The Myths of Writing--Busted

kaitie said:

I'd need some really good evidence to back it up other than "my experience has been..."

Click to expand...

Shoot, don't take Dean's word for it. Read the lengthy comments other professional writers post on his blog entries. They're often even more informative than the original post. Laura Resnick's comments in particular.

And if you're taking Dean's comments with a grain of salt, that's great. That's exactly what he's encouraging writers to do--take everything you hear about publishing with a grain of salt, whether it's coming from an agent, an editor, a fellow writer, a wannabe, etc. Gather lots and lots of info and sift for the nuggets of value.

That's what I try to do, and is just the kind of person I am. I want to make sure information is backed up.

I know that the agents and editors whose blogs I read, and a lot of the opinions I've seen here, give the same sort of advice. And yeah, I do read more from agents, but I also read editors' too.

I admit that I might be wrong. It could be that the secret code for making a living means you never let an agent sell your stuff, or you never let an agent help you revise anything, or agents are poor judges of what's good and bad.

Here's what I know based on what I've learned, however. There are an awful lot of agents out there who were once acquiring editors. Am I meant to believe that those agents who once did this for a living have no knowledge of what an editor might want, or how to improve a manuscript?

I know that there are people on here who have gone through agent revisions, a lot of people, and had their books sell. Would those books have ever sold without those revisions? Especially in today's climate where all you hear is that books that would have gotten you a contract five years ago now wouldn't because they're too much work, and editors want it to be 95% there before they ever even see it? I think there are a lot of people who, had they listened to this advice, would have manuscripts that wouldn't have found a publisher. Does that mean that their experiences don't count?

I know that there are publishers who say they won't even look at a manuscript that's unsolicited, and maybe, again, this is secret code where the truth is they read every single one of those manuscripts, but I know I've seen examples on here that have said they outright throw them out unread. Maybe they're lying? In any case, I know I've seen big publishers talk about how receiving agented material works, and that sometimes depending on the agent your work might move to the top, or if they select unsolicited manuscripts that agented work gets read faster and will get a response much faster.

So yeah, I could just take my chances and send a bunch of unrequested manuscripts (or queries or whatever) to Random House and hope for the best, but I'm probably going to end up languishing on a desk for a year, whereas if I had a good agent, it would be moved to the top. Might I get the contract either way? Maybe, but I'd at least with an agent I'd know it had been seen and considered, and probably quickly to boot.

Sure, I don't want an inexperienced agent who can't make sales, but why would I go with an agent like that anyway? And to say that the only agent you'd want is the one you can't get if you're previously unpublished? I don't know. I've seen an awful lot of agents with big sales for debut authors.

Maybe I'm just being naive. I'm sure Mr. Smith would say I am. I'd like to hear what an editor has to say about this, to be honest.

kaitie said:

Here's what I know based on what I've learned, however. There are an awful lot of agents out there who were once acquiring editors. Am I meant to believe that those agents who once did this for a living have no knowledge of what an editor might want, or how to improve a manuscript?

Click to expand...

My agent was an editor and senior editor for years before turning to agenting. Her editorial help and suggestions have been more than invaluable. I trust her editorial judgment as much or more than any editor.

She's never quashed my voice. She's simply pointed out areas of weakness, and explained why they were a problem, (like, "this scene smacks too much of coincidence. I think it would be stronger if there was a solid reason they both ended up at the same place at the same time." )

Not all agents are like this, I'm sure. I'm lucky. But she also got five different editors, at major SF/F houses, to read my first UF ms and get back to me in less than a month.

So yeah, I think trying to get an agent is a worthwhile endeavor.

kaitie said:

I know that there are publishers who say they won't even look at a manuscript that's unsolicited, and maybe, again, this is secret code where the truth is they read every single one of those manuscripts

Click to expand...

The secret code is that "unsolicited" doesn't mean "unagented", it means "from someone we don't know from Adam".

At a convention in 2009, I picked up a major UK SF&F editor's business card and an invitation for my friend to query (my own wasn't completed at the time), just through chatting to her in the book-signing queue. This year I met a publisher at the bar and pitched my own work, with the same results.

Ironically, I now have a very good and professional agent interested, partly because the publisher is - pretty much as DWS says. But it took work on my part, just like conventional querying. I don't agree with everything DWS says, but a bad agent is worse than no agent at all. You're better off getting an "in" with a small press and working your way up.

One quote jumped out at me:

But so many writers I know are not moving at all right now, just focusing on what worked five years ago. That way is career death I’m afraid. I had one writer say to me last month, “You said…” I asked when I had taught the writer that fact. The writer said in a workshop seven years ago. I said I was right then, but for today’s world that no longer applies. The writer just couldn’t grasp that a major business like publishing could change so fast.

There are a couple of folks on this site who really need to take this to heart the next time their fingers are aching to type "YOU'RE WRONG!".

On the agent thing: Okay, I get what some of you are saying about how Dean's words shouldn't be taken out of context, and he isn't anti-agent but anti-scammer-agent. Which makes sense.

However, wouldn't it be more helpful for new writers if he spelled this out more clearly?

I've been lurking at DWS's site almost as long as I've been lurking here, and he has specifically addressed the "yes, but you broke into publishing before agents were so important/required by publishers" thing.

He runs a workshop where everyone in it has to send their completed manuscript directly to editors... even those at places where the guidelines say "no unagented manuscripts."

Every time, the process results in sales. Not ten years ago, not even five.

I admit the thought of breaking a rule makes me twitch, but that's because I'm a compulsive guideline follower. But I also have to admit that I followed his writing suggestions for the second novella I ever wrote... and it sold.

Smith has quality things to say, and very not quality things to say. Like James (and Ineti) he supports the agents not touching a manuscript philosophy. He also explains how a quality agent will never take on a new writer, so you need to build up a resume as well as several other just plain falsehoods. So there are definitely elements to his advice I wholly disagree with, but I think it comes down to my belief that there isn't one large entity known as "agent". There are many different kinds of agents, who got themselves into agenting through many different routes, and these different kinds of agents can each be equally effective or ineffective depending on the human behind the title.

I know James and Ineti will disagree and point to the professionals who agree with Smith. Yet I can point to professionals here who disagree with him. Namely, me. Or do I not qualify as professional enough for some reason?

The important thing to do is to decided for yourself what method works best for you. Because this is isn't a one size fits all situation. For example, my previous agent would only let me know once all the editors she had subbed to had passed on my work. My new agent keeps me posted as it happens, and lets me know every single stage we're at. I really prefer this latter way of doing things, but I could see how many would prefer the former as in "You do your job, I'll do mine, and we'll reconvene." Btw, my old agency was one of the top ones in the UK and represents the likes of Lee Child etc. So keeping an author out of the loop somewhat (which goes against what I know James professes) does work for many professional authors.

Anyway, Smith rubs me personally the wrong way. He, like some members here, speaks his words like they are absolutes not giving room for possible variations in personality and taste. But once in a while, when it isn't about agents, he does offer some wisdom that I quite like.

That's what bothers me most, Toothpaste. It's not so much that I feel like he's lying--it's that he's speaking in black and white terms as if his way is the only way and everything else is wrong.

I've known enough success stories to know that they do happen with agents. Also there are clearly people who have managed to sell a book directly to an editor, so that happens as well. Both might be equally valid, one might work better than the other (hard to say from what we see here), etc., but if both have worked for people, it's not really fair to completely discount the other side, is it? Again, I'd need to hear an editor say this is okay, or a cavalcade of people proclaiming "I did this for my debut book and sold it to Random House" before I'd try it.

Anne, that's not entirely right. What he's specifically suggesting is to send full manuscripts to editors unsolicited. He actually said something about when publishers switched to asking for partials, only the "stupid writers" actually did that and the ones who got sales still sent in fulls.

I think meeting people at conferences is a good idea, but the chances of actually succeeding that way? I can't imagine them being very high. Even if I could afford to go to one conference a year, I can't imagine pitching a ton of editors at the event, and it would require the editor who would want to take on your work to be there as well, which isn't necessarily likely. Not to mention a lot of conferences are expensive or far away and cost prohibitive to people like me who have no money. I think a personal connection like that is a great way to bypass an agent, though, and I'd hope no one was thinking I was suggesting that would be a bad idea.

Also, whoever made the comment about scam agents, see, the thing is he never says scam agents. He says he's talking collectively about any agent who is willing to take on a debut author--which is one not worth having, in his mind. Again it's the absolute thing. He's putting every agent who takes debut authors into one group.

Are there agents, particularly new agents, who got fired from being editors and know nothing and can't make sales? Probably, and we've certainly seen a lot of people claim to be agents with no experience here. But I'm also sure (because I've seen them) that there are a lot of former editors with many contacts who worked for twenty years in various roles in the industry, who take on debut authors, and who make massive sales for them. Look at aadams.

kaitie said:

Also, whoever made the comment about scam agents, see, the thing is he never says scam agents.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, did you read all his entries on agents? This one in particular covers the various scams some (not all) agents have made use of:

http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=2077

Reading all his articles on agents will give you a broader perspective as well, if you have the time to read them all plus the great ongoing commentary from various writers, pro and otherwise.

I think it's good to remember that an agent's stats have nothing whatsoever to do with whether a myth is or isn't a myth. The worst agents in the myth area, the worst agent to have if you want the best career, are often those with the best stats.

There's nothing wrong with allowing an agent to handle your books, to be the one who sends them to editor, if this is how you want to do it, and Dean Wesley Smith says this.

I think you have to read ALL the blog entries dealing with agent/publisher/writing myths before you really know what he's talking about.

I read a few of them, but not all, no. I'll go back later today when I have some more time and go through them.

Anne Lyle said:

At a convention in 2009, I picked up a major UK SF&F editor's business card and an invitation for my friend to query (my own wasn't completed at the time), just through chatting to her in the book-signing queue. This year I met a publisher at the bar and pitched my own work, with the same results.

Click to expand...

I did this too.
My book then passed 18 months in the editor's 'to be read pile', always being displaced by something agented, until I finally got an agent and it got read.

Jamesaritchie said:

There's nothing wrong with allowing an agent to handle your books, to be the one who sends them to editor, if this is how you want to do it, and Dean Wesley Smith says this.

I think you have to read ALL the blog entries dealing with agent/publisher/writing myths before you really know what he's talking about.

Click to expand...

James, I have. And he isn't against using agents, true. But he does pass out a lot of misinformation, especially about what the role of an agent "ought to be" - the role that you yourself prefer, ie: no editing just submitting - and I know you believe this to be a hard and fast rule, but you're wrong. There are great agents who used to be great editors and who can help their authors immensely in an editorial role and to flat out deny that that is possible is just so illogical it makes my head explode. Now this isn't to say that as an author you can't choose what kind of agent you want, one who edits or one who leaves well enough alone, I am merely saying that there are quality agents for both wants. Further what really bothers me is he perpetuates myths about how to get an agent ie: how if you're a nobody you simply can't get a quality agent.

I'll repeat what I said above, I think he has some good advice, I just wish that he wouldn't be quite so absolute with it, and I really wish he'd stop perpetuating those how to get an agent myths that suggest that it's near impossible to get one as an unknown quantity. That is a myth I fight every single day, and one that drives me batty as I don't have a single author friend who was a known quantity before she/he got their agent.

Ineti - I hope nothing in my post caused your head to hit the wall, I'd hate to cause you physical pain . I also don't know how anything in my post in any way could cause you such frustration in order to hit your head against a wall. All I'm saying is, different strokes for different folks, and I'm tired of reading absolutes that suggest that if you don't do it this one way, you're doing it wrong. Nor am I denying that in certain areas Smith has some good advice. I just can't trust him 100% when he perpetuates the same agent myths as vanity publishers is all.

Especially not when I have professional personal experience of the opposite. Now I know he's got a lot professionals who support him, but, again, I have to wonder why my experience is somehow less relevant than theirs. I really don't understand that. After all, I've been with two different agencies in two different countries, been published around the world, and have dealt with agents and publishers for several years now. I know editors at the top six, I also have bestselling authors as friends, I have editors of small presses as friends, I have authors who have sold to small niche publishers sans agents as friends. I have self published authors as friends. I know a lot people who have gone many different routes, routes which served each of their needs perfectly. I have never ever said there was only one way to do anything, so Smith's method doesn't bug me. What bugs me are his inaccuracies. That's all. Not his philosophy.

Or . . . is it that I'm not allowed to comment on his inaccuracies because he himself points to taking all advice with a grain of salt - despite his penchant for absolutes?

Toothpaste said:

... All I'm saying is, different strokes for different folks, and I'm tired of reading absolutes that suggest that if you don't do it this one way, you're doing it wrong. Nor am I denying that in certain areas Smith has some good advice. I just can't trust him 100% when he perpetuates the same agent myths as vanity publishers is all.

Especially not when I have professional personal experience of the opposite. Now I know he's got a lot professionals who support him, but, again, I have to wonder why my experience is somehow less relevant than theirs. I really don't understand that. After all, I've been with two different agencies in two different countries, been published around the world, and have dealt with agents and publishers for several years now. I know editors at the top six, I also have bestselling authors as friends, I have editors of small presses as friends, I have authors who have sold to small niche publishers sans agents as friends. I have self published authors as friends. I know a lot people who have gone many different routes, routes which served each of their needs perfectly. I have never ever said there was only one way to do anything, so Smith's method doesn't bug me. What bugs me are his inaccuracies. That's all. Not his philosophy.

Click to expand...

I agree with Toothpaste and Katie. Smith's absolutes don't sit well with me and I think some of his advice is not only wrong but insulting. And I think I qualify as a professional in this business. I've been with three different agents and two publishing houses, I've had five novels published, a sixth is coming out this year, and I just contracted for two more. My ex-editor at one of the NYC Big Five is an agent now--I'm betting she knows how to suggest changes to a ms that will make it stronger and more salable, and that most writers would benefit from her advice.

Just because Smith's way works for him (and I think that is in part because of the type of books most of his have been) doesn't mean it's the best way for someone else. Share your experiences, but don't preach them as gospel.

Beth

rugcat said:

I had not realized that once one becomes a pro writer, one's opinions are magically transformed into facts.

When DWS says that buying into the myth that once you have an agent you've got it made is both untrue and destructive, I think he's exactly right.

When he implies that it's pointless to approach agents until you've sold a book and that you should instead be sending your work to editors, he's demonstrably wrong.

As I noted, writers who subscribe to this theory are almost invariably those who broke into publishing some twenty or thirty years ago, when things in publishing were very different indeed.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

cwfgal said:

I agree with Toothpaste and Katie.

Click to expand...

Me, too. You, Toothpaste, Kaitie and rugcat have already stated why, so I won't repeat you guys.

I liked reading his stuff -- but, I'm taking it with a grain of salt like most everything else. Beyond some of the great counter-posts here by Toothpaste and others, I get the sneaking suspicion that he's selling something. And he is: his seminars. His perspective may be true to him, and his seminars may be extremely valuable to writers, but I always question someone's perspective when they are also selling something to go with it.

I was reading this http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=357 and it seems so counter to what I've seen other places, that it gets my hackles up a bit. It is also, as pointed out earlier, very black and white. Good agents won't work for you unless you have a big contract in hand. All other agents are scam artists. That's what it reads like. Maybe that's not his intent, but he is a writer. It seems to me if he wanted it to read otherwise, he could have made it that way.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Well, that's a depressing list. One more nail in the coffin of my attempt at a writing career.

Click to expand...

For corn's sake, dude. It's a career like any other. you have to work hard at it and have realistic expectations in order to find success. Success is out there. Lots of people achieve it. They're the ones who work steadily and manage their expectations.

rugcat said:

My agent was an editor and senior editor for years before turning to agenting. Her editorial help and suggestions have been more than invaluable. I trust her editorial judgment as much or more than any editor.

She's never quashed my voice. She's simply pointed out areas of weakness, and explained why they were a problem, (like, "this scene smacks too much of coincidence. I think it would be stronger if there was a solid reason they both ended up at the same place at the same time." )

Not all agents are like this, I'm sure. I'm lucky. But she also got five different editors, at major SF/F houses, to read my first UF ms and get back to me in less than a month.

So yeah, I think trying to get an agent is a worthwhile endeavor.

Click to expand...

It's not only agents who've had experience as editors. I took umbrage at Dean's statement that "young agents" will damage a writer's work. I've had the somewhat unusual experience of working with two different brand-spanking-new agents who've had no experience as professional editors, and both have been incredible. Both have improved my writing greatly with their suggestions, and neither has suggested changes I thought detrimental. While it's true that nothing has sold yet, one of them did get a major publisher to request my partially written manuscript for consideration -- something that even published novelists rarely experience.

I don't think it's fair to decide that all agents are bad, and new agents in particular. Let it be on the writer's shoulders to weed out the unpromising new agents from the promising ones.

Wayne K said:

I dont think I could feel that way. I mean, I can see that I'm getting better, and I'd go as far as to say I'm good, but overconfidence has never been one of my shortcomings.

Where do these people come from?

Click to expand...

This exactly. I'm just beginning to think I may be somewhat good. I can't see me ever thinking I'm great. I lack confidence. I couldn't imagine a universe where I suddenly had it. Not going to happen.

Toothpaste said:

James, I have. And he isn't against using agents, true. But he does pass out a lot of misinformation, especially about what the role of an agent "ought to be" - the role that you yourself prefer, ie: no editing just submitting - and I know you believe this to be a hard and fast rule, but you're wrong. There are great agents who used to be great editors and who can help their authors immensely in an editorial role and to flat out deny that that is possible is just so illogical it makes my head explode. Now this isn't to say that as an author you can't choose what kind of agent you want, one who edits or one who leaves well enough alone, I am merely saying that there are quality agents for both wants. Further what really bothers me is he perpetuates myths about how to get an agent ie: how if you're a nobody you simply can't get a quality agent.

I'll repeat what I said above, I think he has some good advice, I just wish that he wouldn't be quite so absolute with it, and I really wish he'd stop perpetuating those how to get an agent myths that suggest that it's near impossible to get one as an unknown quantity. That is a myth I fight every single day, and one that drives me batty as I don't have a single author friend who was a known quantity before she/he got their agent.

Click to expand...

Dead on post. Well written...well thought out...well executed. (-:

KTC said:

This exactly. I'm just beginning to think I may be somewhat good. I can't see me ever thinking I'm great. I lack confidence. I couldn't imagine a universe where I suddenly had it. Not going to happen.

Click to expand...

The Fat Lady thinks you're great, KTC.

Toothpaste said:

James, I have. And he isn't against using agents, true. But he does pass out a lot of misinformation, especially about what the role of an agent "ought to be" - the role that you yourself prefer, ie: no editing just submitting - and I know you believe this to be a hard and fast rule, but you're wrong.

Click to expand...

Here we go...

An experience that runs counter to someone else's is just flatly declared wrong.

Nor is what DWS blogs about misinformation--beyond being that it's information that some folks really just don't like.

Axler said:

Here we go...

An experience that runs counter to someone else's is just flatly declared wrong.

Nor is what DWS blogs about misinformation--beyond being that it's information that some folks really just don't like.

Click to expand...

Toothpaste doesn't deal in absolutes, though.