Heacock Hill Literary Agency (formerly Heacock Literary Agency)

[Twizzle]

As a girl?

Appropriate for two jocks?

As a girl?

Sorry. I digressed a bit there.

Theoretically, they could show the same IP address and be two different posters, Parametric. But, the similiarities in posts are interesting. Needless, they are certainly giving us invaluable insight into their agency.

As a girl. *sigh*

[ChristineR]

Since both Catt and Tom work at Heacock, they would be expected to have the save IP address.

Since Catt and Rosalie Grace Heacock Thompson are in the AAR, they must sell books. But I guess if your book isn't about mystical or psychic phenomena, you might feel a little out of place at their agency. As for the profanity and unprofessionalism, it would certainly be enough to turn me off, but I guess some people might find it refreshing. But ultimately the purpose of your agent is to sell your books, and I'm not seeing much evidence that Tom's unconventional approach sells more books, even books about using mystical powers.

[James D. Macdonald]

Yes, you can often tell who a writer is even if they post on bulletin boards anonymously.

Very true, Tom Catt. Very true.

[victoriastrauss]

Originally Posted by CLeBaigue

Did you know that many agents don't share what houses and editors agents their work has been submitted to, much less what kind of feedback the submission receives? Most writers want to know. The reason we've got writers who have long publishing histories is because they left the big agencies because they were kept in the dark regarding submissions and responses.

With all due respect...this is nonsense. Agents absolutely do share this information with clients--not just because it's customary, but because editors' feedback can be immensely helpful in assessing a project's marketability. I'm with a big agency; I have ALWAYS been kept apprised of where my manuscripts go, and editors' responses (and names) are ALWAYS shared with me. Ditto for other writers I know.

Ultimately, this writer needs to step up to the plate and face the tough world of the gatekeepers, the publishers. He complained about the agent not being a salesman. Agents are not salesmen! Ask an editor if they want to deal with a salesman? An agent simply informs the editor of the availability of the work and finds out what the editor is seeking so they can be on the look out for it.

Certainly they're not salesmen in the used-car sense (it's a common misconception that sales skills acquired in different professions--advertising, say--are easily transferable to agenting). But you do want your agent to pitch your work, and to advocate for it to editors. If all your agent does is inform editors that your ms. is available, you need a new agent.

James brought his fight here, but this venue won't help him. If he is going to look for a new agent and a publisher, it would be best if this debate was deleted for his sake.

Frankly, I think you might hope that it would be deleted for your sake. However, I'm going to leave it in place.

Tom Dark, does Catt LeBaigue know that you are posting under her name? Your writing style is quite distinctive. Not to mention...those telltale IP addresses.

- Victoria

[priceless1]

Originally Posted by CLeBaigue

You asked: "Who wants to sign with an agent who sends out profanity laced emails, trash talks "young and dumb" editors, provokes problems between clients, and relies on dreams and psychics to guide his book selling efforts?"

I'm concerned that you feel this sort of behavior marks you as an effective agent.

It's important authors understand that agents do not send brow-beating, profanity-filled emails to their clients [or editors] and expect to maintain a satisfying relationship or solid reputation. This is not jock talk. It's shocking and unprofessional. Agents don't blame their authors for not "stepping up to the plate." If the relationship erodes due to writing issues, they part ways. No fuss, no muss.

Yep, we're deep here at Heacock. We choose authors whose work we believe in.

This isn't a new concept. All agents do this.

I'm not as challenging as Tom is, not as intellectually brilliant,

Oh good gracious. Now I know Tom is the author of this mess.

Did you know that many agents don't share what houses and editors agents their work has been submitted to, much less what kind of feedback the submission receives?

Not true at all. I work with a number of very top agents, and every one of them provides a submissions list to their clients.

Agents are not salesmen! Ask an editor if they want to deal with a salesman? An agent simply informs the editor of the availability of the work and finds out what the editor is seeking so they can be on the look out for it. After the editor invites the material, it needs to deliver

WRONG! Agents represent the author and their story, and they most certainly DO sell. I've had phone calls and email pitches from agents whose pitches made my mouth water. That's their job because they realize we have hundreds of queries sitting on our office floors. They want their particular pitcher of cream to rise to the top, and they do this by giving a solid synopsis that's presented in an appealing manner.

I wouldn't look twice at a writer who posted this kind of history in public. Yes, I do google even those whose work I invite.

As do most editors. If there is a problem, such as this, we tend to do our due diligence and see where problem lies. We ask around and talk to other agents and such. We don't take anyone's word at face value. Authors should never be afraid to speak out, and I resent the implication that they should keep quiet in order to save their reputation. Silence is how abusive situations prosper.

[mlhernandez]

Whoa. Catt, I absolutely did not want to see any dirty laundry. No, I wasn't trying to draw you out by calling the agent's behavior inappropriate. It's an opinion. That's it. I have no dog in this fight. I just posted because I thought maybe the point of James' post had been missed. That's it.

Yes, I'm quite knowledgeable about working with agents. I didn't need the play-by-play. For what it's worth, my last agent always shared her submission notes and responses from editors. My current editors are fabulous and professional.

Also I don't think James brought his "fight" here. I think he used this forum in the same manner other authors use this forum. We come here to discuss agents, editors, and publishers to better enable us to make the best choices for our careers. Sure, James' description of his agent turned me off, but there are probably writers out there who would enjoy Tom Dark's style. Different strokes and all that.

I think, however, that it looks a smidge petty to insinuate that James will never get another agent after posting here. That's blatantly untrue. Plenty of debut and multi-published authors post in this forum, sometimes with not so happy information about agents and publishers, and yet they continue to sign with agents and publishers.

[waylander]

Thank you Catt (or Tom) for posting.

This forum is used by hundreds (if not thousands) of unagented authors in determining which agents they will send queries to. Not all of them are hopelessly unsaleable.
I'm sure your post will have made the decision easier for many of them

[elvikingo]

por su punto de vista y ustedes tienen razon.

I didn't come here to sob in my beer about my book not selling. I didn't come here because I feel hopeless or even to help promote my book or find a new agent. I came here to tell Pricless1 that I now believe her story. I didn't at first, you can scroll back and see it was me that came here to defend Tom Dark on here(at his request and I have the emails to prove that). I didn't just come here to defend him because he asked me though. I came because in the beginning it seemed like he believed in me and in the beginning I believed in him too.

After working with Tom for nine months, I saw a pattern of behavior that supports Priceless1' testimony. I stand by what I wrote here and don't feel the need to remove it because I have emails that prove what I have said here; from the comments about editors being "young and dumb" to the insulting profanity laced tirades. I also have emails that will refute what Catt has written here. One editor of a smaller publishing house said that my book should be rewritten and Tom advised me not to heed that advice. But that is besides the point that I am trying to make here. That single correspondence with this editor was the last thing I heard about my book. The rest of Tom's emails consisted of his gloating because he was responsible for getting this editor fired at Bantam books, the psychic friends, debates about the existence of God with his atheist friend, and how these "fresh out of college young and dumb editors" are ruining the publishing business.

Tom seemed more interested in settling scores than helping me sell the book. That is what I am "disillusioned" about.

[M.R.J. Le Blanc]

Honestly, your replies here as well as what James has had to say has been a real eye-opener - and not in a good way for you. Honestly, there is no 'in context' way of excusing profanity-laced emails, unless it's from one buddy to another. It is not professional, whether it's one guy to another or one girl to another. Agents are not a writer's friend. They are a business partner. Should they be able to get along on friendly terms? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean I want to see an email from my agent laced with profanity. I'd question his/her professionalism, and whether that's affecting me. There's being blunt and straightforward, and there's unprofessionalism. Profanity never falls into that first one.

James posted what he says is his experience. You would not be dragging it out like this if there was nothing to worry about. At the most your agency would have made comments to your side and let people decide for themselves. Any agency worth their salt has never worried overly about someone's bad experience, because the multitude of other happy clients and sales outweigh those. Your repeat appearances here would make me wonder if Heacock Literary doesn't share that same confidence. While you may be busy, clearly you're not so busy that you're unable to make three very long posts.

[mosstam67]

For what it's worth, Tom Dark used to go by the name of Peter Danison.
Google turns up at least two references to him.
Why he's now using a new alias, I have no idea.

[mosstam67]

"Hemingway" used to spell his name with only one M.
Trust me on this. . . !

[nokiauser1]

YEP. AT it again. As usual, he "wins friends and influences people."

Wherever he goes, there he is.

HOO HOO HEE HEE HAA HAA... GAPHAW GAPHAW GAPHAW!!!

Chinny chin !

[elvikingo]

Quote:

"Young and dumb. Hmmm... I suspect that was first used to coddle a writer in a personal letter to help alleviate the sting of rejection."

Tom didn't write it in that context. And I didn't need to be coddled. I sought out an agent to help sell my book and wanted the discussions to be primarily about that. Like I said, I did not get updates about what was happening with my book and who it was being sent to. I got rantings of whom Tom wanted to get even with and why. I didn't want to hear that. I wanted to know what was happening to my book.

Quote: "As far as James, fighting. He loves a good fight. Yes, I saw that he did call Tom on the table regarding this discussion here. He copied a lot of it and sent it to my email by mistake. Tom isn't reading this but I've been pestering him with a blow by blow account. I guess I shouldn't obsess about what goes on here. We're busy at the agency. Tom didn't show up. Is that a point for James? I bet he thinks so. Big smile to James. As I said before, we've gotten to know him and to like him at the agency. It's all in the eye of the beholder, James."

Tom is reading this because he is writing this. I have read Tom's emails enough over the last nine months to pick him out of a line up.

Quote:

"Oh, and anyone who knows me could easily tell Tom's posts apart from mine. I do have a voice, at least I think I do."

"Cheers"

Tom signs off by writing "Cheers" to his letters. Tom wrote me letters from Catt's Heacock email account. I didn't write her by accident. I would respond to letters that he wrote from her account.

Sometimes I thought Tom's references to Catt were a lot like Columbo talking about a wife that you never saw on those episodes. You would need to see Tom and Catt in the same room at the same time to know for sure who is at the computer.

[NoelleB]

well, i was going to say... alot of the 'pro' heacock posts sound as if they are written by the same person (syntax, grammar). furthermore, while i can appreciate tom/catt's efforts to be blunt and 'fresh', their job is to be likable. if that means they need to act like stepford wives to get books published, then that's what they should do, not go out of their way to alienate and insult editors and publishers.

[priceless1]

Originally Posted by elvikingo

Tom wrote me letters from Catt's Heacock email account.

Yes, I have an email from Catt's email account as well, signed by Tom. It was the original query.

[EgyptianGoddess]

[quote=NoelleB;3604025]....... their job is to be likable. if that means they need to act like stepford wives to get books published, then that's what they should do.....[quote]


LOL! Ok, that was the best line I've read out of all this stuff

[HapiSofi]

Originally Posted by Repunzel

IMHO, this debate should be deleted. Although the debate contains useful information for writers searching for an agent, the negatives, in the form of too much information, outweigh that positives. It made me feel . . . kinda icky.

I disagree. I can read all kinds of useful and telling things in the posts you think are TMI. The larger my sample, the more I can see.

Odd fact about conventional publishing: it speaks a distinctive language that's pretty much impossible to get right if you haven't worked in the industry, and has subdialects that are equally hard to fake. To my ear, Priceless rings like silver. In her posts I hear the voice of an editor and small publisher. But in Tom Dark, I hear a frustrated and unsuccessful writer saying the kind of dumb things which frustrated and unsuccessful writers often say -- and which real agents almost never say.

So let the thread run on. It just gets more interesting.

Originally Posted by priceless1

Oh good gracious. Now I know Tom is the author of this mess.

Yup.

The word choice, habitual punctuation, overall length, and spacing of paragraph breaks are also telling. Ditto, framing this discussion as "a debate," which it isn't. Ditto, the line about anything "not selling unless it's by a celebrity," which I would never expect to hear from a real agent. As I said to Repunzel, that's a clear indication that we're looking at a frustrated writer.

But for me, the big telltale is the extraordinary indiscretion "Tom Dark" and "C LeBaigue" have displayed here. Real agents are a closemouthed bunch. Tom Dark is out of control. I have real trouble believing that a functional agency has two employees who not only shoot off their mouths in an unagentish way, but shoot them off in the same way.

Your story in comment 18 is scary. Why would a real agent do that? Rejections are rejections. You're not so specialized that you're the only imaginable publisher for the book.

In comment 21, Old Hack (who isn't earless) said:

I Googled the name of the agency, and of the agent, and found this page (scroll down to find a reference to the agency), which led me to this.

Those two pieces are remarkably similar and I'd say they were probably written by the same person. And that's not a person I'd want representing me. But then, I prefer not to be scared by my agent.

I too find them remarkably similar, though it's not a big enough sample for me to say whether they're the same person. Still, a real agent ought not write things that are even similar to that first piece. (And what would they be doing on that site anyway? As was once said in Neil Gaiman's weblog, "The more you know, the more errors you see in the "Everyone Who's Anyone" website.")

I doubt Old Hack and I were scared by the same passages. This is the paragraph of Tom Dark's that terrified me:

My biggest failure to date is called "the 'zine," which I conceived and coined in 1985. I commandeered a somewhat immature engineer in Wisconsin to print it up on his copy machine, using whatever he liked out of my letters. He'd print up 250 copies a month. I'd stick them in a news stall at Sather Gate, UC Berkeley. Kids snapped them up and started imitating them right away, eventually, into the millions. I haven't checked a dictionary to see if "'zine" is now listed as a word. Anyway I expected it'd be imitated, and there we have it.

Is he stupid, an astounding narcissist, or just batsh*t crazy? Zine is short for fanzine. The word was invented by Louis Russell Chauvenet in October 1940. (Citations: Wikipedia. The OED. Fancyclopedia I (1944). Fancyclopedia II (1959).) Science fiction fandom had been using zine as an informal short form for decades before the wave of punk zines picked up the term in the 1970s. By the early 1980s, Mike Gunderloy was broadcasting the concept and term to the world. As for Tom Dark's claim that he conceived of and published the first fanzine, any ful kno that was Ray Palmer's The Comet, in 1930.

If he cares about the issue so much, why hasn't he looked any of that up?

The episode may explain why TD is a failed writer, but if so, it's not for the reasons he thinks.

The story about Tom Dark claiming to have gotten an editor fired at Bantam is only fractionally less damning. A minor employee of a minor agency got an editor fired for rejecting a book about the application of Plato's philosophy to physical fitness? WTF? NFW.

Editors decline to read books all the time. It's a basic editorial skill. Furthermore, every editor who's been around for a while can tell you stories about properties they rejected which someone else successfully published. It happens. You have to make the best judgements you can and live with the results. No competent publisher would fire an editor for guessing wrong on a minor book. And as for the specific book in question, if it was so hot that Bantam fired an editor for passing on it, why isn't Bantam's top management now trying to buy it?

I can dimly imagine an editor getting fired over the book if it were the occasion of the latest instance of a pattern of objectionable behavior -- say, telling detectable lies to established agents. In that case, the editor would have been fired on the grounds that after multiple warnings, he or she was still misbehaving in the same way. That wouldn't be a demonstration of Tom Dark's clout. Neither would it be something an agent brags about to a client. If they mentioned it at all, it would be with regret: "Sorry; my mistake. I didn't know she was like that when I submitted your manuscript to her. It's cost us a lot of delay." Knowing stuff like that about editors is one of the things agents are for.

But let's be maximally generous and suppose that the firing happened just as Tom Dark said. In that case, it would still be nothing to brag about. He'd have screwed over all the other authors that editor was handling, and gotten nothing of benefit for that client. If the editor who had that submission left Bantam, it's probably because Bantam is a shrinking imprint within Random House, and they've been laying people off.

Finally, if my agent were going around bragging about getting editors fired, I'd get a new agent. Being able to work constructively with editors is part of their job

One more thing. As you said concerning editors:

If there is a problem, such as this, we tend to do our due diligence and see where problem lies. We ask around and talk to other agents and such. We don't take anyone's word at face value. Authors should never be afraid to speak out, and I resent the implication that they should keep quiet in order to save their reputation. Silence is how abusive situations prosper.

I couldn't agree more. Tom Dark and his sockpuppets may wish they could get this thread deleted, but they can kiss that wish goodbye. It's information of legitimate interest to us all.

[T. Nielsen Hayden]

Originally Posted by HapiSofi

This is the paragraph of Tom Dark's that terrified me ...

I just showed that post to my husband. I didn't warn him what was coming. When he got to the part about Tom Dark inventing zines in 1985, he laughed so hard he turned red. "Fail!" he said. "Maximum fail! Complete and comprehensive fail on all counts! Rings the great fail of love and death!"

Then he added, "I, personally, invented the Polaroid camera, the SUV, crunchy granola, obsequiousness, doing it doggy style, and the Free Soil Party."

[Giant Baby]

Originally Posted by T. Nielsen Hayden

...Then he added, "I, personally, invented the Polaroid camera, the SUV, crunchy granola, obsequiousness, doing it doggy style, and the Free Soil Party."

Goodness! I hope he's worked a nap in there somewhere!

[veinglory]

Originally Posted by Giant Baby

Goodness! I hope he's worked a nap in there somewhere!

Well that was 6 inventions, on the 7th day he probably invented the nap....

[nokiauser1]

Originally Posted by T. Nielsen Hayden

I just showed that post to my husband. I didn't warn him what was coming. When he got to the part about Tom Dark inventing zines in 1985, he laughed so hard he turned red. "Fail!" he said. "Maximum fail! Complete and comprehensive fail on all counts! Rings the great fail of love and death!"

Then he added, "I, personally, invented the Polaroid camera, the SUV, crunchy granola, obsequiousness, doing it doggy style, and the Free Soil Party."

Yep.



"Is he stupid, an astounding narcissist, or just batsh*t crazy?" -Hapisofi



Yep.

[socact]

I spend a lot of time working with people suffering from severe mental illness, and yeah...this thread brings up a lot of those issues (from the agency, not you guys!).

[nokiauser1]

AND....

They'll be coming to take him away, ho ho.
Coming to take him away, ho hee hee haa haa
To the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time.
And he'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats,
And they're coming to take him away! Ha haaaaaaaaaa!

[Marva]

I looked up my reject letters from Catt LeBaigue. The form letter sounded sane. This paragraph was particularly non-Tom in nature:

We recognize that our perspective on the marketplace is subjective. You may find that another literary agent will react with enthusiasm for your work. We suggest that you contact the Association of Authors' Representatives at http://www.aar-online.org/ for a list of members. Each member of that organization subscribes to a strict canon of ethics.

I do wish somebody with clout (Victoria?) would ask Catt if she sent the replies and, if so, why.

I did have Catt in my list of agents to query on future projects, but this whole Tom Dark thing leaves me reeling with uncertainty.

[elvikingo]

This is how it went. A few weeks ago, this craziness started when I asked Tom to stay on task and not worry about the young editors, his vendettas, and be my agent which means try to pitch my book.

I got back a series of insulting and condescending emails. It took me a while to find an agent. So even though Tom's behavior was less than ideal, I tried to redirect him and I asked him, "Can we get back to work now?"

He writes me this email using F bombs and G--damits and so forth. I then write him informing him that I am writing the required certified letter stating the reasons for Heacock Literary Agency's breach of contract and his failure as an agent.

After this, he tells me in another letter that he is deleting my emails and that he doesn't want me to write him anymore. I respected his wishes there. I did not write him and was not even going to come back to this website anymore either until he CC's me this letter today that he sent to someone else.

He was my literary agent and he is telling this third party about me, his former client. Since Tom is sending out copies of this letter to others, I figured it is now public domain:

Presently he's in a state of "hubris," without realizing what hubris is. These days we call it various things. In the course of a few days his mails went from "I'm more comfortable with you than with my own family" to his present deed of dishonoring himself by attempting to smear me and the agency on a certain website. He's "attacking" using client-confidential information in ethical violation, plus twisting it around so that it's basically a set of lies, and so on. Not worth the trouble untangling anyone's sticky web about it. I'll answer any personal queries about it.
I don't much mind this, either, just watching. I'd warned him about "hubris," and next thing I know he's pulled the word out of his diapers to throw at a 95 year old philosopher -- one of the few to have earned the title the way it is earned, "every time he opens his mouth except to ask what's for dinner". I'm afraid I have less faith in the validity of James' actual academic credentials than you do, owing to this behavior.

I am almost, but not quite as amused as you are with the exchange below. It's emotionally arrested, like a young adolescent in an identity-rage. His reply is indeed intellectually cowardly -- the physical equivalent of backing out the door in a bar fight he knows he can't win, pretending not to be afraid. Thus the unsolicited remark about how unafraid he is. He's afraid. There'd be layers of denial about it, arrogance, acts of futility, blustering, etc. etc.