Agents
>>It seems the first time or unpublished authors have little chance of getting decent representation. The reasons are obvious. Most cannot be sold to publishers with the resources or inclination to invest in an unknown. Those that do sell will get tiny advances.<<
I know it can seem this way, and I truly understand the frustration of the quest for publication. But many, many first-time authors are able to find excellent representation, and to sell to commercial publishers. I know many who've done so. And take a look at the reviews in a few issues of Publishers Weekly, or subscribe to the Publishers Lunch newsletter, and you'll see how many first-time authors are making sales via reputable agents.
It's certainly true that the advance for an unknown is often smaller than for someone who has proved him/herself (on the other hand, new authors' advances can be sky-high for exactly the same reason--the new writer might turn out to be the next J.K. Rowling, whereas the established midlister has already defined his or her likely performance by previous sales). A good agent, however, doesn't take on a writer as a one-shot deal. She isn't looking to represent a single book, but a writing career, and she assumes that the initial sale is just the first of many--hopefully, with steadily increasing advances. Also, her client list includes established writers whose reliable income can balance the greater uncertainty of taking on unknowns (this is one reason to beware of an agent whose list is made up largely or entirely of new writers).
>>I have no experience as a literary agent, although I have represented many businesses of all types. The book-marketing concept can’t be so different from other businesses. The golden rules have to be don’t lie, disclose everything and sell only quality products. If enough of you were interested in that type of representation, I would consider having my firm start up a literary agency.<<
Publishing is a small and secretive world, requiring expertise that's not easy to gather without actually working or participating in it--including the ability to recognize marketable writing (this isn't easy; look how many mistakes even established publishers make), a solid understanding of publishing trends and issues both in the US and overseas, and a familiarity with publishing law and publishing contract issues. Plus, and possibly even more important, you need personal contacts within the industry, so that you can bypass the publisher's various gatekeeping methods and get manuscripts directly onto the desks of appropriate editors.
Agencies that don't have this level of expertise really don't offer adequate representation to their clients. Many people believe that just the title "literary agent" is enough to get them through doors that otherwise remain closed; but this really isn't true. Publishing house editors prefer to work with agents they know, either personally or by reputation, since they can trust agents like this to represent marketable work, and to know enough to give them manuscripts that are likely to match their tastes and interests. New, unknown agencies that haven't proved themselves are given much lower priority (unless of course the agent used to be an editor, or has spun off from another established agency--those personal contacts again). If, as often happens, they reveal their lack of experience by doing something obviously unprofessional--submitting inappropriate or substandard work, for instance, or doing cost-saving things like bundling submissions or avoiding snail mail--they are likely to be relegated to the slush pile along with the unagented writers.
I know this sounds harsh. But you can't just become a literary agent, any more than you can just become a real estate agent or a building contractor. There's expertise involved, and some degree of training and/or apprenticeship is necessary if you want to provide adequate service. Otherwise, and with the best intentions in the world, you may wind up doing your clients more harm than good
- Victoria
Writer Beware
www.sfwa.org/beware/
>>It seems the first time or unpublished authors have little chance of getting decent representation. The reasons are obvious. Most cannot be sold to publishers with the resources or inclination to invest in an unknown. Those that do sell will get tiny advances.<<
I know it can seem this way, and I truly understand the frustration of the quest for publication. But many, many first-time authors are able to find excellent representation, and to sell to commercial publishers. I know many who've done so. And take a look at the reviews in a few issues of Publishers Weekly, or subscribe to the Publishers Lunch newsletter, and you'll see how many first-time authors are making sales via reputable agents.
It's certainly true that the advance for an unknown is often smaller than for someone who has proved him/herself (on the other hand, new authors' advances can be sky-high for exactly the same reason--the new writer might turn out to be the next J.K. Rowling, whereas the established midlister has already defined his or her likely performance by previous sales). A good agent, however, doesn't take on a writer as a one-shot deal. She isn't looking to represent a single book, but a writing career, and she assumes that the initial sale is just the first of many--hopefully, with steadily increasing advances. Also, her client list includes established writers whose reliable income can balance the greater uncertainty of taking on unknowns (this is one reason to beware of an agent whose list is made up largely or entirely of new writers).
>>I have no experience as a literary agent, although I have represented many businesses of all types. The book-marketing concept can’t be so different from other businesses. The golden rules have to be don’t lie, disclose everything and sell only quality products. If enough of you were interested in that type of representation, I would consider having my firm start up a literary agency.<<
Publishing is a small and secretive world, requiring expertise that's not easy to gather without actually working or participating in it--including the ability to recognize marketable writing (this isn't easy; look how many mistakes even established publishers make), a solid understanding of publishing trends and issues both in the US and overseas, and a familiarity with publishing law and publishing contract issues. Plus, and possibly even more important, you need personal contacts within the industry, so that you can bypass the publisher's various gatekeeping methods and get manuscripts directly onto the desks of appropriate editors.
Agencies that don't have this level of expertise really don't offer adequate representation to their clients. Many people believe that just the title "literary agent" is enough to get them through doors that otherwise remain closed; but this really isn't true. Publishing house editors prefer to work with agents they know, either personally or by reputation, since they can trust agents like this to represent marketable work, and to know enough to give them manuscripts that are likely to match their tastes and interests. New, unknown agencies that haven't proved themselves are given much lower priority (unless of course the agent used to be an editor, or has spun off from another established agency--those personal contacts again). If, as often happens, they reveal their lack of experience by doing something obviously unprofessional--submitting inappropriate or substandard work, for instance, or doing cost-saving things like bundling submissions or avoiding snail mail--they are likely to be relegated to the slush pile along with the unagented writers.
I know this sounds harsh. But you can't just become a literary agent, any more than you can just become a real estate agent or a building contractor. There's expertise involved, and some degree of training and/or apprenticeship is necessary if you want to provide adequate service. Otherwise, and with the best intentions in the world, you may wind up doing your clients more harm than good
- Victoria
Writer Beware
www.sfwa.org/beware/
But, seriously, nope, it's not about Melanie anymore-- and yet, I think the discussion is still pretty darn interesting. 