FergieC said:
It's not an entirely crazy idea. I mean, you wouldn't be taking any risk at all. It's not that hard to judge whether something is potentially publishable or not - most of the initital screening in agencies is probably done by an office junior anyway.
Yes, it is. Otherwise there wouldn't be thousands and thousands of really terrible manuscripts floating around the web right now, touted by their authors and a few fans as the next big thing if only the mean ol'industry would let them play too.
I agree with you that there's no risk for the owner of the business. He pays for a domain name and spends his time to run the website, and if he's creative -- hooks up with an editing service, maybe, or charges a fee for authors to sign up, or perhaps sells the names to literary spammers or scam agencies -- the money just rolls on in. Or maybe he stays honest and the site fizzles out.
I just don't get why any author would use this service, assuming it's legitimately trying to do what it says it is. Maybe I'm missing something, but it really doesn't seem to make sense from an author's perspective.
I can send my MS off to an agent, where it'll be read and judged and rejected or accepted, or I can send it to this site, where it'll be read and judged and rejected or accepted, then passed on to an agent, where it'll be read and judged and... yeah. Where's the benefit for *me*? An agent or his assistant can tell me if my work is slush just as easily as this website can, and the agent has the power to tell me "yes" as well as "no".
As long as agents accept queries, there's no point to this service.
And, from their website:
At the request of the Literary Agents it represents, Manuscreen will not divulge the list of Literary Agencies it represents and is under no obligation to do so. Likewise, Manuscreen is under no obligation to divulge to a user the list of agencies to whom the user's information was sent. If a Literary Agent wishes to contact a user, they will do so independently of Manuscreen.
I can't think of a single reason for them to not brag about the great agencies they've got lined up. Unless, of course, the agencies aren't so great. Or perhaps they don't even exist.
ETA: Can't resist this gem.
11. What are my chances of finding an agent through Manuscreen and being published?
We are very selective - our agencies demand it. For every 100 manuscripts we receive, we recommend roughly 15 to our agencies. About two-thirds of those get picked up for representation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're saying 10 out of every 100 manuscripts they receive are picked up for representation. Pretty great odds, given that authors are submitting in all genres! Unless I missed the genres requested somewhere...
Oh, and I found their answer to why they don't publish their agent list.
15. Do you publish a list the agents you read for?
The agencies we read for wish to remain anonymous for two reasons:
1) We are not the sole source of manuscripts for the agencies we represent and those agencies do not want us to give that impression. To the agencies we read for, we are simply another source of manuscripts, and a paid one at that. While they are happy to accept quality recommendations from Manuscreen, they wish to leave the door open for more traditional contacts as well, such as word-of-mouth or query letter (if they accept them). They feel that to advertise their names would be to give the impression that we are their sole representatives, and as such they have asked to remain anonymous.
2) Naming the agencies could potentially encourage authors of passed-over manuscripts to contact the agencies directly, hoping for more information or editorial feedback.
I'm not buying it, myself. The first reason is a mess. A disclaimer above the list stating "we are not the sole source..." would eliminate 90% of it. And the idea that authors would stop submitting to a potential source without being hit with a brick is ludicrous. AND it's interesting that ALL of the companies they represent have the same reaction to the idea.
The second reason is just flat out silly. The author is no more or less likely to contact the agency in this case than if they had submitted to the agency directly. And I imagine most agencies are perfectly capable of dealing with situations like this, given that they, you know, have to do so anyway if they accept queries.
