Sunpiper Press / Sunpiper Media Publishing

Re: Not Good

But intentions mean nothing if you don't have the knowledge base to back them up.

Click to expand...

This statement Simon, is wrong.

Explain to me then the people who took a chance on their creativity, for which we base our(and your) so called knowledge on.....

Somebody took a concept and invented the combustible engine. The Wright brothers were criticized for their actions till the damn plane flew, then the naysayers were man enough to admit they were wrong.
Do you know this quote...."Experience is the only true form of knowledge"....

Do you know who said that... ?... ALBERT EINSTEIN!!!
...one of the world's most known intelligent men... and for him to say something so noble, speaks more volumes of support....than your criticism could ever diminish.....


If Robert wants to try a new route... let him.
Good luck to you, Robert.

Re: This whole discourse is unnecessary

Since I started this post I guess I should chime In. New to the business I thought I has a ms. ready for submitting. Thanks to Mr. Denson I find I was about to make a serious blunder to my writing career. Tho the book is good it does need refinement and Mr. Denson, knowing I have no money, has offered his support and help free of charge. Also the man is rewriting the short story I thought was a synopsis free of charge. Now if your ship was taking on water and Mr. Denson came along with a pump what would you do? I don't have a fancy education nor has my life been easy. But I do love to write so why should I be shot down because I'm a nobody. If Mr. Denson wants to help me but it doesn't follow the 'Ol boys rule, then let the 'ol boys take a look at the rules. Laws are ratiffied every year because old laws soon become outdated. Now don't misunderstand, a code of ethics is needed to keep the scammers in line. But where's the scam when nothing more than help is being offered to someone not in the click!

Re: This whole discourse is unnecessary

I am a writer, Mr. Denson. That is how I support myself. Which gives me the luxury to procrastinate on sites such as this and engage in such stimulating dialogue.

And I am defending and trying to eductate the unknowledgeable writers out there so they can make the right choice, not the easy choice.

Based on what I've seen of your literary agency site - you are not trying to reinvent the wheel, here. All good agents target submissions based on genre etc. So how do you differ in that respect? The only difference seems to be that they know the business and have contacts in the business and you do not.

I have no issues with a website that allows writers to post their work per se, but I am somewhat confused. You claim that you "believe success comes from exposure and making sure you seek out your targeted market". A definite truism. However the publishing industry is a "push" industry and websites such as yours are a "pull" technology - so I don't see how you can reach your targeted market with your model.

In addition you talk about power in numbers etc. but I wonder how you plan to change an industry where all parties within the system are happy with the status quo. The traditional publishers, published authors and book buyers are all quite content.

The only discontent comes from those outside the system - those authors who cannot get published. And quite a large number of those who cannot get published cannot get published because they are not good writers.

I am not trying to be disrespectful, I am just confused by your vision as it seems totally disregard the reality of the publishing world.

That said, I wish you much success.

Re: Not Good

Whatchwant,

Maybe you and I just see the world differently, but I think that if you have a business where other people are depending on you, then yes, you have an obligation to have the knowledge base to be able to serve them.

You shouldn't open a salon, unless you actually learn how to cut hair and are licensed to do so. You shouldn't do peoples taxes if you don't understand the tax code. And you shouldn't be an agent if you don't know the business.

You are free to disagree. You are free to walk around with a bad haircut and a tax lien on your property if you choose.

Re: This whole discourse is unnecessary

The wealthiest author in the world (and we all know who that is) was first published by a small publisher. And then only after she established a decent following, did she get picked up by Scholastic. It didn't land in her lap. We all have to start somewhere!

And for the record--you CAN get published traditionally without an agent. I would personally prefer to have someone with a good heart and a REAL interest in ME and my dreams, than an agent with too many clients and not enough time to think twice about me. I've weighed my pros and cons and feel that Sunpiper is the best choice for me.

Good luck to you all!

Re: Not Good

Well first of all Simon, you've probably walked into places that you think are run with amazing professionalism, yet the owner is probably a former dishwasher for MA AND PA'S restaurant.
Oh and your doctor, owes part of his profession to the inquisitive nature of an artist who mapped out the anatomy....!!!


Also I want you to keep in mind the richest man in the world, who has a high school diploma and that's it, took a concept, marketed it to the fullest without prior business management training and has achieve more success and has paved the way for those so called 'informed and experienced' people.

I also don't think anybody here should take advice from a writer who consistently has proved poor editing and observation. Spell the name right.......!!! "WHACHAWANT"

I don't think you're a bad guy, Simon. I know your intentions are meant well... but sometimes ya gotta take a back seat.

Go for the gusto, Robert!!

Simon

Simon,

I'm not out to change the world--just to make a difference. You call my technique a "pull" situation, however, if I can go to a publisher and tell him or her, "I have immediate access to 20,000 readers (I don't right now so don't think I'm making a false representation) that I could contact about marketing, do you not think it would be favorable?

No, I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel, just roll it in a different direction. If you haven't been able to tell, the people that get involved with Sunpiper Press feel like they are a part of something. They get to discuss things, just like we are doing here, and get to submit work for the world to see. People like to count for something---I'm just trying to listen to them and spread what they have to say.

Dave Kuzminski wrote and article about the direction publishing was headed and he hit it right on point. Just like people are tired of getting screwed by the record companies because they charge so much, there was a revolution--which spawned Napster, Imusic, etc. These guys were rogues, but they SWAPPED ideas. Do you think the guys at Napster were incompetent? MP3's are the norm now. I'm considered a old man because I still go to Best Buy on Tuesdays.

The strength is not always going to rest in the hands of the elite. People want to be heard. I just want to help them be heard. I'm not swindling anyone--just trying a different route. Like you said, however, some people don't get published because they aren't good writers---but what about people with good ideas? That is why I hire professionals to edit, review, etc. I want to build on the positive idea--not just tell the person they suck and kick them to the curb.

Traditional publishers and book buyers are content right now because they have a monopoly on the market. They get to pick and choose. All I'm suggesting is that I give the ordinary guy the opportunity to choose what they like, instead of the stuffed shirts.

I don't mean any disrespect to you either, Simon. It just seems like I'm being bashed because I'm not following the status quo. I never intended to follow the status quo and I don't tell anyone that I work with that I am.

Thank you Whachawant.

No one said it would be easy going against the grain. I'm glad someone is hearing what I'm saying.

Robert

Re: Not Good

whach-

I am not an Education snob as in those with no formal degree are inferior -

I am an education advocate as in learn what you need to know so that you can do what you want to do well and will not be scammed.

You are free to agree who disagree - but the fact remains that those who got sucked in by the likes of PA or ST Lit did not take the time to learn what real agents and publishers do.

As for the subject on this thread - it is clear by the "you gotta start somewhere" responses that again there is a lack of understanding of how things actually work.

I wished Robert the best, and I meant it. I'm just not personally interested in being someone else's lab rat.

Re: Not Good

Simon,
You obviously already have connections. That's great. You don't need me and I never suggested that you did. But just because you made it, doesn't mean that everyone else has the same opportunity.

Barnes and Noble might buy 20,000 copies of your book and distribute them across the country. What is the difference if I am, one day, able to sell 20,000 books, one on one. Isn't the result the same? The author sold 20,000 books.

I never suggested it would be easy, but it can be done.

Re: Not Good

"I am an education advocate as in learn what you need to know so that you can do what you want to do well and will not be scammed."
---those who are educated can/have been scammed and could also be scammers---

not personally interested in being someone else's lab rat.

---Understandable.---

Cheers to ya.

Re: Not Good

Good luck, Simon. I see that what you're doing so far is really working for ya. It's too bad that you have been successfully sucked into their way of thinking.

I prefer to think outside of the box.

It takes ordinary people to make extraordinary things happen. Sure, the big companies are calling all of the shots, but if they see something out there doing well, they tend to swoop in and pick it up. Like Mr. Denson said, "Check back in 5 years." I think that you might be surprised!

Re; Not Good

Rob -

I think your Napster comparison is a little off base.

The suits did not have problems with Napster because they were giving unsigned bands a chance to succeed outside the label system and giving consumers more choice or because the band's were being compensated directly instead of through royalties. The issue was that copyrighted music produced by the labels was being distributed to the masses without compensating the labels. The bands weren't being compensated either, incidentally.

And I think they had every right to be angry about it. They put hundreds of millions of dollars into producing and promoting the music so they could make a profit - then the music was essentially being stolen. Without profit incentive there would be no mass entertainment industry. Someone's gotta take a financial risk to put the stuff out there (and it's alot of money and a huge risk) - if there was no chance of getting your money back or making money why would any company bother? The answer is, they wouldn't.

Having access to 20K potential readers and having those 20K plunk down 12.95 for a book are two different things. I'm not saying it wouldn't be helpful - but the actual buy rates from that 20K audience would probably be about 1 or 2% - I don't think a publisher would have an incentive to publish a book - because an agent comes to them offering an expected 400 copies in sales.

I was not aware that there was any outcry from the book readers of the world, that their needs are not being met. I have yet to see picketers in the street demanding more fantasy books or less chick lit. Go to any bookstore and the breadth and depth of options, genres, style, subject matter - pretty much covers every issue known to mankind. What is the common man hoping for that he is not finding? I'd really like to know. I think the outcry is from the authors, not the readers. And if you are offering readers free reads instead of reads they have to pay for - I can understand the appeal. But writers deserve to be paid for their efforts and you cannot pay them if no one is paying to read their stuff.

I guess I am a little suspect of any endeavor such as this when part of the appeal is "feeling a part of something". Agents sell books, they negotiate deals, occasionally they take you out to lunch. That is their role. Publishers publish books, they edit your books and market them, occasionally your editor may take you to lunch. That is their role. Writing is a passion, publishing is a business, not a cause.

That said, I wish you luck.

Re: Re; Not Good

I'm glad that we're not playing a game of SIMON SAYS!

OK Simon--I really don't want to set you off on me again

However, since you are a writer and you are doing well--you are already in. That is wonderful for you and with the passion you write in these posts, I'd like to read one of your books (and I'm not saying that to be a smart ass--I'm really serious).

My comparison to Napster was not having to do with stealing the music, it was about the technology that spawned mp3's and ipods. All you have done, throughtout this thread, is to (professionally) tell me I'm stupid and I don't know what I'm doing (not in those words because you are a writer and much more tactful in your words of expression). But with all due respect, if you don't think there is a revolution going on in the publishing industry, you really are doing well as a writer and you don't see the little guy's point of view anymore.

Why do you think ebooks and POD's are becoming so much more popular? Have you checked out the forums of independent publishers lately? They are EVERYWHERE. They got tired of people rejecting their blood, sweat and tears and decided to go straight to the consumer.

Look at me as the legal, organized Napster (of which I'm a member). I'm looking for talent, like a diamond in the rough. Why do you just have to insist that I'm going to fail? You wish me luck and then you remind me that I'm incompetent to the publishing business. If you were truly wishing me luck, you could just do that and hope that I do well for my clients. Selling anything---ANYTHING---is about marketing. The reason McDonalds have so many billions sold is because they market to children. The children don't have money, but they convince their parents to take them there.

I have worked the majority of my professional career in the legal profession. With the laws of ethics, we cannot solicit people or send them random mailings, so a clientele builds off of word of mouth. Since there is an abundance of lawyers that are crooks, people love the one that goes all out for them and is honest. I've witnessed it first hand. Your popularity comes from your practice--not always from who you know.

Here's the bottom line Simon. I understand the skepticism people have about what I'm doing. That is why I don't charge them anything. If things fail--I lose money, not the author. If an author gets his/her manuscript edited and professionally reviewed, how does that hurt them? They can easily take that to someone else and benefit from it. Robert Denson is taking all the risks. Why is that bad?

The site statement---

My webdesigner has told me to check the site. The statement has been removed. Thanks for pointing it out.
Robert

Re: OK Simon--I really don't want to set you off on me again

Rob -

you are not the only one taking the risks. Your clients are taking huge risks if like Emanuel they believe that you are a major player or if you, in any way are responsible for their belief that "you gotta start somewhere", "established agents only sign established writers" "the major publishers won't publish first time authors so you have to think outside the box" or "you shouldn't have to deal with rejection".

Those are all fallacies. Many many agents DO sign unpublished authors, publishers DO publish first time authors, You do not "have to start somewhere" i.e. outside the establishment of the NY publishing world. And no matter how good you are Rejection is part of the journey. Develop a thick skin and deal with it.

On the other hand, if you do not have the talent you are never going to be published legitimately.

Your previously published clients are all vanity published, which means in most cases they were clueless about how the publishing industry really operates when they signed with Publish America or America House. My question is how much less clueless are they now? Based on their posts here, they seem to still be buying all the crap that PA shovels at its authors about publishing. It appears that you are perpetuating the idea that they have no shot at legitmate traditional publishing.

All of my comments have been geared toward your role as agent - not what you are doing at Sunpiper Press. It sounds like your business model includes a certain amount of crossover i.e. using the Sunpiper Press subscriber list to leverage your shot at getting your clients published. There does appear to be the potential for conflict of interest in that scenario. Or at the very least overextending your time.

I do wish you luck Robert, I just hope that you are not misinforming your clients and limiting their chances at success to further you own agenda.

My response

From what I've seen and stated before to Mr. Denson, he's not dishonest. I am concerned that he might be spending more than can be expected on the ROI, but that's something he has to deal with. He may also be going at some matters in the wrong order, but that's his choice. Who knows? He might succeed by doing something backwards to what is expected.

As he has stated quite accurately, we just don't see eye to eye on some matters. I go very strictly by the criteria that P&E uses for judging businesses within the publishing industry. Often, that means judging on appearances because it's those appearances that the real scammers feed upon.

For example only: As some of us know, the scams will charge a reading fee and justify it on the grounds that some legitimate agencies charge reading fees. Of course, we know that the scams pocketed the fees without doing anything while the legitimate agencies actually read what was submitted.

Consequently, P&E simply is unwilling to recommend any business that practices procedures or policies that provide justification for scammers to point at. For instance, P&E is not adverse to Sunpiper providing free editing. In fact, we know that there are a number of agents that do just that. However, P&E feels that Sunpiper should not list that as one of their services. Those other agents don't because it gives a wrong impression that scammers can then point at as justification of their own wrongful activity. It also attracts writers whose work is simply too much in need of work. After all, it's up to the writer to do most of the writing and that means having a manuscript that's ready to offer rather than one in need of significant editing.

The more serious matter that concerned P&E was his publication. Viewed as a catalogue meant to be seen by publishers, P&E feels it can be an excellent tool. Additionally, it also features non-clients' work. They may be getting exposure and if that is what they want, then it's still fine though it is taking advantage of Sunpiper. However, some of what's featured in that publication will end up in an anthology that will be sold. P&E feels that it can't truly be considered a catalogue under that circumstance, so P&E is concerned about the author's rights. Sunpiper states it is providing a copy of the anthology to each author, but the money it generates will go toward providing prizes in a contest for young writers. While this is noble sounding, it's neither practical nor likely to occur because none of the writers have enough draw for such an anthology to reasonably break even, let alone be expected to make a profit. Under such circumstances, they could be burning some of their print rights. P&E is of the opinion that Sunpiper should clarify just how their publication is to operate. I'm well aware that most, if not all, of their clients do not have any complaints at present. That, however, does not change the fact that the publication in its current form presents a conflict of interest for the agency unless it is strictly meant to function as a catalogue of clients' work meant primarily for publishers to view. P&E has no objection that others may view some of the excerpts that publishers might be meant to read since locking it away is impractical in the first place. After all, publishers would be less inclined to visit if doing so required going through password locked entrances that they first had to obtain keys for.

P&E's other concern had to do with some of the advice given to its authors. They were advised to get copyrights. In view of the fact that the laws now recognized manuscripts as copyrighted upon being placed on paper or other media, that is generally construed now as meaning getting the copyright registered. P&E feels that stating such to an author will cause them to do something that is counter-productive to their efforts at being published because many legitimate publishers look at a manuscript with a registered copyright upon it as an insult to their integrity. It's also counter-productive to Sunpiper since it's representing those manuscripts. Offering such registered works would be telling those publishers that Sunpiper doesn't trust them. With that in mind, it's bad advice and should be removed from any instructions on Sunpiper's guidelines and shouldn't be given as advice in any emails, either.

So, there we have it. P&E isn't opposed to Sunpiper's editing service, especially since it's free. We just feel that it shouldn't be mentioned as a service.

P&E isn't opposed to Sunpiper's publication if it's used solely as a catalogue meant for publishers. We're only opposed to it being sold as a publication meant for public consumption because that creates a conflict of interest and effectively transforms Sunpiper into a competing publisher for its own clients, even though the actual printing may be produced by some other company.

Lastly, P&E wants to see Sunpiper dispense accurate advice.

That's what it will take for P&E's current recommendation to change.

By the way, Robert, I'm flattered that you read some of my opinions. I don't think of myself as a heavyweight thinker, but I do appreciate that you took the time to read my work. In fact, I don't see myself as a heavyweight writer, either. I'm competent and I have fun with what I write in fiction. Probably my best trait is my integrity and I believe I see the same trait in you.

Re: My response

I'm feeling grumpy this evening, so I will abandon my usual attempts at tact and be harsher than Dave.

Mr. Denson is clearly well-intentioned. However, he has no professional publishing experience. Agenting is a highly skilled profession. To be successful as an agent, a person needs to have specialized expertise (such as the ability to recognize a salable manuscript and a knowledge of publishing contract terms--an understanding of copyright is also a good idea) and industry contacts (publishing house editors preferring to do business with people they know, either personally or by reputation). These are best acquired by actually working for a commercial publisher, or for another (reputable) agency. People who come to agenting from non-publishing-related fields rarely manage to make a go of it.

This has nothing to do with the old guard or elitism or any of that stuff about how the publishing times they are a-changin'. This is about basic competence to do a job.

It continually amazes me not only that people think they can dive into agenting with no preparation, as if they were selling Avon products, but that intelligent individuals who probably would expect the guy who rebuilds their back porch to have carpentry experience, or the real estate agent who sells their home to have real estate training, or the person who teaches their kids' piano lessons to know how to play the piano, think it's OK to sign with a literary agent who has no relevant training or experience. Perhaps this has to do with a lack of knowledge about exactly what training for a literary agent includes. But even if you're in the dark about that, why would you choose for your agent someone who has no proven record of success? For heaven's sake, you might as well go out and hire your friend Al to be your literary agent. Al might not be as motivated and enthused as Mr. Denson, but he probably has about the same qualifications.

- Victoria

Re: Hello Dave

As I said before, Dave, this was not about you. I told you when I first contacted you that I thought highly of what you were doing with Preditors & Editors--and through all of my sarcasm and jokes, I don't think I ever said otherwise. I, do, appreciate what you do. I also feel like that butterfly and I am fighting hard to have the courage to do what I know is right without people labeling me as a scam artist.

As to the things you address as the reason you regard Sunpiper as "Not Recommended", please tell me if I am correct:

1. You have a problem with me "listing" editing services, so if I remove the words, this will no longer be a conflict.

2. You still have the idea of the all wrong about the anthology. Simon made fun of me because he feels, "Publishing is a business, not a cause." If anyone took the time to read about the essay contest on Sunpiper Press, I stated that I wanted to know what the next generation has to say about the world they are inheriting. I plan to take that book and spread it. My undergraduate degree was in political science and if you read any of the stuff that I've written for the press (under the Editor's corner), you will see that I'm trying to make a difference. The anthology is a plan to sponsor scholarships and I have been in several negotiations with different schools and organizations to do just that. These young people are entering the contest because they want to speak. Not all essays (mind you, ESSAYS ONLY, DAVE--THE ONES ENTERED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE CONTEST) will be able to make it. When they are chosen, I will then ask for rights to publish and get a contract to do so (remember, my background is in law). I know the laws and what needs to be done. I will attest and sign you an affidavit to this affect that NO ONE'S work will be used in print format without permission and contract for compensation--whether it be $20 or a copy of the book--they (or their parents, depending upon age) will sign the contract before their work is used.

3. For the life of me, I cannot find where I am stating that people have to have a copyright. I've searched through both sites and the only place I am aware of that I mention copyrighted work is in submissions for Sunpiper Press. In that sentence, I state that they should not send long novellas that are not copyrighted or protected and that Sunpiper Press does not want them to submit something in which they could possibly be paid. I do not recommend copyrights, except in the instance I explained to you about protecting a novel idea, but it is just an insurance policy--not a limitation of rights.

That being said, if I take the word "copyrighted" out of the submissions page at Sunpiper Press (NOT THE SUNPIPER LITERARY SITE) and just use the word "protected", I'll be OK.

Recap:
1. If I take the words "editing" off my services site.
2. Make sure I get contracts for each ESSAY that may POTENTIALLY be published in print.
3. Take the word copyrighted out of the Sunpiper Press submissions page, then the "Not Recommended" rating will be removed.

I'm not asking Preditors and Editors to ENDORSE me, just not judge me unless you KNOW ME.

As for my advice to writers, I'd like for you to visit Sunpiper Press' site and look under the Editor's Corner. My editorial for November were for people to be taken seriously. This is the type of advice I give.
www.sunpiperpress.com/rd3.html

I'd really like to straighten this out Dave--without egos and name calling. As I said before, like you, I'm only trying to do something good.

Respectfully as always,
Robert Denson III

Victoria, Victoria

And we were doing so well. Smoldering the fire; taking out the personal shots---and now, here is Victoria with her insults. Thanks, you've taken quite a different approach as everyone else.

As I stated before, I have never represented I know everything, however, that is why I hire people with the experience that do. "Robert Denson would like to be thought of more as an Executive Producer not a literary agent"---do you remember that statement or did you jump in at that last minute?

I'm glad you do what you do. I'm happy you are well at what you do. I'm happy your way works for you. But, your way doesn't work for everyone. You introduce elitism because you are stating that "you know the way and you know the only way and if you don't follow this road then you will fail". You introduce that aspect with the omnipotent statements.

I have not misrepresented anything that I do and what I'm about. I have told at least 5 people that said they had contacts in New York not to work with me. They don't need me, they are already in. The way you approach this situation, you make it sound as if all the GOOD writers have been seen and signed and no GOOD writers fall through the cracks---and that is not true.

Simon made the statement earlier that "Publishing was a business, not a cause." but I respectfully disagree. You see, a cause is what sells. Publishers are just the suppliers.

Again, rather than state truth, you state your opinion that "it won't work, he doesn't know what he's doing" as if you are omnipotent. Why does it piss people off that not everyone thinks like them? I haven't insulted you. I haven't suggested you don't know what you are doing. I'm not even arguing with your opinion---you are entitled. But just because you have an opinion does not mean you have all the answers.

Thank you Victoria,
Robert

Re: Victoria, Victoria

It seems to me Victoria that you think that those of us who have signed with Robert are completely ignorant!

There are some things in this world that are more important than money, fame, and fortune. Not that I'd expect those of you avidly pursing exactly that to understand what I'm talking about! Giving someone what they may never be able to get, likely because of people like you, is priceless!

A chance for a senior in high school to put a little something extra on their college application (like winning an essay contest sponsored by Sunpiper Press), could quite possibly give them a little bit of an edge. I'm not saying that it will--but it might. So why not allow the opportunity?

I am not expecting miracles. Agents in New York can't even deliver that! If the attitude that you have, is a reflection of what is to be expected by those "reputable" in the publishing business--I'd prefer to deal with the little guy. I know that as a writer, I'll get more respect!

Re: Hello Dave

Robert, I'll go by your numbered points.

1. Yes, that's what I'm stating.

2. If it's essays, then why would excerpts of novels be in the publication or are those ineligible for the anthology? I think we should discuss only this point. Maybe I'm just dense in understanding, but I think we're each looking at something different when we speak on this sticking point.

Contracts for the essays that are published is a definite plus or good thing. I don't have any criticism of that.

However, I've been asking about the clients' work that I understand is featured in the Sunpiper Press free publication and might also appear in the commercially-sold anthology. Now if the clients' excerpts are not appearing in the anthology, then part of this problem disappears. Sunpiper isn't making money on its clients when they're not.

If the non-clients' works are featured in the Sunpiper Press free publication and they are aware that it is for exposure only and they are given a contract beforehand paying them a copy of the commercially-sold anthology should they make it into that and accept your offer, then I really don't have a problem there. The non-clients are being compensated.

3. Yes, that's what I was pointing at. In fact, there's no need to state "protected," either. Copyright is now automatic according to US copyright laws. If you state protected, some folks might think you mean they should use a poor man's copyright which actually carries no weight in the US. Besides, copyright only protects the sequence of words, not the idea.

Let's see how this works between us. Okay?

Robert, Robert & SKM Too

The Webster's Dictionary definition of the word agent: a business representative (for an athlete or talent).

Your apparent disdain for the industry you are a business representative in: "nose-thumbing the literary community" "offended by the 'hierarchy” that existed in the halls of literature' makes me wonder how you are ever going to properly represent your clients in that industry.

Unless your clients are all like SKM who appears to be more interested in "being a part of something" and "giving someone what they may never be able to get" - in which case they don't really need actual literary repreresentation - but perhaps a cult leader would be appreciated....

....or maybe he/she is the someone and you are giving him/her something HE/SHE may never be able to get. Whatever would that be, as it does not appear to be access to Simon & Schuster, Random House, Bantam, Avon, etc.?

I don't mean to give you a hard time Rob, but you really do appear to be the pied piper of literature leading your clients away from actual publication towards some utopian world you envision where the "common writer" can have an outlet. What is a common writer anyway? Have you seen the bestseller list lately? The writers on that list are not exactly Dostoevsky. The subject matter is not high brow. What those writers have in common is that they are good writers, talented - masters of their craft. If your clients possess those same talents and abilities there is no reason they should not be published by the same houses and you as their agent have the responsiblity to get them there or at least try.

Please do define common writer - my curiosity has been piqued.

Re: Robert, Robert & SKM Too

Simon, Simon, Simon! You just made me spit out my Kool-Aid with that cult comment!
I had only aimed to enlighten you. I see now that I have failed at that effort.

Everyone in here is so good at twisting what someone else says around and into something that is was never intended to be! I am only saying that students--most likely unable to land a contract while in high school, with the publishers you just named--are able to put a little something under their belt. Do you get it yet????

To be a part of something, which you deem derogatory, is human nature, my friend. You are a part of this forum--are you not???