Agents want writers to follow their rules in every way; want writers to have precise queries; want writers to send only appropriate submissions; and complain about the height of their slush pile.
All reasonable. And they prefer exclusivity for queries and submissions, even if they don't respond for six months, if ever. Um....
Some agents have great, and even entertaining descriptions of their needs.
However, I'd say that most agents (and many book publishers' editors) have infuriatingly vague, and often out-of-date "needs" descriptions on their web sites. They practically beg for inappropriate submissions and mile-high slush piles. If you have to take a wild guess what the agent is looking for, why would you even consider sending an exclusive sub to that agent?
Agents: why don't you visit your own web site now and then and give us a clue? It's in your own best interest. It's a no-brainer, right?
This is a typical "needs" description (just a composite of many web sites from memory, no one in particular):
I'm looking for chick lit, romance (no bodice rippers, please), SF, fantasy (no sword and sorcery), historical fiction, and YA.
That's not too bad, right? But it has many flaws. The largest, and I think the most prevalent flaw is in YA lit. What does the description say about YA beyond simple interest? Nothing. I've learned that you cannot assume that the agent is interested in romance, SF, fantasy or historicals for his/her YA list, simply because it's mentioned for adult lit. They might only be interested in coming-of-age and urban fantasy. So...why wasn't that mentioned?
And of course, there are many subgenres of SF, fantasy, romance, etc., and the market trends change, often. This example was better than most in that respect.
A writer facing an agent's needs list like the one above must resort to looking for interviews online (which might be quite old, and from a prior agency), looking at the agency's book list, which usually doesn't name the particular agent who sold the titles, or may no longer reflect current agency's trends.
Why must it be a puzzle? Agents: it won't take an hour a quarter to update your listing. Please...for the children....
</rant>
http://www.hatrack.com/writingclass/lessons/1999-01-29.shtml
quote:
All reasonable. And they prefer exclusivity for queries and submissions, even if they don't respond for six months, if ever. Um....
Among the agents I researched (so far) for my queries, only one prefers exclusive queries. When it gets to partial or full manuscripts, I think quite a few want exclusives, then. But most agents expect you to be querying other agents.
Some agents (about a third in my recent experience) never respond unless they're interested. But I usually figure that out closer to three months than six.
@Osiris: The conventional wisdom is that it is still better to go through an agent rather than try to query publishers directly. I think that's actually more true, now, because the publishers laid off so many people at the beginning of the recession.
Oh, and if you do send to a publisher, that does have to be exclusively and six months is probably the minimum wait for a response.
[This message has been edited by Meredith (edited August 06, 2010).]
You'll see just how many people went to editors directly and how many used agents to get in.
My advice: get your mss in front of as many buyers as possible. This means you will send your queries to BOTH editors, who are the buyers, and agents who work with them.
Meanwhile, I hope everyone will consider reading Dean Wesley Smith's Killing the Sacred Cows of Publishing.
It's a series of blog posts that becomes a book over time. He debunks common myths about the industry. In particular, he's spent a lot of time talking about the myth of needing an agent to get your book sold
It's convinced me. I'm going to market my novels directly to people who are in a position to buy them. I don't think I need an agent, though I remain open-minded to the idea.
Just a thought for y'all. The publishing industry is changing FAST. I think the agent model might be a bit out of date. 15% for what? Relationships with editors? Maybe there's value in that, but if I send my submissions directly to the editors...where's the value? An inroad with editors? I think some agents have this, but I think some agents don't but act as though they do. I feel like a lot of agent websites these days are full of new and more tangled hoops for writers to jump through, and I've heard horror stories of agents demanding rewrites of writers when NOBODY'S GETTING PAID to do rewrite. Why on earth? That violates one of Heinlein's primary rules (only rewrite if a paying editor requires it.) But also my sensibilities. Aren't I the writer? Shouldn't I have confidence in my work? If someone wants to pay me for my work but first asks I consider some edits, I'm open-minded to that, but if someone just thinks it would make a better product? Well, I suppose if I agree with the input that's one thing, but...
Anyway - take what works, leave the rest, but my efforts are going to be devoted to editor submissions for the forseeable future.
quote:
The conventional wisdom is that it is still better to go through an agent rather than try to query publishers directly. I think that's actually more true, now, because the publishers laid off so many people at the beginning of the recession.
I was never one to stick to conventions.
I tend to agree with John here, there are SO many people trying to break in that you have to play the numbers game and put the statistics in your favor.
If getting publishes is your Rome, then all roads lead there.
[This message has been edited by Osiris (edited August 06, 2010).]
quote:
@Meredith - where do you get the idea that a submission to a publisher has to be an exclusive? I've literally never heard that (only heard the opposite) and am wondering if I've missed the boat.
It's gotten to where I've read so many agents' blogs, etc. I can't place exactly where I read that. But I do remember the statement that editors receiving a ms (not from an agent) will be very upset to learn that it's been sent to other editors as well. Agents expect you to send simultaneous submissions, with very few exceptions.
Yes, the industry is changing. But the publishing end of it is changing at the slowest pace. Everything else at the moment is sort of pivoting around the old dinosaur. Nevertheless, read some of, for example, Nathan Bransford's posts on why agents will still be needed.
Even if I got an editor directly interested in one of my novels, I'd still look for an agent to help me with the deal. There are too many things in a contract like that that I might very well miss. (And I've been trained as a paralegal.)
quote:
@Meredith - where do you get the idea that a submission to a publisher has to be an exclusive? I've literally never heard that (only heard the opposite) and am wondering if I've missed the boat.
From what I've heard, there's a difference between a query/synopsis package sent to a publisher and the actual manuscript. The former can be simultaneous, the latter is usually expected to be exclusive.
@Brad - any input here on this one??
You can send partials to as many people as you want at the same time.
But usually an editor or agent will not want to invest time in a full mss unless they have it exclusively. However, that's not to say they won't. When I was shopping my novel that sold, I sent the full to one agent who didn't ask for an exclusive. Two others wanted it after it was sent did want an exclusive, but I simply wrote and told them the situation. Both asked to see it anyway.
As for the editors vs. agents, please go look at the poll results I link to on my site. Dean Smith has pointed out all sorts of problems, but let me suggest you don't make the very same mistake he's railing against and replace the myth of the agent-saint with the one of the agent-booger-monster.
Are you going to write off all mechanics because there are scum bags among them? All lawyers? All doctors? All grocery store baggers!
The goal is to get the book sold. To break in. Get your novel in front of as many eyes as you can. Vet anyone who expresses interest and weed out the bad ones.
quote:
the one behind the rant is that agents' web information is typically no help at all for someone trying to decide to query them.
I found they're better than nothing. And if an agent posts "YA" without specifying they don't like YA fantasy, then I think maybe that's a sign of an agent you want to avoid. YA fantasy is a huge part of that market. An agent who didn't realize that is not one I'd want to have.
Besides, most agents are willing to represent a wide range inside general genres, as well as a few genres, just like editors are willing to buy wide. They just want stories that work.
So you send a query that bounces because it's not a fit. That's just information in your pocket. Maybe important info about the desireability of that agent.
[This message has been edited by johnbrown (edited August 06, 2010).]
But either way, I've never done it.
quote:
You can query as many people as you want simultaneously--agents, editors, grandmas, and dogs.
But, if you're submitting cold (as in, you haven't met an editor at a conference or something) you usually don't query publishers.
This is from Tor's website:
quote:
Don't send a query letter. It's practically impossible to judge a project from a query. We'd rather see your proposal.
quote:
I found they're better than nothing.
And one sock in the nose is better than two.
The point of the rant was that many agents' web sites could be much better, to everyone's benefit. This has little to do with agent vs. direct submissions.
quote:
The point of the rant was that many agents' web sites could be much better, to everyone's benefit. This has little to do with agent vs. direct submissions.
Agreed. And there are still a few dinosaurs that don't even have websites.
On the other hand, I think many agents are afraid to get too specific. If they say only urban fantasy, for example, someone with a great steampunk novel might not send it to them. They'd rather send out a bunch of rejections (whatever that does to our egos) than miss that one great novel that they would have accepted.
There may be method in their madness. At least for some of them.
http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2009/09/submitting-to-editors-without-agent.html
If I had to sell someone else's work before getting a percentage of the sale price I would certainly select those works I thought would give the highest return.
quote:
John, are you working on anything new, beyond your "Servant of a Dark God" series? And is your agent onboard with what you want to do?
Good grief, I don't have time to work on anything but the current project. I still have my fulltime job, remember But I've talked about the other ideas I have in the pipeline. In fact, we talked about the various things I wanted to do before she and I agreed to work together. That was one of my questions--I want to do x, y, and z; can you represent me in those areas? So we're on the same page.
Caitlin has a lot of experience as a senior book editor and as an agent. I didn't choose her because I wanted some flunky to do the dirty work. I chose her because she seemed like she'd be an excellent resource, help, associate. I believe in counseling with others. I don't have all the answers, nor will I. So I wanted someone who I could counsel with about my business, and add that input to all the other I get from my other writer friends and my editors.
I know some want to view agents as employees to be fired and hired. But I'd rather think of Caitlin as an associate. A valued resource. There is a middle ground between making them your boss and making them your flunky.