[Agent] Mathew Ferguson

mathewferguson · Oct 11, 2009

James D. Macdonald said:
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and should not be referenced.

Wikipedia is the most convenient source to summarise special pleading. The concept is sound.

If you'd like some more examples (quick web search):
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html

This is a great article by Cory Doctorow where he discusses special pleading: http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2009/09/cory-doctorow-special-pleading.html

Special pleading was being used earlier to respond to the various claims I made regarding publishing and agents:
Mat: Publishing and agent work are X.
Response: Although publishing and agent work may be X, we are in special circumstance C (namely, being in the UK or US).
Therefore X does not apply.

Or the special case is Australia.
Mat: Publishing is X.
Response: Publishing may be X but only in your special circumstances (C). Therefore X doesn't apply.

Australia is not like the US and UK. While publishing may be the way you describe it in Australia, your description does not apply elsewhere.

James D. Macdonald · Oct 11, 2009

Wikipedia is the most convenient source to summarise special pleading. The concept is sound.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be referenced.

priceless1 · Oct 11, 2009

Well I think we've taken a dip into the ridiculous. Mat, good luck to you, mate. You'll need it. Do keep us informed as to your success.

mathewferguson · Oct 11, 2009

James D. Macdonald said:
Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be referenced.

I think Wikipedia is fine to reference for some things.

The concept or idea exists in places other than Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia article is a "good enough" summary of the concept/idea.

The discussion is not about the validity or providing proof/evidence but rather giving a passing reference to a concept so people can familarise themselves with it.

I used the reference to Wikipedia so people could familarise themselves with a good-enough explanation of what special pleading is.

I don't entirely agree with "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". Comparisons with Encyclopedia Britannica found a similar level of errors in both. Wikipedia was found to have a much vaster range of topics however, including an article on Encyclopedia Britannica whereas EB had no Wikipedia article.

mathewferguson · Oct 11, 2009

priceless1 said:
Well I think we've taken a dip into the ridiculous. Mat, good luck to you, mate. You'll need it. Do keep us informed as to your success.

What do you mean by "we've taken a dip into the ridiculous"?

I took the time to write a whopping detailed response and I get back a simple FACT: X is not like Y. I feel like I wasted my time explaining myself.

The things I've said are not foolish or misguided. I'm not a newbie and living in Australia doesn't provide the special case to explain away my claims about publishing and agents.

I have encountered this type of response before. Dare say the Emperor is wearing no clothes and out will come those who insist he is.

Let me ask you this: what do you think of an agent who doesn't know what SEO is? I think they are old and out of touch. You?

Emily Winslow · Oct 11, 2009

mathewferguson said:
Perhaps I should be less modest about my experience and accomplishments but I am Australian and we don't usually bignote ourselves.

It's not about being modest v. not modest. It's about giving writers the information they need to make a decision about whether you're a good match for them. You've vaguely mentioned important-sounding responsibilities, but without any substance (company names, job titles) to support them (and only ever in defensive, grandiose response, rather than up front). As you say, there are many lousy agents out there muddying the waters. All agents should be clear about what experience they've had. Hopefully, in the future, you'll have sales to back you up. Those sales are all the experience you need, if you have them. But if you're relying on other experiences, just state what they are, without bluster. You've come across, to me at least, as sneering at us for not appreciating your background, without having first clarified what your background is.

I don't think agenting is "a silly game". I simply refuse to accord it some holy position.

There is a vast gulf between "silly game" and "holy position." My agent is skilled and works hard. Concerns are cropping up here because you dismiss the "working hard" part, and also dismiss the need to justify your claimed "skills" with specific experience.

First up - editors don't read query letters

Well, agents do. So writers, especially American writers, need to have a good one.

Old Hack · Oct 11, 2009

In America, a query letter is all that most agents see. They don't accept sample pages along with those queries, so it's wrong to say that they'll skip the query and go straight to the pages.

In the UK, sample pages are sent with a covering letter and yes, agents and editors DO often skip that covering letter and go straight to the pages.

Mathew, it seems to me that your publishing experience was gained mostly in the arena of character licensing: is that right?

mathewferguson · Oct 11, 2009

Emily Winslow said:
It's not about being modest v. not modest. It's about giving writers the information they need to make a decision about whether you're a good match for them. You've vaguely mentioned important-sounding responsibilities, but without any substance (company names, job titles) to support them (and only ever in defensive, grandiose response, rather than up front). As you say, there are many lousy agents out there muddying the waters. All agents should be clear about what experience they've had. Hopefully, in the future, you'll have sales to back you up. Those sales are all the experience you need, if you have them. But if you're relying on other experiences, just state what they are, without bluster. You've come across, to me at least, as sneering at us for not appreciating your background, without having first clarified what your background is.

There is a vast gulf between "silly game" and "holy position." My agent is skilled and works hard. Concerns are cropping up here because you dismiss the "working hard" part, and also dismiss the need to justify your claimed "skills" with specific experience.

Well, agents do. So writers, especially American writers, need to have a good one.

I have stated, without bluster, my experience: http://www.mathewferguson.com.au/about.html

I leave out of that page that I worked for an educational publisher also and have worked for various other companies.

My position on agents is, quite clearly, that it isn't the mysterious incredibly difficult job that it is made out to be. The agent job has such brilliant PR that many people have bought into the idea that it is so very hard and so very time-consuming. I do agree it requires specialised skills but it is a job just like any other. It is well within the capacity of the appropriately trained person. I cannot abide the myth-making that is wrapped around it and that is why I say on my website that I don't care very much about your query letter because I care about the story and not your letter introducing the story.

Is this really such an extreme position to take? There are blogs all over the place purporting to tell the truth about publishing - surely this has been covered before.

mathewferguson · Oct 11, 2009

Old Hack said:
In America, a query letter is all that most agents see. They don't accept sample pages along with those queries, so it's wrong to say that they'll skip the query and go straight to the pages.

In the UK, sample pages are sent with a covering letter and yes, agents and editors DO often skip that covering letter and go straight to the pages.

Mathew, it seems to me that your publishing experience was gained mostly in the arena of character licensing: is that right?

Hi Jane -- my publishing experience started with educational publishing then moved to masses of licensed publishing with some original publishing thrown in. Then I moved to freelancing and worked all over the place as a writer/editor/project manager/proof-reader/copywriter/copyeditor and about every other job you can do with words. My experience isn't limited to character licensing at all. I do have a gigantic amount of children's publishing experience behind me and a particular love of this area. I've been a ghostwriter also and can't talk about where that chunk of money came from.

I've commissioned illustrators, worked on design and branding, created publishing programs and taken many books from idea to delivery.

I don't really intend for my posts here to be my resume and project list because honestly I don't think many people care that I project managed, wrote and edited million-dollar publishing programs. I did a lot of Disney work if that covers it.

I am very aware my opinions on agents runs counter to the established mythology but I simply cannot buy into the falsehood that working as an agent is just about the most difficult job in the world. It simply isn't true.

Terie · Oct 12, 2009

mathewferguson said:
... I simply cannot buy into the falsehood that working as an agent is just about the most difficult job in the world. It simply isn't true.

Good lord! Talk about a straw-man argument.

Old Hack · Oct 12, 2009

mathewferguson said:
My experience isn't limited to character licensing at all.

I didn't suggest it was--I asked if your experience was mostly in this arena. Thanks for clarifying.

I do have a gigantic amount of children's publishing experience behind me and a particular love of this area.

Are you therefore planning on representing children's authors? That would seem to be a good fit.

I've been a ghostwriter also and can't talk about where that chunk of money came from.

I've commissioned illustrators, worked on design and branding, created publishing programs and taken many books from idea to delivery.

So have I! I've done all those things, including ghostwriting and working with illustrators, but I wouldn't dream of setting up as an agent: I just don't have the required expertise, or the required contacts. Within her genres, my agent knows who is building a new list, who is looking for something specific, who works well with new authors and who builds careers. My concern is that without such knowledge you're not going to be able to do the best for your clients.

Unimportant · Oct 12, 2009

mathewferguson said:
Query letters travel with partials. They don't travel alone.

I can't count how many ways that is wrong.

The vast majority of US agents want a query letter -- nothing else. If they're interested, then they'll ask for a partial. The same goes for an awful lot of the big -- and sometimes small -- US presses.

I have lived both in the US and in Australasia. I can assure you that the industry is quite different in the two areas.

Old Hack · Oct 12, 2009

Unimportant, I agree. It seems to me that Mathew is a little confused.

In the UK, writers usually submit a partial along with a covering letter, and perhaps a CV. I'm pretty sure that this is how things are done in Australia too.

However, in America, a writer's first contact with the publishing business is a query letter, which is sent all on its own. If the agent or editor likes the look of it, they'll ask to see more--a partial, or sometimes, a complete mss. So he's wrong when he asserts that agents and editors don't read query letters: in America they do, all the time, because they don't get partials along with those query letters.

priceless1 · Oct 12, 2009

mathewferguson said:
What do you mean by "we've taken a dip into the ridiculous"?

It means that I believe you lack the necessary experience to make such sweeping statements about how easy an agent's job is. I'm not saying you don't have some lovely experience in publishing, but your experience doesn't qualify you for being an effective agent. You put yourself - and your authors - at a further disadvantage with your claims that establishing relationships is a waste of time.

You don't even understand how things work in the US, so how do you plan on querying US editors? Query letters are the first, and in most cases, the only thing we see. If you did little more than send me an entire manuscript with a letter that says "here ya go," I'd think you were daft because I need to see the pitch - the plot.

You're competing with agents who do know what they're doing and how to send a proper query, so you do your own clients a grave disservice by not learning the rudiments of the US process.

living in Australia doesn't provide the special case to explain away my claims about publishing and agents.

I'm afraid that it does because you appear to be unaware of how we work over here. I don't know of any successful American agent who has your attitude. Your beliefs are simply incompatible to the realities of American publishing.

Let me ask you this: what do you think of an agent who doesn't know what SEO is? I think they are old and out of touch. You?

Why would they? How does search engine optimization help them sell a client's manuscript to an editor? I know a few agents who used to do book publicity, but they certainly have no use for it in their current jobs.

My comments have been compared to the Emperor wearing no clothes, but may I suggest that since I work in the US and work very closely with some very top agents, that perhaps I have a clearer idea of how things work in over here?

That is why I suggested that things must work very differently in Australia because we simply don't operate in the manner that you claim is industry wide. You paint your agents up to be little more than bumbling idiots, and you do your credibility no good by claiming that you, and you alone, are the only one with the right answers, and everyone else is doing nothing more than shoring up a broken model.

Confidence is good if it's built on a solid foundation, like agent experience and solid sales. But you aren't there yet. Yes, you claim that you've made huge sales but you weren't an agent at the time. What were those books? I've found that humility and the willingness to listen and learn goes a long way toward building a successful business. Those who lack those elements are doomed to failure because they go no further than seeking their own counsel.

As I said before, come back in six months with your list of big sales. Only then will I happily eat my words and suggest that you have a winning combination. For now, it's just words.

SJWangsness · Oct 12, 2009

If nothing else, this thread has been an interesting symposium.

priceless1 · Oct 12, 2009

still alive said:
In a case such as mine, where I want a non-US publisher for one book, why is Mat poison oak? If he can get me to an Australian publisher with foreign contacts, what's the problem?

Let me ask you this; would it be better to ask a first year intern to perform heart surgery, or a seasoned thoracic surgeon with years of experience and many successful surgeries under his belt?

If you are looking for someone to do a great job for you, you should look for a successful, experienced agent who has a collection of solid sales. If this isn't a concern for you, especially after everything you've read here, then you're absolutely right; it's your neck.

Emily Winslow · Oct 12, 2009

Old Hack said:
However, in America, a writer's first contact with the publishing business is a query letter, which is sent all on its own. If the agent or editor likes the look of it, they'll ask to see more--a partial, or sometimes, a complete mss. So he's wrong when he asserts that agents and editors don't read query letters: in America they do, all the time, because they don't get partials along with those query letters.

I agree with this in spirit, but want to add one small detail: in my (American) agent search, which was in 2007, the standard was to send a query letter + a few pages (3-5). So, yes, there was writing with every query (though not an official "partial" which is usually 3 chapters/50 pages or thereabouts). According to the agent blogs I read, the query is necessary to put those first pages into context. They're looking not just for quality of writing, but quality of story, and the story comes from the info in the query.

DeadlyAccurate · Oct 12, 2009

still alive said:
But meanwhile, we as writers have to bear the scars of rejections for two paragraphs just describing a 100,000 word book.

Every time a potential bookstore customer reads the back copy of a book and sets it back on the shelf, the same thing happens. And every time someone reads that copy and decides to open it up and read the first few pages, you've passed the "query letter stage" with a potential book buyer. Write the query you want a reader to see and become entranced by.

Agents don't reject/accept based on a whim. That implies a lack of thought into the system. They look at the publishability (I don't care what Firefox says, it's a word, dammit!) of the work, market conditions, their editor contacts, and yes, whether they love the writing and the story. They might love the work but know it'll be a hard sell for them. Or they might think the market is saturated with that particular genre and know books of that type have to be exceptional instead of merely very good. That's not a whim; that's a business decision.

Saskatoonistan · Oct 12, 2009

DeadlyAccurate said:
Agents don't reject/accept based on a whim. That implies a lack of thought into the system. They look at the publishability (I don't care what Firefox says, it's a word, dammit!) of the work, market conditions, their editor contacts, and yes, whether they love the writing and the story. They might love the work but know it'll be a hard sell for them. Or they might think the market is saturated with that particular genre and know books of that type have to be exceptional instead of merely very good. That's not a whim; that's a business decision.

I heartily agree. I was recently turned down by a very reputable agent not because there was anything wrong with my writing, but because she was already marketing a very similar book, so it was a business decision.

priceless1 · Oct 12, 2009

Getting a bit off track here, but if we operated on a whim, we'd all be out of business in no time. Excellent point, Deadly.

Eirin · Oct 12, 2009

still alive said:
Surely you do not equate an agent's intern to a Medical Intern! And yet, unless it's a boutique agency, it's the agent's intern or assistant who gets to decide who gets a rejection and who gets sent on to the boss.

Who said anything about an agent's intern? Priceless was, as far as I can see, comparing a start-up/inexperienced agent to a first year medical intern. It simply means that if you want quality work (on your heart or for your book), you're best off seeking out a performer with valuable experience and an excellent track-record.

priceless1 · Oct 12, 2009

still alive said:
So okay, priceless1...your analogy is way off base!

Not at all. I used the analogy of the ill-qualified intern vs. experienced surgeon to compare the wisdom of using an inexperienced agent instead of experienced an agent.

And to be clear; I never said you were committing literary suicide. I was merely agreeing with you when you said:

I think Mat looks pretty good for what I'm looking for in an agent for my parody/satire. If I'm wrong, then it's my neck, n'est-ce pas?

Old Hack · Oct 12, 2009

It's worth pointing out that an experienced agent can use interns to filter the slush-pile without risking missing a good submission or two because it's relatively easy to do that first run: it's easy, for example, to reject non-fiction if you only represent fiction, or to reject historical romance if you're looking for gritty realism. It's also easy to reject the submissions which are really badly written (which most of the slush-pile books are), or poorly-constructed.

So no, some literary agents don't read every submission that's sent to them: they do sometimes get someone to get rid of the books that they definitely wouldn't publish, in order to save themselves time. But every submission does get looked at, and if your book is good AND you send it to an appropriate agent, your submission will be read.

mathewferguson · Oct 12, 2009

Summary of my position: quit the agent worship.

This is agent worship: "All the agents I know work as many horrible hours as I do; almost 24/7."

More agent worship: "You have to work very hard to establish relationships with editors, both large and small."

"As one who works with agents almost every day, I consider a number of them friends. We're way past trying to impress each other because we don't have the time or energy."

"My agent works long hours, six days a week, and is spoken of with hushed voices."

My agent is spoken of with hushed voices!
Almost 24/7!

This is the kind of BS I see written about agents quite frequently. No, your agent isn't spoken of with hushed voices. No, they are not some incredible superhuman. No, they do not work "almost 24/7". I would say this was hyperbole but I suspect these are literal beliefs.

To clarify, establishing relationships with editors is very necessary but it is no longer the way it was. These relationships are short term only. Sometimes when an editor moves to another publisher there is opportunity to re-establish connection there. The old style of publishing is gone. There are no more soirees and mixing of literary greats. There are no more agents who can command the publishing landscape. There are starving desperate companies doing everything they can to get an edge over their competition. This is why editors churn and publishers churn and the whole idea of a constant relationship is ludicrous.

Even if there is a relationship with an editor that guarantees work will be read within a week, the work itself must be excellent. The relationship means nothing if the work is bad.

Priceless1: So we had this conversation about SEO.
"Let me ask you this: what do you think of an agent who doesn't know what SEO is? I think they are old and out of touch. You?"

"Why would they? How does search engine optimization help them sell a client's manuscript to an editor? I know a few agents who used to do book publicity, but they certainly have no use for it in their current jobs."

How does search engine optimisation help them sell a client's manuscript to an editor? Boy oh boy. This is exactly the kind of blindness I've seen in those old agents.

Here is how SEO helps sell a manuscript:
Old way: Writer puts together amazing piece of work. Agent starts shopping it around. Publication or not.
New way: Writer puts together amazing piece of work. Agent helps writer build a website for writer. Writer starts putting up a page every three days to build a reading audience. Writer releases chapters on torrents, targetting keywords to draw more readers. Writer puts up pay gateway to buy rest of book OR continues to put book up for free. This activity (only a small sample of things to do) builds a reading audience and may also translate into money. Now agent starts shopping book around and it travels with "5000 downloads" attached to it. It travels with quotes from people who have read the book. It travels with the knowledge that it already has an established audience. It isn't some untested piece of work. This sells a manuscript.

Further to that, after the book is published, the writer maintains the site. The publisher may be making efforts (along with the agent) to secure foreign sales and the website serves as an excellent resource for those foreign publishers.

This is why SEO is important. And any agent who has no idea is sadly out of touch.

In the discussion of new agents vs established agents on another thread on this site, someone gave a wonderful answer as to how do you decide if you should submit your work to a new agent? The answer was that they will have a footprint in publishing already. Some searching should uncover evidence of their work in publishing. It is not necessary to do an apprenticeship under an established agent to work as an agent. Working in-house as an editor gives you all the skills you need!

I will close with the summary again: Don't worship agents.

priceless1 · Oct 12, 2009

mathewferguson said:
This is agent worship: "All the agents I know work as many horrible hours as I do; almost 24/7."

Um, I don't worship agents, Mat. I work with them. Where do you see worship in a business arrangement? They have something to sell; I am in the market to buy. I'm confused by your choice of words.

To clarify, establishing relationships with editors is very necessary but it is no longer the way it was. These relationships are short term only.

Maybe that's how it is in Australia, but that isn't how is in the US. You are, quite simply, very mistaken.

Here is how SEO helps sell a manuscript:
Old way: Writer puts together amazing piece of work. Agent starts shopping it around. Publication or not.
New way: Writer puts together amazing piece of work. Agent helps writer build a website for writer. Writer starts putting up a page every three days to build a reading audience. Writer releases chapters on torrents, targetting keywords to draw more readers. Writer puts up pay gateway to buy rest of book OR continues to put book up for free. This activity (only a small sample of things to do) builds a reading audience and may also translate into money. Now agent starts shopping book around and it travels with "5000 downloads" attached to it. It travels with quotes from people who have read the book. It travels with the knowledge that it already has an established audience. It isn't some untested piece of work. This sells a manuscript.

Oh.
Dear.
God.
I'm speechless. Do you know how many times people have come up with this "brave new idea" only to be laughed off the map? No, no, nevermind...this has all gotten too silly. Mat, good luck to you. As I said before, if you're truly that good, we should see some sales in about six months - and I will happily stand on my desk and sing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener" while standing on one foot.

I have serious doubts about your abilities to get the job done, and the more you talk about your "innovative" ideas, the more I ache for your clients.

[Agent] Mathew Ferguson

mathewferguson

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle

priceless1

mathewferguson

mathewferguson

Emily Winslow

Do Not Walk on the Grass

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

mathewferguson

mathewferguson

Terie

Writer is as Writer does

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

Unimportant

doggone

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

priceless1

SJWangsness

An unknown known

priceless1

Emily Winslow

Do Not Walk on the Grass

DeadlyAccurate

Absolutely Fazed

Saskatoonistan

Still the wrong side of Saskatoon

priceless1

Eirin

Likes picnic with roast beef.

priceless1

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

mathewferguson

priceless1