inaccurate regarding fiction. For fiction it would be closer to one in 10,000 in today's market.

What they prove is that it's almost impossible for a new writer to get published today. Now notice I say *almost* because there are always those -- as in winning a *lottery* :-) -- who beat the odds.

Sites such as this offer a valuable resource to writers. However, when I see a few *well* published authors, stating that if an unpublished writer *polishes* his manuscript hard enough, and writes a *killer* query letter, he should be able to get representation from a good agent, and hence, a major New York publisher, I simply shudder. This is just setting up the majority of writers for a horrible letdown, peppered with the agonies of self-blame.

[Toothpaste]

Okay I guess then I just know a lot of lottery winners.

In fact every author is a lottery winner then.

Because every author was once unpublished.

I would never disagree that getting published is difficult, the arts is a very tricky business to be in. I would never say it was easy. But I don't think you should shudder when these *well* published authors tell the unpublished authors to write a good book, do your research and write a good query and you can get an agent etc. Because you know what, like what ORION said, I too was unpublished and was told the exact same thing. And heck, it works. What's more, has worked for many good friends of mine (and many people who are just my acquaintances).

I guess I dunno, it isn't that I disagree with you Kendra, I think we actually do agree oddly (I mean we agree about agents, that a good one is worth it and a bad one isn't), it's just I don't see the point in being so down about it all. I may have found some success with writing, but I sure as heck haven't with acting. Still I don't see much point in being cynical. Okay sometimes it is fun to rant, but mostly I just get to work.

[victoriastrauss]

Nope, never heard of Dan Poynter. And actually the one in 5,000 figure is inaccurate regarding fiction. For fiction it would be closer to one in 10,000 in today's market.
{{{boggle}}}

What on earth are you basing this on?
What they prove is that it's almost impossible for a new writer to get published today. Now notice I say *almost* because there are always those -- as in winning a *lottery* :-) -- who beat the odds.Ah, the lottery comparison. As if publishers choosing which books to publish were equivalent to raffle sponsors drawing a name out of a hat.

Seriously, the "it's almost impossible for new writers to get published today" idea simply makes no sense. By this argument, nearly all books published would have to be by established authors. Which raises the question: how did those authors get published? And what happens when the established authors die or quit the biz or get fired by their publishers for low sales figures? How do they get replaced, if not by new writers?

Wait, wait, I know. Every time an established author stops publishing, publishers go to another established author and ask him or her to write under a pen name. In reality, there are only twelve authors in the world. The rest are pseudonyms.

Staying in is what's gotten harder over the past few decades. Not breaking in. All you have to do to see how many new writers get published today is to read the review section of a magazine like PW. Or browse through some of the threads in the Announcements forum. A bunch of AWers have gotten their debut books published--some with major deals.
Sites such as this offer a valuable resource to writers. However, when I see a few *well* published authors, stating that if an unpublished writer *polishes* his manuscript hard enough, and writes a *killer* query letter, he should be able to get representation from a good agent, and hence, a major New York publisher, I simply shudder. This is just setting up the majority of writers for a horrible letdown, peppered with the agonies of self-blame.That's a major oversimplification. Speaking for myself, what I tell writers is that if they do all the right things (including proper research), and if their manuscript is marketable (which most manuscripts aren't), their chances are better than not. I also remind writers that many people don't break in with their first (or second or even third) novels, and that it's better to put a ms. in a drawer and move on than to fix all your hopes in one place and bang your head indefinitely against a wall of rejection.

- Victoria

[Kendra]

{{{boggle}}}

What on earth are you basing this on?
- Victoria

The state of the industry in general. It is an overcrowded market, saturated in fact, with a humongous supply and an ever shrinking demand.

"If you follow the typical route of most aspiring authors, the odds are something like 10,000 to 1 against your being published by a major publishing house."

http://www.ewritingtoday.com/info/Bo...s-Against.html (http://www.ewritingtoday.com/info/Book-Publishing/Straight-From-the-Publisher---The-Odds-Against.html)

[lkp]

Kendra, sheesh, this is a self-publishing site. They make money by convincing authors they have no other hope than to buy their expensive services in order to be published. Don't drink their kool-aid.

Book manuscripts aren't like widgets. If there are only, I don't know, 2000 well-written marketable manuscripts in a given year or month or whatever, it doesn't matter whether there are 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 poorly written unmarketable ones. The 2000 are still going to be the only ones that matter.

ETA: I find it very telling that the site you linked to doesn't even mention agents. The author knows that the best way to interest a publisher is through an agent. He's hoping that authors will keep beating their heads on the doors of the big publishing houses and then in desperation turn to self-publishing.

[Kendra]

Kendra, sheesh, this is a self-publishing site. They make money by convincing authors they have no other hope than to buy their expensive services in order to be published. Don't drink their kool-aid.

.

Are we looking at the same site? Where do you see that this is a self-publisher?

[Kendra]

ETA: I find it very telling that the site you linked to doesn't even mention agents. The author knows that the best way to interest a publisher is through an agent. He's hoping that authors will keep beating their heads on the doors of the big publishing houses and then in desperation turn to self-publishing.

Oh right, an agent is the key. This is the secret to success that self-publishing houses are terrified their prospective clients find out about. It's a conspiracy, no doubt about it. Dum da dum dum...

[JamieFord]

:popcorn:

[ORION]

Hey Jamie! Lucky you! What a coincidence. We both "won" the Lottery...

[victoriastrauss]

Are we looking at the same site? Where do you see that this is a self-publisher?I dunno if he's a self-publisher or not, though he certainly seems to be advocating self-publishing. But the point isn't whether he's a self-publisher--it's that you have no idea who he is (his little bio at the bottom doesn't shed any light, and the link goes nowhere) or whether he's qualified to make the comments he's making.

You can't embrace information and statistics just because they support your own viewpoint--you need to make sure the information and statistics come from a credible source. You can find support for any position about publishing, no matter how silly, if you comb the Internet diligently enough--there are plenty of crackpots out there. This is especially true of the most common writers' myths.

- Victoria

[Kendra]

I dunno if he's a self-publisher or not, though he certainly seems to be advocating self-publishing. But the point isn't whether he's a self-publisher--it's that you have no idea who he is (his little bio at the bottom doesn't shed any light, and the link goes nowhere) or whether he's qualified to make the comments he's making.

You can't embrace information and statistics just because they support your own viewpoint--you need to make sure the information and statistics come from a credible source. You can find support for any position about publishing, no matter how silly, if you comb the Internet diligently enough--there are plenty of crackpots out there. This is especially true of the most common writers' myths.

- Victoria

I've emailed the site and asked them to respond to this. (If it's the Colin Ingram I think it is, he has sterling credentials in the publishing industry.)

http://www.wvculture.org/arts/Artworks/Winter02/print.html

This is a good article too about the realities of getting published today.

[clockwatcher]

lol. What's the big issue? I think they are just saying that even if you write an awesome book, write a great query letter and blah blah, there is a good chance that an author might still not get published. And there are numerous stories of authors who got rejected from here till Timbuktu till one person finally agreed to work with them.

If said writer had given up, his book would not had been published. But would he have been less talented? No. His book of less quality? No. The fact that all these other agents couldn't spot the gem is what's pissing some of these people off.

But not everyone is built to deal with all that rejection and giving up after while or getting pissed doesn't make one less of a writer, does it? This thread is a just rant about how much 'pain' many writers have to go through just to get their work recognized. Of course, most writers would love to just sit and write instead of having to deal with all those form letters from agents and whomever telling them that all their slots are filled (or whatever they say).

That's all. No biggie.

[rwam]

You sum it up nicely. Truth is, publication merely represents 'validation' to a good many writers. There are many great unpublished writers and they are perfectly content.

lol. What's the big issue? I think they are just saying that even if you write an awesome book, write a great query letter and blah blah, there is a good chance that an author might still not get published. And there are numerous stories of authors who got rejected from here till Timbuktu till one person finally agreed to work with them.

If said writer had given up, his book would not had been published. But would he have been less talented? No. His book of less quality? No. The fact that all these other agents couldn't spot the gem is what's pissing some of these people off.

But not everyone is built to deal with all that rejection and giving up after while or getting pissed doesn't make one less of a writer, does it? This thread is a just rant about how much 'pain' many writers have to go through just to get their work recognized. Of course, most writers would love to just sit and write instead of having to deal with all those form letters from agents and whomever telling them that all their slots are filled (or whatever they say).

That's all. No biggie.

[Queen of Swords]

I dunno if he's a self-publisher or not, though he certainly seems to be advocating self-publishing.

I stopped reading the article when I got to this part :

"Great! You've just spent a year or more spinning your wheels."

The best course of action after sending a manuscript to a publisher or agent is to start another book, not "spin your wheels".

[Stacia Kane]

The entire second half of the article makes it very clear that he's advocating self-publishing.

"Speaking realistically, self-publishing is not for everyone. If you want someone to simply take your manuscript off your hands, and all your responsibilities end there—keep trying to find a traditional publisher. Maybe you'll be lucky. But if you want to retain control over the final form of your book, and if you're willing to work at promoting your book, self-publishing has clear advantages."

That's just one part, not including earlier where he writes the classic line about how those Nasty Big Publishers will change your Golden Words.

[dantem42]

From Kendra:
Out of every 10 hardcover adult books, seven lose money, 2 break even and one is a hit.
[end quote]

A bit deceptive standing alone like this. If it were that simple, only an idiot would publish in hardcover.

First, many hardcovers from great authors that initially lose money end up making money later, and sometimes lots of money. If the author later has a major hit (even at another publisher), all his previous works will also take off. Witness Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. It sold only a few thousand copies. Dan Brown was at that point selling his books himself on a card table outside shopping malls. Then a few years later The Da Vinci Code came out. Now Angels and Demons is selling hugely in hardcover and paperback.

Second, I don't think I've seen a case where an imprint producing a hardcover did not also receive the rights to market an eventual paperback along with the hardcover rights. A successful hardcover not only makes the publisher money by itself, it sets up a huge windfall if the hardcover publisher for example sells the paperback rights to another publisher (even another division within a large conglomerate publisher). It's normally a split on the advance and royalties between the author and the hardcover publisher.

[dantem42]

"If you follow the typical route of most aspiring authors, the odds are something like 10,000 to 1 against your being published by a major publishing house."

http://www.ewritingtoday.com/info/Bo...s-Against.html (http://www.ewritingtoday.com/info/Book-Publishing/Straight-From-the-Publisher---The-Odds-Against.html)

I think you'd be hard-pressed to substantiate this from industry data, even fiction versus nonfiction. I would wager the odds are at least ten times better, that one out of every thousand novels goes to print, and it's probably a good bit better than that. Fiction published in the U.S. alone runs well in excess of five thousand novels per year. 10,000 to 1 odds against being one of those would imply the submission to agents or publishers of fifty million fiction queries per year, when the reality is probably well under a million that actually reach legit agents or publishers.

[barbk]

"The person arguing with the data might be better off saying that my sample size is too small, they have some experience with stats, but the median number for first novel sold remains steady and it looks like less money is advanced to unagented writers with first novels.

Her argument that overall people will make money off royalties, so advances are meaningless, is surprising to me."

Um, is this response referring to me? If so there's perhaps been a misunderstanding. I never argue with data. Data are data. I often argue with interpretations, which is what I was trying to do. My point was simply that agents *alone* do not get authors higher advances. Agents represent -- on average -- more commercially marketable manuscripts. They also tend to represent authors with more experience: even if they are first-time novelists, they often have more of a background in writing. Yet another factor is that agents tend to know which houses offer higher advances and they prefer to submit to them. Again, I have no argument with the data, nor the survey. I love surveys and wish more people would do them. Information is gold. It's just that data are not so simple to interpret. (I also have an advance survey -- on picture book advances. My data show the same result, that agented authors get higher advances.)

I doubt I said advances are meaningless. If I did, then I mis-wrote. What I generally say is that *in the long run* what matter are royalties. That's, of course, assuming you actually earn out your advance. I generally assume that, but not every author/book will. Again, you have to go with what you believe/know about your own work/genre/niche/market.

[wqw]

What about genres? What if your work of art is beyond genre, or between genres, or is a metagenre, or creates a new genre? I think this again goes back to my theme of Marketing having taken over the industry- you are almost required, or so it seems, to have a genre-fitting manuscript/work of art. Let's look at sci-fi/fantasy (why are those together?)- if you go to your local book purveyor, you can literally SEE genre dripping from the sci-fi/fantasy section. Genre, to me, means derivative work. Lord of the Rings was original when it came out (well that's not true, it was derivative of the Niebelungenlied, but The Hobbit was original), but it was before the modern Marketing is King era, and Marketing wants wizardry. LOTR and Harry Potter seems to spell "Wizards = Success," whereas LOTR was really about hobbits, and Harry Potter is really about a boy becoming a wizard. It's the path and the struggle the stories are about. Wizardry is beside the point of the success of these books, but look at your sci-fi/fantasy section and everything is wizards and pseudo-Middle Earthian nomenclature. Genre doesn't and shouldn't matter, but every agent wants you to identify the genre and the impression I get is that there is a % per genre which the publishers require to make their numbers. Now go ahead, tell me how wrong I am about THIS why don't you.

(Thanks to those who went to the trouble of getting stats for manuscripts vs. published material. I'll say again, ranting is just my fav way of writing [I don't mean manuscripts] and helps me get more ideas articulated. Let's face it, if you try to be sensitive you never say anything, but I don't aim my barbs at anyone personally.)

[Kendra]

This is in response to earlier remarks re self-publishing:

Self-publishing is a viable alternative to traditional publishing. Particularly today when writers are being asked to help market their own books anyway, and with POD technology improving all the time. It spares an author the agony of the submission process, which can involve years of waiting. He can get in there and promote his book while it's still timely, and he doesn't have to alter it to suit someone else. In other words, he remains in control throughout the process. Below is a list of famous authors who chose to self publish at some point in their careers:

Margaret Atwood, William Blake, Ken Blanchard, Robert Bly, Lord Byron, Willa Cather, Pat Conroy, Stephen Crane, e.e. cummings, W.E.B. DuBois, Alexander Dumas, T.S. Eliot, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Benjamin Franklin, Zane Grey, Thomas Hardy, E. Lynn Harris, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ernest Hemingway, Robinson Jeffers, Spencer Johnson, Stephen King, Rudyard Kipling, Louis L'Amour, D.H. Lawrence, Rod McKuen, Marlo Morgan, John Muir, Anais Nin, Thomas Paine, Tom Peters, Edgar Allen Poe, Alexander Pope, Beatrix Potter, Ezra Pound, Marcel Proust, Irma Rombauer, Carl Sandburg, Robert Service, George Bernard Shaw, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Upton Sinclair, Gertrude Stein, William Strunk, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoi, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and Virginia Woolf.

http://www.bookmarket.com/selfpublish.html

[Will Lavender]

The ol' "authors are being asked to market their books anyway" line is dragged out often, but it's really a half-truth. The fact of the matter is that these big houses and their imprints often do quite a bit of work, even for first-time authors. I'm speaking from experience here.

I don't think there's anything wrong with self-publishing, but shouldn't it always be a last resort? I mean, if you can get a publisher's weight behind your book, even if it's a modest weight, you have to take it. It's a myth that the big boys are doing nothing for their books and the authors are forced to do all the promotion. Trust me -- I've listened in on PR meetings with these people. They pay money for the product, and so it's only logical that they would put a little something behind it.

[Azraelsbane]

The ol' "authors are being asked to market their books anyway" line is dragged out often, but it's really a half-truth. The fact of the matter is that these big houses and their imprints often do quite a bit of work, even for first-time authors. I'm speaking from experience here.

I don't think there's anything wrong with self-publishing, but shouldn't it always be a last resort? I mean, if you can get a publisher's weight behind your book, even if it's a modest weight, you have to take it. It's a myth that the big boys are doing nothing for their books and the authors are forced to do all the promotion. Trust me -- I've listened in on PR meetings with these people. They pay money for the product, and so it's only logical that they would put a little something behind it.


It better be a last resort, otherwise I'm getting physically sick over this query letter business for nothing. ;)

Pretty much everyone in my neck of the woods is self-publishing. I belong to two writing groups in my city and there isn't a traditionally published person in either. It's very disheartening, but I'm determined to try my hand at the traditional way until my soul is a dead, aching thing or I get picked up by an agent. Here's hopin'. :)

[Stacia Kane]

This is in response to earlier remarks re self-publishing:

Self-publishing is a viable alternative to traditional publishing. Particularly today when writers are being asked to help market their own books anyway, and with POD technology improving all the time. It spares an author the agony of the submission process, which can involve years of waiting. He can get in there and promote his book while it's still timely, and he doesn't have to alter it to suit someone else. In other words, he remains in control throughout the process. Below is a list of famous authors who chose to self publish at some point in their careers:

Margaret Atwood, William Blake, Ken Blanchard, Robert Bly, Lord Byron, Willa Cather, Pat Conroy, Stephen Crane, e.e. cummings, W.E.B. DuBois, Alexander Dumas, T.S. Eliot, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Benjamin Franklin, Zane Grey, Thomas Hardy, E. Lynn Harris, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ernest Hemingway, Robinson Jeffers, Spencer Johnson, Stephen King, Rudyard Kipling, Louis L'Amour, D.H. Lawrence, Rod McKuen, Marlo Morgan, John Muir, Anais Nin, Thomas Paine, Tom Peters, Edgar Allen Poe, Alexander Pope, Beatrix Potter, Ezra Pound, Marcel Proust, Irma Rombauer, Carl Sandburg, Robert Service, George Bernard Shaw, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Upton Sinclair, Gertrude Stein, William Strunk, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoi, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and Virginia Woolf.

http://www.bookmarket.com/selfpublish.html


Yawn. Let's remove any example less than fifty years old or so, shall we, because the industry has changed so much? Doing that leaves you with, what, two names? One of which is Stephen King, who unless you are discussing his high school newspaper spoof, self-pubbed as an experiment when he was already a household name. Sheesh. I can't believe I'm seeing this tired old list again, honestly.

Read this for more: http://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2004/08/autobibliophilia.html


.

[Khazarkhum]

This is in response to earlier remarks re self-publishing:

Self-publishing is a viable alternative to traditional publishing. Particularly today when writers are being asked to help market their own books anyway, and with POD technology improving all the time. It spares an author the agony of the submission process, which can involve years of waiting. He can get in there and promote his book while it's still timely, and he doesn't have to alter it to suit someone else. In other words, he remains in control throughout the process. Below is a list of famous authors who chose to self publish at some point in their careers:

Margaret Atwood, William Blake, Ken Blanchard, Robert Bly, Lord Byron, Willa Cather, Pat Conroy, Stephen Crane, e.e. cummings, W.E.B. DuBois, Alexander Dumas, T.S. Eliot, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Benjamin Franklin, Zane Grey, Thomas Hardy, E. Lynn Harris, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ernest Hemingway, Robinson Jeffers, Spencer Johnson, Stephen King, Rudyard Kipling, Louis L'Amour, D.H. Lawrence, Rod McKuen, Marlo Morgan, John Muir, Anais Nin, Thomas Paine, Tom Peters, Edgar Allen Poe, Alexander Pope, Beatrix Potter, Ezra Pound, Marcel Proust, Irma Rombauer, Carl Sandburg, Robert Service, George Bernard Shaw, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Upton Sinclair, Gertrude Stein, William Strunk, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoi, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and Virginia Woolf.

http://www.bookmarket.com/selfpublish.html

Consider how many of them were writing before the rise of the publishing powers of today.

In the 18th & well into the 19th C, books were produced by small firms & sold out of wagons or at small markets. Some were sold door-to-door.

Authors were paid little. Often they had their family print the books so that they could guarantee getting an income from their work.

[Will Lavender]

Yawn. Let's remove any example less than fifty years old or so, shall we, because the industry has changed so much? Doing that leaves you with, what, two names? One of which is Stephen King, who unless you are discussing his high school newspaper spoof, self-pubbed as an experiment when he was already a household name. Sheesh. I can't believe I'm seeing this tired old list again, honestly.

Read this for more: http://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2004/08/autobibliophilia.html


.

I was wondering where they came up with Stephen King as a self-published author.

They're using THAT example? *snickers*

[Azraelsbane]

I was wondering where they came up with Stephen King as a self-published author.

They're using THAT example? *snickers*

I think it's pretty obvious they're REALLY stretching things. I mean, William Blake and Lord Byron... Those were the two that made me lol. ;)

[Stacia Kane]

I think it's pretty obvious they're REALLY stretching things. I mean, William Blake and Lord Byron... Those were the two that made me lol. ;)

How long d'you suppose it will be before someone adds "God" to the list? The Bible was originally published without one of those Terrible Elitist Work-Destroying Big Publishers, right?

And if God did it...

[Kendra]

It's very disheartening, but I'm determined to try my hand at the traditional way until my soul is a dead, aching thing or I get picked up by an agent. Here's hopin'. :)

Agents reject more often than publishers, so don't put all your eggs in one basket. Spam it out there to everyone you can think of. I must have sent my first novel out to about 200 places, before it was finally published. But meanwhile, I was busy diversifying as much as I could with different genres, short stories etc. At least that way you have something to show at the end of the day. Publication by smaller houses etc. rather than pinning all your hopes on one manuscript. And ironically, it was one of those shorter pieces, published on a lowly ezine (LOL) that went on to become a bigger hit than the original novel. The important thing is getting it out there where it can be read. There are so many different routes to "success." Yet, writers' sites often promote the belief that there's only one.

[victoriastrauss]

How long d'you suppose it will be before someone adds "God" to the list? The Bible was originally published without one of those Terrible Elitist Work-Destroying Big Publishers, right?At least they didn't include John Grisham.

- Victoria

[Kendra]

http://www.simonteakettle.com/famousauthors.htm

[Stacia Kane]

http://www.simonteakettle.com/famousauthors.htm


...And there's Grisham.

Aside from the fallacy about Grisham, Kendra, this is essentially the same list you posted above. It's basically irrelevent, and I don't know why you keep posting it in its various forms, as though repeating the same lie over and over makes it true.

What's your point? That sometimes it took a few tries for writers to get published? That writing involves talent, hard work, and luck? That even great writers sometimes had to struggle? Wow, I'd never heard that.

Quite frankly, I find it extremely difficult to believe a commercially published author, as you claim to be, would be so eager to champion self-publishing. You do aspiring writers a great disservice in doing so.

[Queen of Swords]

It spares an author the agony of the submission process, which can involve years of waiting.

Is the author doing nothing but waiting during those years, or is she working on her next novel, improving her skills and reading up about where she might send her next manuscript?

He can get in there and promote his book while it's still timely, and he doesn't have to alter it to suit someone else.

I'll be happy to alter my book if an agent or editor points out anything that is significantly wrong with it. To refuse to alter your book under those circumstances sounds like Golden Word syndrome to me.

In other words, he remains in control throughout the process.

There's a lot about this process that I am not familiar with - cover design, marketing and so on. Therefore, I'd be happy to leave that in the hands of people who do that for a living. I don't want to be in control of something I don't know much about, and I'd prefer to spend my time on writing.

I suspect that for all these reasons, self-publishing would not work for me.

[Kendra]

I find it extremely difficult to believe a commercially published author, as you claim to be, would be so eager to champion self-publishing.

(LOL)With the emphasis on "claim." Golly, you've outed me, December. PULEAZE don't tell anyone.

[Kendra]

Is the author doing nothing but waiting during those years, or is she working on her next novel, improving her skills and reading up about where she might send her next manuscript?



I'll be happy to alter my book if an agent or editor points out anything that is significantly wrong with it. To refuse to alter your book under those circumstances sounds like Golden Word syndrome to me.



There's a lot about this process that I am not familiar with - cover design, marketing and so on. Therefore, I'd be happy to leave that in the hands of people who do that for a living. I don't want to be in control of something I don't know much about, and I'd prefer to spend my time on writing.

I suspect that for all these reasons, self-publishing would not work for me.

Oh it's not for everyone. I've never gone that route myself. It involves mega marketing skills, which I don't have. I'm a writer, not a salesman. However, it works well under certain circumstances. It's just another option, and there can never be too many of those.

[Will Lavender]

What's your point?

I'm wondering what Kendra's point is myself.

It began as "Agents aren't all they're cracked up to be," but then, strangely, it moved into the benefits of self-publishing. Red flag, there: a person defending self-publishing on one hand and bashing major publishing on the other would seem to have an agenda. (Emphasis there on the word "seem.")

I guess I don't understand the direction this thread took, really. One reason Kendra has been sort of mauled on this thread -- even though she has made some decent points -- is that her angle is vague.

[Kendra]

I guess I don't understand the direction this thread took, really. One reason Kendra has been sort of mauled on this thread -- even though she has made some decent points -- is that her angle is vague.

It has veered off the topic from the original post, but then most threads -- and conversations -- tend to do so. My *angle* is all about choice. So in that respect, I suppose it is vague. If you are looking for razor sharp *angles* and everything in black and white, then you'd be dealing in absolutes.

As for being "mauled." Well, when one comes onto a writers' site and dares to say that agents are not all they're cracked up to be, one expects a certain hostility. After all, it's a bit like going into church and shouting, "There is no God." And, of course, daring to suggest that self-publishing has worked rather nicely for some, is adding more heresy to the mix.

So bloodied, but still standing, I limp wearily into my corner. :D

[Will Lavender]

As for being "mauled." Well, when one comes onto a writers' site and dares to say that agents are not all they're cracked up to be, one expects a certain hostility. After all, it's a bit like going into church and shouting, "There is no God." And, of course, daring to suggest that self-publishing has worked rather nicely for some, is adding more heresy to the mix.

Bad analogy.

If "God" can be metaphorically substituted here for a good agent, then I have seen His (Her, in my case) face. You, on the other hand, have not -- as you are, I assume, agentless. You are no mere atheist. You are one who has walked into a church full of folks who've seen the face of heaven and denied its very existence.

Okay, enough of that.

I think the original argument has to do with personal relationships. You sort of cast agents as money-hungry at best and fiendish at worst. Those of us who have agents that we like as businesspeople and people in general know better.

Now, I think I've circled the thread back around full circle. My work here is done. :D

[Kendra]

-- as you are, I assume, agentless.

No, your assumption is incorrect.:D I have an agent for a few out-of-print titles, in a different genre from what I usually write. I just can't be bothered hunting around for publishers for them. I'd much rather be WRITING!

Cheers

P.S. I thought this might be of interest. PanMacmillan is one of the major publishers in the UK. They accept electronic submissions, and you don't need an agent.

http://www.panmacmillan.com/Features/displayPage.asp?PageTitle=Macmillan%20New%20Writin g%20submissions%20information

"Thanks, Kendra. Interesting stuff."
"Nah, don't mention it. Anytime."

[victoriastrauss]

P.S. I thought this might be of interest. PanMacmillan is one of the major publishers in the UK. They accept electronic submissions, and you don't need an agent. The guidelines you linked to are for Pan Macmillan's New Writing Program, which has different submission guidelines than the rest of the company.

- Victoria

[ORION]

Die thread!!!! Die I tell you. DIE!!!!

[Judg]

(One last sputter)

The danger of pet peeves is that they make one peevish... Not a pretty sight.

[Khazarkhum]

If every self-published author created the works of art that William Blake did, the world would be an immensely richer place.

Unfortunately, most self-pubbed authors blend the artistic sensiblities of William Shatner with the lyrical abilities of Robert Blake.

[Queen of Swords]

And, of course, daring to suggest that self-publishing has worked rather nicely for some, is adding more heresy to the mix.

I don't find that heretical. I think the list of people who self-published isn't relevant in certain ways, and I don't think self-publishing is for everyone, for various reasons. Some of the claims or assertions on the websites you linked to also seem to apply to anyone who has Golden Word syndrome or who doesn't intend to do anything but sit around waiting until their first novel is published.

Self-publishing works under certain circumstances. It's not a good idea under others.

[rwam]

In the vast majority of cases, self-publishing (and I say this with all due respect) is the byproduct of either impatience or delusion.

One Disclaimer: I'm not talking about the folks who are publishing a dozen copies of their memoirs (or cookbooks) to give as Christmas presents for family members, etc. For these things, lulu, etc, is perfect!

Another exception is if you're a wacko-pastor-whose-church-has-its-own-bookstore and you've got a killer way of distributing books to your cult-like-congregation-who'll-happily-drink-whatever-KoolAid-you're-selling. POD and self-publishing (I would think) is probably perfect for that, too.

:)

[jamiehall]

In the vast majority of cases, self-publishing (and I say this with all due respect) is the byproduct of either impatience or delusion.

One Disclaimer: I'm not talking about the folks who are publishing a dozen copies of their memoirs (or cookbooks) to give as Christmas presents for family members, etc. For these things, lulu, etc, is perfect!


Impatience, delusion, or not understanding enough about the publishing industry.

[Kendra]

Impatience, delusion, or not understanding enough about the publishing industry.

Oh right, the Celestine Prophecy, which sold over 20 million copies and was translated into 34 different languages is a prime example of this.;) I can't decide though, whether the author was impatient, delusional, or he just didn't *understand* enough about the publishing industry when he decided to self-publish!

[Toothpaste]

If you saw the original quote that Jamiehall was adding onto you would have seen the term "vast majority" used. Vast majority does not mean all. There are exceptions to every rule, and success stories within the self-publishing world. No one has every disputed this fact. They were disputing a list which circulates as evidence of how self-publishing is actually lucrative when the list is actually greatly flawed. Posters here have explained how.

You are determined to think ill of the publishing world and of our intelligence. I personally have asked you a number of questions in order to get the dialogue moving forward but you refuse to answer. In fact you conveniently ignore those posts. And each time you do answer someone it's with a mocking superior attitude. No one here has actually said that what you are trying to say, that there are many avenues out there, is wrong. But much of your information that you have used to back up that statement has been incorrect. Despite the fact that you haven't actually proven your case, we have agreed with you. What's your point with all this?

[Kendra]

You are determined to think ill of the publishing world and of our intelligence. I personally have asked you a number of questions in order to get the dialogue moving forward but you refuse to answer. In fact you conveniently ignore those posts. And each time you do answer someone it's with a mocking superior attitude. No one here has actually said that what you are trying to say, that there are many avenues out there, is wrong. But much of your information that you have used to back up that statement has been incorrect. Despite the fact that you haven't actually proven your case, we have agreed with you. What's your point with all this?

Duh...

[Toothpaste]

Wow.

And I was worried you were going to respond with an articulate well thought out response and make me feel a bit guilty for being slightly harsh.

But "Duh" it is then.

[Kendra]

Wow.

And I was worried you were going to respond with an articulate well thought out response and make me feel a bit guilty for being slightly harsh.

But "Duh" it is then.

(LOL) No worries.

[victoriastrauss]

Kendra's saying "Duh" because she knows that we really do get her point--to have the last word. But the "Duh" is on you, Kendra, because in a moderated forum, the moderator gets the last word.

There's been some great discussion in this thread (which I'm re-titling to make it easier to find) but not much new has been posted for a while, and bickering isn't really very useful. I'm giving the thread a time-out by closing it temporarily. I'll reopen it in a week or two.

- Victoria