When to submit?

[Liosse de Velishaf]

Just because something is standard practice doesn't mean it should be.


But the main thing here is that I've clearly used the wrong words to explain what I mean. When I say it's a red flag, I don't mean "don't go with ny agent who does this". I believe I stated it was not a deal-breaking red-flag, like referels and such would be.

What it tells the writer(read: prospective employer of the agent), is that the agent believes giving revision suggestions is part of their job, when in reality, their job is to do what the writer tells them to do. That's what a job is--whatever your employer tells you it is. Sometimes, this means the agent believes the writer should do what they say. Sometimes it doesn't(this is what defines a good agent).

As a writer, knowing the agent feels givng suggestions is part of their job tells one that, if they are going to enter into a professional relationship with this agent, they as the writer-- and thus the boss--need to be prepared to explain to their employee that they are misunderstanding their position in the relationship. If you get a "good" agent, then the chances of this are less likely. But if you read the comments thread, especially the comments by Laura Resnick, then you know that not even all "good" agents are aware of the true nature of their job.

As DWS said several times, every agent is different. But there is clearly a pattern of behavior here--and a mythos--that it behooves the writer to be aware of.

[geardrops]

So I'm not yet in the sub-to-agents game, but I know many authors who have gone through the process, I've talked with agents, I've talked with editors, and Liosse, you're way off.

And I'm arguging only against your use of the word "red flag." Charging fees up-front are a red flag. Referring you to an editor who you will pay to look at your work is a red flag. Calling Publish America a legit publisher is a red flag. Offering crits is not.

ETA (looks like you posted while I was writing this)

You're not the boss of an agent the same way you manage a Burger King. It's a professional co-existence. An agent telling you "Great book, your middle sags, suggest removing this character" does not equate to a register biscuit mouthing off about the promo displays. You are free to take the suggestions or not, because you are competent enough a writer to know what's correct and what isn't.

And if you aren't confident enough in your own writing to hold your own against a fellow professional in justifying your opinion, then I don't know what to tell you.

[waylander]

Originally Posted by Liosse de Velishaf

Just because something is standard practice doesn't mean it should be.


But the main thing here is that I've clearly used the wrong words to explain what I mean. When I say it's a red flag, I don't mean "don't go with ny agent who does this". I believe I stated it was not a deal-breaking red-flag, like referels and such would be.

What it tells the writer(read: prospective employer of the agent), is that the agent believes giving revision suggestions is part of their job, when in reality, their job is to do what the writer tells them to do. That's what a job is--whatever your employer tells you it is. Sometimes, this means the agent believes the writer should do what they say. Sometimes it doesn't(this is what defines a good agent).

As a writer, knowing the agent feels givng suggestions is part of their job tells one that, if they are going to enter into a professional relationship with this agent, they as the writer-- and thus the boss--need to be prepared to explain to their employee that they are misunderstanding their position in the relationship. If you get a "good" agent, then the chances of this are less likely. But if you read the comments thread, especially the comments by Laura Resnick, then you know that not even all "good" agents are aware of the true nature of their job.

As DWS said several times, every agent is different. But there is clearly a pattern of behavior here--and a mythos--that it behooves the writer to be aware of.

You have a very strange view of the agent/writer relationship. It is a long way from an employer/employee situation and, if you hold to this view, I think you will alienate a lot of agents who might otherwise be interested in your work. Go and read some agents' blogs - there are plenty out there - and see how they approach revisions with clients.
The publishing world has changed greatly since DWS first got published (1989 I believe). It was much easier to submit direct to editors back then and the role of the agent was much less editorial.

[Mr Flibble]

And for someone who espouses 'Not writing what you are told' DWS writes a heck of a lot of tie in novels...where you get told what to write to a large extent.

As Waylander said, it's not really employee / employer, more a symbiotic relationship. As I said - no one is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to do anything. You look at revisions, see what you agree with and what you don't and discuss ( when I had editor revisions, I didn't do all of them, I did some in a different way to suggested and did others no probs, disagreed with a few and discussed why with my editor). If your agent won't discuss only order, then yes, that's a red flag - IF you are sure the advice is bad ( like, I don't know, putting a bestiality scene in a kids picture book) If the agent is flexible but you aren't then they get a red flag about you - one that you are difficult to work with. Because you can bet your boots an editor will ask for revisions, and knowing you can do them - and you know when to pick your battles - is a big, big plus. Having a reputation for being precious isn't.

[rugcat]

Originally Posted by Liosse de Velishaf

What it tells the writer(read: prospective employer of the agent), is that the agent believes giving revision suggestions is part of their job, when in reality, their job is to do what the writer tells them to do.

As a writer, knowing the agent feels givng suggestions is part of their job tells one that, if they are going to enter into a professional relationship with this agent, they as the writer-- and thus the boss--need to be prepared to explain to their employee that they are misunderstanding their position in the relationship.

There's usually not much point in arguing about people's different takes on what is the proper role of an agent.

But prospective writers following this thread should be aware that many writers, indeed most writers, including those who are agented and published, believe this view to be totally incorrect and not at all not helpful in the search for representation.

[Liosse de Velishaf]

Originally Posted by waylander

You have a very strange view of the agent/writer relationship. It is a long way from an employer/employee situation and, if you hold to this view, I think you will alienate a lot of agents who might otherwise be interested in your work. Go and read some agents' blogs - there are plenty out there - and see how they approach revisions with clients.
The publishing world has changed greatly since DWS first got published (1989 I believe). It was much easier to submit direct to editors back then and the role of the agent was much less editorial.

Yes, it's changed since many people got published. That doesn't necessarily disqualify their advice. I'd also note that Laura Resnick, who w a major part of the discussion on DWS's posts had a similar opinion. Her first novel was published in '98, and she has a seventh coming out this year.

As for my view of the writer/agent relationship, it’s shared by several professional writers and not just DWS. I think it’s the most obvious thing in the world that agents wouldn’t want to view the relationship like that, but that’s what it is. You are paying that agent 15% to do a set of tasks (which varies depending on the writer and agent). That sounds like an employee to me. They may be a more skilled employee than your average register monkey, but that doesn’t change their basic position. Of course, there’s also the consultant view of the agent, which I wouldn’t necessarily discount.

Either way, the relationship is only as symbiotic as the participants want it to be. Obviously, the agent wants to portray it to a new writer as “symbiotic” as possible. It makes it easier to get what they want. And no, I’m not saying all—or even most—agents are only looking out for their own interest. But don’t lie to yourself, there’s no one in the world who doesn’t wish they had more control over their job.

IRU, there’s a difference between a tie-in job, and having an agent say “Werewolves are popular, so write a werewolf novel.”

I’m not suggesting to anyone that they should always get their own way, or act “precious”. But there are writers out there who believe they have to do exactly what their agent says, and there are agents who believe that as well. Neither attitude is good for the writer.


I have every intention of getting an agent. And listening to them—within reason.

[Liosse de Velishaf]

Originally Posted by rugcat

There's usually not much point in arguing about people's different takes on what is the proper role of an agent.

But prospective writers following this thread should be aware that many writers, indeed most writers, including those who are agented and published, believe this view to be totally incorrect and not at all not helpful in the search for representation.

That depends on what you mean by "representation". If representation is the principle that you need an agent to get published, and that any agent is better than none, yeah, having your own thoughts and opinions about what you want from an agent is “detrimental”. If representation is wanting someone to fairly represent your interests and deal with the parts of the publishing industry that you don’t feel able to handle, then not so much.

[waylander]

Originally Posted by Liosse de Velishaf

Yes, it's changed since many people got published. That doesn't necessarily disqualify their advice. I'd also note that Laura Resnick, who w a major part of the discussion on DWS's posts had a similar opinion. Her first novel was published in '98, and she has a seventh coming out this year.




I have every intention of getting an agent. And listening to them—within reason.

Laura Resnick's first novel length publication was in 1989.
As the daughter of legendary author Mike Resnick she has connections not available to rest of us. I doubt getting her work read by editors and agents was a great challenge.

Should you be succesful in getting an agent, I'm prepared to wager money your views will change significantly

[Liosse de Velishaf]

Originally Posted by waylander

Laura Resnick's first novel length publication was in 1989.
As the daughter of legendary author Mike Resnick she has connections not available to rest of us. I doubt getting her work read by editors and agents was a great challenge.

Should you be succesful in getting an agent, I'm prepared to wager money your views will change significantly

Well, technically she had three romance novels published in 1989 under "Laura Leone". But it's my understanding that romance publishing works slightly differently than most other genres.

[Mr Flibble]

IRU, there’s a difference between a tie-in job, and having an agent say “Werewolves are popular, so write a werewolf novel.”

Both are being told what to write. A tie in novel is being told what to write waaay more than 'hey, here's a concept - run with it if you think you can make something of it'

I’m not suggesting to anyone that they should always get their own way, or act “precious”. But there are writers out there who believe they have to do exactly what their agent says, and there are agents who believe that as well. Neither attitude is good for the writer.

Yes true - but again saying a an agent who requests revisions is 'raising a red flag' is misleading at the least, if not downright wrong - in today's publishing world. A publishing world where editor's expect to see highly polished MS's that they don't have to edit as much. Which hands it to the agent if they want their clients to sell. And presumably it is today's publishing market, not that of twenty years ago that we're talking about.

[Liosse de Velishaf]

Originally Posted by IdiotsRUs

Both are being told what to write. A tie in novel is being told what to write waaay more than 'hey, here's a concept - run with it if you think you can make something of it'



Yes true - but again saying a an agent who requests revisions is 'raising a red flag' is misleading at the least, if not downright wrong - in today's publishing world. A publishing world where editor's expect to see highly polished MS's that they don't have to edit as much. Which hands it to the agent if they want their clients to sell. And presumably it is today's publishing market, not that of twenty years ago that we're talking about.

I thought I said "requests revisions before taking you on", but if I didn't, I should have.

[waylander]

Originally Posted by Liosse de Velishaf

I thought I said "requests revisions before taking you on", but if I didn't, I should have.

Even then that is not a red flag. Many reputable agents do this routinely, including my agent. If you're going to say that you would refuse to work with him because of this, then you're a fool.

[Mr Flibble]

Originally Posted by Liosse de Velishaf

I thought I said "requests revisions before taking you on", but if I didn't, I should have.

Yes because what if you're crap at revisions? Again, standard.

PS - romance doesn't work much differently tbh. More imprints take on work without agents, that's about it afaia

[Liosse de Velishaf]

Originally Posted by waylander

Even then that is not a red flag. Many reputable agents do this routinely, including my agent. If you're going to say that you would refuse to work with him because of this, then you're a fool.

Well, it's a good thing I didn't say that isn't it?

[rugcat]

Originally Posted by Liosse de Velishaf

I thought I said "requests revisions before taking you on", but if I didn't, I should have.

This has morphed into a broader discussion of the role of an agent, but this is where it started.

Sorry, but when you say that if an agent "requests revisions before taking you on" that it is something to be cautious about, or that it is problematic, or a sign of an inferior agent, or sets up the wrong dynamic between writer and agent, you are flat out mistaken.

Perhaps such an agent would be the wrong one for you, but would hate to see aspiring novelists take that advice to heart.

[Liosse de Velishaf]

Originally Posted by IdiotsRUs

Yes because what if you're crap at revisions? Again, standard.

PS - romance doesn't work much differently tbh. More imprints take on work without agents, that's about it afaia

There's that, and there's also less of an issue with authors writing more books a year--or, at least, that's more common in romance.

But beyond that, if Laura switched over to fantasy in 1998, she's not getting as much credit for those romance novels as she would for fantasy. She’s essentially starting a new career, which means that her take on the business is nine years less outdated than it would be otherwise.

[Liosse de Velishaf]

Originally Posted by rugcat

This has morphed into a broader discussion of the role of an agent, but this is where it started.

Originally Posted by rugcat

Sorry, but when you say that if an agent "requests revisions before taking you on" that it is something to be cautious about, or that it is problematic, or a sign of an inferior agent, or sets up the wrong dynamic between writer and agent, you are flat out mistaken.

Perhaps such an agent would be the wrong one for you, but would hate to see aspiring novelists take that advice to heart.

It takes more than one issue to designate an agent “inferior”. Just like it takes more than one issue to make them "the wrong agent". Maybe they would make a fantastic agent for me. The problem being that you can’t know for sure until you hire them and see how they handle your work. But it is something I think it is important to take note of, because it means that much less time they have to sell the work of their current clients, if they are constantly doing this sort of thing with prospective clients. Same for revisions after you hire them.

The issue of how they handle revisions for a client is an issue that only comes up if they see suggesting changes as part of their job.

[FalconStorm]

I'm going to speak from the point of view of the new, inexperienced writer and say that, as far as I can tell, I would expect the agent's role to be that of a consultant. I am going to an agent because they have knowledge, connections and experience that I lack. Technically, I can do their job myself, but I will not do it nearly so well. They are not my employee.

I am a professional face painter in my off time. When I am hired to paint at a birthday party, I am not an employee. The person hiring me is not my boss, they are my customer. There *is* a difference, mainly that, a boss position implies that you know the employee's job better than they do. You are supervising them. If I knew my agent's job better than them, I wouldn't need them.

I think it doesn't have to be part of an agent's job to suggest or work on revisions, but I hope that if an agent sees my work and sees potential with just a few changes, that they will suggest those changes. Their job is to help me get published. Part of the reason I hire them is for their knowledge of the industry that I lack. At the same time, I am the artist/writer. Only I know what is right and wrong for my book. If I feel that I would rather keep the integrity of the work and forgo publishing, that is my choice, but it will probably be my only choice if I refuse to listen to suggestions for revision.

In my opinion, an agent that suggests revisions would be someone I would be interested in, because that tells me that, not only do they care about helping me get published but the work I have submitted is worth caring about and putting in the extra effort it takes to say 'maybe, with revisions' rather than 'nope, sorry, try someone else' marks them as serious about doing their job...helping me get published.

[waylander]

That is why it is hugely important to find an agent who 'gets' your work.
Your agent should be your biggest supporter (but not uncritically)

[Liosse de Velishaf]

Originally Posted by FalconStorm

I'm going to speak from the point of view of the new, inexperienced writer and say that, as far as I can tell, I would expect the agent's role to be that of a consultant. I am going to an agent because they have knowledge, connections and experience that I lack. Technically, I can do their job myself, but I will not do it nearly so well. They are not my employee.

I am a professional face painter in my off time. When I am hired to paint at a birthday party, I am not an employee. The person hiring me is not my boss, they are my customer. There *is* a difference, mainly that, a boss position implies that you know the employee's job better than they do. You are supervising them. If I knew my agent's job better than them, I wouldn't need them.

I think it doesn't have to be part of an agent's job to suggest or work on revisions, but I hope that if an agent sees my work and sees potential with just a few changes, that they will suggest those changes. Their job is to help me get published. Part of the reason I hire them is for their knowledge of the industry that I lack. At the same time, I am the artist/writer. Only I know what is right and wrong for my book. If I feel that I would rather keep the integrity of the work and forgo publishing, that is my choice, but it will probably be my only choice if I refuse to listen to suggestions for revision.

In my opinion, an agent that suggests revisions would be someone I would be interested in, because that tells me that, not only do they care about helping me get published but the work I have submitted is worth caring about and putting in the extra effort it takes to say 'maybe, with revisions' rather than 'nope, sorry, try someone else' marks them as serious about doing their job...helping me get published.

What an agent has (just like every other red-blooded human being) is taste. For every thirty agents who demand revisions before taking on a manuscript, there is an agent (or even agents) who might love it and could sell it. (If it’s good enough, but that’s a whole different issue.)