[Agent] Mathew Ferguson

Izz · Oct 21, 2009

Another question for you, Mat, regarding your About page.

Where can i find the Pinocchio adaption you did for Penguin?

The closest i can find is this (pubbed in 2002/2003; can't find anything from Penguin that might relate later on than that): Australian Libraries Search and Barnes and Noble. However, that is neither an adaptation of the movie nor a 32-page picture book, and was written by Lane Smith.

Perhaps, seeing as that is the first listed of your credits, you might want to provide linkage to where the book can be found on your About page (and here too would be nice).

ETA: Oh, and what's the deal with Ibis Publishing? Is it defunct, because the only web presence i can find for it is a static page that provides no information?

mathewferguson · Oct 21, 2009

Izz said:
Another question for you, Mat, regarding your About page.

Where can i find the Pinocchio adaption you did for Penguin?

The closest i can find is this (pubbed in 2002/2003; can't find anything from Penguin that might relate later on than that): Australian Libraries Search and Barnes and Noble. However, that is neither an adaptation of the movie nor a 32-page picture book, and was written by Lane Smith.

Perhaps, seeing as that is the first listed of your credits, you might want to provide linkage to where the book can be found on your About page (and here too would be nice).

ETA: Oh, and what's the deal with Ibis Publishing? Is it defunct, because the only web presence i can find for it is a static page that provides no information?

Google is the best you can do for Pinocchio. You can see in the Australian Libraries Search http://nla.gov.au/anbd.bib-an25128861 an image and you can just make out my name. It was a 32-page storybook.

I can't link to that book for my professional website - the links aren't stable. Penguin has no static page for it as far as I'm aware. I'm also not trying to impress anyone with the fact that I adapted a common story back in 2003.

Ibis Publishing is defunct as far as I'm aware. They were called Ibis Brewster for a while. This is about all the evidence for them http://macmillan.co.nz/getbook/9781920923631/showbook -- This was one of four titles that were published (I think vol 3 & 4 were published, I never received copies of those).

If you google "adapted by Mathew Ferguson" or "written by Mathew Ferguson" then you can find some stuff.

Some things don't have my name on them for various reasons. This is a non-fiction title for Funtastic for example: http://www.sportswriter.com.au/product/?id=1202

kaitie · Oct 21, 2009

Swordswoman said:
I'm more than cringing, I'm very alarmed.

I'm not surprised Mathew's finding a bump in submissions since this thread started. What concerns me more is what that's saying about other people's perception of AW.

We have already seen one post by a relative newbie expressing amazement at the kind of behaviour we're exhibiting here, and I rather doubt they're alone. I have one tiny example of my own in a friend to whom I recommended this site, but who unfortunately found this thread when searching for my name. She now calls this place 'Absolute Hate' and laughs at me for recommending it.

So why should we care if a couple of people don't like us so much? Well, here are some reasons.

The Beware and Background checks forum performs an invaluable service for writers, and I should be sorry to see its reputation damaged. At its best, members ask questions, the agent/publisher gives answers, we may comment on whether or not we agree or what our own experience shows, and that's it - the information is out there for writers to make up their own minds. The system works. I would beg any new writers out there NOT to judge AW or the B and B board by this one thread, because it is far from typical. Personal abuse and ad-hominem attacks are not normally allowed, and a degree of courtesy is (or used to be) almost always preserved.

If you're new and in doubt, the best recommendation I can make is to look for the posts of a previous Moderator here, Victoria Strauss. She is a staff member at Writer Beware, very knowledgeable on the international as well as the US scene, and does not stoop to diatribes. She has posted on this thread, and I suggest you look for her comments.

In terms of Mathew specifically, the facts you might need to consider are already here. If you're not sure how to interpret them (eg is a brand new agent a good thing? is it essential to have one who's already worked in an agency? etc) then I recommend this article by Victoria Strauss.

Near the bottom comes this piece:

This is (in my opinion) very good advice. It is also measured and fair. It warns against the possible pitfalls of a new agent, but cites publishing experience as a viable alternative to agenting experience, and mentions the 'new agent making sales within six months to a year' as a 'general rule of thumb', not as an absolute directive.

For me personally, AW works best when it gives clear, fair guidance, rather than making whopping great personal judgments. Frequently that is exactly what the B and B board actually does - this thread is an aberration, and should not be used to judge the whole.

The Bewares and Background board enjoys sufficient respect for agents and publishers to answer questions here, and I would be sorry to see this stop. There may be new agents out there who see what has been done to Mathew and decide against entering the bear-pit at all. I couldn't blame them, but I think it makes the board less effective.

The Bewares and Background board not only gives information, it helps educate new writers on how to make judgments for themselves - and I'd be sorry if we gave them the wrong impression of how this is done. What we are doing here is crying 'Wolf!' For instance, Mathew has been accused of lying, but there is no evidence in the thread to indicate this at all. A new writer reading this might think the 'You're lying!' is a standard attack on AW and can safely be ignored. Well, it can't. What if the next thread they look at is this one? What if they look at Tate Publishing, see the various shills being attacked and think it's just another case of beating up the outsider? There are people lying on that thread, and we need writers to know it. This thread is not helping them make those distinctions.

The Bewares and Background board needs to be more responsible than any other on AW. We are not arguing over adverbs or prologues here, we are talking about people's whole careers and livelihoods. Extra care simply has to be taken, and unless a statement can be clearly supported by fact, it needs to be qualified as opinion. I know it's fun, that whole 'You're WRONG!!!' thing, but what is said on this board can't be solved by a quick clean-up into TIO or even a 'yeah, I got a bit carried away there' (though that would help!!). Damage done here is damage done forever - both to an ill-informed writer and to a misrepresented agent. There is an issue of simple humanity. For those not bothered by that, there's also an issue of libel...

I like Mathew, but I hold no personal brief for him and from what he says about submissions he's not so far been damaged here. But I love AW and am concerned that we have. I know perfectly well these remarks would come better from someone a lot more senior than I, and have waited a long time in the hope that they would. I apologize if this was not my place.

Louise

I'm throwing in my own two cents here because I agree with what I'm seeing here. And because I wanted to point out something to Rolling Thunder.

Only fifty people might have responded, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us have no interest. I rarely actually post over here, but I read EVERY thread. I read through the advice offered and it has actually caused me to add and remove agents from my submissions list. I have followed this as well.

The reason I don't post is because most of those who do have much, MUCH more knowledge than I do about any of these subjects. This is one of the most valuable sections of this entire board because we have people who work in the industry and published authors who work hard to protect the rest of us.

That being said, what is said here holds more value than what is found elsewhere. Not only that, the comment about jumping from asking valued questions to making assumptions about personality, etc., is important not only because it can give someone a negative impression of the board as a whole, but because it can actually undermine the arguments going on. When it steps beyond facts and concerns and becomes more personal, all of those legitimate concerns can end up tossed (rightly or wrongly) into the "you're just being mean" category.

Maybe some people have thought Mat handled himself well and therefore submit more (or haven't read the whole thread). Maybe some of those people have thought the denigration of the argument means that the entire argument was worthless to begin with. Still others might read it and think "Clearly Mat sucks" (not saying you do, Mat). The problem is that middle set of people, and even worse is the fact that if they believe someone is being unfair in one instance, if you speak out against another agent, they're more likely to assume you're being unfair there, as well. Do we see how this can be dangerous?

mathewferguson · Oct 21, 2009

Terie said:
Did you work at Pearson as an editor? If so, what sort of editor: copy editor, acquisitions editor, or what? Did you acquire the handwriting series or the psychology textbooks? Or was that work freelance editing?

Project editor was the official title. If you ever go to seek.com.au you can see the position is there almost continuously... make of that what you will.

What difference will it make to you or anyone whether I tell you what I acquired or not? I've already gone to the bloody bottom! The Editor In Chief has called me a liar to my face and no one has said boo. Trying to verify my credentials now is far too little and far too late.

Terie · Oct 21, 2009

mathewferguson said:
Project editor was the official title. If you ever go to seek.com.au you can see the position is there almost continuously... make of that what you will.

What difference will it make to you or anyone whether I tell you what I acquired or not? I've already gone to the bloody bottom! The Editor In Chief has called me a liar to my face and no one has said boo. Trying to verify my credentials now is far too little and far too late.

Actually, you keep implying that Funtastic wasn't the only place you worked as an acquisitions editor. (You might not realise that your posts imply that, but they do.) I'm trying to establish whether you worked as an acquisitions editor at a standard commercial publisher that wasn't Funtastic. Several others have been trying to do the same. I wish you would reply directly to a perfectly legimate question in regards to your publishing footprint.

And the difference it would make? It would make it clear that you're willing to answer a politely asked, relevant question.

Eirin · Oct 21, 2009

mathewferguson said:
Trying to verify my credentials now is far too little and far too late.

Well, we didn't really have a chance to verify this before now, since you don't choose to mention your history as a project editor at Pearson Publishing on your About page.

Do you think experience in editorial management is less relevant than having freelanced for a now defunct press?

I find that very odd.

ETA:

mathewferguson said:
Please be assured I have worked on adult fiction, children's licensed fiction, children's non-fiction, adult non-fiction, romance (ugh), young adult fiction and a whole range of other exciting projects (like the Pearson Junior Atlas, where I was project editor).

I see you did tell us earlier in the thread. I should have caught that.

I still think it's odd that you don't mention it on your About page though.

Izz · Oct 21, 2009

mathewferguson said:
Google is the best you can do for Pinocchio. You can see in the Australian Libraries Search http://nla.gov.au/anbd.bib-an25128861 an image and you can just make out my name. It was a 32-page storybook.

I can't link to that book for my professional website - the links aren't stable. Penguin has no static page for it as far as I'm aware. I'm also not trying to impress anyone with the fact that I adapted a common story back in 2003.

It's not about trying to impress people. It's about backing up your stated credentials with evidence that those credentials are real. Anybody can create a pretty webpage and say stuff. Not that those credentials mean you'll be able to sell my work as an agent, but at least they're verifiable.

Ibis Publishing is defunct as far as I'm aware. They were called Ibis Brewster for a while. This is about all the evidence for them http://macmillan.co.nz/getbook/9781920923631/showbook -- This was one of four titles that were published (I think vol 3 & 4 were published, I never received copies of those).

Then perhaps you need to state on your About page that Ibis Publishing is defunct. At present, the first link on Google when searching for 'Ibis Publishing' leads to a phishing site. I'm sure you don't want prospective clients heading there when they're checking out your credentials.

What difference will it make to you or anyone whether I tell you what I acquired or not? I've already gone to the bloody bottom! The Editor In Chief has called me a liar to my face and no one has said boo. Trying to verify my credentials now is far too little and far too late.

Look, Mat, i really and sincerely want to believe that you're well-intentioned but a little out of your depth at present, and not a scammer or a con. However, i'm getting sick of seeing the continuous thread in your replies, which has now escalated from 'why is everybody picking on me?' to 'i've been called nasty things; that's libel; you all hate me for no reason.'

That's a diversionary tactic, and one which makes you look completely unprofessional. And before you say, 'well, everybody else has been acting unprofessionally as well, and they shouldn't be picking on me,' let me say that you've done a whole lot to bring this on your own head by misreading and misinterpreting posts--whether intentionally or not i can't tell and won't make comment on--and backtracking and circling and responding aggressively and generally crying foul every time something is asked of you.

This is a Bewares and Backgrounds Board. People want specifics, and when someone hedges they assume the worst. When someone comes in and starts taking large swings at an industry they're supposed to be involved in--large swings of statement, rather than evidence; and statement that isn't easily backed up by quantifiable evidence--people are going to assume that they're dealing with someone who, at worst, isn't legit or, at best, is grossly inexperienced and out of their depth. Why? Because of prior experience. Just like you say prior experience has given you perceptions of the publishing industry and agents, etc, prior experience has given the people who you say are picking on you perceptions too. And, unfortunately, you just keep firing ammunition out that backs up those perceptions.

I would politely suggest putting the 'i'm-being-martyred' attitude away and answering questions politely. You've answered my last one in that manner and i appreciate that and thank you for it. I hope you continue to do that for everybody else.

Oh, and by the way:

You are 100% dead wrong, misguided and clearly have no idea.

Last time i checked, that was calling somebody a liar too. Be careful that you don't become what you accuse others of being.

mathewferguson · Oct 21, 2009

Terie said:
Actually, you keep implying that Funtastic wasn't the only place you worked as an acquisitions editor. (You might not realise that your posts imply that, but they do.) I'm trying to establish whether you worked as an acquisitions editor at a standard commercial publisher that wasn't Funtastic. Several others have been trying to do the same. I wish you would reply directly to a perfectly legimate question in regards to your publishing footprint.

And the difference it would make? It would make it clear that you're willing to answer a politely asked, relevant question.

I have never ever had the job title "acquisitions editor". I've had editor, project editor, copywriter, copywriter and content developer, Supplements editor and a few more around writing and editing.

I'm sorry Terie but I'm really at the point where your perfectly legitimate question is far too little far too late. You were flaming away a few pages back and not at all politely.

Why should I spend the time answering your question when the Editor in Chief has called me a liar to my face? I'm also starting to feel inclined to only respond to those who are at least civil. You weren't very much before.

If you want to look up my publishing footprint, go to Google.

I'm not going to be tricked into thinking that if I turn over every single project I've ever worked on and every single publisher I've done work for that it's going to make one tiny bit of difference.

People lost their minds because I disagree on some points about agent work and then used this as a reason to move from snide to completely libelous malicious posts that are solely directed at ruining my business.

Let's not pretend this is now the detective work to confirm my background.

Terie · Oct 21, 2009

mathewferguson said:
I have never ever had the job title "acquisitions editor". I've had editor, project editor, copywriter, copywriter and content developer, Supplements editor and a few more around writing and editing.

I'm sorry Terie but I'm really at the point where your perfectly legitimate question is far too little far too late. You were flaming away a few pages back and not at all politely.

Why should I spend the time answering your question when the Editor in Chief has called me a liar to my face? I'm also starting to feel inclined to only respond to those who are at least civil. You weren't very much before.

If you want to look up my publishing footprint, go to Google.

I'm not going to be tricked into thinking that if I turn over every single project I've ever worked on and every single publisher I've done work for that it's going to make one tiny bit of difference.

People lost their minds because I disagree on some points about agent work and then used this as a reason to move from snide to completely libelous malicious posts that are solely directed at ruining my business.

Let's not pretend this is now the detective work to confirm my background.

Thank you, Mathew. Your reply answers any last questions I had.

mathewferguson · Oct 21, 2009

Terie said:
Thank you, Mathew. Your reply answers any last questions I had.

Please stop pretending it was in any positive interest of anyone Terie. I doubt you were searching around so you could report back with "Yes, he really did do those things!".

mathewferguson · Oct 21, 2009

Izz said:
It's not about trying to impress people. It's about backing up your stated credentials with evidence that those credentials are real. Anybody can create a pretty webpage and say stuff. Not that those credentials mean you'll be able to sell my work as an agent, but at least they're verifiable.

Then perhaps you need to state on your About page that Ibis Publishing is defunct. At present, the first link on Google when searching for 'Ibis Publishing' leads to a phishing site. I'm sure you don't want prospective clients heading there when they're checking out your credentials.

Look, Mat, i really and sincerely want to believe that you're well-intentioned but a little out of your depth at present, and not a scammer or a con. However, i'm getting sick of seeing the continuous thread in your replies, which has now escalated from 'why is everybody picking on me?' to 'i've been called nasty things; that's libel; you all hate me for no reason.'

That's a diversionary tactic, and one which makes you look completely unprofessional. And before you say, 'well, everybody else has been acting unprofessionally as well, and they shouldn't be picking on me,' let me say that you've done a whole lot to bring this on your own head by misreading and misinterpreting posts--whether intentionally or not i can't tell and won't make comment on--and backtracking and circling and responding aggressively and generally crying foul every time something is asked of you.

This is a Bewares and Backgrounds Board. People want specifics, and when someone hedges they assume the worst. When someone comes in and starts taking large swings at an industry they're supposed to be involved in--large swings of statement, rather than evidence; and statement that isn't easily backed up by quantifiable evidence--people are going to assume that they're dealing with someone who, at worst, isn't legit or, at best, is grossly inexperienced and out of their depth. Why? Because of prior experience. Just like you say prior experience has given you perceptions of the publishing industry and agents, etc, prior experience has given the people who you say are picking on you perceptions too. And, unfortunately, you just keep firing ammunition out that backs up those perceptions.

I would politely suggest putting the 'i'm-being-martyred' attitude away and answering questions politely. You've answered my last one in that manner and i appreciate that. I hope you continue to do that for everybody else's.

Oh, and by the way:

Last time i checked, that was calling somebody a liar too. Be careful that you don't become what you accuse others of being.

Thanks for the business advice but I like my website the way it is.

I'm sorry but I have tried to be as transparent and clear as I can possibly be. I've had people messaging me asking why I'm bothering to answer the same questions over and over and I should give up because there is something else going on. I mean, how many times can I state my position, see it misrepresented, state it again, see it misrepresented ...

Find questions I've haven't answered, if you can. I've responded to almost every question and post. I haven't responded to all of HapiSofi's because it is massive and there is no point at all in responding if she won't admit on that she is mistaken on one tiny point like slush piles. If there are questions you still want answered then ask them.

You see, you've just said something untrue: I'm backtracking and circling. Find where I'm backtracking, if you can. I've made statements, elaborated on statements, explained again and again but I haven't contradicted myself or backtracked.

I'm not one for travelling down the calling libel path just because things get a bit heated. I have very little respect for people who do this but this forum since HapiSofi's first flame has gone totally out of control. There is a bandwagon and people are jumping right on it. Forget evidence! Forget facts! The guy said agents don't work horrendous hours! The guy said query letters aren't that important!

It is because a lot of what is said is inherently unverifiable that HapiSofi and Mac's comments are so off the mark. Mac can tell that I've never read a slush pile and refuses to accept that she has made this statement without evidence.

I'm getting a bit past answering questions politely. I kept that up for nearly 18 pages and where did that get me? More insults. More snide comments. No questions. Just statements.

I'll happily talk to anyone who remains civil. For anyone who wants to flame and insult, don't bother asking me anything.

mathewferguson · Oct 21, 2009

Eirin said:
Well, we didn't really have a chance to verify this before now, since you don't choose to mention your history as a project editor at Pearson Publishing on your About page.

Do you think experience in editorial management is less relevant than having freelanced for a now defunct press?

I find that very odd.

ETA:

I see you did tell us earlier in the thread. I should have caught that.

I still think it's odd that you don't mention it on your About page though.

I didn't think it was important that I worked at Pearson because I acquired no new skills there. I didn't do one thing there that I already didn't know how to do.

As I mentioned also, I didn't enjoy the job which leads very directly to me leaving it off my About page.

I mention a few places I've worked on my About page and I think it is sufficient for people to decide if they should send work to me. Only one person has even emailed to ask an extra question.

I don't think what is happening now is the verification process just to confirm my background. It didn't happen before because the point of this thread is not to verify anything about me. It's to flame on because I hold position like "agents don't work horrendous hours" and "it is possible to call up editors you don't know and sell to them", amongst other things.

If this thread were really about verification then the questions would have been at the start.

Rolling Thunder · Oct 21, 2009

Time for this to cool off for a spell.

Rolling Thunder · Oct 21, 2009

After being accused of being unfair by closing the thread in the first place so emotions can cool I've decided to reopen the thread to let heads fall where they may.

Have at it folks. Make sure to clean up each other's blood when you're finished.

Twizzle · Oct 21, 2009

mathewferguson said:
She calls me a liar openly, harming me and my business...

mathewferguson said:
This forum thread has bumped my submissions. . .

So from that angle, a few more submissions increases my opportunity to find a publishable manuscript.

*sigh*

eqb · Oct 21, 2009

mathewferguson said:
Eqb - I very directly asked you about your post above and you said nothing. So I'll ask again: where do I claim to dare to break rules? I called bullshit on it then and I still call bullshit on it now. Care to answer?

Sure. I just needed a quiet space to find the relevant quotes.

Here are two from the same post that summarize why I made that comment:

mathewferguson said:
The kerfuffle on this thread was over comments I dared make considering the mythology surrounding agents.

mathewferguson said:
I'm starting to think that by bothering to talk to writers that I'm getting all the stuff they wish they could say to agents who have rejected them, starting with "by what right do you put yourself in a position to judge me and my work?".

These don't explicitly say that you are "breaking the rules," but they imply that there are rules and secrets that you have somehow dared to flout, attitudes that you alone have dared to express, and that your daring behavior is the real reason behind the "kerfuffle."

This post of yours today implies as much:

mathewferguson said:
I don't think what is happening now is the verification process just to confirm my background. It didn't happen before because the point of this thread is not to verify anything about me. It's to flame on because I hold position like "agents don't work horrendous hours" and "it is possible to call up editors you don't know and sell to them", amongst other things.

Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that you were a ruler-breaker, but that's the impression I got from your words.

ETA: I should clarify. I'm not saying Mathew is actually breaking any "rules." Merely that Mathew has presented himself as a daring, break-the-rules kind of guy, and he believes that's the reason that people are poking and prodding at his background.

escritora · Oct 21, 2009

"it is possible to call up editors you don't know and sell to them",

Yes, that's possible. However, there is a positive difference in the selling process when the agent has relationships with editors. Bottom line is that relationships are important in any business, including the agenting business.

Old Hack · Oct 21, 2009

Matthew, I'm just wondering, but were you among the fourteen staff members who got laid off when Funtastic was sold to Parragon? I ask because I think that's about the time I first started noticing you posting on YouWriteOn, and I wonder if that redundancy, and the increasingly difficult times which all in publishing have faced in the time since, played any part in your decision to become an agent.

I'll admit right here that this is pure speculation on my part: I might well have got this completely wrong (and if so, I apologise), but the time-scale does seem to fit.

DeadlyAccurate · Oct 21, 2009

I've followed this thread from the beginning, and I do feel it was getting a bit heated and personal, but I also feel that anyone who decides to query this agent because "you guys are big meanies" is looking at this the wrong way. The simple facts are that he has no clients and no sales.

This is your book you're talking about. The work you spent months or years on. Why risk that with an agent who has a higher-than-normal chance of not selling it? Being the underdog in a messageboard fight isn't a good reason to sign with an agent.

And if I were a writer looking for representation, after following this thread from page one, one thing I'd take away from it is that Mr. Ferguson seems completely unable to say, "I'm wrong," about anything. Not once has he ever admitted his information might be incorrect, even after people who do actually have decades of experience in commercial trade publishing have said so.

Also, if my agent got only 5-10 queries in a day, I think she'd assume her email was broken. Agents get 50-100 a day. That's why people say you haven't read slush. Not because you've never literally read any, but because you haven't read enough to really say you've read it.

Bubastes · Oct 21, 2009

DeadlyAccurate said:
I've followed this thread from the beginning, and I do feel it was getting a bit heated and personal, but I also feel that anyone who decides to query this agent because "you guys are big meanies" is looking at this the wrong way. The simple facts are that he has no clients and no sales.

This is your book you're talking about. The work you spent months or years on. Why risk that with an agent who has a higher-than-normal chance of not selling it? Being the underdog in a messageboard fight isn't a good reason to sign with an agent.

QFT. I'd go even further and say that it's not only your book you're talking about, it's your writing career. Would you hire someone to work on your car, watch your kids, fix your house, or represent you in a lawsuit simply because he or she was an underdog on a message board? If not, doesn't your writing career deserve the same kind of careful planning?

HapiSofi · Oct 21, 2009

Medievalist said:
I'm on it.

Gimme a few.

Here ya go

Aw, it's pretty. How do I use it? (This is a big deal for me. Lunar eclipses happen slightly less frequently than I use emoticons.)

James D. Macdonald · Oct 21, 2009

mathewferguson said:
Simply because I say things like "agents don't work the hours they say they do" doesn't mean you can attempt to harm me so.

Mat, the "agents don't work long hours" thing is a complete strawman.

I know I've said words to that effect here before.

mathewferguson said:
So there is nothing I can do to convince you. No evidence of any type would be able to convince you that you were incorrect on me reading the slush pile.

The slush pile is a red herring.

There is one, and only one, thing you can do to convince me: Sell a manuscript.

Sales would answer all questions instantly.

I've said many times before (and a quick Google would prove this; it isn't something I just made up to harass you): "A useful agent has sold books that you've heard of."

Last, a bit of unsolicited advice: When you're swimming with sharks and there's blood in the water, it's time to get out of the water. You haven't met megalodon yet. But believe me, he's out there.

HapiSofi · Oct 21, 2009

mathewferguson said:
I'd hold on the gratification personally.

To respond to the myriad ways in which you are wrong would take an age so I'll quickly go to a very obvious point and see what you have to say.

Until proven otherwise, I'll take that to mean that you're ceding all my other points.

It's a reasonable assumption. You've been jettisoning arguments you can't defend throughout this thread.

You said:
As for you? I went from notes like

doesn't know a query letter from a cover letter

hasn't seen much slush

has a shaky notion of what book editors do, and a shakier notion of what agents do

So the second point on not seeing much slush. I wrote this earlier:

I have read the submission pile (even calling it slush makes me uncomfortable) many times previously. I was always prepared for how I feel rejecting people but it hasn't gotten any easier. I'm very well aware that there is a real live warm human getting my response and the writer part of me hurts in sympathy.

So you would be ... wrong.

Agreed?

No. Not in the least.

You know how if you say a word over and over and over again, it loses its electric charge of meaning and turns into random phonemes? Unless your remarks about slush were mere pious flapdoodle for the benefit of aspiring writers who may one day read this, the word "slush" still carries a charge for you. Use has not eroded away its meaning.

In later messages, you explain that you've read vast amounts of slush! Five or ten pieces a day, for two whole years!

Uh, right.

You know those 50-gallon two-wheeled plastic recycling bins? They aren't big enough.

HapiSofi · Oct 21, 2009

MacAllister said:
"Five to ten per day for nearly two years" is nothing. Seriously? Most tiny little webzines get more submissions than that.

True, that. If mobility in your workspace has never been impaired by accumulating slush, you haven't read all that much. Unless you have a really big office, in which case you must be working from home.

Brisea · Oct 21, 2009

I thought better of it last time, but...

I'm also one of those members who has been lurking and reading this thread. This isn't about a bunch of bullies trying to steal a kid's lunch money. Yes, some of it has gotten a bit personal, and has devolved into hurling insults -- but the only thing I find alarming here is the massive amounts of not getting it.

Mat, you seem like a nice guy, and it appears that this might be something that just got out of hand for you. You're passionate about books and thought being an agent would be a good fit without really thinking everything through. But it's difficult to back down, and it's incredibly difficult to gracefully admit that you've been wrong. I think you need to take a step back and ask yourself -- if so many people with so much knowledge about the industry are telling you something, isn't it possible that it's correct, and that they're not just out to get you?

I think everyone here wants to see both writers and agents succeed.

[Agent] Mathew Ferguson

Doing the Space Operatic

With great power comes

Writer is as Writer does

Likes picnic with roast beef.

Doing the Space Operatic

Writer is as Writer does

Cluck that.

I write novels

.

Such a nasty woman

Absolutely Fazed

bananaed

Hagiographically Advantaged

Your Genial Uncle

Hagiographically Advantaged

Hagiographically Advantaged