- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 6,449
- Reaction score
- 1,321
Another thing editors and pubs don't like is if you acquire an agent in the middle of contract negotiations, who then takes over and they have to start from scratch.You're never obligated to go with a publisher until you sign the contract. Of course, though, it would be EXTREMELY unprofessional to verbally accept the deal, sign with an agent, and THEN say, "Oh sorry we're going to shop this elsewhere now."
I know of agents who have turned down established authors with track records looking to change agents, simply because they don't particularly connect with that author's work.It's important to note though that even when you have a publishing deal in hand, the agent is only going to take you on as a client if they connect with the manuscript. Very, very few agents (I'm sure there are SOME out there even though I've never encountered this) are just going to take you on since you have a contract pending so they can make an "easy" commission off you (again, general you).
This is a very popular approach in the essays on representation I've seen at HWA also.
That said, it doesn't reflect things now, so much as things a decade or two ago, it appears:
Many houses no longer take unagented subs
Slush piles are even longer
People are, if anything, less patient
Do you NEED an agent? No. But they can get you to the right people, in a timely fashion. they can not only open more doors, they have a better idea which doors to bother with in the first place. And they can open them a hell of a lot faster.
Another thing editors and pubs don't like is if you acquire an agent in the middle of contract negotiations, who then takes over and they have to start from scratch.
It's also worth remembering that - and I am fairly hazy on why this is so, legally - that the agent who represents you is actually representing your book. If you switch agents, the usual thing seems to be that the publisher still talks to your old agent about books that they sold. I guess you can buy out backlists the same way an agent might though
It's a certain kind of talent, a marketing talent mostly. But sales =/= talent. The more money you make off of something, the more talented you are is a very, very naive concept. That makes Paris Hilton more talented than this dude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy7bOAzq_24 . And he's only talented over guitar wankery.
Compare apples to apples. Paris Hilton makes her money by being interesting to a certain market. She doesn't make money playing a guitar. An author who sells a million books can say that they are a talented writer, imo.
Really? I'd say it's a sign of quality. please expand your opinion. Because I think that saying a bestselling book is not a sign of quality is naive.
As a business, McDonalds should be viewed in terms of its commercial success. As a product, the McDonalds food should be viewed in terms of how it appeals to its target market in order to support the commercial success of the business. So yes, I'd say the McDonalds food is superior to lesser known restaurants, and the analogy with e.g. King works fine in that sense -- his work appeals to his target market and has brought King and his publisher massive commercial success. For a business, this is good news indeed for King, his publisher, and in their turn for McDonalds.Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. I won't list specifics because taste is subjective, but someone already used a McDonald's simile which fits perfectly. Is McDonald's food the best food in the world? Is it superior to lesser known restaurants?
As a business, McDonalds should be viewed in terms of its commercial success. As a product, the McDonalds food should be viewed in terms of how it appeals to its target market in order to support the commercial success of the business. So yes, I'd say the McDonalds food is superior to lesser known restaurants, and the analogy with e.g. King works fine in that sense -- his work appeals to his target market and has brought King and his publisher massive commercial success. For a business, this is good news indeed for King, his publisher, and in their turn for McDonalds.
If you're using some other criteria to determine 'good' or 'superiority', you'll need to say what.
As a business, McDonalds should be viewed in terms of its commercial success. As a product, the McDonalds food should be viewed in terms of how it appeals to its target market in order to support the commercial success of the business. So yes, I'd say the McDonalds food is superior to lesser known restaurants..
Really? Oh, God. All those threads. All those McDonalds analogies. And now this!There was an article in the press saying Subway had overtaken McDonalds as the no1 world food chain.
Not that Paris has to worry about talent, being heir to one of the biggest fortunes in the world.
I insulted their publisher's marketing and art departments.
Two words: Contract negotiations.
My agent both got me a larger advance and negotiated with the publisher's legal department on many, many contract details. I'm not a lawyer, let alone a lawyer versed in publishing contracts. My agent is invaluable.
I'm not saying Stephen King is bad, 'bad' and 'good' being terms used to describe technical aspects. (As in, plotwise, writing style, etc. from an objective perspective - obviously taste is subjective, but to look at it from the standard rules of writing.)
Earlier, someone said a book being a bestseller is a sign of quality.
Being a bestseller is certainly an accomplishment. But it's not a guarantee of quality.
Everything you experience as a reader is subjective. What is the objective experience of literature? It's impossible to imagine.
There aren't any standard rules of writing.
That's the whole problem with this debate. Being a bestseller is a sign of a quality; at least one. Books have all sorts of qualities, all sorts of facets; they speak to different things in different people, are designed to perform different functions in different situations. They're more complicated than 'high' and 'low'.
I believe it's a profound error to talk about some books as if they are of lower quality than others, as if it were a purely linear metric, like a thermometer. To explain their popularity, we then have to say that the people who like them are of a lower quality than us. They don't have the critical faculties to discern the difference. They like cheeseburgers, but our refined palates can only tolerate filet mignon; and there are a lot more of them, because we are exalted and rare.
That's a caricature, OK; I'm not really accusing you of being a snob. But it's the shape of a trap that's easy to fall into. These days I try not to make arguments that include assumptions about dumbing things down or the debased tastes of the masses too often; I prefer to talk about stuff that I like.
For the most part, talent can be measured. Take an opera singer for instance. One can judge the timbre of her voice with decibels, the range of her voice with notes, her lung capacity with the average length of the notes, etc.
One aspect of quality would be her amazing range, but if she can't hold a note, or produce good timbre or vibrato, then she's a terrible opera singer.
How do you measure writing talent?
I'm still waiting to hear why Stephen King is a bad writer besides the fact that he's popular.
Compare apples to apples. Paris Hilton makes her money by being interesting to a certain market. She doesn't make money playing a guitar. An author who sells a million books can say that they are a talented writer, imo. .
When I originally stated all my opinions, please note I was referring to all mainstream writers, not specifically picking on Stephen King. I have only read three of his books and watched one movie, all of which I did not like even in the least. Many of his characters do not flesh out realistically to me, and while the plot might run smooth, but he's more a good storyteller than a writer. I do not wish to, and I'm sure you're going to try and make me, but I can elaborate more if I go and get his books. But I honestly do not wish to read another chapter.
As for how one measured writing talent, it may be more difficult to define as I have not majored in English, or anything of the sort. I do, however, study music and music theory, which is why I use music as a reference often.
It's hard to define quality, because it's subjective, but popular opinion determining something like that is what I consider a bad idea. Being a bestseller means something, all right, but isn't a guarantee of high quality. But let's take it at popular opinion.