How to use this Page

Great interview!

I’m glad you bumped into each other! This was a great interview w/Susan on all things picture book related!

Thanks for this wonderful interview! Lots of good information here about writing and submitting picture books.

great interview – thank you, Susan, for being so candid about your life as agent. And thanks to Tara for bumping into her!

Thank you so much for this great interview, Tara and Susan! I’m glad the carpet was so soft as well.

Thanks for posting this interview, Tara– it’s always great to hear from a picture book agent! I love that you included her personal favorites as well as practical advice.

Thanks Tara and Susan; lots of good reminders and guidance in this! I particularly appreciated the “turn-off” list.

Fantastic interview! Susan is on my list of “to-submit.” Nice to know her specific views still align with mine. heehee!

“one gal’s quirky is another gal’s odd” Love it! Enjoyed this interview and appreciate Ms. Hawk’s insights!

Thank you for this interview Tara and Susan! Very informative and exactly what I was looking for- questions about picture books.

“…in general, I think this is about looking for something that feels new and different.”

An exciting and informative interview. Thanks Tara and Susan!

Great roundup, Nathan! Thanks for sharing!

Congrats on the release of your third book, Nathan!

Love the picture. Nice shot.

"Gosh. If I didn't know any better I'd think authors hate self-promotion."

Yes. So yes.

Thanks for sharing.

Congrats on the release! I like your photo, it has atmosphere.

Will check back on Monday!

Firstly - I just found out about Adam Mansbach two days ago (I read his wish-it-was-real college syllabus), so it's hilarious how you start to notice things once you notice them in the first place.

Secondly, will the competition be open to those who do not live in the U.S. (I'm currently residing & writing in Ireland)?

Anna-

Yeah, open to everyone, I just can't send a book overseas. Learned that lesson the hard way!

Congratulations, Nathan!

This comment has been removed by the author.

Congratulations! Thanks for sharing such great stuff. Going back to the manuscript to change my main character's name now.

Beautiful photo, Nathan! And yea on the contest (I was the anon who missed it!!)!

BTW, also for your list: remember how much we love and appreciate your Friday wrap-ups -they are fun and food.

And, don't forget guest blogs. Those too have been golden.

Liked the love article Nathan. As a psychologist myself brain chemical talk does bring warm fuzzy feelings. Just wanted to say, there was not enough talk about human attachment and bonding in the article.
The chemicals are the tin tacks but behaviours, experiences and shared oxytocin moments really do forge more than the initial heart flutters of early romantic love.
Ah, love. Its never bad. It all comes down to how your defining your terms.

Congratulations on the third book.

I'm now going to follow up the terrific links you have posted and get back to my weekend writing goals!

First, congratulations on your new Jacob book.

Second, I seriously love your photograph.

Wait! The LAST Jacob Wonderbar? OHNO! I have a reluctant reader here who is going to be INCONSOLABLE. There are only three series he will read: Wimpy Kid, Big Nate, and Jacob Wonderbar.

Great collection of articles, but that's an even better collection of photos. Love 'em.

Thanks for the link about blog commenting! Very useful. I think you've done an excellent job of keeping the discussion here serious and not trollish, and you even allow anonymous commenting!

A CONTEST YOU SAY? :)

Thank you for the huge line up of links. Will devour those in a moment. Already checked out the love one and while I agree that one can - and should - connect with anyone and everyone in a loving way even for a nanosecond, when the article becomes technical and starts dissecting the emotion, my interest wavered as I think the answer is much more simple: the mind directs the emotions and that's all one needs to focus upon. Based on my experiences, I'd also speculate that another person's beliefs and thoughts strongly influence our own, and visa versa; and if one truly believes that he or she is loveable and that another will find them so, too, then this subliminally affects the beliefs and experiences of those who meet them. I also speculate that it doesn't matter as much what we say, do or wear as much as what we think/believe if we want to attract someone into our life.

A P.S. Your photos are amazing, btw. Especially like the Maddison Square Gardens shot featured on your blog. Art!

Congrats on the new release and thanks for the linkage.

This is one of the high lights of my week: you corralling all these wild links into one convenient bowl of M&Ms.

Congratulations on the release of your third book! I can't wait to read it! :D

Terrific photo!

The memoir piece is really good. I like what Elliot's saying. And Mangash's piece really is too funny! :)

I haven't read it myself, but I've heard Rachelle's book on which way to publish has some good things in it, but is biased - indie authors are 'control freaks' for example, which is pejorative. But, on the other hand, she self-published this book! So, I ultimately think an agent self-publishing a book is pretty awesome, I just wish she'd picked a on which she was more likely to be neutral.

The article on love is interesting. I think the researcher is on to something, but it's incomplete. In other words, I think the value of pleasant connections is important, and I like that the research is bringing that out. Friendship tends to be under-valued in our culture, even though studies show it is as important, if not more important, than romantic love in terms of an individuals' happiness.

But I think there is more than one type of love. I agree with Lesley that the article leaves out attachment and bonding. People can love others intensely, and even fiercely, over distance and time, even without pleasant exchanges. There are deeper types of love than the one she is measuring, imho. People are not as interchangeable to other people as the article may imply.

Interesting and fun links, Nathan. Thanks! And congratulations again on your release! :)

All the best with the new release!

Jobs at your Home, Internet Online Jobs like data entry, copy pasting, Form Filling, Facebook Sharing Jobs, Clicking Jobs, Web Surfing, Google Jobs and Much More Earning Systems Online
www.jobzcorner.com

the blog article you linked to isn't working?

I read Sarah's blog all the time, but it seems to be down today.

The link to Sarah's post doesn't work. :( But I already have an awesome agent. In fact, a young one at a very established agency. :)

Sorry, looks like the blog is down. Post updated accordingly.

Here's Sarah's post

So, so, SO very true.

I had two simultaneous offers, one from a respected Literary Agent who warned me that if I accepted her offer of representation, she wanted me to rework a lot of my MS.

The second agent "got it." She was effusive with her praise and said my MS was as close to perfect as she'd ever seen.

Unfortunately, Agent Luvme had next-to-zero contacts in the publishing industry... As I would later find out the hard way.

Oh, to be able to go back in time and choose the more respected agent... Sigh.

Thanks for the link to Sarah's blog. Made a note of the questions for future use.

"A bad agent can be more damaging to your career than no agent."

Thanks,^ Nathan. Now go back to agenting so the scale can tip a bit more to the good ones.

Thanks, Nathan!

Are you sure you don't want to come back into agenting? :)

Thanks for sharing this Nathan. I read Sarah's post and found it very helpful as I'm hoping to query for the first time this year.

Thanks :)

"Legit" Agents? Does that mean they can sing and dance too?

Thanks for the link. Great info.

Great blog post - both yours and Sarah's. Thank you, Nathan.

Btw, how's life in New York treating you?

You are so right about this. I have seen things that made me blink. But more than that, now that there aren't as many agent blogs trending as there once were, new writers don't seem to understand what agents actually do. It seems there's this image of agents acting as anything from publisher to publicist.

thank you nathan for sharing this to us. Its my first time and im currently clicking all the links in your blog as we speak. Very interesting post :)

Sarah is my agent, and I thank the Universe daily for her. I have friends who were wronged by their agents...from legitimate agencies...so the ne'er-do-well'ers are everywhere. Be your own advocate, writers, at all times.

Er...um...I think I'm just going to save myself and jump (if that makes any sense). I've been holding back on the submission process. But...this article is so true. I can't believe how useful it was for me. As an aspiring writer, I fear the young agents with minimal experience but I also fear querying to an experienced agent who doesn't have the time to give my work a second glance. This was a great post.

Thanks for sharing this. I also once upon a time read your link about taking a chance on a less experienced agent and it led me to feeling more secure about the agent I did sign with. I of course did all the background research, because even though I "clicked" with my agent when she offered me representation, I do know good intentions don't amount to a hill of beans in this world of Connections. But my book has now been nibbled on by half a dozen major publishers who wouldn't have looked at my stuff without an agent, and some of them are still considering the book, so as far as I'm concerned she's doing enough. :)

Thanks for dropping Truth Bombs.

How do you think a agent can help a self-published author? Currently book 4 will be on shelves soon, but my goal is to have my books not on shelves but in readers hands. Would an agent be beneficial?

Great post! A good agent does this and soooo much more. After the sale, there are so many things--the revision process, marketing, platform-building, strategizing ... She manages a billion little (and big) details so I don't have to worry about them. My agent is helping me plan my entire career, and she's careful with timing, crafting communications with my editors, providing ideas (and doing a surprising amount of legwork) for promotions, and so many other things. She is an amazing advocate for me and my work, and has great perspective on the industry and the long-term that is totally invaluable to me. I wouldn't want to do this without that kind of partner.

Yes--that's how I feel! The career planning aspect is huge so I'm glad you mentioned it. Even though my agent just sold a series for me, she's already been helping me shape another YA that I've been working on and has given me amazing insights into the direction of the book. An advocate is a great term to use and it feels amazing to have one. Thanks for weighing in and best of luck w/ your books! :)

Absolutely agree. My agent just closed on deal for me that was a better than I ever could have hoped. She saw possibilities I would not have recognized.

Thanks for stopping by, and huge congrats on your deal! :)

Fantastic post, and absolutely yes on all of that. Being with an agent who gets you and your writing is the best thing ever.

Thanks, Lori! You also bring up a good point that an agent who gets you and your writing is key...so one person's rock star agent might not be a fit for another writer, and that's okay. You want the agent who will be the best advocate for your books!

Kristi- Thanks so much for this post. I just signed with my rock star agent (er, yesterday) and this post just reiterates all the reasons I am over the moon excited!

YAY for signing with rock star agents--huge congrats!!!!! :)

Good post. I write cross-genre and would never have found a publisher in the current market without a committed agent, and would never reach a significant readership if I tried to self-publish.

The cross-genre writing is another good point. I have no idea what genre to call my current ms, but my agent likes it so I'm sure she'll come up with a great way to pitch it. On the other point, I do know some self-pub authors who have reached a significant readership, but they have worked their butts off on the promotion and marketing end. One successful self-pubber told me she spends about 12 hours/day between writing and promoting. That's a lot o' time. Thanks for stopping by. :)

I commented on your join blog, but I'll say it again here. Great post!

I'll take a compliment twice--thanks again! :)

Great post, Kristi! I don't have an agent yet. Honestly, I haven't tried very hard. I do have a good relationship with four agents that I've either befriended at conferences or on line. I've been able to go to each of them for advice. Now if I could just write some thing brilliant for one of them. :)

Thanks, Sharon--best of luck in your agent hunt. It's great that you already have some relationships with agents, but don't be afraid to query widely. :)

I just signed with my rock star agent last week, and your post makes me feel even luckier than I already do! :)

That's awesome--congrats, Janet! :)

Definitely gave me renewed motivation in my search for my very own fairy god agent, not to mention prompted today's post on CQG. Made sure to link my followers back to here! Thanks!

This gives me hope because I know deep down this is the path I want to take. Lately, it's not been easy, but I know this is what I want.
Thanks so much

Thank you, and good luck in your search--I'm sure your fairy god agent is out there! :)

You're right--it's not easy at all. In fact, finding a great agent was one of the most difficult things I've done...but it's so worth it in the end. Hang in there and keep trying. You've just inspired a new post, so I'm going to touch on this topic in the next few weeks. Thanks!

This post is absolutely spot on! My agent is worth her weight in chocolate. And not just because she sold my book...she's also a cheerleader, a brainstormer, a talk-off-cliffer, and a genuinely lovely person. :)

LOL at the talk-off-cliffer, and you are so right about the cheerleader and brainstormer part. I know some people don't care about the genuinely lovely person part, but that was very important to me too! Thanks for stopping by. :)

Kristi, I also blogged on this subject, focusing on the cross-genre aspect, if you want to compare notes. http://geoffreygudgion.com/60-2/

Remember, every hour you spend learning the legal language of contracts, researching the tastes of individual editors, and planning how to categorize a cross-genre work is an hour that you're not writing.

Obviously, you have to put in some time researching who would be a good agent, but the agent has all those other skills it would take a long time to develop -- time that would not be spent writing.

Absolutely. I spent a truckload of time researching agents and agencies, and it was so worth it. Now I can write.

Warning "competent and skilled" doesn't always translate to trust. I just brought a TOP NY agent to a project. It was a big ghostwriting gig. She signed me and the celebrity up as her agent clients, wrote herself into a bad template of a collaborative agreement between celeb and me, then proceeded to bully him into dumping me from the project in favor of her pet ghostwriter, ostensibly to "take the book to the next level"... well he liked my sample chapters, he loved my proposal his "gut and heart" told him to go with me. The agent couldn't say one bad thing about the proposal, just felt the other ghost writer's name could sell the book more easily. She put so much pressure on him, he caved after I'd traveled to do interviews, written the proposal, written some of the chapters, done mountains of research. So now there's an attorney involved and it is a BIG mess. Top agent? Well, I had worked with her before and she'd been professional. I had no idea she'd betray our agent contract like that and that she'd interfere with the business deal between the celeb and me. Basically, trust goes way beyond reputation. Sadly. Beware...big ghost deal, be sure the agent understands up front that you WILL be the ghost writer...and be careful about signing an arbitration clause...who wants to travel back and forth to NY over the course of 1 1/2 year to deal with that?

Writers, most certainly are in control of their destiny. I believe no one will work harder for you, than you.

"I don't agree quite as strongly with the necessity of being totally plugged into publishing culture..."

Every time I see buzz about a new literary novel, I research the author. In 99.99% of those cases, the author has connections--they were an agent, an editor, worked peripherally in publishing. They knew somebody.

My question is, that being the case, why do agents bother with unsolicited queries at all? Why waste their time?

It's high time we just say it: it's a bad idea to hate anyone. Especially agents, who are essentially sales people. What does hate have to do with it?
I think you are still reeling from that crazy attack on the agent you and others wrote about. That was the act of a mentally ill person. It was not about agents or agenting or even how we must cope with rejection. Mad acts by disgruntled folks happen all the time and agents are rarely the target. Maybe we should be concerned about going to our local post office because we’ve heard about those who have ‘gone postal?’
Almost every professional I have ever had an interaction with in publishing has been proper and some have been downright generous. I've queried mostly editors, so maybe I don't have the whole picture. To date I’ve had only one response I would call unnecessarily rude, and after a tear or three I chucked it to the hazard of putting oneself out there.
And controlling our destiny? I hate to be persnickety- but that is an oxymoron. By definition ‘destiny’ is not what you control. Taking charge of your life and owning your actions? Yes, a hundred times, yes.

Mirka-

I put this post together and forgot about it before Pam was attacked. But yeah - I do think people could use more empathy for agents. It's a bad decision that's made out of frustration.

I just spent the whole day yesterday reading dozens of queries & first pages as judge for a contest. After this one day, I had a whole new respect for literary agents. No way could or would I ever do their job. Even with all the info at their fingertips, very few of those writers understood or implemented what goes into a decent query or the first 150 words of their manuscript. I was banging my head on my desk after the first hour. I totally get where they're coming from now & have a whole new level of respect for them.

Interesting post! I hope the writer finds an agent!

Interesting post! I hope the writer finds an agent!

For a short while I was responsible for being the first reader, or gatekeepe, of an online publisher. All the ms's seemed about the same quality to me: technically quite well-written, but so similiar in philosophy and attitudes in that many of the themes within the novels seemed rather superficial and even low-life. There was nothing elevated or inspiration in them. But that's just IMHO. There were a few which contained abysmal writing and made me wonder why they even bothered if they were only making such little effort. I did grow to dislike the whole process, though.

It was an eye-opener to the other side of the fence - not greener at all.

Well, I think an exercise in empathy is always a good idea.

But, honestly, maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't see all that much anger at agents about rejections anymore from those who are trying to query.

Since there is another outlet to publish, agents aren't the only way to get your book out there, and there's less of a pressure cooker. I see people being disappointed, but not angry. (The guy who attacked Pam aside.)

But now, publishers are soliciting unagented manuscripts, and, of course, people can indie publish. So, there are other options.

It's possible that there is more frustration for those who write literary fiction. Perhaps Bourne thinks that literary fiction will fare better with a Print Publisher, but I've heard lit fiction is a very hard sell to agents/publishers right now. I could be wrong, but if I were him, I'd still look into indie publishing. Get the book out there, and move on to the next one. By the time he writes the next one, things may have shifted. And there's just the benefit of having multiple works available, which gives you more potential readership.

Oh wait, I'm sorry. I hadn't read the whole article. So, this guy writes commercial.

And he acknowledges the way to get published is to become part of the 'club' because being published is a matter of who you know? And you should play the game, because, hey, that's how the game is played?


Ugh. I'm sorry, but I find the idea of spending an incredible amount of time trying to break into the N.Y. social scene just so you can eventually become well liked enough for an agent to look at you to be a complete waste of time for a writer. Writers should be writing.

Besides, nowadays, that's just silly. Self-publish and move on. If your book is a success, and you really want an agent, they will certainly look at you then.

And if it's not a success, it probably wouldn't have been successful with a Publisher, and you'd be looking possibly having your contract dropped anyway, after all that trouble.

Nathan, I find the whole 1 in 11,111 very depressing. I've worked so hard and so long and to think my chances in traditional publishing are akin to winning the lottery...I'm beginning to believe the effort is futile.

Do I have contacts, no, do I schmooze, can't, can I afford conferences, I can barely pay my mortgage, can I write, you betcha', so what am I supposed to do?
I've read that self-publishing kills your traditional chances later on, so again I ask, what am I supposed to do?

I think I'll take up ballroom dancing. I've got a better chance being on Dancing with the Stars than getting my two books read. Oh, I've got bad knees and I'm not a star, well nix that.

I'm not sure the gap between good literary agents and bad agents is that wide.

I do think most literary agents are good, but they all work differently and have their own individual styles. And I don't think that's the difference between good and bad.

This doesn't get across well on the Internet. And many potential authors who are only familiar with what they read online don't understand this fact. The best literary agents don't have huge online presence. They have web sites with guidelines and they are always looking for new talent. But they are not in your face, so to speak. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Some online blogging agents with web presence are good, too. I think you were one, Nathan. But nothing bothers me more than aggressive blogging agents who don't let authors know all the facts. They only let them know what they want them to know. They don't hand out wrong information; just not all the information. And authors need to be aware of this...that there is a world to publishing that's not what you see online.

@Wry Wrywriter...

I read your comment and you sound like you need to take control of your own career and look into e-publishing and gaining more of an online presence. Join yahoo groups, get involved in goodreads, and get into as many social media oriented writer forums as you can. There are authors out there working very hard who have taken control of their careers in ways they haven't been able to do before. They are helping each other, too.

This is all free. You don't have to spend a dime to do it.

And you can still query agents and try to do the traditional publishing route while you're managing your own career. And any agent who tells you she doesn't want to work with an author who self-published something in this day and age is not an agent you'd want to work with anyway. The fact is that many excellent agents now offer e-publishing services to their own clients. They are not going to hold this against you.

I think the fact that I understand what literary agents are going through makes them more intimidating to me.

Nathan, reading the last line of your post above...first I wondered if you meant that a person is responsible for their future in that self-publishing is a stronger than ever option...but now I'm wondering if you mean instead just that you can't expect any certainties? You can't just expect for some agent to pick you up?

Anyway, I think the article is mainly talking about the genre of literature/poetry, right? How maybe agents don't seem so interested in that particular niche? Although obviously this is huge for any genre, since rejections loom everywhere.

It's kinda true what he said about how diet books, etc seem to loom everywhere, but things like literature and poetry maybe get the back seat.
My gosh, I see SO many celebrities coming out with books literally every.single.day. Jenny McCarthy on some show promoting something. Some actor from the 80's movies on a show promoting something. I swear there's a new one from a celebrity (on celebrity or babies or life or etc) every hour.

This was in the comments section in Michael Bourne's article. The post was from NABNYC.

"This writing stuff is not for sissies."

Truer words were never typed.

Bill

Is he really only referring to literary novels, or does he mean literature in general? I suppose I'll have to read the article. Thanks, Nathan.

I understand the position agents are in. I've done similar work in a different field. I get it.

But this article depresses and frustrates me. Not because of the odds he cites but because after doing all this extra work, he still hasn't gotten invited to the party. He's only gotten almost invited. The whole thing reads like a nouveau riche oaf trying to get accepted into an old-money country club. The more he sucks up and tries to fit in, the more "progress" he thinks he's making. But they never accept him. They just elevate him from "nobody" to "that tolerable chap."

Then he concludes that he just isn't good enough to be among them yet.

I know a few writers whose work is absolutely good enough. They've done everything in the article and more, but they're not getting results. And their books are good. They deserve better.

I am not saying agents are willfully cruel to them. I am saying that "you are not yet good enough" is a fallacious conclusion. It is possible that bad luck, bad timing, or something else equally unjust has stood in the way.

(This points out, of course, that "Fallacious Conclusions" would be an excellent name for an ironic intellectual all-girl punk band.)

Good article and thanks for the link. I intend to spend today (Saturday) playing Literary Agent. Like about 700 other hopefuls, I've entered Harlequin's So You Think You Can Write competition. Just in my category alone, Harlequin Superromance, there are about 50-odd entries (and some really are odd). Even if you're not interested in romance or romance writing, you can get a good sense of what any agent accepting romance queries might get in a day and you can see why the delete or reject finger starts to run on auto. http://www.soyouthinkyoucanwrite.com/manuscripts/
And hey - if there's one you decide you like - you can vote for it while you're there. Consider your vote your offer of representation! You only get one a day so it's precious! Enjoy playing Literary Agent God while you can I say :)

Wow, I never thought of a Jack Russel as being more ferocious than a bulldog! This guy sounds like a total whack job, and a reason not to check in with an app like 4-Square EVER. Happy to hear she is OK.

I think this story begs the question I've been asking for a while (and since you're a social media guru, you're well equipped to answer): Where is the line of privacy on social media? How do we maintain a viable online presence, let people see us as real people, and yet still keep ourselves and our families safe? I don't want to unplug, but stories like this make me wonder if being overly active on twitter, facebook, foresquare, etc. is irresponsibly putting myself and my family at risk. What do you think, where should we establish our boundaries?

That is terrifying :( I'm so glad that she's all right. I guess you just can't be too careful nowadays.

@Carmen Webster Buxton: It's hard to find accurate dog bite statistics because not all of them get reported, but I've heard that among the breeds that bite the most are Jack Russells, Dachshunds, and Chihuahuas.

That is terrifying! Glad she is OK. I agree with Isaiah. How do we as emerging writers balance our personal and online lives?

I understand the book he was querying was on dog training.

I just looked through Pam's twitter (what a frightening saga!), apparently the guy's been acquitted.

Yeah, she's saying, "my car jacking theory proves to be right. For those who asked, I love my job and have no plans to stop doing it."

What a brave spirit after all that. And wish I could send doggie biscuits to her Jack Russell.

I think what she's saying is that she hopes that it was just a carjacking. Her most recent tweet is a continuation of the previous one.

This is a terrible thing for anyone to experience.

But I must admit that my own personal experiences, along with many other authors I know, have been less than favorable with Larson Pomada. We're talking HUGE attitude to people who are nice to them.

Glad she's fine and that her dog got a shot at this guy.

I'm not going to pretend to be in this guy's head, but he probably has illusions that his book or his writing will blast him into the stratosphere. Maybe if he read this quote by Seth Godin, he'd be better equipped for the tsunami of rejection all of us writers face:

"Lower your expectations. The happiest authors are the ones that don't expect much."

Oh, for crying out--I'm glad she's OK. And I agree with the comment on the LA Times that she did not invite this by living so openly online, which was along the same lines of thinking as blaming rape victims based on the lengths of their skirts. You can take steps to keep yourself safe(r) in either scenario, but ultimately the blame is on the attacker.

I can't believe people would mock you for not wanting to meet unannounced visitors. (Well, I can, but that reflects something sad about the world.) We hear about crazy people doing crazy things because they feel rejected or slighted every single day. I'd be surprised if this was the first time a disgruntled writer went after an agent or editor.

@Isaiah: I think we just need to be careful with what we put out there, especially on public profiles. We have to ask ourselves whether we'd really want random strangers knowing that information, whether it's where we work or what our families look like. I think Foursquare is incredibly foolish for public accounts, and I have to approve it any time someone tries to check me in somewhere on Facebook (and that account is pretty locked down). (Of course, there could be exceptions. If you're going to a writer's conference and have been talking about it, people are going to know you're there whether you check in or not. But for the other days in the year...?) We can't ever make ourselves totally safe, but I think we need to have a more critical awareness of possible bad things that could be done with the information we put out.

It's good that she had the dogs with her. Pity that women have to put up with always being on guard.

Most authors are more civilized.

A person doesn't have to have any voluntary online presence at all to be vulnerable. There are directories online that post people's information without their knowledge or consent. Also, your university, your workplace, the companies with whom you do business, may also have put your information online. I've seen a public database of death notices that lists people's Social Security numbers, not even password-protected.

People are whack jobs. I hope that Jack Russell terrier got a filet mignon!

I'm glad the agent is okay. No one should have to take unwanted visitors. It's a choice, not an obligation, but it seems to me a bit of a double standard that the query process is compared to a job hunt until the comparison is no longer good for an agent.

Queries are expected to be perfect. It's our "resume." Agents don't have to reject a query, because employers don't have to reject an application (although, decent employers do). Yet, the writer is expected to notify everyone who has a query when they get an offer, even though you wouldn't do this with every potential employer you've applied to. And though it's like a job-hunt showing initiative is not only unimportant but unwelcomed.

Also, I think it's unfair to lump whack jobs in with other writers.

...And I do like that you're earlier post pointed out the person most likely wasn't a whack job.

I don't know what the percentage of psychologically unbalanced individuals is compared with those who won't go off the deep end, but my view is when you have to deal with the public, it's better to err on the cautious side. Those who mocked you were probably those who'd be likely to go off the deep end themselves.

I'm so glad that Ms. Hylckama is all right.

Russells are always very smart.

"The bulldog licked him" :P

Re: Isaiah Campbell "Where is the line of privacy on social media? How do we maintain a viable online presence, let people see us as real people, and yet still keep ourselves and our families safe? [...] What do you think, where should we establish our boundaries?"

A professional's online presence...is ONLINE. That seems like a perfectly clear boundary to me. She didn't advertise "come meet me in person here" or "feel free to drop by and talk about queries!" on any of her social networking sites. In no way did she imply that that would be OK. It is unfair to blame her for being too "open" with her social media -- as if she could have predicted that some nutjob would stalk her down. If someone can't understand that our online personae stay online, then there's something wrong with them, not with us. (But I'll admit I've always felt uncomfortable with FourSquare).

On a side note-- I might be overreacting, but I hate the use of language like "alleged assault" and "apparent victim." She *was* assaulted; she *was* the target of an attack. What the heck is alleged or apparent about it? :P Not picking on you, Nathan; I understand why such descriptors are used. I just don't like them.

Laura-

I hear you. I personally feel like "alleged" and "apparent" are an important nod to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I think alleged and apparent are great words. Thanks for this post, Nathan.

Anon, I'm sorry you felt treated badly by someone at our agency. I personally strive to answer every email with respect.

Honestly guys, I haven't heard a thing from the PD since last night. I'm assuming I'll hear something by Monday the lastest. I think most writers are respectful and nice. If I get an update I'll put it here in Nathan's comments!

I feel a bit overwhelmed honestly by all of the attention, I'm spending a lot of time offline. I do think we need to be more careful about how lax we are online. We are the first of our species to be living entirely via technology and there are going to be lessons about the pros and cons of that.

I'm so glad she had the dogs there to protect her and to help identify the alleged attacker. Although LOL @ "The bulldog licked him." Aww...sweet bull dogs and yay for the Jack Russell! Little dogs (OK, all dogs) rock.

Who knows if this guy was stalking her though? It might have had nothing do do with her social media usage.

I'm glad to hear she's OK. It simply boggles the mind that someone would commit assault over a rejected book. Is there anyone in this game that doesn't know that even the best have to face rejections? How many times was Harry Potter rejected, or Zen And The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? How many rejection letters did Stephen King receive?

Sad to say though, there are probably just unstable people everywhere, and all anyone can do about it is be cautious.

Well if were the agent, I HATE to think what my German shepherd would have done to that guy's arm. What stupid, loser behaviour. All writers know that they will be rejected and they have to move on from that. But with violence?! Nah!!

Good thing you were able to stay nice an safe in your office and let the receptionist take the risk, way to go.

anon-

Says the person who takes so much risk posting by anonymously. Haha...

Pam has handled this with grace. I understand why she's spending a lot of time offline. I felt the same way when I got death threats from a nutjob who didn't like one of my blogposts last November. It's hard to tell if the craziness will spill over into real life. There's no way she could have known, but it is a warning to us all to be a bit more protective of our privacy.

Oh, and I should let people know I've been told the bulldog is a puppy, so he can be forgiven for his lack of protection skills.

And all I ever did was thank them, even when they rejected me… sniffle, sniffle.

I do question if people are more desperate. Years ago, they would say “Screw you,” and work a few shifts in a factory, until they calmed down.

I think it's disgusting to suggest someone could have brought this upon herself by not being polite. In my experience, people can interpret any rejection as unnecessarily cruel or vicious, and turn to the victim claiming it was their rudeness, not the perpetrator's own inappropriate behavior, that was actually to blame here.

Getting rejected sucks. It stings. And there's no particularly kind way to tell someone "I don't want your work." But if agents accepted every manuscript they were offered, what kind of achievement would it be to earn representation?

Larsen-Pomada was the first agency to request--and eventually reject--a full manuscript of mine in 2006. It was all polite, though disappointing. Know what I did when they rejected me?

Wrote a sad blog post.

And none of it contained any vitriol for the agent. Just disappointment. A different version of my manuscript later did find representation, because I learned from the experience and the advice.

I'm so sorry this happened to Pam. How incredibly scary! I'm glad she was able to defend herself and she is all right.

I never thought you over-reacted to the person who came to your office, Nathan. You were an exteremely popular agent, and you had to disappoint scores of writers. I think you were wise to be careful. People can handle their disappointment and anger very badly.

I think people need to be careful!

Scary, although where I work for a day job, it sadly doesn't surprise me.

When you work with and deal with the general public on a daily basis, you learn to keep unknown people at arm's length until you can determine their intent.

I work for the State of Connecticut, and we have rules and security in place for our agencies, and for some agencies like mine (Children and Families) the presence is overt and in your face.

And the rules don't just apply to the general public, but they apply to staff members as well.

We usually get very upset in my unit (Payroll) when an employee attempts to visit us unannounced because that means security isn't doing their job.

And yes, we've had our share of nutjubs. About a couple of months ago, we had a bomb threat called into your agency, so not only were the local and the state police involved, but so were the FBI as well.

The point that I'm trying to make is that you should always keep your guard up, no matter if you're dealing with the real world or the online world.

Sometimes, being paranoid can keep you out of harms way.

Whether disgruntled author or not, I imagine there must always be some level of anxiety for an agent, having to hand out so many rejections and not knowing who is at the other end.

No matter what your occupation you need to be cautious. There are a lot of crazy people out there. I don't even like walking down the street by myself in the daytime.

Some people get crazy when they are rejected. Check out American Idol or X Factor and count how many times the judges are cussed at, threatened, or hit with a cold beverage in the face. If I was an agent (or a judge) I think I'd get a bodyguard.

I've personally felt extreme disappointment at being rejected by an agent, heck even anger, but this ... this is unspeakable. I mean it's a tough business, and sure, it really hurts when someone doesn't love something you've poured your heart and soul into, but there is nothing that justifies violence against another human being.

Now as far as your old post (which I somehow missed) there is no way that person was just trying to be a dedicated submitter. If he had been, he would have removed his hat and sunglasses, and had a seat in the lobby. And ... also just not have been so creepy.

Wow. That's such a terrifying experience. I'm glad she's not giving up on being an agent after all that.

I have an imaginary stalker, a person who I picture looking over all my online sites with a fine-toothed comb, and try to picture if there's anyway this imaginary stalker could possibly find information to use against me. It takes a little effort, but in the end I think I'm safer for it because it keeps me from posting things I shouldn't.

Absolutely glad she's safe. Was just having a discussion last night with some writers/actors/fans etc about how approachable some "celebrities" are, and how some aren't, and how we understand the reasons for both.

And the difference between being a "big fan," wanting some sort of "touching of the robe" of the great one sort of thing, versus stalkers, who seem to hope to gain celebrity, or feel they should be celebrities, because they stalk them.

We were specifically talking about writers, though. The thought someone might actually stalk or assault an agent, oddly, never entered our heads or conversation.

It's sad that anyone with anything to share that others might like, or disagree with, has to now take extra measures at personal security.

But I guess that's a warning to others: access is easier now, to everyone. And that means personal safety is more important than its ever been as well.

How else is a guy supposed to get an agent to love what he wrote if he can't terrorize the agent?

Ugh. That sucks. I remember being stalked in college & how awful it was. I'm still a bit obsessive about locking doors and neighborhood watch, etc. It'll probably be a while before her nervous system calms down. Hearing about the madness brought up those awful memories for me and how much agent/writer match ups are like dating (even with the occasional psycho). I even just blogged about the dating/agenting comparison as a PSA on how to take rejection : http://thinkingtoinking.blogspot.com/2012/09/on-how-to-avoid-turning-into-stalker-or.html
Anyway...
Sorry to P.v.H. Always so rattling to have a brush with crazy. Thanks N.B. for reporting with careful candor.

I wanted to ring in on the stalking part of this, too. Maybe because a lot had been said (until what Lauren wrote) but a lot of it seemed kind of Outside or something. Having recently dealt with some stalking behavior, I wanted to say that just realizing that someone has been following you is terrifying. You probably wouldn't think it would be...and I certainly never really understood that feeling until it happened to me. But the thing is, someone--maybe someone you were very close to, maybe someone you've never met--has come unhinged and is very angry with you while seeming to covet your approval. They're not OK. Normal behavior...and behavioral norms...don't apply here. The person doesn't respond to cues others would get...and while that can be harmless with some perhaps, this person is Angry with you at least some of the time. Okay, so...

What Lauren said.

My point was to say that, even without the violence, Pam would probably be dealing with some PTSD-type stuff.

Pam-There are lots of us out here who understand some of what you're going through. Don't let anyone minimize the aftereffects. It was NOT your fault. In ANY way. Be gentle with yourself.

You never know what is really going on with someone. Maybe that rejection was the last straw after a series of upsets and disappointments in life. It doesn't mean the person is "crazy" but they were absolutely out of line. I work in healthcare administration among people with master's degrees and doctorates, and last year someone keyed the car of an executive director. I was kind of shocked that anyone at my office would do that but I suppose I shouldn't be. People get upset and act irrationally--sometimes to the point they threaten other people. Thankfully in this case the police were able to apprehend him.

I pretty much never feel safe, which sucks. I am always aware of what shoes I'm wearing--can I make a run for it?, who is around in a dark parking lot, if I go somewhere by myself at night anymore. I think for me it was having my apartment broken into, it's so violating.

I agree Stephsco. Sorry for being so flippant about the "crazy" line. I did however want to strongly emphasize that it isn't a "within the realm of acceptable" reaction, and that the attack had nothing to do with the victim or her agenting. Something you seem to understand as well.

Amy Dixon DRILLS this into my head everytime she reads a story of mine!! She’s the RULE OF THREES Queen, I swear!

Seriously, though, this is fantastic advice. I’ve often wondered what would happen if an agent asked to see more. I think I have one or two that’s polished, but that’s about it. This will get my lazy behing in gear! Thanks, Tara!

I met an agent at a conference last spring and she asked to me to revise my ms and send it back. I did and she loved it. But when she asked me what else I was working on, I (foolishly) wasn’t prepared for that question. I haven’t heard back from her since. I wish I’d read this post a year ago! But from now on, believe me, I’ll be ready.

I haven’t looked at any of my manuscripts in so long….they are dusty… I really need to just get them out and work on polishing the ones I have. But in regards to your post….are you suggesting sending 3 manuscripts at once to the same publisher? Isn’t that frowned upon?

Yes indeedy! Very true!

Love it, love it, love it! The BEST post about threes. Loved all your wonderful examples. Thanks.

Don’t worry, Deb. If that agent was interested once, she’ll be interested again. I would query her again when you’re ready with more, and mention the previous connection you had with her!

You are correct, that is frowned upon. Only send one manuscript–your BEST manuscript. But have more ready in case you are asked for other work. Editors might not ask for something else, but agents always do.

You read my mind. I have been in “I gotta get an agent” mode all week. And, boy howdy, do I have plenty for them to look at if I get a nibble. Here’s hoping.

And on an entirely unrelated note, many thanks for the Stooges clips.

So funny—I knew a man would be the first to comment on the Stooges. We women just don’t get them.

And that is why I thanked you. I never expected to see the Stooges on a woman’s blog. What a pleasant surprise!

Love A. C. Tidwell's comment. Voted for your panel...good luck!

Holy crap, AC Tidwell's comment was amazing.

Yes, I think AC Tidwell says it well.

And I agree, everyone wants to be a writer these days. I especially liked the comment:
'Very few people will quote Shades of Gray in twenty years.' (another Lolita)

Have a great weekend!

Bulwer-Lytton: Purposeful exercises in overwrought, purple, over-the-top description. You can't help but love whoever wins each year.

I don't get to claim intellectual superiority with the most difficult books list, because I haven't read any of them. However, I have read books by several of those authors. That counts, right?

Thanks for the roundup, especially the link to Parrish's contest.

Hi Nathan,

Thank you very much for the links. I always look forward to this specific weekly feature because it narrows down some good reads (since I cant read everything or find everything on my own :) ).

I'd like to know your thought on the site above that has the flash fiction contest. It's great to see you link it because now I know it is safe and legitimate.
But I'm wondering, for someone like me (very new to writing, no crit partners, still finding my way), would it be silly for me to send something in ? I think (I'm not sure) that from what I read on the site there, they post all entries ? I worry about jumping too soon and posting up something foolish and tragic with my name on it and looking back after a while (when my writing is more advanced) and thinking "oh crap" :)
Any thoughts on how to navigate those kinds of waters when still so new and *rough* with writing and not wanting to screw up (publicly)?

Wow, James Patterson is ...just wow.

I read an article linked within the article you linked and was surprised to see Stephen King call him a "terrible writer" (or so the article said). Now I'm curious.

I'm starting to wonder just how many published authors out there are likable. Or how many of them dislike (publicly) one another. I never follow those things so I guess it never struck me it occurred. Obviously I live an isolated life!

I admit that the only James Patterson books I've read are directed to MG/childrens. Oh well! Apparently he has enough readers anyway :)

I will take this opportunity to share one more cool contest for MG writers. Here's the link:

http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/guide-to-literary-agents/11th-free-dear-lucky-agent-contest-middle-grade-fiction?et_mid=575716&rid=233355207

I'm curious to hear what you think about authors on places like goodreads, Nathan. Can an aspiring or new author give honest reviews to books, even if he really hated a few? Or could this be something that comes back to haunt you?

I've noticed that many YA authors on the site only give positive 4-5 star reviews, which makes me question their veracity, or perhaps they're only reviewing the books they liked. Either way, a self censorship of some kind is happening because not everything you read is going to be awesome.

Re the above comment with goodreads...can I go on goodreads just to track my read books , but NOT rate them ? (i don't care if others rate books, if that's what they like to do; but I don't I guess...to each their own!). For example, some of my literary friends would cringe at "Doctor Proctor's Fart Powder" but I thought it was great :)

Cool links, thanks.

I like the new site by Stephen Parrish, and another regular around here, Peter Dudley, it looks very cool. That type of collective is a terrific way for writers to network and have their work be shown - both the site bloggers, and those who visit. Great idea!

The Button-Lytton entries were hilarious.

A.C. Tidwell wrote a great post. I don't agree with everything Tidwell said, but I think the argument was compelling and eloquent.

So, I'm not sure e-book sales are leveling off. I don't know why Shatzkin thinks so, I can't access the report he credits, but it's counter-intuitive. From what I understand, e-books are just entering International markets. For example, Amazon just launched a Kindle store in India this week. Schools are making e-readers available to classes, textbooks are moving into the digital market, movies are starting to give e-books for free if you come buy a ticket. E-books are mainstreaming as we speak.

So, if it's slowing, I suspect it's just a temporary lull.

Besides, e-book prices have been kept artificially high. It will be interesting to see the impact on the market if/when the DOJ settlements are approved, and prices start to lower.

Thanks for the list of the top teen novels, I made a few bookmarks to look into them. And the list of the most difficult books - I made bookmarks of those to avoid!

This is the second story you've linked to, Nathan, that claimed some super-selling status to "Fifty Shades of Self-Loathing" and in both articles I felt the wording was a little odd and very few details were given. I think these are promotional press-releases and probably give an exaggerated impression of the popularity of the books. Sure, they're selling a lot - especially given all the hype and the "forbidden" nature of the content. But check out this wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

In what sense is this a best selling book? The promoters just aren't telling us - because the whole point of the story is to get us to buy.

Laura-

Here's a post on that very subject.

Excellent post. I wonder if editors would have a similar spectrum of responses.

Tara, this is an interesting and timely post. I got the same message from SCBWI-LA this past weekend. According to Jen Rofé, it’s nice if you have a platform so your books will sell, however a platform does not automatically mean a blog, FB and twitter. A platform means credibility. Your platform could be your teacher’s credentials, your art history expertise (if you write about that), your obsession with natural disasters (if you write about that) etc. For most of us, our blogs don’t attract a big following, and most of our followers are fellow writers. That doesn’t really make a platform or generate a lot of book sales. Plus spending a lot of time blogging, FBing and tweeting can take you away from your own creative work. The takeaway was, “If you use social media, use professionally.” However, it’s totally not necessary.

Thanks for adding this, Kirsten. It is precisely what I told my picture book writing students last night. Most author blogs attract other writers and not necessarily parents and the people who buy books. But those reader-writers are a good source of support and may help promote your books, too. Blogs aren’t necessary, especially if you don’t ENJOY writing them. I happen to really love blogging, and I hope that shows through in my posts.

Aha! Yet another blog post for the future…

Good thinking! I’ll look forward to that.

so helpful Tara! Reminds me to update my website. Thanks to you and the agents!

This does surprise me, Tara…it’s good to hear from the agents themselves. Maybe I can relax a bit??
And yes, I wonder what editors would say….

This very topic has been heavily on my mind lately. I know authors need web presence, but blogging just hasn’t clicked for me yet. I need to devote the time I have now to writing stories and keeping my household together. So, for now, I read only a few *select* blogs to help gather the seeds for what will someday be my own. Now, don’t you feel special?

Tara, your love of blogging does show! I let myself take a blog-cation this summer, and it was very freeing. Now with the understanding that I don’t HAVE to blog, I hope to write fewer, but hopefully better posts.

YES! I DO!!! Thanks.

I will never not almost piss myself laughing at Buttermilk. Definitely the best of the recent viral crop.

"Remove a comma and then print out another copy..." Hah! Perfect.

Most likely, those who would read Harry Potter are not be the same audience as those who are reading Fifty Shades.

Bikinis and books, sheesh, what next?

Forums: please leave the classics alone. Be original.

sorry, but after reading his dated sounding post, to characterize Mike Shatzkin as an "industry sage" seems overly generous.

holy moly... amazon uk, you break my heart. :(

BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN
Why American men should boycott American women

http://boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com/

I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don't know how to cook or clean, don't want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?

American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.

Tens of millions of American men have had their lives completely destroyed by American women through the following crimes:

1. False rape accusations (it has been proven that up to 80 percent of rape accusations are FALSE)

2. False domestic violence (DV) charges (same as above)

3. Financial destruction of men in divorce courts through alimony and support payments (women get up to 95 percent of their ex-husband's income and savings, as well as the house, car, etc)

4. Emotional destruction of men by ex-wives who have stolen their children from them and forbidden the fathers from having custody or contact with their own children

5. Divorced dads who commit suicide as a result

Not one single American woman has EVER condemned their fellow American women for committing these crimes against men. Silence means consent. Therefore, American women support and enjoy destroying men's lives and causing men to commit suicide. Apparently, American women think it is okay to be a criminal, just as long as you are a woman. Therefore, is it any surprise that a huge percent of American men no longer want anything to do with American women, other than using them for easy sex and then throwing them away?

A few more reasons to stay away from American women?

-25 percent of American women take psychiatric drugs for mental illnesses.
-25 percent of women under the age of 30 have at least one STD.
-85 percent of divorces in America are INITIATED by women, thus women are responsible for the vast majority of divorces.
-70 percent of criminals in America were raised by single mothers, thus feminism is responsible for most crime in America.
-The majority of child molestation, child abuse, and child murder in America is done by WOMEN.

Over 50 percent of American women are single, without a boyfriend or husband; so the fact is most American men no longer want to marry American women. Let these worthless American women grow old living alone with their 10 cats.

BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN!

This Buttermilk the Goat just made my day. I will save the video for the days when I can't smile and laugh. :D

Good ol' Colson. And I'm totally looking forward to Zone One.

Also, the Four Million Shades of Grey thing vaguely depressed me.

If only I could find an editor that would look at my work and say with a meaningful wink, "Repeat the above, but with fish."

Cool links, Nathan. :)

I thought the Colson Whitehead article was hilarious. I liked the one about the land shark best. Funny.

So, I have a theory about why 50 Shades is selling so well. I think it's because you can read it on an e-book, and NO ONE WILL KNOW. Pair that with the current state of semi-legitimacy that its found, and you have a winner.

I think that widget from Ted Weinstein is awesome!

I liked that Shaskin addressed the question of value added by the publisher - I like that he is taking up author concerns!

I didn't like the book cover/bikini matching because there were no men in bikinis. Where are the bikini men? That's a link I would 'like'.

I thought the thread on the forums about how publishers are planning to re-write some classics (Pride and Prejudice, etc.) with an erotic slant was fascinating. So many interesting issues there.

So, I do have a link I want to share. I thought this was cool. It's book art, for example a castle made of books. You can't see it in the pictures, but they carefully selected the title and placement of the books to match the theme. Wouldn't it be cool to walk in the tower and read the titles?

Here's the link:

http://www.epublishabook.com/2012/06/24/book-art-building-books/#axzz1yfD0it1v

I think there will still be a definite role for literary agents to play in the future of publishing. As you pointed out, they're far more than just "gatekeepers".

Their role may morph according to needs of the industry, but I can't see it going the way of travel agents, for example. There are just too many more things in the mix than just searching for what you want and finding it.

Everyone has to change, and if you don't you'll be left behind.

I think you are right, everything is changing. It's hard to say exactly WHAT it will change into, though. I think agents provide a wonderful service and I think, the studious ones, will find their place in the new publishing world--whatever it happens to end up being.

I wonder if the day will come when agents must query writers.

What could their role be?

Their role now essentially is to do the business side of publishing so a writer can write, yes?

As a self-published author I know there is a whole lot that goes into the business side. Would an agents role then grow to take things such as coordinating with editors, book cover artists, bloggers and blog tours, and PR?

If that were the case, I'd gladly put a percentage of earnings for those items to be off my plate.

As an agent I can say that I am not afraid of disappearing, it's just that some aspects of my role are changing at warp speed-- and what I provide for clients is also evolving. It's actually a very exciting time in terms of new opportunities for authors. The tough part is the changing business model and adding services where there are specific client needs. I feel as though my role as a coach to my clients is more robust then ever and I think my clients would agree that in this time of uncertainty that having a partner in this process is very valuable. Great blog Nathan!

I think Lee Lofland is on the right track. I wouldn't doubt that in the future, agents will be sending queries to successful indie authors saying, 'Here's what I can do for you...' In fact, to some extent that is already happening to some authors.

I'm not sure how the publishing agency is going to change, but I think in 10 years or so, they may be obsolete (at least in the current incarnation).

I tend to think the role of agent may become more of a business manager role and they will take on some of the marketing functions that publishers take on now. Not sure exactly how that will work financially. Perhaps a cut of sales so it's in their best interest to really promote a book? Right now, I'm not sure the financial structure of publishing makes sense for anyone but the publisher.

It would always be worth it to me, for example, to pay 15% of contracted deals to have the deal run smoothly and keep all parties in the loop, but the article you cite above, Why Rejection Letters of the Future Will be Silent, only further confuses the issue. In the same breath that many agents are trying to clarify their role in a deal as facilitator/pitchman, they are still talking about the 99% they see as unpublishable. Given the fact that lots and lots of real crap is published annually, making people lots of money, isn't it safe to say that the whole, "you were rejected because your writing isn't good enough" line is at the very least disingenuous? To stay viable, I believe literary agents would be well served to concentrate on the fact that a decision to represent a new writer is based upon potential income, not some nebulous and highly subjective concept of arbiter of the quality of literature. If a writer feels they are ready to publish, and the book can make enough money to go around, it becomes a business decision. I really think the tired, old leather-patched elbows vision of Gatekeeper is something that needs to have a stake driven through its heart once and for all.

Agents are too egotistical and arrogant to be scared. Plus, since publishers get the dry heaves at the thought of actually dealing with rank and vile authors whose names aren't King and Grisham, the few that actually have gotten their toes wet in epublishing have still found a way to keep agents on the playing field. There's one publisher with a new electronic imprint that will only accept submissions from a small handful of participating literary agencies. Which, in my mind, is just furthering a decayed business model that never really worked for writers or anybody, to begin with. Keeping agents on the playing field and maintaining that buffer between them and unpublished talent is simply a needless perpetuation a corrupt, collusive status quo that so needs to go or radically change.

I don't think agents should be worried... yet. Self-publishing has a lot of evolving to do before their worlds change all that much.

I think those who are willing to adapt and shape their role with what's happening in the industry will still be around. Their title may change and some or all of their duties, but I've found people who love the business want to be in it in some capacity. If it's their passion, they'll find where they fit. Or even better, maybe someone will blaze a new trail and change how we do things entirely. (Hopefully for the better.)It could be an agent just as easily as a writer or anyone else in publishing.

Hell no they're not going anywhere.

Agents may have to evolve further as the needs of the writers and publishers change.

The need for evolving to suit the times occurs in other industries as well. It's not new, and those who see the writing will adapt.

I think we still need agents, but that's IMO.

I think agents can survive (and thrive) if they shift their model back to working for the writer. The agent needs to go back to being someone that supports the writer and helps him achieve the things he's not good at, like marketing. Agents that cling to publishers and working for publishers and screening for publishers... they are going to decline as the publishers decline.

Well, I happen to know of a few agents who quit being agents. Doesn't mean it's a trend, though. Or maybe it is... Ultimately, there will always be agents of one kind or another.

Super interesting comments! I'm just absorbing it all. At the very least their roles will change further, but it's so hard to say how. I suppose it's like predicting the next trend in publishing and then being right about it!

There'll still a need for agents, but with the rise of independent e-publishing (both self-pub and small press), there may not be a need for as many as in the past.

Large contracts, movie/TV rights, and foreign language rights will still have to be negotiated. Agents with a background in contract and/or intellectual property law will be in the best position to represent authors in this process.

Honestly, I don't think they should be worried. I love having an agent, and I can't imagine doing this without her. I know plenty of people who feel the same way.

My agent doesn't just send my book out to editors and negotiate contracts. She gives me editorial feedback, she answers questions, she finds ways for me to promote my book. I don't think we'll ever stop needing that.

But I've always thought that self-publishing was going to coexist with "traditional" publishing, not destroy it.

I think that most writers will always need agents, because a lot of us aren't familiar with the publishing industry and we don't know how to sell books like agents do. Not to mention agents can provide very helpful feedback on our manuscripts.

I don't think they will disappear any time soon, but I definitely feel a change in the industry.

It's a fascinating time. Everyone is re-inventing themselves now that the book universe has changed. I've marketed services in the past,and it's a hell of a lot of work. Trying to sell my book without a good agent is like venturing out on a new road without a map.

Well, my friend... did YOU stick around? :)

The agent is already changing and they will fill the role of business partner so writers can do what they like - write. But their role as gatekeeper and their number will certainly dimish. I see them calling authors who have made a name for themselves

Yawn.

Agents - for those who have been paying attention to the political landscape of publishing - have been 'worrying' for at LEAST two years now.

I'll never forget the terrified scurry by agents running back to hotel rooms after the 'agents forum' concluded during the 2010 PNWA conference in Seattle.

...Or the actual 'shout down' of agents at the 2011 conference by PNWA attendees who were calling BS on agents and their 'It's your query letter' spiel for why authors were facing 3:36,000 odds of getting a traditional publish contract. Yep, they were worried, alright!

I come back every once in a while to the Bransford Blog in hopes of catching an actual cutting-edge topic - oh well - sigh.

It's Big 6 Editors who should be worried. Agents are salespeople, the world always need them; especially in an industry littered with introverts.

The Big 6 carry tons of merger-debt and yet still have EPS expectations. The next thing they'll require agents/writers to bring with them is a professionally edited manuscript. At that point, what does the author need the publisher for?

Seeley James

I can't believe that agents are going anywhere. I have to believe that there will always be traditional publishing houses. Even if there aren't as many, the role of the agent may evolve, as so many careers do these days. As long as there are authors trying to break into the game, agents will have work - in whatever form it may be.

I agree with the sentiment of agents working for the authors. Becoming an agent FOR the author in truth.

I wonder how long it will be until we start seeing agents trolling through blogs, self-pubbed works on Amazon and Smashwords, and Wattpad, looking for the next author to sign?

Could make things really interesting if the agents are the ones who have to start shopping themselves around. They would still pick quality writers to choose to serve and promote, but would turn the current model on its head.

I'm surprised to see people posting that agents need to start working for writers. That is, and always has been, what they do. If they didn't they'd be out of a job. The idea that agents are working for publishers' interests is propaganda.

I agree that agents can be more than just gatekeepers. The question is will they be? One of their challenges is size - most being too small to make dramatic change. A few thoughts on the changing industry dynamic are on one of my blogs http://onewritersvoice.com/2011/04/11/writers-and-the-long-tail/

Nathan, you're definitely one of the "good guys," and I can say that because we've met, chatted, and you've been a guest on my blog. However, not all writers have had pleasant experiences with agents. And those not-so-nice encounters are the root of many of the ill-willed comments you see and hear.

Actually, I've had a couple of bad experiences with agents and that makes me quite leery about future dealings, should I ever need to begin a new and much-dreaded agent search.

I think that authors will always need coaches, mentors and guides. People who understand the business and contracts. People to offer editorial help or referrals) and emotional support.

The skill set of agents will continue to be hotly in demand (not to mention their contacts). Whether their job title will change or not, I don't know.

But I do think that agents will start moving away from the traditional idea of:

***Contract with a client, and try to sell their work to a Big 6 publisher**

and more to:

**Contract with a client and figure out the best publishing path for them. Whether indie publishing, small press publishing, traditional publishing, some combination or something else entirely.**

So, I think agents will foster each client's individualized path to publication.

They may also experiment with flat fee assistance. Indie writers who want help with film rights, etc.

This would be a very good idea, I think. :) Not too much time investment, but potentially lucrative. The interesting thing is that agents may find that as they individualize the client's path to publishing, they make more money. 15% of 70% is a nice chunk of change.

Agents do risk reaping some anger from indie writers now, if they shut them out or refuse to listen to their concerns. This is the biggest danger facing agents right now. I'm not an agent, of course, so people can take this with a grain of salt, but if I were an agent, I would try to present myself so that every writer on the planet saw me as potentially THEIR ally, no matter what path they took or how they felt about the Big 6.

I say this because I believe that indie writers are not a subset. I believe they are the future. Whether traditional publishing survives or not, I think indie writers will make up a HUGE chunk of the market. So, I think agents would be wise to be very attractive to all writers on this planet called Earth.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks so much for an interesting discussion, Nathan!

Let's hope so!
(Just kidding.)

The present model needs to, and probably will, change.
It has been too easy for writers to feel like they are a fly being swatted away. When I read that out of 10,000 queries to an agent, not one was taken up it seems like a system that is not working. What a waste of time, both for the agent and the 10,000 writers.

I also think that those writers who have become accustomed to a 60 - 70% royalty will not easily give up percentages of their income again. Fixed amounts, yes, but not ongoing percentages.

I know some solid travel agents that have managed to stay in business by adapting and specializing. If they can make a living in the world of Priceline and Expedia, I'm pretty sure the smartest, most forward thinking agents will be able to as well. The mediocre? Yes, they should be refining their skills to secure other employment.

Artists will always need business people to help them not get screwed by other business people.

The artists' business people might wind up with a new label (manager always being a popular choice when going for vague) and the business people might wind up with a new label, but the essential dynamic is eternal.

Agents aren't gatekeepers, but they are the funnel through which books get to publishers. That funnel will always exist, but I think it is tightening and soon will include only the "big six" and a handful of intrepid hangers-on. Midlist will move to indie and self publishing, making it much harder for second tier agents to make a living. As an agent, if you're not living on the best seller list, you'll be doomed.

Going extinct? No. Becoming rare? That's how I see it.

Unless the publishing industry suddenly becomes run by angels and will never try to rip you off...you will ALWAYS need an agent
I wouldn't try to buy a house without a real estate agent...so why would I sign a book deal without a literary agent?
Same idea.. protection,peace of mind and most of all, someone to blame when things go wrong :)

I don't have any axes to grind against agents personally, and I know some agents that I like very much, but I also know a lot of authors who have been burned by their experiences.

Will they go away completely? I think it is worth considering that agents have not always had the "exclusive gatekeeper to editors/publishers" role they (sort of) have now. I was shocked when I read some of the history on the subject and learned about how recent those kinds of developments were. I used to think agents were as "traditional" as publishers themselves. Not true. Most authors did not need them once, and they submitted their manuscripts directly to editors. Maybe we'll go that route again, who knows?

I do think that agents will have a much smaller role in the future.

I think agents will continue to groom promising writers, especially those who are self publishing. Most writers want to write, but if they chose the self publishing path, they have to market themselves. A lot of writers don't want to take the time or have the interest in building a platform, branding themselves, and attracting readers.
Agents could help them with fee-based services to get their self published books attention.
I wouldn't be surprised if interns and newer agents aren't already familiar with what it takes to be successful as a self publisher and wanting to take the next step, offer a service to recruit writers to they agency.

"The idea that agents are working for publishers' interests is propaganda."

I did see that posted on a popular self-publisher's blog recently. I thought the same thing.

But I also think the agents that will continue to thrive are those who are willing to change with the times. In other words, no more divas. And please don't tell me that's not how it is with some. There's been a great party going on for many years, and I think that party has ended. I really do know, from personal experience, in some cases it is that way. I have seen and heard things I would never repeat. And I also believe that when agents stop worrying about print books...and trying to save print books and brick and mortar bookstores...they are going to be a huge help to authors.

But it's all so secretive now, and no agents are speaking up about anything. Please don't tell me you haven't see this either. There used to be many agent blogs; many have shut down. It's like they are all terrified to speak on any topic involving e-publishing or the way things are evolving. It's very interesting to watch.

But again, I do think there will always be a need for agents. I just think it will be a different breed of agents in years to come. Summer Fridays are going to be a thing of the past, especially as new authors begin to produce more at a faster pace.

The good thing is that readers can now vet books they might never have had a chance to read because an agent didn't like it. And we all know that's the case because agents themselves have always said it's a subjective business. In other words, readers and authors aren't chained to the specific tastes of agents. If you ever check out the conversations on goodreads for self-published books, you'll see how much fun thousands of readers are now having.

anon-

I agree, I wish more agents would step up and speak up about these things and defend both themselves and the business. At some point it becomes exhausting, though. I certainly get exhausted by the negativity and I'm not even an agent anymore. There are people where being anti-traditional is a religion, and it makes you want to just throw up your hands and disengage.

I know there are superiority complexes on both sides, I know there are rude people on both sides, but I'm not sure I know a single person left in traditional publishing who is actually anti-self-publishing or anti-e-publishing. Just about everyone has a client who started that way even if they're not actively facilitating self-publishing, how could they be anti?

But there are a heck of a lot of anti-traditional-publishing zealots out there. It gets very very exhausting to try and stand in front of that mob and shout for reasonableness.

People who become exhausted trying to find an agent--with a good book--are more likely to eventually run to self publishing. But I learned if I want to see my book on the shelves…I would need an agent. I'm not going to jump out at anyone online like in a store. Both sides have pros and cons. It's up to the author to decide which option is best for them. As long as bookstores are around, agents will be too ;)

Nathan,

I understand that you have a very unique perspective, since you are a former industry insider and an author, but I want to make a suggestion because I hear how frustrated you sound.

I hope this is helpful. Since I tend to be an anti-publishing zealot, I may be the wrong person to offer this to you, you may be fairly fed up with me, but....I'm going to offer it anyway, for what it's worth, and hope it's helpful.

It's not like I follow these suggestion myself, but I should, and I'd like to get better at it.

Okay, so here it is:


People don't take a strong stand against something unless there is a very good reason for it. And until someone understands their reason, it is very rare for someone to relax their position.


So, before arguing for reasonableness, it helps to listen to the other peson first. Really listen. Fully understand their perspective. As if you were them.

And don't assume you already do. Look at what people are saying and how they are feeling, and really put yourself in their shoes.

Because shouting for reasonableness doesn't work because people will just shout their reasonableness back even louder.

That's the thing. Each side shouts their side and no one listens, and it doesn't go anywhere because neither side feels heard and so they just shout louder.


The training I've had in communication (occasionally, I remember to use it) suggests that when you are talking to someone who disagrees with you you start by:

a. Hearing them and reflecting it back to them. Keep reflecting and wait until they say: Yes, you understand.

b. Then, find a point of agreement, or if that's not possible, go to the next step which is to ask them to listen to your position.

People will often stop being angry if they just feel heard. EVEN IF THEY STILL DISAGREE. If they feel heard, they relax and they can usually hear your side.

Part of why the anti-publishing faction is so strident right now, is they are not being heard.


If anyone is in a position to help writers feel heard, it's agents. It's just going to take some neogtiating within themselves to be non-defensive, courageous and open in communication.

They need to understand that some writers feel hurt, damaged, dismissed, and angry at the industry. Telling them they shouldn't feel that way won't work. It will just make them more angry or hurt.

You have to listen.

It would also be nice if someone would listen to agents as well, so I'm going to do that right now, alittle bit. I imagine this must be very stressful and scary for them right now. I imagine they feel somewhat betrayed and misunderstood themselves. And getting pressure from both sides. I imagine it is very hard, and I hope they are offering support to each other, or finding ways to feel some sense of comfort within their community.

Anyway, hope this was helpful and not more aggravating.

I wonder if agents will "evolve" in the same way the headhunter's job did after the advent of online job boards like Yahoo and Monster.

Headhunters never went away completely. Those who still demonstrate value to job-seekers are still around today. These are the ones who actually work for the client.

And then you have the others...headhunters who link to a million people on LinkedIn and browse the same job listings anyone has access to.

The game may change but the smart ones find a way to evolve.

"there are a heck of a lot of anti-traditional-publishing zealots out there"

As someone who works for a Big Bank and thinks my company is one of the good guys, I understand the feeling. From my office I can hear the Occupy protestors (they're quite festive and lively, BTW). I know the good side of my industry and know there is incredible misinformation being spewed by our detractors. In some cases, outright lies. So I hear what you're saying.

But those zealots were created by something. People don't just wake up one day and say, "Hey, I hate traditional publishing. I'm going to go trash those muthers!" And people don't hate Big Publishing because Amazon has brainwashed them.

I have met wonderful people (yourself among them) in publishing. I love the writers, agents, and editors I've met at conferences. I've made amazing friends. But there are also those agents who give all y'all a bad name. There are those who are infuriatingly arrogant and elitist. There are those who act like gatekeepers and seem to work for the publishers rather than the authors.

The zealots don't just materialize. They are created by conditions, and the conditions in this case were created by Big Publishing.

While there was a trend over here in Australia for fewer publishing houses to accept unsolicited subs, now it's going the other way with the biggest houses opening their doors for specific times each month for writers to submit directly to them. It's a non-frills affair with writers requested to email their work but not to expect a response if unsuccessful.

Despite this current trend, I can't foresee the system changing terribly much even with the advent of ebooks and self-publishing, especially as bookstores and libraries usually don't stock self-published work. And for an array of other reasons as well, the majority of writers will still prefer to get their work out through a mainstream publisher, and the role of agents as gatekeepers and negotiators would still be needed. There's always a chance, though, that this role might diminish at some stages if self-publishing becomes more lucrative and enticing to a growing number of writers.

The artwork was a good fit! lol

I miss my agent since going indie. She got me my rights back to 10 of my novels, I give her a complimentary download of all the eBooks I write, and of course she is in touch with me whenever I get a royalty payment. Fortunately, most of her clients are still traditionally published (I was dropped by both my publishers and have found new life as an indie writer), so I don't think she has anything to worry about. She is also a contracts attorney, so agenting is not her livelihood. In general, I don't think that agents with existing clients are in trouble because traditional publishing is still very much alive, but I think they will have to get creative in terms of getting new clients, perhaps, as has been suggested, by approaching indie authors with good sales numbers.

I have to agree with Peter and Mira. The people exhausting you have had bad experiences or have some reason to feel negative. Even if that negativity is completely unjustified (and I can't think that it is), we all know perception is half the battle.

I am not anti-traditional publishing or agents, but I have some friends who have written really good books. They have agents but can't get published. I'm not sure if it's the state of the industry or the fact that their agents are inept, but it makes me frustrated for them.

Unfortunately, none of them are seriously considering self-publishing at this point. I believe their books would be popular, but "traditional publishing" is not letting them in.

I am about to start submitting my first novel and quite frankly, I feel like I might get an agent, but I'll probably never be published traditionally. From what I've seen from the outside, it does seem as though agents are much more interested in being cozy with a publisher than in advancing a particular author. Perhaps that's completely incorrect, but it seems as though many people feel that way. (Even the people I know who are published authors are really close with their editors--not at all with their agents.)

Nathen if you want to see anti self publishing, check out the comments here about Goodkinds decision to self publish.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/52532-terry-goodkind-to-self-publish-next-novel.html

Nathan said: "The idea that agents are working for publishers' interests is propaganda."

Seriously? So a literary agency could decide to take on only wonderfully written novels and refuse to take on any inferior commercial writing because their hands aren't tied in any way by the demands of the big publishing houses? The literary agencies tell the publishers what they will and will not submit to them, what will and won't be marketed to readers? Or, honestly, isn't it the other way around? I'm not sure how you can say it's propaganda to express the viewpoint that literary agencies are paid by the publishing houses and therefore are beholding to them. For years, agents have been telling many writers that their books are wonderfully written, but won't sell enough copies, meaning enough copies to satisfy the big publishing houses' requirements. Many of those same authors went on to self-publish those same books and made plenty of money. I guess you could rephrase "agents are working for publishers' interests" with "agents are working for those writers who will satisfy publishers' interests" if it makes you feel better, but calling the first statement propaganda doesn't make it untrue. It seems to me that, in today's political climate, whenever someone labels something "propaganda," it's just a code word for turning off the discussion, bringing it down to the level of, "Is not...Is, too...Nunh Uhhh." For years now, special interests have been saying that global warming is also "propaganda," but the Earth just keeps getting warmer anyway. Calling global warming "propaganda" doesn't make it untrue.

TYPO: meant "beholden," not "beholding."

-Anon at 9:22 PM

I think their role will be more limited.

mira-

I know you're familiar with psychology, so you are also probably familiar with confirmation bias, which is the tendency to seek out information that confirms your pre-existing beliefs and discarding anything that is contrary to that. I would ask you to examine your confirmation bias because I feel that you discount the things I'm saying on this subject.

I've been on every side of this business - I've been an author querying and getting rejected, I've been a literary agent, now I'm out of the business, I've been traditionally published and I'm probably going to self-publish someday. I have plenty, plenty of frustrations with traditional publishing, but I also don't let those frustrations blind me to the fact that the industry is made up of very smart people working for the love of books (it's certainly not for the pay) and doing what they think is best for the future of the business.

Is there some truth to what anti-traditional publishing zealots are saying? Absolutely! I've never argued otherwise.

Yes, the industry needs to get with the times. Yes, there are clauses in contacts that are onerous. Yes, 25% net is too low for a digital royalty. Yes, the industry sometimes treats authors like pests. Yes, it's frustrating to send a query and have it go unanswered. All true.

Where I get frustrated is when those valid points become religion for some people and leads them to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Traditional publishing is not a bed of roses, but it's not a den of thieves either.

When anti-traditional publishing becomes a religion, no amount of "I hear you, you have some valid points, here's where I think we agree, here's where I think we disagree" is going to persuade people. It's not rational at that point. And that's where I think a lot of people have ended up, not because of personal experiences with many of the things they're angry about, but because people have let their frustration with the querying and traditional publication process cloud their perspective.

There are some things self-publishing is better for. There are some things traditional publishing is better for. There really can be peace in our time.

Peter-

But even look at your own phrasing - you're saying "Big Publishing" as a pejorative. If someone from traditional publishing started calling self-publishers "The Unwashed" or even "Little Publishing" can you imagine the resulting umbrage? The entire country might catch fire.

I don't actually think most of the conditions people are frustrated with have much to do with "Big Publishing" at all, but with the funnel. And that funnel exists because up until now there were a finite number of books that could physically exist in a bookstore. Life in the funnel completely sucks. There are too many good books for too few slots, and that influences everything else - there are more agented books than can be bought by publishers, and there are way, way, way more unagented books than can be repped by agents. So there's a whole lot of rejection at every stage of the process, and by its very nature it's frustrating.

That's thankfully changing with self-publishing, but as long as traditional publisher publish only a finite amount of books, welcome to the funnel. It's not fun.

anon@9:22-

Agents take on books they think they can sell to publishers. That is their job. It's a business. Agents make more money if they get better deals for the authors, e.g. if they're willing to get a publisher to pay more, which is at the publisher's expense.

They're not beholden to publishers, they're beholden to their clients. The better deal the client gets the more money the agent makes. Their interests are aligned.

Nathan, unfortunately I can't respond from my work computer because it will send to spam. Typing on my little I phone won't work for me to adequately address your comment. So I'll respond this evening. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you!

"But even look at your own phrasing - you're saying "Big Publishing" as a pejorative."

That was intentional.

The point in using it that way (in the specific places I did) was to invoke the emotion while trying to illustrate how the Zealots feel. (Zealot itself is a loaded term. So... Hey, Mom, Nathan started it!)

That is, when I say Big Publishing, it's a shorthand that invokes all the bad aspects of the publishing industry that the Zealots don't like. The problem is not with the pejorative use but with the fact that it makes no distinction between the good and the bad. It does make distinction between the big and the not-big, however.

Which is exactly how I feel any time a friend of mine gets all up in my facebook about Big Banks. They don't hate "banking," they just hate "Big Banks." Which includes me, even though I personally am as far removed from the bad done by Big Banks as can possibly be.

The fact that there are Zealots who lump the good in with the bad and then get loud about it does not change the fact that there's bad. If there was no bad, there would be no zealots. Which was my original point. And which you have stated time and again, both in posts and comments. So actually we agree.

The subtle difference is that Zealots tend to be most angry about and target those they think have the most power and influence and elitism. Because that's where the biggest bad is. I think the Zealots don't hate "traditional publishing," they hate "Big Publishing."

For my own personal part, I agree with you. My frustration (until recently) was with the funnel. Self-publishing eliminated the funnel, and my frustration went away. As you've pointed out, we all need to understand our own motivations and do what is right for us individually. My motivations are served beautifully by self publishing.

More recently, though, I've become frustrated with the ongoing turf war between traditional publishing and Amazon. Here, "traditional publishing" means something different. It includes publishers, agents, and independent booksellers. Almost anyone who isn't Amazon or a self-published author, as a matter of fact. And there are a lot of anti-Amazon Zealots out there...

Peter-

Yeah, definitely agree that some of the hostility to Amazon in some traditional publishing bastions is extreme. You know what Yoda said about fear...

Also agree that the "bigness" and power makes publishing an easy target.

Okay we pretty much agree.

Nathan said: "But even look at your own phrasing - you're saying "Big Publishing" as a pejorative. If someone from traditional publishing started calling self-publishers "The Unwashed" or even "Little Publishing" can you imagine the resulting umbrage? The entire country might catch fire."

You've seriously got to be kidding me. Nathan, to use a term you directed at Mira, I would say that you have a huge confirmation bias. It has become very clear to me that you do not even remotely understand most of the arguments against big publishing or even where the term comes from. Big publishing companies are labeled "big" because they are huge conglomerates. When you suggest that "The Unwashed" could be an equivalent term for self-publishing companies, your bias shines through. "The Unwashed" is the same type of prejudicial term often used against minorities, calling them "unwashed," "dirty," "diseased," etc. "Big" means "extremely wealthy;" "unwashed" puts people in their place. And you know what? The country hasn't started on fire. Who cares what you suggest as a pejorative term for self-publishers? Who cares? The point that many self-published authors have tried to make, but it falls on deaf ears, is that authors often do much better after leaving traditional publishing for self-publishing and it makes them kind of angry that they wasted so many years believing the myths they were told by big publishing. If you do plan on self-publishing some day, you might want to keep in mind that alienating self-published authors isn't a great way to introduce yourself to that community. The fact that you treat the big publishing houses' side of the DOJ lawsuit with much more respect than you treat self-publishing as a whole speaks volumes about how little respect you have for self-published authors as a community. You always tread very carefully when talking about traditional publishers, but you treat self-publishing the way that prejudiced people treat any minority, your opinion is shaped by negative examples in that group. Not all self-published authors are angry or loud. Many are happy - quite happy, actually, because the publishing path they've chosen is a lot of fun.

anon-

I think it was clear I wasn't actually calling anyone anything. But that's a lot of umbrage for what was posed as a hypothetical. I think you proved my point.

Peter and Nathan, do you realize that the discussion has now fallen to the level at which nothing of substance is being discussed? By focusing on one term, the term "big publishing," the discussion has narrowed down to whether or not that's a pejorative term. Fox News does this brilliantly, by the way. A linguist once pointed out that by controlling language, Fox News completely takes the focus off the real issues. I'm just waiting for self-publishing to be labeled "socialist," than we'll have the kind of discussion we're used to.

anon-

I feel like you're trolling at this point - if you wish to continue this discussion I'm happy to do so but only if you're non-anonymous.

I wasn't trolling, but I can see where you might think so. I'm going to opt out of the rest of the discussion, as it has become a bit one-sided.

I think they will, but there's going to be a painful period of adjustment. The self-pub model, once it gains critical mass with traditionally published writers (which may take a while, since I assume many of them are chained to contracts which would necessarily limit their ability to adapt as quickly as novice authors) start publishing, that will accelerate more quickly.

I was not a fan of the whole self-pub thing (how else to describe), until I went back and looked at my contracts, and read That Guy's Blog. Stripped of the rancor towards traditional publishing, what he says makes sense: the archaic royalty periods, the gross financial exploitation of writers who aren't front list (mid-list, you're essentially self-publishing, at this point) and the countless other ways authors are being taken for a ride, the 30/70 split is clear, pays in a timely fashion, and well... what else?

The digital / device element is simply too large to ignore at this point, and unless they have some magical way to control it, that genie isn't going back into the bottle. So they have a while for literary fiction. Genre fiction, it's already gone: people don't seem to care about imprints, or houses, or any of that.

This question is a good one, and one I've given thought to, but I can't help but question if it works as a one size fits all. Prestige authors (or those with that perceived cachet) are supported by houses' less glamorous lines: what happens when lady's fiction, for example, has completely migrated to digital, and whatever subsidiary of Random House that drew upon that revenue stream, no longer can? Do agents then become hyper-hyper-hyper selective, only repping prize winners? In which case, how do they prevent their client lists from atrophying?

Peter and Nathan, do you realize that the discussion has now fallen to the level at which nothing of substance is being discussed?

must... not... take.. the bait...

I am anon 4:44 & would add ... people don't tend to think about this, but sometimes an agent's slowless (to read a mss, submit it, return notes), works in the writer's favor, forcing or provoking revisions that this fever for instant publishing (and crashing down those gatekeepers' walls) circumvents. For people like Amanda Hocking who thrive in the world of series, producing as much possible makes sense - the writing isn't (sorry, not to be a hater, but she as much admits this herself) as good, but her as a business needs more attention than a slower, or less "productive" writer would. And though I'm sure her agent has a game plan, it's probably a different one than a literary novelist in the deep south who one the National Book Award.

another question for Nathan: given the money that authors can make digitally, yet the attachment to prestige of MSM pub, do you foresee a world in which one can have both? perhaps using pseudonyms? and did you read the NYMagazine interview with Barry Dillers in which he retorted that new technologies (he was speaking about tv antennaes that suck off MSM broadcast signals) don't replace but grow up alongside existing technologies? Is that co-existing model valid for publishing, or would you say TV is apples to oranges? (And back to the original query, if they can coexist, how do you foresee agent/agencies fitting into that sort of blended future?)

I am anony 4:44 & 4:53: whoever is disrupting this convo, please stop. this question is too important to some of us to wade through off topic posts. Thank you for being considerate of others.

anon-

I think there will be blurring all over the place, at least if the author keeps an open mind to opportunity. There will be (and already are) authors who go with traditional publishers for some books and self-publish others, there will be authors who start out self-published and move entirely to traditional and vice versa, there will be authors who self-publish their e-books and work with a traditional publisher for print books.... there's basically an infinite number of combinations.

I'm not sure I still quite see how agents will fit into the self-publishing process, unless they're able to cultivate a relationship with distributors to lend their books preferred promotional status. But short of that, I think the value add as an overarching consultant is somewhat murky. It's only going to get easier to self-publish and I think it will be tricky for an agent to add value in a way that scales.

But I think agents will continue to still exist for the biggest authors who have many different types of deals to negotiate, from traditional print deals to foreign rights to subrights. The biggest authors will always have room for negotiation, and an agent can add a lot of value there.

But who knows - things keep right on changing.

okay, how would you have that conversation (not you, per se, but a generic "you") about self-pub/trad pub tracks with your agent? in a way that wasn't threatening, and didn't upend the author/agency agreement which (assuming they're standardized) is an agreement for the agent to rep literary work the author produces? and if the 2.99-3.99 is the price most people are willing to pay for digital books, is the 15% commission appropriate? (and how does Amazon's inevitable collection of taxes affect that equation?) ... please, please speak to some of the dollar elements of this: I feel like this convo's been limited by "feelings" and tho I respect everyone's, I'm focused on finances

you've spoken/written before about big authors, & their need for contracts but what about an agent & foreign rights/ translations? it's one thing to upload to the domestic market, but other than English language countries (amazon uk), how would one even begin to navigate the global market?

I wanted to add something about an agent's value: they're schooled in thinking tactically/strategically in a way that, cleaver as I am, am not. I've noticed, too, that my agent consults with the other agents, and I wonder if people know you don't get just one agent, but benefit of experienced people you may never meet or speak to.

I haven't listened to this, but the paper (imagine that) version of Wasserman's piece in this weeks, "The Nation" (supplement with two others), is very interesting and worth a read.

http://www.thenation.com/audio/168196/steve-wasserman-amazoncoms-takeover

Nathan, so, I wasn't familiar with the concept of confirmation bias, so that's interesting. I'll keep that in mind. Please let me know if you feel I am doing that in this conversation, or others, too, if you want.

I'd like to ask for some more information.

I'm really sorry you've felt discounted by me. I'd like to make sure you feel I am valuing what you think and share. Does the content of the last post to me cover it? Or is there more?

The second question is: what do you mean by "religion"? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that concept when it applies to anti-traditional writers. I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm trying to forumlate a response to you, but I'd like some clarification first.

Thanks.

What I think is happening is the same that happened with trading stocks, you know have the capacity to do it yourself without a stock broker. If you think of an agent as a stock broker making a transaction for you, then think of it as a premium of service. While stock brokers still exist today, we need less of them.

For now, I'm leaning toward "morphing" into something else. I also think Agents may have to rethink where there clients may be coming from. They may have to rely on more than the inbox or the slush pile to find their next author.

I also think there needs to be an alternative to writers conferences. Writers who live in the vicinity of the conference or writers who can afford to fly to a conference make up a limiting pool. Many, many writers will never get the opportunity to impress anyone in person.

Last, agents will have to take their blinders off. That narrow focus they use to choose their next project may have to include good writing - not just flavor of the month.

In today's world, authors have got more resources on their hands. A lot of authors take to the internet, build their own websites and start establishing online platforms where they can promote their works themselves, works that they might have self-published or published the traditional way. I believe the role of the agent after its boom in the last two decades is shrinking back again to how it used to be. Soon, publishers will start to get more contactable as a consequence to the influx of self-published books. When this happens agents will become optional to short-on-time authors, and a luxury to the more established ones.

Nathan,

I believe agents will survive and prosper if they can develop some empathy and compassion for writers whom are hard working people. To consider submitting a query to an agent whom says in advance, "I will respond if I am interested" I do not think so. For they must come to realize that they would not be in business if it were not for writers. You were always courteous and responded promptly when you were an agent.

@Daniel, not to be obnoxious, but what exactly is wrong with, "I will respond if I'm interested"? A no is still a no. I'm consistently amazed by the unspoken sense of entitlement underlying the believe, "they must come to realize ... were it not for writers." True, but 15% of nothing is still nothing. People's expectations of what they "feel" agents should do blows my mind.

So, I took my questions down....
Nathan, honestly, I feel like I'm stuck in an argument with you I keep trying to end.


However, I am going to continue because I always cut you off when we debate, which I think is unfair. So, here I go. You can decide to respond or not, but knowing myself, I'll probably consider deleting this comment tomorrow, unless it becomes part of a conversation, because I dont' really have perspective on it. Besides, I don't care if this comment is made public or not. I'm talking to you, Nathan.


So, I probably should start by reflecting your above statements back to you, but I think that would just annoy you at this point, so I'm going to go right to my perspective.


This is why I speak out. I believe that strong pressure needs to be put on publishers so they will change their practices towards writers. I don't believe that they will change these practices out of their own initiative. To put it in very clear terms, I think that labor needs to stand up for itself in order for management to change.

I have no issue with those who work INSIDE publishing. I'm sure they are wonderful people. I have an issue with those who work at the TOP of publishing. The people who are very rich and powerful and probably want to keep it that way.

To give an even better example, I have serious problems with oil companies, but I'm sure there are wonderful people who work in them.

I also have no issue with writers who want to work in traditional publishing. If they think it's best for them, that's great.


In terms of reform, I'm fine if publishers adapt and survive, if they do so while offering better terms to writers. But I'm not attached to that solution.


So, I know that you don't agree the system is exploitive and needs pressure to change, Nathan, but I wish you would understand that I do. I'm sorry if that makes you feel I'm discounting your opinion. That's not my intention, I just see it differently, Nathan.

I will say that I had already decided, this weekend, to stop saying anti-traditional publishing statements on your blog. I've decided it's rude. It would be like going to a vegetarian's website and talking ad infinitum about the barbeque last week. I'm sorry if my statements here have put pressure on you. I guess there is a part of me that wants to change your mind. But I think it's time to let go of that.

So, that's my response to your post above. I will respond if you want to continue, I won't cut off the debate. And if you don't, that's okay, whatever works best for you.

Oh, I guess saying I feel stuck in an argument I keep trying to end is really unfair given how provocative I am.

That is unfair. I'm sorry. I just hate feeling as though we are at odds, so whenever you respond, I just want to say "let's agree to disagree." Maybe that's trying to dodge accountability. Sorry.

Good for you, Peter, answering in a way that is non-reactive and witty. Always admire you, Nathan, for keeping a calm head in any debate. A debate is always about issues and shouldn't become about the debators. Not everyone is good at expressing their opinions, but everyone has the right to express his/her opinion without being insulted for having that opinion. Disagreeing with the opinion without finding fault with the one expressing it is always a win-win - in my opinion. ;)

Kudos to you, Mira. I feel exactly the same as you. There's nothing wrong with questioning the questionable practices of very rich and powerful people at the top of huge multinational conglomerates. The DOJ has done the same in regard to most of the huge publishing houses, and kudos to them as well. Like you said, that has nothing to do with all the wonderful people who work for and with those corporations, most of them being paid only a small pittance compared to the huge profits made by those at the top. No one should feel guilty or apologetic for the type of stand you're taking.

But are the biggest publishers operating on huge profit margins? Are they 'greedy corporations' with profits going mainly to Board members while being ruthlessly stingy with their authors? Do any of us know this for a fact or is it heresay? I've always had the impression that the book biz operated on a slim profit margin with only the occasional best sellers keeping most companies going. Wasn't it Houghton and Mifflin the latest publishing company to file for bankruptcy? Publishers are going under, financially, all the time.

It is a very competitive and risky business, perhaps now more than ever.

*Houghton Mifflin* I meant - sorry.

Wendy - Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has been owned by and merged with a number of different companies. For example, in 2001, under the name Houghton Mifflin, it was acquired by the French media giant Vivendi for $2.2 billion. In 2003, Vivendi sold Houghton Mifflin to the private equity investment groups Thomas H. Lee and Bain Capital for $1.28 billion. Recently, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt filed for bankruptcy in order to receive help in dealing with billions of dollars of debt that was about to come due and worked out a plan to have $3 billion of its debt reduced to zero. Here's information on it: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Files For Bankruptcy, Claims $3 Billion In Debt. Now, does this sound like the kinds of financial dealings agents or editors or other workers farther down the food chain deal with in their daily lives? I don't think so. And that's just a very tiny mention of all the mergers and acquisitions and financial dealings in which Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has been involved.

Thanks for that info, Anon. Very interesting, actually. Sorry if I'm splitting hairs, but according to Wikipedia this company is not strictly a publishing company but has - over the years - owned a diverse number of companies including MP3.com, Canal+ Technologies, Vinci Construction, Univeral Studies, etc. And also according to Wiki, in 2002 Viveldi was fighting to stave off bankruptcy, itself. I think your point is, though, that Viveldi considered that H.M. was worth purchasing at 2.2b so there must be quite some money to be made by this publishing company. However, maybe their assumption wasn't totally correct, because as you noted they sold it again, fairly quickly, for almost half of what they paid for it. But 1.6b is still a lot of money though.

Actually, in support of your view, Anon, I came across this article about Penguin Books U.K:

'Penguin UK had its best ever year in 2010 as parent company Pearson reported a profits increase of 21% to £857m.

For the year ending 31st December, sales at Pearson were £5.66bn, up 10% on 2009. Sales at Penguin were £1.05bn, up 6% on the previous year. Adjusted operating profit was up 26% to £106m. Pearson attributed this to an "outstanding" US performance, driven by a record number of bestsellers, increased market share and expansion in emerging digital platforms and formats.'

Apparently in 2011 there was a slight dip in profits, but in 2012 there was a big leap in ebook profits, worldwide for this publisher:

'E-book sales represented 12% of all Penguin revenue worldwide in 2011; in the U.S., e-book sales accounted for more than 20% of Penguin’s revenue. While overall revenues at the company were up 1%, profits were up 8%, according to a statement from the company, suggesting that e-book sales deliver a higher profit margin.'

It seems Penguin are doing alright, then *g* I chose Penguin because it's the most well-known and successful publishing co. here in Australia. If the figures for this company are anything to go by, then the publishing biz isn't going too badly.

I'm just tossing ideas around trying to fathom things out. I really appreciate your reply, Anon. Thank you.

Wendy - Fascinating information. Thanks. When people working away in the lower levels of these huge conglomerates get laid off, they're just being used to boost overall profit for those at the top. What I don't understand is when the struggling workers defend the conglomerate as though it's feeling the same kind of struggle rather than just experiencing a pause in steep incline of huge profit.

Anon 11:37. Thank you! I'm glad we agree. It was really nice to read your supportive comments. :)

Just to clarify, I'm not apologizing for my beliefs, but more for trying to bash Nathan over the head with them.

Part of the problem is that one way to put pressure on the people at the top is by putting pressure on the people inside by confronting practices. I'm still learning when and how it's best to do that!

Mira - so glad you contributed to the discussion!

The Great Gatsby is one of my favorite books as well, so I'm a bit skeptical. But the trailer looks interesting, and it's difficult to go wrong with Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire. :D

The trailer looks amazing, I can't wait to see it. I have loved this story since I read the book (way back when) and I think the casting is spot-on.

Enjoy your blog, Nathan. As a small press owner, I regularly experience the "lightning rod" feeling that Barry E. is feeling right now. Especially when I speak out about such beauts as the stunning mediocrity of much "Christian Fiction," and such. Wow. You've not seen a firestorm until you've wrangled with the religious. Dave Barry said something along those lines, but he mentioned machetes. :) Keep up the good work!

I used to tell my daughter (a few years ago, when she was just getting started as a writer) that fanfiction was fun for practice, but she should write original stories and characters if she ever wanted to be a professional writer.

And then of course Fifty Shades of Grey came along, and proved I had no idea what I was talking about.

I know a lot of people say it's terrible, and I haven't read it, but I have to echo something Nathan often says: she must have been doing something right.

It just proves there really is NO accounting for taste. It's demographics - which portion of the reading public is doing the most buying of the '50 Shades of..."? Women, men, certain age groups??

Fan fiction builds off the original creator's idea. Has any fan fiction been as good as the original?

The Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy has sold 10 million copies in 6 weeks. Holy. Crap.

Did you get your copy/ies?

The Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy has sold 10 million copies in 6 weeks. Holy. Crap.

Did you get your copy/ies?

I really like Carey Mulligan, so I'm interested in seeing how she plays Daisy. I'm also interested in seeing how her performance compares to Mia Farrow's performance as Daisy in the 70s.

Houghton Mifflin...didn't they reject Julia Child :)

As for the Gatsby film...I'm just having a hard time with LD as the lead. He's short and stocky with legs shaped like the letter X. I always imaged Jay as one of those tall, handsome, well-bred patrician types with strong bone structure. Let's just say LD is no Robert Redford. But he was a great J. Edgar Hoover.

My Side of the Mountain was probably one of my three favorite books as a child. If I didn't hate being cold, I would have dreamed even more of following in that boy's footsteps. Now I might have to go dig it out of a box and give it another go.

I don't think I'll read 50 Shades. It's not my cuppa. On the other hand, I said the same thing about a YA vampire series, so what do I know?

As for Gatsby, I admitted this to Sommer Leigh and have been waiting for black cloud over my head to start pouring: I don't get The Great Gatsby. I read it and wanted to like it, I really did. But I just didn't connect with any of the characters. I feel like I missed something.

Thanks for these awesome links, Nathan. Julie OF The Wolves sounds like a wonderful title. Sorry to hear you lost such a talented friend. So many incredible outcomes in these links: Houghton Mifflin over a bill. in debt?!? How can they ever work their way out of this? The passing of Ray Bradbury is very sad. He was a rare author in whose work I always found profound beauty and amazing imagination. Something Wicked This Way Comes was a favourite.

Haven't yet had an op. to check out all the links but will make time when I can. All a must read, I think.

Watched the Great Gatsby trailer. I thought it was intriguing and obviously the movie is going to be epic. I've not read the book, but the premise as shown in the trailer shows a lot of promise. Here in Australia 'Gatsby' is not on many reading lists. When I was studying writing at Uni level, the syllabus consisted of all Australian titles back then - which I loved and could identify with more than titles from other countries and cultures. If a book is in a genre that I love, such as fantasy, then I've no problem with its origins. Fantasy titles usually have their own culture and countries, anyway, which I enjoy.

My Side of the Mountain and October Country. So much lost. I read Gatsby once but when I think about it all I get is an empty mansion with filmy curtains blowin' in the wind. Or was that someone else? They had great cars though.

Wow! The movie looks great!

I won't lie, I groaned out loud when I read how much copies Fifty Shades of Gray sold/

I'm surprised I hadn't heard about the passing of Jean Craighead George, since this week was the death of the great author Ray Bradbury. I guess I'm also slightly surprised you didn't mention that as well, but I suppose Bradbury has been so well known that we all found out this week one way or another.

On a lighter note, I am really excited for the Great Gatsby movie.

50 Shades, huh? Well, there's no accounting for taste, I guess. And the trailer looks pretty good. Baz can either make a film spectacularly successful or a fantastic failure. No in between. let's hope for the former.

Thanks for all of the great links Nathan.
It's sad news about Ray Bradbury and Jean Craighead George.
I almost fell out of my chair reading about 50 Shades.
The Great Gatsby should be amazing. I can't wait to see it.

My reaction to the 50 Shades news is how a food connoisseur living off foie gras and caviar would react to the news that 10 million people went nuts over McDonalds.

"Um. Sure, McDonalds can be good... but it's not super great in large doses, and plus, have you TRIED other food?"

Wonderful links, Nathan. Very fun and interesting to browse them. Thank you so much!

Very sad about George and Bradbury. They will be missed!

I especially liked the links on Eisler and the independent bookstores - and the book generator - thank you!

And I have serious concerns that Leo was miscast as Gatsby. But maybe it's another interpretation....?

So, I'm reluctantly going to add that since you and I have been debating this, I have to say, regretfully, I don't think Shatzkin added any good reasons for opposing the lawsuit (the settlement is a different topic.)

He basically said the main thing others are saying which is: "Yes, they probably broke the law (wink, wink), but they had a good reason for doing it, so you should let them off.

I just don't think that saying publishers had a "good reason" excuses illegal, criminal activity. Most people acting criminally think they had a good reason for doing so. Not usually a good defense.

All of this stuff about the agency model is besides the point. The DOJ is not suing for the agency model, they are suing over collusion. And for corporations, who are supposed to be competing, to collude and make agreements that try to control the market is an illegal, criminal activity. Publishers are not, nor should they be, above the law. For any reason.

That's the way I see it anyway. And it seems to me that all the arguments against the suit dodge that point and talk about the agency model, which is frankly, irrelevant to the real reason for the suit.

I took my post down. I always feel so conflicted about arguing with you on your blog, Nathan.

Anyway, I really thoroughly enjoyed browsing these links.

And I think Leo was miscast.

And I'm sorry for the loss of George and Bradbury.

Thanks for taking the time to put these links up, Nathan!

I just want to say thank you for the link to the Malcolm Gladwell Book Generator.

I mean, I read and appreciated the more informative links, too, but that one made me smile :-)

Inspiring and heartening to read this. Thanks, all of you, for sharing this with us.

[...] http://taralazar.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/you-gotta-have-friends-interview-with-an-author-editor-and… Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

Informative and inspiring! Thanks for sharing this!

This is such an inspiring blog post! Like Brenda, I too have one picture book under my belt and feel I need the right agent to represent me and my work. Also, like Brenda, I need someone to guide my career in the right direction. And so, I was disappointed upon studying Red Fox Literary’s website to learn they only take submissions from conferences and references. Everything Karen said in this interview and her blog post resonated with me.

Oh! I loved this! I love that Brenda found Emma who helped her find Brenda, who seems to be the perfect “fit.” This is a great encouragement to those of us who are still looking! It was really nice hearing from all three parts of the equation.

Thanks so much everyone for this wonderfully inspiring post. Turkeys in the Road is a fun book!

I love this story, and have read it several times, initially at Emma’s recommendation as an example of exceptionally good rhyming. I find this post so heartening that at the heart of so much kidlit is strong collaborative, supportive relationships. I too enjoyed hearing the three different perspectives. How we need people who will encourage and advocate for us as authors and illustrators.

Thanks for a great interview, Tara.

Nice interview!

Such a great post – so inspiring!

Thank you for such an inspiring and informative post. Perseverance is powerful. I didn’t know you could “hire” editors, though.

Thank you all for this inspiring interview!

What a supportive community this is, thanks Tara!

Cool!

Thanks for sharing this new blog guaranteed to be interesting and informative. I look forward to reading about your experiences and those of others.

Tara, could you please contact me off-line. Thanks!
Linda Andersen