Originally Posted by
thothguard51
Monlette,
WHY was your previous agent unable to sell your manuscript if its so perfect that you feel another agent will be more successful.
Show me where I said anything about a perfect manscript.
The implication in this thread is that you think you have a perfect manuscript. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion based upon what you've been saying.
Do you feel your last agent was incompetent?
I have no last agent. I'm speaking in hypotheticals because I've recently read conflicting information on this topic on an agent blog.
Which if I had known, I wouldn't have responded to this thread. One of the reasons there is conflicting information on this subject is because each situation is different and needs to be dealt with differently. The other is because people keep coming up with hypotheticals where they keep twisting the fact pattern to prove whatever point they want.
The advice was not to mention you had a prior agent, because the agent you are querying will think you are just trying to show off. But elsewhere it states to mention all of the editors who have seen the draft in the query letter. It seems you're to say: This is my novel -- oh and by the way -- it's already been submitted to A, B, C, and D. To me that would certainly seem just as "boastful" as claiming you had a prior agent.
It's not being boastful, it's giving fair warning there is a significant difficulty. Which you would probably better understand if you had ever been in this situation.
But suppose this hypothetical agent IS incompetant. There are incompetent agents out there and I'd like to know if previous agent is the kiss of death. So a incompetant agent would certainly fit in well with the scenario.
Incompetent agents do not get your manuscript to good editors. And you can check out who the editors are that read your manuscript. Your hypothetical seems to be incompetent agent finds incompetent editors to send the manuscript to. You put enough incompetents in here and you can prove anything.
What did the editors who read you work comment on. Surely they explained to him/her what the issues were on why they were passing, even if it had nothing to do with your writing but more of a house issue.
Even if you do not want to say here, and I can understand this may be the issue, you should think about what was said.
Suppose the agent pitched "Twilight" to the editor for "Tales of The Body Thief" because they both have Vampires, when actually their audiences are completely different?
(Or "Garfield" appealing to fans of "Barbarella" appealing to fans of "Spiderman" because they are all comic strip adaptations.)
But why would an editor waste their time reading something that isn't going to work for his or her publishing house? As I said, if you include enough incompetents here, you can prove anything. Real world is editors don't waste their time reading something that has no hope of publication. Agents who send them that sort of stuff are ruthlessly removed from their lists of contacts.
Why would I be offended? I'm just trying to look before I leap. I'm asking because I DON'T know it all. My interest in this question is purely intellectual. The manuscript you think I'd getting worked up about doesn't exist. Yet.
Again, if I had known this, I wouldn't have bothered to reply.
But it's telling that you are making the argument that any fallout between an agent and writer must be owing to a lack of skill on the writer's part.
No, neither of us are arguing that. We're working from your fake set of facts. Sure you can find incompetent agents, but they are not going to get your manuscript in front of good editors. Which is the problem that you stated existed.
So answer me this... if you dare... if the writing is too flawed or the platform is too weak for the project to be viable, then why did the agent take it on in the first place? Why waste resources trying to sell a doomed manuscript?
Because this is an art and not a science. Just like a lot of other things in this world, you take your chances and pay the price. Sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong. I've taken contingency cases that went belly up. It happens. If I knew all and saw all, I'd go to the horse track, and spend a pleasant afternoon betting horses and winning. But I've never met anyone who knew all and saw all. Lots of people who thought the did, but not one in actuality. And to carry your argument out to its logical conclusion, why don't all agents and editors only take on best sellers? Because a mid-list is also flawed, because it isn't a best seller.
These efforts cost the agent money, which he or she will not recoup unless they bear fruit? Could it be that the agent -- gasp -- exercised poor judgement? [Cue dramatic hedgehog] So why must this mistake be that they thought the manuscript was better than it was?
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. All I expect an agent to do is get my manuscript to the best editors for it that they can think of. From there, the editor might not like it, the publisher might not like it, the reviewers might not like it, and/or the public might not like it. But that's not the agent fault. You take your chances and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.