Stephen King's advice on seeking an agent

Tromboli

Hopelessly Hopeful
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
1,073
Reaction score
81
Location
Ohio
Website
www.staceytrombley.com
That same article was posted on a Stephen King facebook fan page last year. (that is where I had read it before!). I guess that doesn't mean much since we have no idea if he had any hand in making that FB page. If he did then my guess is he still feels the same way since he didn't omit that part-- or he didn't bother rereading his work before posting it =)
 

Terie

Writer is as Writer does
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
4,151
Reaction score
951
Location
Manchester, UK
Website
www.teriegarrison.com
First you hear people say that publishers won't accept submissions unless they come from agents, and then they say that publishers are drowning in submissions. It can't be both ways.

Why, yes, it can. Bazillions of writers don't read submission guidelines. Bazillions more submit straight to publishers anyway. So they can say they aren't accepting unsolicited submissions, but that doesn't stop unsolicited submissions from arriving in the mail.

All the editors I've ever heard speak say that they still do read the slush pile, even when the official line is that they aren't accepting unsolicited submissions. They don't want to miss the next bestseller if they can help it.
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
This article by Stephen King was first published in 1986. It is, I believe, still the best article on writing ever written. It lives up to its title in pretty much every way.

The fact is that an agent does make things easier. This does not, in any way, mean you can't find a good publisher without an agent, and more and more writers are going directly to publishers, and many are doing without an agent completely.

The primary reason an agent makes things easier is because agents handle the business side of writing, and most writers, especially new writers, don't want to take the time to learn the business side. This is not wise. Even if you have the best agent out there, you had better know the business side of writing and publishing just as well as she does.

Too many writers want an agent to tell them what to write, when to write it, and even how to write it. This is dumb, and pretty much assures, at best, a mid-list career.

It is possible to be published without an agent, even at many of the top publishers, if you know how to approach the editors. The business has changed, but what many don't seem to realize is that it's been slowly changing again, with more and more editors complaining that agents just keep ending the same old stuff they see all the time. This is often true. It simply is not in an agent's best interest to take chances on anything new and different, on anything that breaks the mold.

It's also true that while a few, a very, very few of the top publishers are difficult, not impossible, but difficult, to approach without an agent, the vast majority of books agents sell go to publishers that will look at manuscripts directly from writers.

More and more writers are going directly to publishers, and are using IP attorneys to handle contracts and other business dealings, and they're doing so for two reasons. 1. It allows the writer to be in charge of his own career. 2. It means the writer doesn't have to pay fifteen percent for life on every sale.

There really isn't anything an agent can do that an attorney can't. Or anything an agent can do that a writer can't, for that matter, if the writer takes the time to learn the business. Too many writers seem to think agents have some mystical knowledge or power when the truth is that many of the best agents out there knew nothing about the business, and had no special training at all, when they first hung out an agent shingle. All they had going for them was the knowledge of what makes a novel good. A crash course in how to handle a contract, and that was that.

An agent does make things easier, but an agent is absolutely not essential. And if you do need one, it's much easier to land a good one after you've had an offer from a good publisher.

I have nothing against a new writer getting an agent, if it's possible to land a good one. A good agent does make things easier. But it's just wrong to say that none of the top publishers will look at manuscripts directly from writers. Nor does it make sense to tell a writer than having an agent is the only way to go, even if it takes years to find one, if it ever happens at all. Quite often, it doesn't. There are more good writers than there are good agents, and certainly more good writers out there that agents are willing to take on based on the query system.

Agents are the ones buried in submissions, and even the best agent, even the hungriest agent, can usually take on no more than three or four new writers per year. They find these new writers based on an unbelievable number of queries, and it just does not work well for new writers. For agents, yes, it works wonderfully, but not for new writers.

Find a good agent if you can, but learn the business side of writing, take charge of your own career, and do not let lack of an agent stop you from reaching publishers. Publishers buy manuscripts, not agents, and writers sell manuscripts by writing ones publishers want, not agents.
 

ChaosTitan

Around
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
15,463
Reaction score
2,886
Location
The not-so-distant future
Website
kellymeding.com
Knowing the article was published in 1986 makes me feel a bit better. I was going to rant a bit about how an agent actually gets 15%, not 10%. ;)

But a lot more than just the percentage has changed in the last 25 years.
 

efultz

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
185
Reaction score
20
Location
Quantico, VA
I was offered a deal before I had an agent - but I got an agent the same day, on the basis of having an offer on the table, and he negotiated a better deal than I would have got unagented. I reckon he's earned his commission already :)

One of the best reasons for an agent - get a better deal! They also actually understand contracts. Knowing editors and thus who might be interested in what, that seems helpful, too. From what I've read, agents speed up the process, do a lot of legwork, and leave the writer more time to write novel #2.
 

authorgirl1485

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
142
Reaction score
22
Location
Utah
Since I'm not certain which is better, I'm going to try doing both. I figure that it doesn't hurt to try all the routes possible.
 

Terie

Writer is as Writer does
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
4,151
Reaction score
951
Location
Manchester, UK
Website
www.teriegarrison.com
Since I'm not certain which is better, I'm going to try doing both. I figure that it doesn't hurt to try all the routes possible.

Actually, it can hurt to query both publishers and agents simultaneously, or publishers first. If an agent is interested in a manuscript, only to find that it's already been shopped to and rejected by all the places he or she would've sent it, the agent might decide not to take it on.

If you want an agent, start by querying agents. If you don't get representation, then there's no problem with going straight to publishers. If you get a contract offer, you could even then go back to your top-list agents and try again, contract in hand.

That's the way it is currently. Five years ago, I would've offered different advice, and three years before, different still. The agent-publisher tension is always in flux, and the 'predominant advice of the day' changes constantly.
 

KathleenD

New kid, but no need to be gentle.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
454
Reaction score
80
Location
Inside your computer.
Website
kathleendienne.com
All the editors I've ever heard speak say that they still do read the slush pile, even when the official line is that they aren't accepting unsolicited submissions.

This. THIS. I read a whole lot of author blogs when I was in my research-the-industry phase. It's a funny thing, but if you limit your research to people who have actually sold novels, a substantial proportion made it through by directly submitting, no matter what the guidelines for their publisher say... and the proportion doesn't change regardless of the year of the first sale.

Also, here's the other flaw in the "publishers don't take submissions" reasoning. If that were true, why do they keep the manuscripts? Why do the people who send them get rejection letters? When I was working for a client (video games, FWIW) who did not accept unsolicited story lines, we just threw out, unread, all such things. Anyone who wrote to inquire as to the status of their submission got a cut and paste "we don't read unsolicited material for legal reasons." Simple. The end.

But publishers, quite famously, don't do that.

Do most people who send unsolicited manuscripts get rejected? Sure. But most people who send manuscripts in *any* way get rejected. Heck, read agent blogs. Most of the manuscripts they send out get rejected. Not 99%, but they're only flogging the cream.

...he negotiated a better deal than I would have got unagented.

Indeed. And congrats :)

An IP lawyer could have done the same contract stuff, I guess, but an IP lawyer can't sell audio/foreign/movie rights.

Actually, it can hurt to query both publishers and agents simultaneously, or publishers first. If an agent is interested in a manuscript, only to find that it's already been shopped to and rejected by all the places he or she would've sent it, the agent might decide not to take it on.

If you want an agent, start by querying agents. If you don't get representation, then there's no problem with going straight to publishers. If you get a contract offer, you could even then go back to your top-list agents and try again, contract in hand.

That's the way it is currently. Five years ago, I would've offered different advice, and three years before, different still. The agent-publisher tension is always in flux, and the 'predominant advice of the day' changes constantly.

I feel like your personal fangirl today, Terie :) But this, this, this TOO. Simultaneous submission (to both agents and pubs) sounds like a recipe for trouble to me for the reasons stated.

And the "best" advice changes depending on the year.
 

Anne Lyle

Fantastic historian
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
3,469
Reaction score
397
Location
Cambridge, UK. Or 1590s London. Some days it's har
Website
www.annelyle.com
Indeed. And congrats :)

An IP lawyer could have done the same contract stuff, I guess, but an IP lawyer can't sell audio/foreign/movie rights.

Thanks!

An IP lawyer also wouldn't know what other deals had recently been done with that publisher and therefore what could reasonably be asked for. My agent basically said to them "Right, we just agree terms X, Y and Z for client A. Now we'd like the same for client B (i.e. me)." An IP lawyer doesn't have that kind of clout.
 

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,321
All the editors I've ever heard speak say that they still do read the slush pile, even when the official line is that they aren't accepting unsolicited submissions.

That's not generally the case in the US. And yet, the folks at Random House get thousands of unsolicited manuscripts over the transom, which the interns process.
 

Terie

Writer is as Writer does
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
4,151
Reaction score
951
Location
Manchester, UK
Website
www.teriegarrison.com
All the editors I've ever heard speak say that they still do read the slush pile, even when the official line is that they aren't accepting unsolicited submissions.

That's not generally the case in the US. And yet, the folks at Random House get thousands of unsolicited manuscripts over the transom, which the interns process.

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. By 'they' I didn't mean the editors personally; I meant the publishing houses. That is, the editors I've heard speak (mostly US ones, incidentally) say that even when a publisher says it doesn't accept unsolicited manuscripts, the publishing house still does actually have folks who read the slush.
 

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,321
That is, the editors I've heard speak (mostly US ones, incidentally) say that even when a publisher says it doesn't accept unsolicited manuscripts, the publishing house still does actually have folks who read the slush.

That hasn't been the case in my experience; the Big Six publishers I have worked for, including Random House and Simon and Schuster, respond to unsolicited manuscripts with a form letter (returning them if the writer included a SASE, destroying them otherwise). This is one of the least desirable intern jobs.

Of course, different publishers may approach this differently.
 

Nick Blaze

Jun-Ikkyu
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
647
Reaction score
48
Location
On Urth.
I'm going to post my opinions here, so be warned.

People keep buying King's work. People, many, many of them do. But here's the thing with the masses: you need to dumb down and simplify things in order to sell to the masses.

I have been a drummer for many, many years now. I have listened to a lot of rock, jazz, and pop and I know that the drumming is consistently bad. Not only does the production often tone it out, but the musicians are thinking drums are only for beat, not as a musical instrument itself. So I want to challenge myself and keep my creativity open, I play metal. The masses do not like metal, save traditional bands like Judas Priest and Black Sabbath. They don't understand the musical complexity--another reason I believe classical music is not appreciated as much. The talent in music has drastically gone down.

But people don't really like talent. I've seen them go crazy over the guitar work by Led Zepplin, and think Gorguts - Obscura is terrible, which absolutely baffles me. I personally know a nine year old, a thirteen year old, and a 10 ten year old who can nearly flawlessly cover Zepplin, but I also know guitarists who have trained for 10 years+ who can't cover a single riff by Gorguts.

And yes, technicality alone does not make good music, I know. Gorguts (they are only one example) have very good song writing abilities, making emotions available through the notes and rhythms, not the lyrics. Hell, a singer is never necessary to make good music- the music is.

The point is that talent is very much not appealing to most of the world. It does take a point to look at most of the older classics, books like Paradise Lost, for instance, who have a technicality to the writing. But such a book does not appeal to masses because of it. Talent must be toned down. The real talent in writing isn't so much writing, but writing a book that's marketable to a lot of people. That's a talent itself, but not the same as what I'm talking about.
 

Giant Baby

Oh, the humanity.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
988
Reaction score
271
Location
First-person omnicient
Personally, I can't see how using Stephen King's 23-year-old piece of advice (PDF with the 1988 copyright here) to new writers about acquiring representation is considered a valid starting place for this discussion about today's market (interesting, though it's been). Publishing has changed extraordinarily since this article was written. In my opinion, it's unfair to new writers, to the industry, and to Mr. King to be discussing the market based on an article published in 1988.
 

rosehips

Mr. Boo is watching you.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
808
Reaction score
58
Location
Burgundy, France
Website
www.upwork.com
Giant, it wasn't presented as being 23 years old on the site where I read it. So I think the question is, why did the publisher of that site think it was still relevant?
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
I'm going to post my opinions here, so be warned.

yadda yadda yadda



So, is the point of your long post that Stephen King is a lousy writer and he only sells because his fans are too stupid to recognize this?
 

Nick Blaze

Jun-Ikkyu
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
647
Reaction score
48
Location
On Urth.
So, is the point of your long post that Stephen King is a lousy writer and he only sells because his fans are too stupid to recognize this?

No, don't take offense to this. If you read it all, you should understand. It is true that his work cannot compare to the aforementioned Paradise Lost, but I just wanted people to be aware that publishing now is, in fact, catering to a VERY different audience than 20 years ago.
 

entropic island

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
817
Reaction score
92
To say that a book being a bestseller is a sign of quality is naive.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
No, don't take offense to this. If you read it all, you should understand. It is true that his work cannot compare to the aforementioned Paradise Lost, but I just wanted people to be aware that publishing now is, in fact, catering to a VERY different audience than 20 years ago.

I did read it all. I wouldn't compare King to Milton, nor do I think he's a particularly literary writer, but I'd strongly disagree that he's not a good writer. The thrust of your point seems to be that the masses don't like talent; King is popular; therefore King doesn't have talent. Or his talent is for "dumbing things down" and simplifying them. That's incorrect; his talent is for storytelling and for spinning a world full of details that stick in your head (and sometimes creep you the hell out).

Publishing is different now, but I don't see what that has to do with whether or not King has talent or if people only buy him because he writes big dumb books for the masses.
 

Nick Blaze

Jun-Ikkyu
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
647
Reaction score
48
Location
On Urth.
I did read it all. I wouldn't compare King to Milton, nor do I think he's a particularly literary writer, but I'd strongly disagree that he's not a good writer. The thrust of your point seems to be that the masses don't like talent; King is popular; therefore King doesn't have talent. Or his talent is for "dumbing things down" and simplifying them. That's incorrect; his talent is for storytelling and for spinning a world full of details that stick in your head (and sometimes creep you the hell out).

Publishing is different now, but I don't see what that has to do with whether or not King has talent or if people only buy him because he writes big dumb books for the masses.
I suppose here we ask the difference between a "good" writer and a "talented" writer. There are good songwriters who are talentless, who create good music.
 

supernaut

Registered
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
To say that a book being a bestseller is a sign of quality is naive.

Absolutely. There's McDonald's. And there's the elite sushi restaurant on my block. One is obviously far better than the other, not just in terms of taste and nutrition, but dining atmosphere.

One sells far more food, however.
 

Nick Blaze

Jun-Ikkyu
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
647
Reaction score
48
Location
On Urth.
Absolutely. There's McDonald's. And there's the elite sushi restaurant on my block. One is obviously far better than the other, not just in terms of taste and nutrition, but dining atmosphere.

One sells far more food, however.

Good comparison, actually.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
I suppose here we ask the difference between a "good" writer and a "talented" writer. There are good songwriters who are talentless, who create good music.

Well, you're the one making the distinction; I don't really see much difference. This thread isn't really about Stephen King's worth as a writer, but you seem to be saying that he's a bad writer because he's a popular writer who writes for the dumb masses. Since I fancy myself both a writer and a reader with some discernment (and I read everything from King to Dostoevsky to Murakami to Heinlein), I don't take it personally if you insist on saying that a writer I enjoy is a crap writer, but I am going to call you on it and ask you to back it up with more than just "Well, he's popular so obviously he writes crap."