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