If God had an Agent, It would Still be Wednesday
The British Prime Minister and statesman, Benjamin Disraeli, said, "It is well-known what a middleman is: he is a man who bamboozles one party and plunders the other." Even Shakespeare had something to say about agents: "Let every eye negotiate for itself and trust no agent." But the writer Raymond Chandler described the agent best: "The agent never receipts his bill, puts his hat on and bows himself out. He stays around forever, not only for as long as you can write anything that anyone will buy, but as long as anyone will buy any portion of any right to anything that you ever did write. He just takes ten per cent of your life."
And now, in the 21st Century, agents have become the gatekeepers, with more power than they have ever had in the history of publishing.
I've just begun seeking an agent for my novel, Worlds Apart, and I've received the first two rejections. Every one of them feels like a kick in the gonads. But the second one came with a splash of gall. Michael Larsen and Elizabeth Pomada in San Francisco are very friendly agents. In a lengthy form letter, they told me they were sorry, "because we can't help you achieve the success you want." That was so nice of them to set aside their crystal ball long enough to figure out that they'd have to actually work at finding a publisher for an unknown writer's book. But they were nice about it. They encouraged me to persevere. They quoted author Joe Girard, who apparently said, "Every no gets you closer to yes." Bull-oney. There's not an unlimited number of agents in the world. Every "no" could very well lead to running out of people telling me "no." And then what? Back to self-publishing.
Here's the gall: at the bottom of the letter, I got to read about Michael Larsen, the agent who was rejecting me. It read: "Michael is the author of the third editions of How to Write a Book Proposal (4th Edition, 4/11) and How to Get a Literary Agent, and co-author of Guerrilla Marketing for Writers: 100 Weapons for Selling Your Work. The guy has the cajones to tell me--very nicely--that he can't help me achieve success and to persevere...and buy my books about how to get me to represent your book. And when I turned the page over, the rejection letter became a flier promoting the 3rd Annual San Francisco Writing for Change Conference and the 8th Annual San Francisco Writers Conference, both of which Michael Larsen had a big hand in starting.
Now, don't get me wrong. Michael Larsen and Elizabeth Pomada have a long reputation for helping new writers, and they at least create a form letter that goes beyond the usual three-line rejection platitudes. But to promote their own books while turning mine down just...well, I don't feel encouraged, I just feel pissed off. And even more so after I read a blog this week that puts the blame directly on agents for keeping unknown writers from getting published.
This week, my cousin Jeff, who reads this blog, sent me a link to another blogger named Gonzalo Lira. Lira posted an interesting--but way too long--piece on the new model for book publishing. If you'd like to read it, here's the link:
http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-model-for-book-publishing-thats.html
In the blog, he writes about the real problem with publishing today. And guess what? It turns out not to be the big bad publishers but those insidious little middlemen who call themselves agents. Lira points out that what sets the publishers back on their heels when a first-time or unknown writer submits a book is that they nearly always come to the publisher through an agent. In fact, it's rare, he writes, that unpublished writers ever get published by sending their manuscripts to the publisher.
And why is having an agent a problem? Well, he points out that agents negotiate advances against royalties, upping the costs of taking on a book. Those advances are $50,000.00 or more. If the book doesn't do well, the advances are not refunded to the publisher; they're out the money. The writer and the agent got paid. The publisher made nothing--or lost money.
Lira had a way to solve the problem, and it was simply not to advance money to the writer. Instead, pay the writer royalties as the book sells. A monthly or quarterly pay check. Ah, but who doesn't like this idea? The agents. That's right. They want their money up front--the whole tamale--and then if the book takes off, they'll make even more. They can't lose. It's the agents who keep this crazy paradigm going. They do it with the power they have over the publishers. Yes. Agents have the power--not the publishers. I never thought about this much, but he's right. Publishers need product and the agents control the product now. Publishers have resigned themselves, I guess, to this idiotic system, because they really don't want to deal with writers, and they really don't want to be taking the risks. New writers--great ones--are out there with great books. And publishers publish the same tried and true writers, keeping the pool of writers shallow, when they could deepen the pool by eliminating advances-against-royalties.
Hey, I'm a writer, and I want to make money. But the only ones who want to keep it like this are the agents and those writers who are already swimming in the pool. Just think of all the great books by talented writers that would be published if agents weren't bamboozling and plundering in both directions.
If every "no" gets me closer to "yes," then how about this: NO TO ADVANCES AGAINST ROYALTIES TO UNKNOWN WRITERS. Say it with me: NO TO ADVANCES AGAINST ROYALTIES TO UNKNOWN WRITERS. Publish my book, and if it sells, I'll take what's coming to me. And once I have a good track record, then let's talk about advances against royalties.
And publishers and writers can begin to excuse the agents from the room. And maybe God can get to Saturday.
And now, in the 21st Century, agents have become the gatekeepers, with more power than they have ever had in the history of publishing.
I've just begun seeking an agent for my novel, Worlds Apart, and I've received the first two rejections. Every one of them feels like a kick in the gonads. But the second one came with a splash of gall. Michael Larsen and Elizabeth Pomada in San Francisco are very friendly agents. In a lengthy form letter, they told me they were sorry, "because we can't help you achieve the success you want." That was so nice of them to set aside their crystal ball long enough to figure out that they'd have to actually work at finding a publisher for an unknown writer's book. But they were nice about it. They encouraged me to persevere. They quoted author Joe Girard, who apparently said, "Every no gets you closer to yes." Bull-oney. There's not an unlimited number of agents in the world. Every "no" could very well lead to running out of people telling me "no." And then what? Back to self-publishing.
Here's the gall: at the bottom of the letter, I got to read about Michael Larsen, the agent who was rejecting me. It read: "Michael is the author of the third editions of How to Write a Book Proposal (4th Edition, 4/11) and How to Get a Literary Agent, and co-author of Guerrilla Marketing for Writers: 100 Weapons for Selling Your Work. The guy has the cajones to tell me--very nicely--that he can't help me achieve success and to persevere...and buy my books about how to get me to represent your book. And when I turned the page over, the rejection letter became a flier promoting the 3rd Annual San Francisco Writing for Change Conference and the 8th Annual San Francisco Writers Conference, both of which Michael Larsen had a big hand in starting.
Now, don't get me wrong. Michael Larsen and Elizabeth Pomada have a long reputation for helping new writers, and they at least create a form letter that goes beyond the usual three-line rejection platitudes. But to promote their own books while turning mine down just...well, I don't feel encouraged, I just feel pissed off. And even more so after I read a blog this week that puts the blame directly on agents for keeping unknown writers from getting published.
This week, my cousin Jeff, who reads this blog, sent me a link to another blogger named Gonzalo Lira. Lira posted an interesting--but way too long--piece on the new model for book publishing. If you'd like to read it, here's the link:
http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-model-for-book-publishing-thats.html
In the blog, he writes about the real problem with publishing today. And guess what? It turns out not to be the big bad publishers but those insidious little middlemen who call themselves agents. Lira points out that what sets the publishers back on their heels when a first-time or unknown writer submits a book is that they nearly always come to the publisher through an agent. In fact, it's rare, he writes, that unpublished writers ever get published by sending their manuscripts to the publisher.
And why is having an agent a problem? Well, he points out that agents negotiate advances against royalties, upping the costs of taking on a book. Those advances are $50,000.00 or more. If the book doesn't do well, the advances are not refunded to the publisher; they're out the money. The writer and the agent got paid. The publisher made nothing--or lost money.
Lira had a way to solve the problem, and it was simply not to advance money to the writer. Instead, pay the writer royalties as the book sells. A monthly or quarterly pay check. Ah, but who doesn't like this idea? The agents. That's right. They want their money up front--the whole tamale--and then if the book takes off, they'll make even more. They can't lose. It's the agents who keep this crazy paradigm going. They do it with the power they have over the publishers. Yes. Agents have the power--not the publishers. I never thought about this much, but he's right. Publishers need product and the agents control the product now. Publishers have resigned themselves, I guess, to this idiotic system, because they really don't want to deal with writers, and they really don't want to be taking the risks. New writers--great ones--are out there with great books. And publishers publish the same tried and true writers, keeping the pool of writers shallow, when they could deepen the pool by eliminating advances-against-royalties.
Hey, I'm a writer, and I want to make money. But the only ones who want to keep it like this are the agents and those writers who are already swimming in the pool. Just think of all the great books by talented writers that would be published if agents weren't bamboozling and plundering in both directions.
If every "no" gets me closer to "yes," then how about this: NO TO ADVANCES AGAINST ROYALTIES TO UNKNOWN WRITERS. Say it with me: NO TO ADVANCES AGAINST ROYALTIES TO UNKNOWN WRITERS. Publish my book, and if it sells, I'll take what's coming to me. And once I have a good track record, then let's talk about advances against royalties.
And publishers and writers can begin to excuse the agents from the room. And maybe God can get to Saturday.
Possibly the only way to spark the changes needed by unknown writers would be for them to somehow initiate their own version of a publishing 'TeaParty'.
I'm pretty sure most unpublished writers would love the chance to either fall on their swords or reap the benefits, based on performance.
Reply to this
Self-publishing has grown into what could be called a writers' tea party of sorts. I think self-publishing, once writers figure out better ways to market their books and have some leverage with booksellers to sell their books, will be the force that turns the commercial publishers' heads our way.
Reply to this