Katie is a vampire. And?
July 31, 2009 9:05 PM Subscribe
Janet Reid is a literary agent who helps aspiring fiction writers pitch their work in a public forum. Her feedback can be kind of brutal, but there are a few winning queries in there and it illuminates a part of the writing process that we civilians don't often get to see.
Janet Reid is a literary agent. And?
This is the set up. OK. What here is different from a lot of snarky/witty editor's blogs? What's at stake? We've seen a lot more wit from editors at publishing houses. She's a literary agent. Fine. And?
posted by VikingSword at 10:02 PM on July 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
This is the set up. OK. What here is different from a lot of snarky/witty editor's blogs? What's at stake? We've seen a lot more wit from editors at publishing houses. She's a literary agent. Fine. And?
posted by VikingSword at 10:02 PM on July 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
This kind of shit pisses me off, for a variety of reasons, but I'm eating Taco Bell so I'll be brief.
Agents *represent* writers. They work *for* writers. They don't put them down on snarky blogs. Even if they're "aspiring" (and God how I hate that motherfucking term- if you write, you're a writer), if you're a professional, you never put down *anyone* because you just never know when it will come back to haunt you.
I'm not exactly sure what she thinks is in this for her, besides the ego boost of having these saps grovel before her. It's interesting this project isn't listed in her bio on her agency's website; if I was her boss I would fire her in an instant. Awful for the image of the agency, if it had one.
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:23 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Agents *represent* writers. They work *for* writers. They don't put them down on snarky blogs. Even if they're "aspiring" (and God how I hate that motherfucking term- if you write, you're a writer), if you're a professional, you never put down *anyone* because you just never know when it will come back to haunt you.
I'm not exactly sure what she thinks is in this for her, besides the ego boost of having these saps grovel before her. It's interesting this project isn't listed in her bio on her agency's website; if I was her boss I would fire her in an instant. Awful for the image of the agency, if it had one.
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:23 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
My guess would be her own book, "How to make it in the literary world by writing an awesome query omg for real you guys: advice from a former junior agent who got tired of rep-ing third rate writers at a fourth rate agency" is due out sometime in the next few years.
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:31 PM on July 31, 2009
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:31 PM on July 31, 2009
Here and here are a couple of Making Light posts on the value of pitches. (Hint: they're not overly fond of them.)
(Apologies if this turns out to be less relevant than I think it is. It's the first thing that popped into my mind when I read about a literary agent critiquing pitches. And now, bedtime!)
posted by suetanvil at 10:38 PM on July 31, 2009
(Apologies if this turns out to be less relevant than I think it is. It's the first thing that popped into my mind when I read about a literary agent critiquing pitches. And now, bedtime!)
posted by suetanvil at 10:38 PM on July 31, 2009
Wow. Her clients are truly, uh... blessed. I'm sure she reminds them of this every day.
posted by katillathehun at 10:39 PM on July 31, 2009
posted by katillathehun at 10:39 PM on July 31, 2009
She's a literary agent. Fine. And?
And, as I said, "it illuminates a part of the writing process that we civilians don't often get to see." Yep -- she's snarky. But until I ran across that blog, I'd never thought much about how a writer goes about selling their work, let alone what kind of people read their pitches.
posted by ubermuffin at 10:45 PM on July 31, 2009
And, as I said, "it illuminates a part of the writing process that we civilians don't often get to see." Yep -- she's snarky. But until I ran across that blog, I'd never thought much about how a writer goes about selling their work, let alone what kind of people read their pitches.
posted by ubermuffin at 10:45 PM on July 31, 2009
You'd never thought much about how a writer goes about selling their work. And?
Now that you've thought about it, what do you have to say about it? You've got the set up, but you take it nowhere.
I'm sorry, but your's is a form rejection comment.
posted by ericost at 11:55 PM on July 31, 2009
Now that you've thought about it, what do you have to say about it? You've got the set up, but you take it nowhere.
I'm sorry, but your's is a form rejection comment.
posted by ericost at 11:55 PM on July 31, 2009
In her defense: this woman is a voluntary antenna for all the sorts of eager, unguided scribbling that new (and uncritical, and imaginative) writers throw out nonstop; for all those who do not yet get writer's blocks, and should (until they take a more critical eye) sometimes be subjected to blocks from the outside. If one is so certain of the raw electricity of what she's throwing that she doesn't bother throwing it straight, one needs to learn to pitch, and to drill like a salesman on the proper, polite delivery of a thing, and not on the thing conveyed.
In certain cases I think the critiques could be more gentle, but I imagine any good pedagogic style wilts into red-pen fits after a week or two of vampire fiction. An eyeful of Lestat can be like pepper-spray, and warrants at least playful retaliation. I'm thinking blockquotes from Chapterhouse: Dune and manifold calculus.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:06 AM on August 1, 2009
In certain cases I think the critiques could be more gentle, but I imagine any good pedagogic style wilts into red-pen fits after a week or two of vampire fiction. An eyeful of Lestat can be like pepper-spray, and warrants at least playful retaliation. I'm thinking blockquotes from Chapterhouse: Dune and manifold calculus.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:06 AM on August 1, 2009
But then I think Harlan Ellison is just cuddly and misunderstood.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:07 AM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by kid ichorous at 12:07 AM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Right now I'm trying to get agent representation for my novel and let me tell you that query letter is the most annoying thing I have ever attempted to do, and I have studied German so I've done some pretty annoying things in my time. You have a novel that you've worked on for years and have devoted countless thoughts to--so you have to sum it up in three or four snappy little paragraphs to get the attention of a tired person. As anyone knows who has been entranced to a book only to find that when they recommend it to a friend they are only allowed such eloquences as "Uhh, it's really good and I read it really quickly and you should read it, too," IT'S REALLY HARD TO EXPLAIN THE CHARMS OF A BOOK, especially when that book is your own. The agents who have actually gone from my query letter to my manuscript seem to like it (though none yet have offered to represent me) but only about one-twelfth of them actually have gotten past the query letter.
Yes, my query letter is pretty damned bad.
Obviously, agents have tons of pages to get through every day and they need SOME manner of sorting out the chaff from the grain so they don't read everybody's crap. It just seems that the query letter is a rather infelicitous manner of doing so.
Tl;dr: SELLING A NOVEL IS DIFFICULT AND I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT IT
posted by festivemanb at 12:11 AM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yes, my query letter is pretty damned bad.
Obviously, agents have tons of pages to get through every day and they need SOME manner of sorting out the chaff from the grain so they don't read everybody's crap. It just seems that the query letter is a rather infelicitous manner of doing so.
Tl;dr: SELLING A NOVEL IS DIFFICULT AND I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT IT
posted by festivemanb at 12:11 AM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Mary Walters is a minor but successful writer who published this blog entry about agents. Short version: agents are soul-sucking vampires killing the business of writing and publishing with their narrow commercial focus. Less-than-genre-blockbuster authors are hidden from publishers by agents chasing the next bestseller.
It actually got her a lot of attention, including a series of podcasts with U.K. literary agent Peter Cox.
posted by fatbird at 12:21 AM on August 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
It actually got her a lot of attention, including a series of podcasts with U.K. literary agent Peter Cox.
posted by fatbird at 12:21 AM on August 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I'd be able to take her a bit more seriously if her spelling was above Nursery school standard
posted by MontySwan at 12:48 AM on August 1, 2009
posted by MontySwan at 12:48 AM on August 1, 2009
This kind of shit pisses me off, for a variety of reasons, but I'm eating Taco Bell so I'll be brief.
For whatever reason, I rather liked this sentence.
posted by rhymer at 3:12 AM on August 1, 2009
For whatever reason, I rather liked this sentence.
posted by rhymer at 3:12 AM on August 1, 2009
I did think it was interesting to read the query letters (which I liken to reading the back of the book, the thing that sells me on picking it up). I also don't think her responses were really all that brutal. I didn't read any where she was dashing anyone's dreams, (like telling them the story idea itself is bad) or slinging personal insults. I also really love reading good critiques, so thanks for linking.
posted by Danila at 5:05 AM on August 1, 2009
posted by Danila at 5:05 AM on August 1, 2009
The hero of my book eats a cookie and the taste brings back all sorts of memories about his childhood. The novel is several million words long.
You wrote several million words about a cookie?
Form rejection.
posted by pyramid termite at 6:31 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
You wrote several million words about a cookie?
Form rejection.
posted by pyramid termite at 6:31 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
She seems very fond of the word "loathe." The word does have more than a few synonyms.
posted by blucevalo at 6:55 AM on August 1, 2009
posted by blucevalo at 6:55 AM on August 1, 2009
I think the comments are more enlightening of the process and reasoning than the blog itself, as her regular readers seem to be writers. And more entertaining. From the "kind of" link: "I saw the zombie meerkats first."
posted by notashroom at 8:10 AM on August 1, 2009
posted by notashroom at 8:10 AM on August 1, 2009
The hero of my book eats a cookie and the taste brings back all sorts of memories about his childhood. The novel is several million words long.
You wrote several million words about a cookie?
Form rejection.
I know this is snark, but it is worth pointing out that genuine literary geniuses do not have to follow the cold-call query model. Cold-call queries are for people who aren't having literary agents come to them. Literary geniuses will have perhaps earned their way into the Iowa writer's workshop, where agents will come to them, or they will publish short stories that are brilliant and therefore garner the attention of successful literary writers who will then pass their names on to agents, or they will win the Larry Q. Genius Fellowship and have people flock to them.
The problem is most of us aren't geniuses.
posted by Bookhouse at 8:45 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
You wrote several million words about a cookie?
Form rejection.
I know this is snark, but it is worth pointing out that genuine literary geniuses do not have to follow the cold-call query model. Cold-call queries are for people who aren't having literary agents come to them. Literary geniuses will have perhaps earned their way into the Iowa writer's workshop, where agents will come to them, or they will publish short stories that are brilliant and therefore garner the attention of successful literary writers who will then pass their names on to agents, or they will win the Larry Q. Genius Fellowship and have people flock to them.
The problem is most of us aren't geniuses.
posted by Bookhouse at 8:45 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
The hero of my book eats a cookie and the taste brings back all sorts of memories about his childhood. The novel is several million words long.
You wrote several million words about a cookie?
Form rejection.
Not to pile on, but this is a very poor synopsis of Proust. I don't think it means anything, to imagine that greatness might not be recognized when dressed up in a drab, stupid, and inaccurate one-sentence summary.
posted by grobstein at 9:39 AM on August 1, 2009
You wrote several million words about a cookie?
Form rejection.
Not to pile on, but this is a very poor synopsis of Proust. I don't think it means anything, to imagine that greatness might not be recognized when dressed up in a drab, stupid, and inaccurate one-sentence summary.
posted by grobstein at 9:39 AM on August 1, 2009
From one response: You better hope that whoever is reading this has a clue what Lost is. I don't.
Hm.
posted by pokermonk at 10:14 AM on August 1, 2009
Hm.
posted by pokermonk at 10:14 AM on August 1, 2009
With the advent of perfect storage and insane population growth, the creation of art becomes less valuable with time. I'm not sure why people miss this; maybe it's just so obvious that it's beneath notice. My favorite example is music. In 1950, a new artist faced an empty landscape. Almost every household name lay in the future: Elvis, the Beatles, Johnny Cash, the Doors, Michael Jackson, Nirvana, Metallica... the world's population was 2.5 billion. (An artist's "competition" can be said to be the population which has or has had access to technology allowing inexpensive and near-perfect reproduction of the artist's art.) Good recording technology was relatively new, so a 1950s-era "recording artist" was on a new frontier.
How about in 2010? The population today is about seven billion, a little less than three times the population in 1950. Digital recording and reproduction means that music is cheaper than ever to make and distribute, and the artist's competition still includes dead or dormant artists from the past.
If anything, writing is worse, because writing was already easier than music. It requires no technical skills beyond the ones that most people already know, no coordination of multiple artists, and no software that isn't included with modern computers. Furthermore, writers are competing with a vast back catalog. When you write a mystery/adventure novel, you'd better damn well believe you're still competing with Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie and Wilkie goddamn Collins. After all, it can take months to read a novel—the reader's time is a limited resource. Much more limited than the number of people willing to sit at their computers and try to knock out a novel.
All of this angst about the death of print and publishing and writing are ignoring the fact, however sad it may be for those of us who love the written word, that the modern era is almost perfectly contrived to destroy the commercial viability of the writer's craft.
posted by sonic meat machine at 10:17 AM on August 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
How about in 2010? The population today is about seven billion, a little less than three times the population in 1950. Digital recording and reproduction means that music is cheaper than ever to make and distribute, and the artist's competition still includes dead or dormant artists from the past.
If anything, writing is worse, because writing was already easier than music. It requires no technical skills beyond the ones that most people already know, no coordination of multiple artists, and no software that isn't included with modern computers. Furthermore, writers are competing with a vast back catalog. When you write a mystery/adventure novel, you'd better damn well believe you're still competing with Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie and Wilkie goddamn Collins. After all, it can take months to read a novel—the reader's time is a limited resource. Much more limited than the number of people willing to sit at their computers and try to knock out a novel.
All of this angst about the death of print and publishing and writing are ignoring the fact, however sad it may be for those of us who love the written word, that the modern era is almost perfectly contrived to destroy the commercial viability of the writer's craft.
posted by sonic meat machine at 10:17 AM on August 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
This kind of shit pisses me off, for a variety of reasons, but I'm eating Taco Bell so I'll be brief.
Agents *represent* writers. They work *for* writers. They don't put them down on snarky blogs. Even if they're "aspiring" (and God how I hate that motherfucking term- if you write, you're a writer), if you're a professional, you never put down *anyone* because you just never know when it will come back to haunt you.
Yeah, this.
My MFA program has an editor's festival every year. This year, Don Share, the senior poetry editor over at Poetry, commented that he and his staff never, ever make fun of slush pile submissions, because his magazine wouldn't exist without them. Most of my peers were extremely skeptical of this remark, and insisted that he would only make that comment to make us feel better about our own submissions, for "marketing purposes."
I'll admit, I'd poked fun about the writing of slush submitters in the past, but his comment, and the reaction, made me seriously reevaluate my attitudes. If what Don Share said was true, it's a really gracious and, I think, appropriate attitude to have. He's right--magazines wouldn't exist without enthusiastic slush submitters. At best, they'd be even more narrow and cloistered and isolated in terms of voice than they already are, and innovation is always needed in writing, especially poetry. And if what he said was an exaggeration, if it's "just marketing," I think it's a damn good way to market a magazine. Do you really want to telegraph that you might have ungracious and unsympathetic attitudes toward writers who are, essentially, supplying you with the lifeblood of your work?
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:27 AM on August 1, 2009
Agents *represent* writers. They work *for* writers. They don't put them down on snarky blogs. Even if they're "aspiring" (and God how I hate that motherfucking term- if you write, you're a writer), if you're a professional, you never put down *anyone* because you just never know when it will come back to haunt you.
Yeah, this.
My MFA program has an editor's festival every year. This year, Don Share, the senior poetry editor over at Poetry, commented that he and his staff never, ever make fun of slush pile submissions, because his magazine wouldn't exist without them. Most of my peers were extremely skeptical of this remark, and insisted that he would only make that comment to make us feel better about our own submissions, for "marketing purposes."
I'll admit, I'd poked fun about the writing of slush submitters in the past, but his comment, and the reaction, made me seriously reevaluate my attitudes. If what Don Share said was true, it's a really gracious and, I think, appropriate attitude to have. He's right--magazines wouldn't exist without enthusiastic slush submitters. At best, they'd be even more narrow and cloistered and isolated in terms of voice than they already are, and innovation is always needed in writing, especially poetry. And if what he said was an exaggeration, if it's "just marketing," I think it's a damn good way to market a magazine. Do you really want to telegraph that you might have ungracious and unsympathetic attitudes toward writers who are, essentially, supplying you with the lifeblood of your work?
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:27 AM on August 1, 2009
Janet Reid is not snarking on queries from the slush pile. She is snarking - and not with any particular ferocity - on queries that have submitted to a blog titled "Query Shark" specifically for the purpose of being posted and critiqued. These queries are all sent by writers who certainly ought to understand that they run the risk of their contribution being disparaged or mocked. (Which, to my way of thinking, makes it not so very different from posting to Metafilter.)
There are people who offer cuddlier critiques, and those are good too.
posted by timeo danaos at 12:41 PM on August 1, 2009
There are people who offer cuddlier critiques, and those are good too.
posted by timeo danaos at 12:41 PM on August 1, 2009
Yeah, I gotta side with Timeo danaos on this.
posted by tylerfulltilt at 12:56 PM on August 1, 2009
posted by tylerfulltilt at 12:56 PM on August 1, 2009
Agents *represent* writers. They work *for* writers.
They work for the writers they have contracts with. They don't work for every writer who has decided to send them a query.
posted by nooneyouknow at 1:14 PM on August 1, 2009
They work for the writers they have contracts with. They don't work for every writer who has decided to send them a query.
posted by nooneyouknow at 1:14 PM on August 1, 2009
I work for a magazine that only prints unsolicited submissions. Lots of them are a million miles away from being publishable, but there's an understanding in the office that mocking any of them is a dick move.
posted by Cantdosleepy at 1:39 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Cantdosleepy at 1:39 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Agents *represent* writers. They work *for* writers. They don't put them down on snarky blogs. Even if they're "aspiring" (and God how I hate that motherfucking term- if you write, you're a writer), if you're a professional, you never put down *anyone* because you just never know when it will come back to haunt you.
Presumably, she works for authors she represents. She doesn't work for authors she doesn't yet represent. In any business relationship, there's a power dynamic, just because cash flows in one direction doesn't mean that one person has to be nice to the person paying them. Just because "The customer is always right" isn't always true.
I think this person is providing at least some service, helping people write better pitches, since she apparently takes second submissions and tells people what not to do.
With the advent of perfect storage and insane population growth the creation of art becomes less valuable with time
I first read that as "with the advent of perfect storage and an insane population". And I was thinking. "Yeah, crazy people probably would create a bunch of interesting and/or terrible art"
posted by delmoi at 1:43 PM on August 1, 2009
Presumably, she works for authors she represents. She doesn't work for authors she doesn't yet represent. In any business relationship, there's a power dynamic, just because cash flows in one direction doesn't mean that one person has to be nice to the person paying them. Just because "The customer is always right" isn't always true.
I think this person is providing at least some service, helping people write better pitches, since she apparently takes second submissions and tells people what not to do.
With the advent of perfect storage and insane population growth the creation of art becomes less valuable with time
I first read that as "with the advent of perfect storage and an insane population". And I was thinking. "Yeah, crazy people probably would create a bunch of interesting and/or terrible art"
posted by delmoi at 1:43 PM on August 1, 2009
Janet Reid is not snarking on queries from the slush pile. She is snarking - and not with any particular ferocity - on queries that have submitted to a blog titled "Query Shark" specifically for the purpose of being posted and critiqued.
In light of the public snark, I find it difficult to imagine that she refrains from snarking about writers behind their backs.
Sure, it's good, in a way, that she's honest about it, but I still feel like there's a bit of an abuse of power going on there. Writers are putting themselves in a position to be criticized any time they submit their writing anywhere, but inexperienced writers can be especially in danger of having their nativity violated in one way or another, whether it be on a blog for LOLs or by dubious predatory publishing scams--they can be so eager for feedback that they'll make all sorts of poor choices to get it. Generally, I think people in power shouldn't exploit this, and that's where I see the parallel.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:43 PM on August 1, 2009
In light of the public snark, I find it difficult to imagine that she refrains from snarking about writers behind their backs.
Sure, it's good, in a way, that she's honest about it, but I still feel like there's a bit of an abuse of power going on there. Writers are putting themselves in a position to be criticized any time they submit their writing anywhere, but inexperienced writers can be especially in danger of having their nativity violated in one way or another, whether it be on a blog for LOLs or by dubious predatory publishing scams--they can be so eager for feedback that they'll make all sorts of poor choices to get it. Generally, I think people in power shouldn't exploit this, and that's where I see the parallel.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:43 PM on August 1, 2009
Nativity. Sheesh. I meant "naivety," of course.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:06 PM on August 1, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:06 PM on August 1, 2009
I've never tried to publish anything, but from what I understand, the thing that really breaks the hearts of writers trying to get published is to send out query after query and get no feedback beyond a form rejection. Are they terrible writers? Have they been fooling themselves? Are they great and no one can see the greatness in their novel about a cookie? Did anyone even read the pages? How can they tell?
If Janet Reid can help writers construct queries that actually get their pages read, she's doing them a real service. You probably do have to develop something of a thick skin to benefit from her advice, but that's as much an essential for a writer as being able to compose a query.
posted by timeo danaos at 2:48 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
If Janet Reid can help writers construct queries that actually get their pages read, she's doing them a real service. You probably do have to develop something of a thick skin to benefit from her advice, but that's as much an essential for a writer as being able to compose a query.
posted by timeo danaos at 2:48 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've never tried to publish anything, but from what I understand, the thing that really breaks the hearts of writers trying to get published is to send out query after query and get no feedback beyond a form rejection.
Having tried to publish things, and having watched others tried to publish things (and having taught creative writing classes), I can tell you that what kind of feedback a writer needs is highly subjective and varies tremendously. Some writers need to be treated with kid gloves; other crave harsh critique. You have to be careful--what might work well for some writers is potentially crushing for others. When I've been in a position to critique the work of beginning writers, I was careful to always be respectful, at least. To me, what was most important was that my students (in this case) continue writing. Even if someone's writing seems terrible to me (and it's always subjective) now, it's entirely possible that if a writer keeps at it, they'll produce some terrific stuff in the future.
It's not necessarily that she's offering critique of queries that bugs me, mostly that she's doing it in such a public way (she could easily offer the same service privately) that doesn't necessarily create a more useful resource for the readers than providing general advice. It seems to me that at least part of her goal in blogging this is to entertain readers at the writers' expense. I've seen other writers do the same thing in workshop, tear someone apart to entertain those around them. "You need a tough skin to be a writer" is often the defense but in many cases I think people were just looking for an excuse to be mean. Or snarky. Or whatever.
But obviously, my experiences might mean that I look at this sort of thing a bit differently, so YMandexperienceMV.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:06 PM on August 1, 2009
Having tried to publish things, and having watched others tried to publish things (and having taught creative writing classes), I can tell you that what kind of feedback a writer needs is highly subjective and varies tremendously. Some writers need to be treated with kid gloves; other crave harsh critique. You have to be careful--what might work well for some writers is potentially crushing for others. When I've been in a position to critique the work of beginning writers, I was careful to always be respectful, at least. To me, what was most important was that my students (in this case) continue writing. Even if someone's writing seems terrible to me (and it's always subjective) now, it's entirely possible that if a writer keeps at it, they'll produce some terrific stuff in the future.
It's not necessarily that she's offering critique of queries that bugs me, mostly that she's doing it in such a public way (she could easily offer the same service privately) that doesn't necessarily create a more useful resource for the readers than providing general advice. It seems to me that at least part of her goal in blogging this is to entertain readers at the writers' expense. I've seen other writers do the same thing in workshop, tear someone apart to entertain those around them. "You need a tough skin to be a writer" is often the defense but in many cases I think people were just looking for an excuse to be mean. Or snarky. Or whatever.
But obviously, my experiences might mean that I look at this sort of thing a bit differently, so YMandexperienceMV.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:06 PM on August 1, 2009
It's not necessarily that she's offering critique of queries that bugs me, mostly that she's doing it in such a public way (she could easily offer the same service privately)
At which point it becomes charity, which is a nice thing to do, but it's hardly required behavior.
posted by Bookhouse at 3:30 PM on August 1, 2009
At which point it becomes charity, which is a nice thing to do, but it's hardly required behavior.
posted by Bookhouse at 3:30 PM on August 1, 2009
Jodi Meadows reads slush for a literary agency and blogs about it. She just started doing the same query review thing, but she also talks about a lot of other aspects of that job that don't get a lot of attention. Most of her entries are under this tag.
posted by lilac girl at 4:18 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by lilac girl at 4:18 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Mary Walters is a minor but successful writer who published this blog entry about agents. Short version: agents are soul-sucking vampires killing the business of writing and publishing with their narrow commercial focus. Less-than-genre-blockbuster authors are hidden from publishers by agents chasing the next bestseller.
In defense of my agent: disagree x infinity. She has taken up quite a bit of time recently chasing down a project I desperately want to do despite a million different roadblocks, one that might not earn her anything at all. She wasn't even disappointed when I turned down a recent big deal because the way the publisher had structured it, I'd have made next to nothing by the time all was said and done (and if I turn it down, no money for her, either!).
Not all agents are soul-sucking vampires. This is why when you have a good one, and a good relationship with him or her, they are worth their weight in gold.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:38 AM on August 2, 2009
In defense of my agent: disagree x infinity. She has taken up quite a bit of time recently chasing down a project I desperately want to do despite a million different roadblocks, one that might not earn her anything at all. She wasn't even disappointed when I turned down a recent big deal because the way the publisher had structured it, I'd have made next to nothing by the time all was said and done (and if I turn it down, no money for her, either!).
Not all agents are soul-sucking vampires. This is why when you have a good one, and a good relationship with him or her, they are worth their weight in gold.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:38 AM on August 2, 2009
Seconding bitter-girl.com. My agent worked tirelessly for me before I had even signed our agreement - before I had even written a word of the novel that is now in progress. In fact, I had zero experience in the genre he deals in. This could all fall flat. Obviously this is money for him, too, but if he were a soul-sucking vampire with narrow commercial focus, I don't think he would have the good relationship he seems to have with all of his clients *and* editors at various publishers.
posted by katillathehun at 10:37 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by katillathehun at 10:37 AM on August 2, 2009
« Older Crazy Japanese advertisements | Deep Note Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by delmoi at 9:50 PM on July 31, 2009