Stephen King's advice on seeking an agent

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,321
generic-book-3274756.png


I'M SUING YOU! YOU STOLE MY CONCEPT!

hee hee hee
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
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."
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 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).
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.

Now if an author was selling a million copies, that would be an entirely different thing, I'm sure.
 

LawlessLara

South the river this time of night!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
76
Reaction score
8
Location
Landannn
Website
www.logophile.blogfiction.net
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.

Thank you Quicklime for understanding my main point. Yes of course you can make it without an agent but it so much harder. The main purpose of an agent in my inexperienced eyes is to get you to the next stage.
If you are a new author this is invaluable, you are treading new territory and are going to need some help at some point. Snagging that agent however is not going to be easy and your work needs to be able to withstand some scrutiny regardless of whether its 'lit fiction' or 'genre fiction'

If you are a more experienced author the pressure on you to deliver a second time, in my opinion is lesser. Once already you have proved your worth, the agent and publisher may give you a third, fourth or more chance. This is what I meant by King. I do actually think he is talented and I have a fair few of his books on my shelf but not all his work is particularly good and not all his work sells well. (These are not the same thing I am not simple enough to equate sales to talent :tongue)

As a novice I know I have the option of self publishing, forgoing that 15 or 10% but it will be incredibly hard and I stand by my opinion that a GOOD agent for a novice writer is very useful, if not essential.
 

Calla Lily

On hiatus
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
39,307
Reaction score
17,490
Location
Non carborundum illegitimi
Website
www.aliceloweecey.net
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.
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
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.

Yes, it's the starting from scratch that is irritating; it's bad form to switch horses in the middle of negotiations. I think it's fine if you acquire an agent between receiving an offer and making any sort of response.

One thing I have experienced is that an author can get a bad agent. There are a few out there (well, there are a lot, but only a few we ever have to deal with) and it does produce some mixed emotions. You like the work, you like the author, but you will regularly have to do your business with someone who is an ass, or a shark, or both. Or, again, I have had plenty of agented submissions that were significantly worse than they would have been had the author hung out here for a few weeks.

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 a publisher might though.
 
Last edited:

Amarie

carpe libri
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
2,971
Reaction score
2,913
Location
never in the here and now
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

Yes. I have 'parted ways' as they say with my former agent, but she, my editor and I are all clear that the agent still represents the books she sold. It was in the contract I signed with her.
 

Sydewinder

Banned
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
659
Reaction score
64
Location
Look up. you see that bright star in the sky? I li
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.
 

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
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.

Not that Paris has to worry about talent, being heir to one of the biggest fortunes in the world. :tongue

If I were making JKR style sales, I wouldn't care if others thought I was talentless either.
 

entropic island

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
817
Reaction score
92
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.

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?
 

entropic island

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
817
Reaction score
92
And now this thread is a fight about cover art and book names.

OH NOES I CAN'T READ BOOK IF IT HAS GOOD MARKETERS MUST BE TERRIBLE
 

RobJ

Banned
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
306
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.
 

entropic island

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
817
Reaction score
92
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.


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.

That's not true. Just because something is popular does not mean it is good and just because something is not popular does not mean it is bad and vice versa.

Being a bestseller is certainly an accomplishment. But it's not a guarantee of quality.

That's the only reason I used McDonald's to compare.
 

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
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..

There was an article in the press saying Subway had overtaken McDonalds as the no1 world food chain.

NB. A food chain is something very different to a 'lesser known restaurant.'
 

RobJ

Banned
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
306
There was an article in the press saying Subway had overtaken McDonalds as the no1 world food chain.
Really? Oh, God. All those threads. All those McDonalds analogies. And now this!

:cry:
 

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,321
Not that Paris has to worry about talent, being heir to one of the biggest fortunes in the world.

The Hilton money is not what it once was, and Paris is one of dozens in her generation. The money she has made for herself by her clever exploitation of her celebutante status is probably much more than she'll inherit. But perhaps she inherited her entrepreneurial skill from her great-grandfather Conrad?
 

Tromboli

Hopelessly Hopeful
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
1,073
Reaction score
81
Location
Ohio
Website
www.staceytrombley.com
I have two completely different things to say here: One is about writers needing an agent--which I don't nessesarily agree on, but I can see some serous down side. Here one of the agents I have been following (On twitter =)(I submitted to her last month) has talked alittle bit about this and i thought it was interesting. Gives us a little perspective on being a writer with no agent.

Mind you this is twitter so the last comment was the first she made.

-Writers, you need an agent!! But even if you try to publish on your own, have a lawyer or agent-friend review any contract before signing!

-The latest: Publisher demands print, translation, audio, film, & ebook rights - doesn't offer an advance, but wants author to pay them.

-It seriously makes me want to cry when I see contracts from less-than-upstanding publishers who think an agent isn't looking.

http://twitter.com/sarahlapolla



And lastly I think people who critize popular/commercially sucessful people (in anything) are a bit ridiculous. Sure you can have all the opinions you like but the people who are popular are popular for a reason. It doesn't take someone to be technically skilled at something to be rightfully sucessful. The music that is popular somehow conects with a great majority of listeners (though I'll admit the music industry is rather rigged as far as this goes, we only hear what the industry wants us to hear.) The writers who are popular (stephanie Myer included) are so because they find a way to connect with the readers. So what if some of their characters are bland, their prose wasn't perfect, whatever, somehow those works were able to reach out and touch the readers and that is why they were sucessful. So go ahead and think you are better than they are, it doesn't really matter.
 

Jamiekswriter

USA Today Bestselling Author
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
1,227
Reaction score
152
Website
www.jkschmidt.com
How I took the Stephen King article, before I realized it was written over 20 years ago, was about platform and marketing.

Love him or hate him, Stephen King is a very prolific author. Personally, I think his last few books could use a good edit, but that's just me. (There's a reason why when The Stand was first published it was @ 500 pages and when he re-released it was @ 1500 pages. No one likes to say no to the best selling author.)

How I took his advice was that he thinks the author should go directly to the publisher themselves (commercial, self publish or a non-vanity publisher) their first 5 books or so. Market them well and build up their following. (Hello Amanda Hocking). Then, you can get an agent to get you into the big show and do foreign rights.

I think that's one way to do it. It helps if 1.) Those five books don't suck and 2.) Fill a niche that readers are voraciously looking for (Harry Potter/Twilight replacements, etc.) If your book is flawed or not "buzzing", it won't sell well, if at all.

I don't think having 5 published novels will guarantee you an agent, but I think it puts you a step ahead of the slush pile. I'm noticing a new trend when I query agents/publishers is that they want to know my web presence (Angry Robot did when I sent them my book. And Books and Such literary agency wanted to know my "marketing vision" in my query.)

But then you also get into the self pub vs. commercial pub argument. Chicken and the egg. Would the book you have up there for $2.99 make more money than if it went the commercial route? Probably not. Assuming that you'd get a $5,000.00 advance and 8% royalties -- after the advance paid out. JA Konrath & Amanda Hocking aside, most epubbers don't make $5,000 on their books from what I've seen. I've read a lot of success stories, though. However, how many more people aren't coming forward that they sold 100 books and made $150.00? That said, I have a friend that published without an agent to Juno books and made a grand total of $500.00.

The thing is getting an agent doesn't mean you're going to sell to a publishing house. And getting published by a publisher with a decent sales record doesn't mean that you're going to have a best seller. Or even become a mid lister.

But I still think you should try getting an agent. I think 100 queries is a good number. If that fails, decide if you want to wait 2 years for a big publisher. If not, pick 10 good small press/epubs and submit to them. If that fails, decide if your book has what it takes. Did you get a lot of personal feedback? Did you get a lot of full requests. Maybe submit to a few contests at $30 a shot to get some valuable feedback from the judges and maybe win a few prizes to put as a marketing blurb. If all else is good and you've got a grammatically sound manuscript that has garned a lot of positive responses but no offers, self pub it.

And write the next book better and try it again.

The fact of the matter is almost all self pubbed writers are still trying to get an agent. They're just not putting their dreams on hold of being published while waiting on odds that seem to be like hitting the lottery.
 

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
I insulted their publisher's marketing and art departments.

Insult away; you are entitled to your opinion.

But I am happy to report that my publisher's marketing and art departments know EXACTLY what they're doing and EXACTLY who their target audience is, because my books continue to stay on store shelves and SELL. Which is the whole point, no?

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.

This. Infinity.
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
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.)

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.

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.

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.
 

Nick Blaze

Jun-Ikkyu
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
647
Reaction score
48
Location
On Urth.
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.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
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.
 

Nick Blaze

Jun-Ikkyu
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
647
Reaction score
48
Location
On Urth.
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.

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. Also, please note that one does not have to be as talented as or more talented to recognize talent. The Beatles were of average talent, neither extraordinary or bad, and there were many other bands that hit the market before the Beatles that sounded very close. I am, though, a musician, and I am, too, a writer. That gives me the ability to judge others without selling as many albums/books.

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. .

Why? I can easily compare the nutritious values of oranges and compare their tastes and acidic natures, as well as their textures, and compare the two. I can state, if I study them, which fruit is better in terms of more nutritious-- a higher quality fruit. But that doesn't mean it tastes better. Did you want me to compare Paris Hilton to a female mezzo-soprano opera singer? Then you can compare which one is vastly more talented, yet much less popular.

There were many other things I know I was meant to address, such as "Nick Blaze says popular = not talented". If I somehow stated this or misguided you into thinking this, I apologize. However, I meant to say that popular generally means less talented. That it takes a lot (times this by a lot more) of weeding to find the true talent. There are some very popular, very talented bands, but they are extremely rare. It's easier to find less popular, extremely talented bands. Just as it's easier to find less popular, more talented authors.
 

entropic island

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
817
Reaction score
92
I assure you that I am NOT making the argument that all recent books are inferior. I am simply making the argument that all recent books are not of high quality, as someone earlier said.

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.

Tons of people pay money to watch The Room. Do they view it as a good film, taken at face value?
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
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.

I'm not trying to make you read more Stephen King or saying you should like him. I honestly wanted to know on what basis you say he's a bad writer, because until now, pretty much all you said was that he was popular, therefore necessarily catering to the lowest common denominator, therefore crap.

Okay, you don't like his characters and for you, storytelling is not part of writing talent. Fair enough. I disagree with you, but at least it tells me why you dislike him.

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.

Well, in music, either you hit the right notes or you don't. In writing, either your grammar and spelling is correct or it isn't. Beyond that, comparing two musicians who both hit all the right notes, and two writers who both write technically correct English, is going to be subjective.


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.

Nobody has said that a bestseller is automatically of high quality. I mean, even Dan Brown's fans usually won't claim he's a great writer, just a highly entertaining one.

But conversely, Charles Dickens was a huge bestseller. Was he catering to the herd? Dumbing down what he wrote? Or was he just an outlier? Or do you think Dickens was not a good writer?
 

Nick Blaze

Jun-Ikkyu
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
647
Reaction score
48
Location
On Urth.
It is not HITTING the notes, but hitting them well, with timbre, and with even vibrato. The right tone, everything. Hitting it is barely the first part.