Write In Style & Snag An Agent
AboutWordsAgent
literary agent, who have teamed up for a seminar by the same name, have
started a new group to answer questions about writing and publishing.
http://groups.google.com/group/Write-In-Style-Snag-An-Agent
I'm Susan Graham, owner of About Words Agency, and I enjoy helping
writers. I am a co-founder of the statewide writers group Georgia
Writers, and have given free seminars over many years to help authors.
I'll be at the May 6th Georgia Writers Spring Festival in Atlanta.
(http://www.georgiawriters.org)
About Words is the only agency that gives free no-obligation
personalized feedback for all snailmail queries -- about 65,000 so far.
And yes, I need more readers!! :-) We do not charge any fees, and do
not send authors to independent editors for kickbacks, ever. 100% of
our income is from commissions.
http://agency.aboutwords.org
I have also designed a section of the website to help writers. Check
it out!
http://writers.aboutwords.org
Google Group: Write In Style & Snag An Agent
http://groups.google.com/group/Write-In-Style-Snag-An-Agent
Welcome Message:
Susan Graham of About Words Agency and I (Bobbie Christmas of Zebra
Communications, also the author of Write In Style, the
triple-award-winning textbook on creative writing) welcome you to our
new Google Group. Ask all the questions you ever wanted to ask an agent
or a book editor. Get answers. Your questions and answers may appear in
a future "Ask the Book Doctor" column in any of the dozen places where
my column appears, including my own e-mailed newsletter, "The Writers
Network News." To sign up for that free newsletter, go to
www.zebraeditor.com and click on "Free Newsletter."
Brian M. Scott
<su...@aboutwords.org> wrote in
<news:1146443050.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> We invite you to a new Google group where an independent editor and a
> literary agent, who have teamed up for a seminar by the same name, have
> started a new group to answer questions about writing and publishing.
> http://groups.google.com/group/Write-In-Style-Snag-An-Agent
> I'm Susan Graham, owner of About Words Agency,
Which is listed as 'Not Recommended' at Preditors & Editors.
<http://www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/perating.htm>
Possible reasons can be found here:
<http://www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/perating.htm>
[...]
Brian
AboutWordsAgent
helps me give feedback to the queries. I'm the only agent who gives
free, no-obligation personalized feedback to all snailmail queries.
Other agents who work with independent editors get kickbacks from them,
and refer authors to only them before offering representation. We
don't do that. We recommend Bobbie, of course, but we also recommend
many other independent editors:
http://writers.aboutwords.org/tipseditors.html
We actually prefer that an author write and edit their book themselves,
and work with a critique group.
100% of the income for About Words Agency (and myself, since I work as
a literary agent full-time and own the agency) is from commissions. No
fees, ever. Bobbie and I simply like to help writers, and between us
we've helped over 65,000 writers since 1994. It may be hard to
believe, but it's true.
-Susan
Dorothy J Heydt
And once more it is proven: GOOD agents don't advertise.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
AboutWordsAgent
-Susan Graham
About Words Agency
Alma Hromic Deckert
AboutWordsAgent
for writers, for free, in the Google Group and on here. Plus, I happen
to be looking for sf/f books to represent.
Can we start this on a more pleasant note, rather than an adversarial
one?
I am a full-time literary agent who has helped many writers over
several years. I have sold 14 books in all, to large and small
publishers. Nine of those were science fiction or fantasy, including
'Kingmaker's Sword', by Ann Marston, to HarperCollins in 1994, and a
four book series by Andre Norton and Sasha Miller, including Andre's
last book published, Dragon Blade, to Tor Books in 1999.
I started out by myself as Graham Literary Agency in 1994 with a
60+page web site, nearly unheard-of in those days. On it were many
helpful articles for writers and a q&a. I co-founded Georgia Writers,
a nonprofit statewide writers organization in 1994, as well. So I have
a long record of helping writers simply because I like doing so.
I am on here to get people interested in the new Google group that
Bobbie and I formed to help writers (she is a past president of Georgia
Writers and has also helped many writers because she enjoys doing so).
As I mentioned earlier, I'm looking for good science fiction and
fantasy books to represent. I only have three out of about 45 right
now, because I have been diversifying so other agents working with me
can work with many different types of books, fiction and nonfiction,
and have not been emphasizing any one genre as a result. But I really
miss working with sf/f, so I posted on here in particular.
Personally, I have two boys, 13 and nearly-15, who also like science
fiction and fantasy, I am happy to say. I have three cats, and one
dog. I love to ride horses, hike, and most of all, read, among many
other hobbies.
I look forward to hearing from you!
-Susan Graham
About Words Agency
Zeborah
> The only reason is because Bobbie Christmas, an independent editor,
> helps me give feedback to the queries. I'm the only agent who gives
> free, no-obligation personalized feedback to all snailmail queries.
(Please see my other post; at the bottom it explains our custom for
quoting.)
Now, below -- no wish to be adversarial, but there are a lot of scam
agents out there, so us authors need to be careful. Since you're
confident that you're a good agent, you'll be happy to clarify my
questions, right?
> Other agents who work with independent editors get kickbacks from them,
> and refer authors to only them before offering representation. We
> don't do that. We recommend Bobbie, of course, but we also recommend
> many other independent editors:
> http://writers.aboutwords.org/tipseditors.html
There's no "of course" about it. It's a conflict of interest for you to
recommend any particular editor, particularly one who has been involved
in your agency so closely.
http://agency.aboutwords.org/zebra.html says:
"In addition to our in-house readers, we use an outside agency to help
us handle the large number of queries we receive daily. Zebra
Communications has agreed to provide free feedback in return for sending
information about its services, with no obligation required or implied."
I parse this as About Words giving Zebra Communications authors'
personal details (address etc) without the authors' permission; is this
correct?
Results from a google search suggest that Zebra Communications gets
first look at the mss submitted to you; is that correct? And is it the
case then that Zebra are the ones who reply to authors; and if so, do
they recommend professional editing; and if so, do they offer their own
services?
Because if so, then whether or not there's any obligation, there is
certainly conflict of interest, and Zebra is taking advantage of a
relationship the submitting authors didn't even realise they were
getting into.
> We actually prefer that an author write and edit their book themselves,
> and work with a critique group.
Then why do you say "The first thing you need to do is find an editor
with the right kind of experience for your type of book."?
> 100% of the income for About Words Agency (and myself, since I work as
> a literary agent full-time and own the agency) is from commissions. No
> fees, ever. Bobbie and I simply like to help writers, and between us
> we've helped over 65,000 writers since 1994. It may be hard to
> believe, but it's true.
How many writers since 1994 have you helped to publication? 14? In 12
years? Can you explain why so few?
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
Zeborah
> I am not "advertising" since all I am offering is to answer questions
> for writers, for free, in the Google Group and on here. Plus, I happen
> to be looking for sf/f books to represent.
Newcomer's FAQ
Ooops, it looks like you broke one of our rules. I'm guessing you are
new here, and hoped this FAQ might help you find your feet faster.
1) WHAT RULE DID I BREAK?
Some people might complain that you spammed -- you didn't, technically,
but your announcement does come under our no-advertising policy. Ads
can be anything that promotes something, even if you aren't making money
off it. For more details about this (and much more), check out the
group's FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) at:
http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
2) WHAT DO I DO NOW?
The most important thing is to know that this isn't a webpage. People
can get to it in a lot of ways, and messages in this group take a long
time to travel to all the people in the group. Even if you apologize,
people will keep complaining about your off topic post because they
won't have seen your apology yet, and might not see it until tomorrow or
the next day. You may even see this FAQ twice, because there are two
people here who post it.
The best thing to do is ignore any complaints. Don't even read them,
they'll just make you feel cross and defensive.
Instead, go look at the other topics people are discussing, and start
responding to those. If you don't post ads, don't post samples of your
work longer than 500 words, and don't tell us that you've found the
one true way to write or publish, we are generally pretty easy to get
along with, and very helpful to new writers.
3) HOW DO I REPLY TO A MESSAGE?
The custom here is to quote the part of the message you're responding to
that is relevant to your reply. (This is because sometimes people see
your message before they see the one you are replying to.)
Most quote functions put a line at the top that says who you're
replying to. Leave that there, and if there are some at the top of the
message you are quoting, you should probably leave them there too.
Reply after the quoted material, or interspersed with it. And snip any
quoted material that isn't needed to understand the context of your
reply. (Look at what other people are doing for examples.)
Google Groups doesn't make it obvious how to do this, but it's possible:
If you are reading us through Google Groups, when you're looking at a
message, instead of hitting "reply" at the bottom of that message, hit
"show options" at the top of it. Then hit "reply" from the list of
options that brings up, and it will give you proper quoting and even
attributions ("So-and-so wrote:").
Thank you for reading this far. If you have any questions about this
F.A.Q., or if you have any suggestions for improving its usefulness,
please either reply to this message, or email me.
R.L.
< offers hot chocolate and sandwiches >
R.L.
AboutWordsAgent
Nice to meet you, and thanks for explaining the rules here. It's been
a while since I was on these groups.
Zeborah wrote:
> Now, below -- no wish to be adversarial, but there are a lot of scam
> agents out there, so us authors need to be careful. Since you're
> confident that you're a good agent, you'll be happy to clarify my
> questions, right?
Sure, although we may end up simply disagreeing about some things. I
don't work exactly like any other agent, so I don't always fit neatly
into the 'rules' that some people have made up about agents. I'm happy
to answer your questions, and those of others.
In fact, I hope this leads to questions about writing, editing, and
publishing that I can help with on this forum. That's why I came on
here in the first place. That, and to work with more sf/f again...
> > Other agents who work with independent editors get kickbacks from them,
> > and refer authors to only them before offering representation. We
> > don't do that. We recommend Bobbie, of course, but we also recommend
> > many other independent editors:
> > http://writers.aboutwords.org/tipseditors.html
>
> There's no "of course" about it. It's a conflict of interest for you to
> recommend any particular editor, particularly one who has been involved
> in your agency so closely.
The 'of course' is because I wouldn't work with her at all if she
wasn't good at what she does. I've seen her work, and even paid her
for some of it, on behalf of my clients. So of course I'm going to
recommend her, along with other editors.
Why it's a conflict of interest for me to recommend Bobbie, along with
other independent editors, is not clear to me. I am very open and
honest about my relationship with Bobbie, so that bias is obvious along
with my recommendations. I recommend several different editors, if
needed, not just her. And I never make money from our relationship,
ever. So I don't get anything out of recommending her. So, no
conflict of interest, because I have no interest/money from her.
> http://agency.aboutwords.org/zebra.html says:
> "In addition to our in-house readers, we use an outside agency to help
> us handle the large number of queries we receive daily. Zebra
> Communications has agreed to provide free feedback in return for sending
> information about its services, with no obligation required or implied."
>
> I parse this as About Words giving Zebra Communications authors'
> personal details (address etc) without the authors' permission; is this
> correct?
Yes, that is correct, only by way of Zebra helping process the queries.
However, she does not keep them in paper or electronic form. She only
uses them to send the feedback and information about her business with
it, that one time. She does this to help the writers and to give a
free personalized no-obligation feedback to them. Then she recycles
the part of the submission that is not returned to the author.
> Results from a google search suggest that Zebra Communications gets
> first look at the mss submitted to you; is that correct? And is it the
> case then that Zebra are the ones who reply to authors; and if so, do
> they recommend professional editing; and if so, do they offer their own
> services?
Yes, Zebra gets first look at the majority, not all, of the mss
submitted to About Words because she is our first reader, and the only
one that has stuck with it the whole time. Yes, she helps me reply to
authors, for free at no obligation whatsoever. No, she does not
usually recommend professional editing. Her feedback is designed to
help the writer self-edit their manuscript, which the vast majority do,
of course.
> Because if so, then whether or not there's any obligation, there is
> certainly conflict of interest, and Zebra is taking advantage of a
> relationship the submitting authors didn't even realise they were
> getting into.
The submitting authors know exactly what they're getting into, because
I make it very clear on the website, and on places like this. They
usually don't mind because it's free and at no obligation whatsoever,
and no other agent will tell them why they are being rejected.
If they do mind, they simply don't submit, or submit through email,
which I and the other agents read, not Zebra. I don't see it as Zebra
taking advantage of the author. Rather, the author is gaining
something quite valuable from an experienced editor, for free.
No other agent gives feedback like this, and the authors that get that
feedback appreciate it, even if it's just from an experienced
independent editor (who has her own published books, and has edited for
publishing companies, and has over 30 years of experience), at least at
first. When they get better, they will get feedback from at least one
agent, as well as one of the readers, of which Bobbie is one.
We have a policy of allowing and even encouraging re-submissions of
queries. When I see the same submission again, better but not quite
there, I encourage them further and give more feedback, and usually
also encourage them to get into a critique group, which is on my query
feedback form.
> > We actually prefer that an author write and edit their book themselves,
> > and work with a critique group.
>
> Then why do you say "The first thing you need to do is find an editor
> with the right kind of experience for your type of book."?
The only place I can think of with that kind of wording has to do with
choosing which independent editor to work with AFTER deciding that is
the best course for you. We prefer that an author is self-edited, but
in a small number of cases it doesn't work that way at first. Some
authors feel they need more help to get started. Back in the old days,
an editor at a publisher would help with it. These days, critique
groups, packagers, independent editors and agents fill in the blanks.
> > 100% of the income for About Words Agency (and myself, since I work as
> > a literary agent full-time and own the agency) is from commissions. No
> > fees, ever. Bobbie and I simply like to help writers, and between us
> > we've helped over 65,000 writers since 1994. It may be hard to
> > believe, but it's true.
>
> How many writers since 1994 have you helped to publication? 14? In 12
> years? Can you explain why so few?
On the agents page, I explain that there was a significant sabbatical
between the two agencies. From 1999 until 2004, I took a break to
rethink the business and spend more time with my family.
I decided to start another agency only when I was sure I would get help
with replying to the queries (from Bobbie, other readers, and other
agents in the agency), and have other agents to back me and each other
up, as well as a dramatic rights agent and foreign rights agent. Those
were only some of the changes I made based on experience doing
everything myself, often the hard way.
It's more interesting to note that the average number sales for a
beginning literary agent is one book in five years, and I sold thirteen
in that same amount of time, during the time that was true.
So it's really 13 in 5 years, and 1 more in 2 years. It's much tougher
now to sell books, I've found (especially by first-time authors), than
it was back then, although we hope to announce a few more sales soon.
Cyli
<su...@aboutwords.org> wrote:
What you did here that was not good started with not reading the FAQ
and then not reading the group for a week or two before posting. Had
you done both of those, which all Netiquette posts and Web pages
recommend before posting to 'Net newsgroups, your post would not have
been done as it was.
For what Preditors and Editors think is not good about your agency,
you can probably find out by going to their Web page.
--
r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
Really. http://www.visi.com/~cyli
Bill Swears
> For what Preditors and Editors think is not good about your agency,
> you can probably find out by going to their Web page.
I'm probably stupid, but I couldn't find out the specifics. I think
their take was entirely based on the recommending editors for hire stance.
since there is a market for professional editing, and there are multiply
published authors who have used that type of service, I think it falls
into the category of much debated rather than explicitly evil....
Bill
--
Bill Swears
Ever Inappropriate, always contrite, and now... Ironic! How cool is that?
Wilson Heydt
Post without quoting for conext, for one thing.
Post ads in a group that doesn't want ads for another.
For a more general response, see the URLs that were psoted.
--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA
My dime, my opinions.
Zeborah
> Cyli wrote:
>
> > For what Preditors and Editors think is not good about your agency,
> > you can probably find out by going to their Web page.
>
> I'm probably stupid, but I couldn't find out the specifics. I think
> their take was entirely based on the recommending editors for hire stance.
Glancing over the list, and over About Words' website, it'll be:
* Recommends specific editing services by name without being asked.
* Shares writer names with an editing service.
* Requires writers to submit through a clearinghouse, such as an editing
service.
* Recommends specific publicity services by name without being asked.
> since there is a market for professional editing, and there are multiply
> published authors who have used that type of service, I think it falls
> into the category of much debated rather than explicitly evil....
Their sales weren't very high by recommended standards (10 sales in 18
months) even in the 90s, and they've only sold one thing in the last two
or three years, to a small publisher of military nonfiction. Whether or
not it's evil it doesn't yet seem to be terribly effective, though this
may change since they say more sales are on the way.
I've got to get to work but I'm in the middle of writing a proper reply
to Susan which I'll post when I get home.
David Friedman
Cyli <cyl...@com.invalid> wrote:
> For what Preditors and Editors think is not good about your agency,
> you can probably find out by going to their Web page.
I don't think so. At least, I couldn't find anything specifically about
that agency, just a general list of bad things that some agencies do and
the inclusion of that agency as one of the ones that isn't recommended.
If someone did find something more specific, perhaps he can provide the
URL.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
Marilee J. Layman
>I'm Susan Graham,
Ooooooh, one of the *bad* agents!
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
Marilee J. Layman
<su...@aboutwords.org> wrote:
>I am not "advertising" since all I am offering is to answer questions
>for writers, for free, in the Google Group and on here. Plus, I happen
>to be looking for sf/f books to represent.
>
>Can we start this on a more pleasant note, rather than an adversarial
>one?
Are you kidding? The industry says you're a bad agent. Why should we
bother?
Zeborah
> Hi Zeborah,
>
> Nice to meet you, and thanks for explaining the rules here. It's been
> a while since I was on these groups.
Different groups have different rules too, which confuses things...
> Zeborah wrote:
>
> > Now, below -- no wish to be adversarial, but there are a lot of scam
> > agents out there, so us authors need to be careful. Since you're
> > confident that you're a good agent, you'll be happy to clarify my
> > questions, right?
>
> Sure, although we may end up simply disagreeing about some things. I
> don't work exactly like any other agent, so I don't always fit neatly
> into the 'rules' that some people have made up about agents. I'm happy
> to answer your questions, and those of others.
Since many of those 'rules' are for authors' protection you can
understand that we might be a bit suspicious of people operating
differently.
> In fact, I hope this leads to questions about writing, editing, and
> publishing that I can help with on this forum. That's why I came on
> here in the first place. That, and to work with more sf/f again...
Sounds good.
<snip>
> Why it's a conflict of interest for me to recommend Bobbie, along with
> other independent editors, is not clear to me. I am very open and
> honest about my relationship with Bobbie, so that bias is obvious along
> with my recommendations. I recommend several different editors, if
> needed, not just her. And I never make money from our relationship,
> ever. So I don't get anything out of recommending her. So, no
> conflict of interest, because I have no interest/money from her.
You may not be making money from your relationship, but you are getting
free or cheap slush-reading services from her. She in turn is getting a
free chance at advertising her services directly to a pool of writers
which will include the naive and desperate.
> > Then why do you say "The first thing you need to do is find an editor
> > with the right kind of experience for your type of book."?
>
> The only place I can think of with that kind of wording has to do with
> choosing which independent editor to work with AFTER deciding that is
> the best course for you.
The phrasing could be clearer if you want to encourage more self-editing
and crit groups, then; something like "We prefer that our authors
self-edit [etc; perhaps point out that this will help the author's
skills improve for future books as well]. However, if you *really* need
help and can't find a crit group..."
You could also include links to online critique groups; we list a few in
our FAQ here, including:
* http://critters.org
* http://www.hatrack.com
* http://www.fmwriters.com/
> > How many writers since 1994 have you helped to publication? 14? In 12
> > years? Can you explain why so few?
>
> On the agents page, I explain that there was a significant sabbatical
> between the two agencies. From 1999 until 2004, I took a break to
> rethink the business and spend more time with my family.
I've found messages via a Google search suggesting you were back with
the agency around 2003, though perhaps people were confused by Bobbie's
relationship with it.
It's still quite a lower sales rate than Writers Beware recommends:
"a reasonable minimum standard is the AAR's requirement for new
members--at least 10 sales within the past 18 months"
and
"As a rule of thumb, a new agent should begin making regular sales to a
variety of publishers within six months to a year."
(both from the excellent page http://www.sfwa.org/beware/agents.html)
A new point -- I note your website recommends Breakthrough Promotions to
help authors with their marketing, at a price. Isn't it the publisher's
job to arrange marketing? And isn't it the agent's job to negotiate
with the publisher for more marketing efforts if they're being slow off
the mark? Not the author's job to arrange it, and certainly not to pay
for it. The money flows *to* the author, *always*; that's the rule.
I notice a few books on their client list are with major publishers, but
not many. A far larger number, possibly most -- I don't recognise most
of the imprints which is worrying in itself -- are with vanity/POD
publishers like iUniverse and PublishAmerica. And I don't recognise
*any* of the authors or titles, though this may be because they
specialise in mystery while I'm into sf/f. None of these things are, to
my mind, a sterling recommendation either for Breakthrough Promotions or
for an agent specialising in sf/f who recommends them....
> It's more interesting to note that the average number sales for a
> beginning literary agent is one book in five years, and I sold thirteen
> in that same amount of time, during the time that was true.
"Average" is one thing; "beneficial to authors" is quite another....
Which is getting to the meat of my reply. I'm thinking in a couple of
directions at once so will try not to get too jumbled, though it will be
long-winded.
Firstly, you say that you want to help new authors. It seems to me that
there are two things new authors need help in: one is writing skills,
and the other is business skills. Now, there are plenty of critique
groups out there, both online and face-to-face (and you even recommend
these) so that's not so critical. Besides which, authors are in the
business for the sake of their writing, so they're self-motivated to
find ways to improve themselves on that.
Business skills though are an entirely different matter. Writers aren't
business people for the most part. (A shame; it'd be an easier way of
making money.) And there aren't many places that support writers
through this side of things. Which is why the concept of a literary
agent came about: to serve as the go-between and handle the business
side of things for authors.
So when an agent says that they want to help authors improve their
writing skills, I generally shrug at the very least. To me, that's not
an agent's job; their job is to help facilitate the numerous
interactions between me and publishers. I'm also to some extent
sceptical of whether they can do a good job of that facilitation if
they're also spending a lot of time trying to help me and other writers
improve their skills. I presume you're confident that this isn't the
case for you because of the work Bobbie Christmas does for you; which
gets me to my next point:
Some of the ways you operate are very similar to some of the ways a scam
agent operates. That's not to say you are one; but appearing like one
is damaging to everyone concerned:
Firstly, it's damaging to your agency. It means that authors who do
know the basics of the publishing business will avoid submitting to your
agency. You're weeding out the most businesslike authors, which means
weeding out authors who'll be easier to work with, possibly even some of
those most serious about writing as a career (rather than a one-novel
wonder). This doesn't seem in your interest when you want to build a
list of serious businesslike authors who you can work with over their
whole career.
Secondly, it's damaging to the new authors you want to help. Because if
you convince them that your agency (despite its close association with a
fee-charging book doctor) is legitimate, why should they be worried when
they come across other agencies that are closely associated with
fee-charging book doctors? You're blurring the line between legitimate
agencies and scam operations, and increasing the likelihood of new
authors naively signing up with agencies that are scams. This is
especially dangerous and damaging because business skills, and the
ability to tell scam from legit, are the things that new authors really
are needing help in.
Thirdly, it's damaging to the authors you represent. Because if your
agency has a poor reputation (and it does, I think, looking at that "Not
recommended" notation on Preditors and Editors) then it will hurt your
ability to interest publishers in material you submit to them, and your
ability to credibly negotiate with them. ("Many editors give unknown
agents only slightly more priority than unagented authors." also from
http://www.sfwa.org/beware/agents.html)
So I think that the way you operate, even if well-intentioned (because I
still can't tell for certain), is not in the best interests of your
agency's reputation or of its gaining a list of professional authors;
and is also not in the long-term interests of new authors who submit to
you and are rejected; and is also not in the long-term interests of the
authors you represent.
> So it's really 13 in 5 years, and 1 more in 2 years. It's much tougher
> now to sell books, I've found (especially by first-time authors), than
> it was back then, although we hope to announce a few more sales soon.
Good luck; I'll look forward to hearing about those (um, though this
wouldn't be the place to advertise them. You could mention something
briefly in your .sig though; that's usually kept at four lines or less).
Zeborah
> On 30 Apr 2006 19:21:47 -0700, "AboutWordsAgent"
> <su...@aboutwords.org> wrote:
>
> >I am not "advertising" since all I am offering is to answer questions
> >for writers, for free, in the Google Group and on here. Plus, I happen
> >to be looking for sf/f books to represent.
> >
> >Can we start this on a more pleasant note, rather than an adversarial
> >one?
>
> Are you kidding? The industry says you're a bad agent. Why should we
> bother?
It's possible that she's just not entirely
competent/effective/successful, rather than being a scammer; I'm waiting
on more information. (If you have information other than that on
Preditors and Editors and the Water Cooler and such, please share!)
That's no more reason for an author to submit to her agency of course,
but it doesn't seem reason for impoliteness either.
Kat R
> In article <n0eb52t503e8o21qj...@4ax.com>,
> Cyli <cyl...@com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For what Preditors and Editors think is not good about your agency,
>> you can probably find out by going to their Web page.
>
> I don't think so. At least, I couldn't find anything specifically about
> that agency, just a general list of bad things that some agencies do and
> the inclusion of that agency as one of the ones that isn't recommended.
>
> If someone did find something more specific, perhaps he can provide the
> URL.
>
Regardless of the appropriateness of advertising one's services on this
group, one thing does give me pause: the agency has insufficient sales
to support the four agents it has on board--or even a single
agent--without some supplement to income if they do, indeed, get only
the standard commission. The fact that the agency also offers seminars
for which it charges (and that is the first thing one is directed to on
the site) and that the agency has a preferential arrangement with an
editing service that also acts as its slush reading service, tends to
imply that the main source of income is, in fact, seminar fees and some
kind of kickback or profit-share from the editorial service.
It is also a bit questionable that the seminar seems to offer exactly
the same services that can be had for free otherwise by mailing in the
ms for evaluation.
If the agency is making such small sales, how can it afford to support
so many agents? or where does the income come from? These are the
things that cause me discomfort with respect to this agency from the
small information available at this time, from this source.
--
Kat Richardson
Greywalker, coming from Roc, October 3, 2006
http://www.katrichardson.com/
Zeborah
> In article <n0eb52t503e8o21qj...@4ax.com>,
> Cyli <cyl...@com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > For what Preditors and Editors think is not good about your agency,
> > you can probably find out by going to their Web page.
>
> I don't think so. At least, I couldn't find anything specifically about
> that agency, just a general list of bad things that some agencies do and
> the inclusion of that agency as one of the ones that isn't recommended.
>
> If someone did find something more specific, perhaps he can provide the
> URL.
http://www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/peala.htm
David Friedman
zeb...@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
That tells us that it is not recommended, quotes without comment from
the agency's self-description, and has a link to the agency's page.
There is no explanation of why it is not recommended.
Dirk van den Boom
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 16:48:36 +1200, Zeborah wrote:
>
>
> < offers hot chocolate and sandwiches >
Yes, please. And some biscuits?
Zeborah
> In article <1heq1lp.1quqta7qd98udN%zeb...@gmail.com>,
> zeb...@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>
> > David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <n0eb52t503e8o21qj...@4ax.com>,
> > > Cyli <cyl...@com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > For what Preditors and Editors think is not good about your agency,
> > > > you can probably find out by going to their Web page.
> > >
> > > I don't think so. At least, I couldn't find anything specifically about
> > > that agency, just a general list of bad things that some agencies do and
> > > the inclusion of that agency as one of the ones that isn't recommended.
> > >
> > > If someone did find something more specific, perhaps he can provide the
> > > URL.
> >
> > http://www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/peala.htm
>
> That tells us that it is not recommended, quotes without comment from
> the agency's self-description, and has a link to the agency's page.
> There is no explanation of why it is not recommended.
I think there's a point where one is expected to use one's own brain.
Given that:
a) About Words is not recommended by Preditors and Editors;
b) P&E has a list of reasons why agencies might be not recommended;
c) P&E has a link to the About Words website, which has a fair amount of
information about the agency's operations;
it is fairly easy to deduce that the reasons that About Words is not
recommended are (as I posted in another message in this thread):
* Recommends specific editing services by name without being asked.
* Shares writer names with an editing service.
* Requires writers to submit through a clearinghouse, such as an editing
service.
* Recommends specific publicity services by name without being asked.
Cyli wrote directly in answer to Susan, who could be expected to be
familiar with her own agency and would therefore be able even more
easily to join the dots.
R.L.
> R.L. schrieb:
>> On Mon, 1 May 2006 16:48:36 +1200, Zeborah wrote:
>>
>>
>> < offers hot chocolate and sandwiches [ to Zeborah, who has been spending much good time and energy ] >
>
> Yes, please. And some biscuits?
< brings more >
R.L.
AboutWordsAgent
> It's still quite a lower sales rate than Writers Beware recommends:
> "a reasonable minimum standard is the AAR's requirement for new
> members--at least 10 sales within the past 18 months"
> and
> "As a rule of thumb, a new agent should begin making regular sales to a
> variety of publishers within six months to a year."
> (both from the excellent page http://www.sfwa.org/beware/agents.html)
Yes, that would be nice, but it's not a perfect world, and you will
notice that most literary agents are not members of AAR. About Words
Agency has always adhered to AAR guidelines, however.
> A new point -- I note your website recommends Breakthrough Promotions to
> help authors with their marketing, at a price. Isn't it the publisher's
> job to arrange marketing?
You would think so, but unfortunately, that is not often the case. I
think it is one of the flaws in the publishing industry. As a result,
approximately 80% of new books do not go beyond a first printing.
These days, most publishers think marketing and promotion is the
author's job. If the book takes off, then they might cough up some
money for promotion. Of course, if they already have given a large
advance, they will also include some promotion money. The larger the
advance, the more they include for promotion.
In any case, I list Breakthrough Promotions because it took me many
years to find a book promoter who corresponded quickly and correctly,
had unsolicited positive praise from someone I trust, seemed to know
what they're doing and have the resources to accomplish it, and didn't
charge the usual $2000-$5000 per month. So I offer them as one
alternative to doing it on your own (I recommend two books to help with
that), or being what I consider 'ripped off' by expensive book
promotion companies. It's just a helpful link, nothing more. I really
hope I find at least one more. Please tell me if you know of one.
> And isn't it the agent's job to negotiate with the publisher for
> more marketing efforts if they're being slow off the mark?
Yes, but if the book isn't selling very well, the publisher isn't going
to put any more money into it, as a general rule.
> Not the author's job to arrange it, and certainly not to pay
> for it. The money flows *to* the author, *always*; that's the rule.
Yes, the publisher and agent should always send money *to* the author.
The promotion and marketing is not something the publisher or agent
charge for. But if the publisher is not promoting the book (the
general rule, especially for a first book), or not promoting it enough,
the author should not sit there and expect the book to sell itself.
They should get out there and promote it themselves, and that costs
money, even if it's just gas money to go to local bookstores for
signings.
Fiction books usually have about 90 days, sometimes less, to make it or
not, and if they don't sell, usually they go back to the publisher
after that time, returned for credit. This is the reason for the
"reserve against returns" that shows up in the contract and on your
statement. It has gone up in recent years, because the returns have
gone up, to 30% or more. (Yet another problem with the publishing
industry, not so very easy to solve.)
For an interesting industry study on the problem completed in 2000, see
the "Authors Guild Study of the Midlist Book" at
(http://www.authorsguild.org/miscfiles/midlist.pdf). It's also one of
the helpful links on the website.
> Firstly, it's damaging to your agency. It means that authors who do
> know the basics of the publishing business will avoid submitting to your
> agency...
Not quite true. Many authors ask me about my policies because of what
they have read, and because I don't even discuss Zebra when I talk with
the author about representation (because it's not relevant), and do get
specific about plans for their book, they have no problem working with
me.
I am, however, annoyed that my reputation is tarnished for the
potential clients that don't bother to ask what's going on. I think
because SFWA and others have been so adament about this, I have less
science fiction and fantasy writers submitting to me now, and I'm
unhappy about that.
It's one reason I am on this forum, among others, where I knew very
well I might be exposed to attacks yet again. I chose to offer to help
writers despite that possibility, which has indeed happened. I'm happy
that I'm also being given the chance to explain and defend myself, so
authors will no longer have to wonder and worry about what 'not
recommended' might mean, and make an informed choice about whether to
work with About Words Agency or not.
> Secondly, it's damaging to the new authors you want to help...
> You're blurring the line between legitimate agencies and scam
> operations, and increasing the likelihood of new authors naively
> signing up with agencies that are scams.
I disagree. I make the difference between what we do and what scammers
do very clear on the web page and in person. When I give seminars, or
talk with authors, I warn them against paying money to an agent or to a
publisher. And I explain the system of agents referring to just one
editor and getting a kickback for it, and how to tell the difference.
> Thirdly, it's damaging to the authors you represent. Because if your
> agency has a poor reputation (and it does, I think, looking at that "Not
> recommended" notation on Preditors and Editors) then it will hurt your
> ability to interest publishers in material you submit to them, and your
> ability to credibly negotiate with them. ("Many editors give unknown
> agents only slightly more priority than unagented authors." also from
> http://www.sfwa.org/beware/agents.html)
That is definitely not true, from my experience. On my first trip up
to NYC in February 1994, I met with top editors who knew that I was a
beginner, and knew hardly anything about being an agent, including
Thomas Dunne and Phyllis Grann. Now that I've been to NYC and trade
conventions many times, and made thousands of phone calls to editors
over the years, I know many more, all of whom I am friendly with, one
of which is now a very good friend and a top sf/f editor.
Preditors and Editors, and whoever else might not be happy with how I
work, do not at all affect my ability to get my clients' work in front
of any editor. It's my opinion that they have affected my ability to
get good sf/f submissions. I hope that changes.
> Good luck; I'll look forward to hearing about those (um, though this
> wouldn't be the place to advertise them. You could mention something
> briefly in your .sig though; that's usually kept at four lines or less).
Thanks for the tip, Zeborah! <smile>
-Susan Graham
About Words Agency
Zeborah
> Zeborah wrote:
> > It's still quite a lower sales rate than Writers Beware recommends:
> > "a reasonable minimum standard is the AAR's requirement for new
> > members--at least 10 sales within the past 18 months"
> > and
> > "As a rule of thumb, a new agent should begin making regular sales to a
> > variety of publishers within six months to a year."
> > (both from the excellent page http://www.sfwa.org/beware/agents.html)
>
> Yes, that would be nice, but it's not a perfect world, and you will
> notice that most literary agents are not members of AAR. About Words
> Agency has always adhered to AAR guidelines, however.
Do you mean the Canon of Ethics
(http://www.aar-online.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=10337)?
"[...] Members may not solicit or accept any payment or other thing of
value in connection with their referral of any author to any third party
for any purpose [...]
You're referring some of your authors directly to Zebra, and most of
them indirectly (by sending their manuscripts to Zebra for
slush-reading) and though you're not receiving payment you are receiving
a thing of value, which is Zebra's services to you in reading the slush.
[...] members may not charge clients or potential clients for reading
and evaluating literary works and may not benefit, directly or
indirectly, from the charging for such services by any other person or
entity. [...]
By receiving Zebra's services of reading your slush, you're benefitting
indirectly from the fact that they're charging some of your potential
clients for editing.
If this isn't clear, what I see happening is:
Authors submit to you; Zebra replies with comments plus advertisement;
author replies to ad, pays for Zebra's book editing services.
->
This payment makes it worth Zebra's while to keep reading the slush and
advertising more.
->
You benefit by receiving Zebra's slush-reading services.
If you want to say that you're not benefitting in such a way, then you
need to either not use their slush-reading services; or to not advertise
them to your clients and potential clients and stop Zebra advertising
themselves to your potential clients.
> > A new point -- I note your website recommends Breakthrough Promotions to
> > help authors with their marketing, at a price. Isn't it the publisher's
> > job to arrange marketing?
>
> You would think so, but unfortunately, that is not often the case. I
> think it is one of the flaws in the publishing industry. As a result,
> approximately 80% of new books do not go beyond a first printing.
>
> These days, most publishers think marketing and promotion is the
> author's job.
<snip>
<blink> Either you don't understand the publishing business as well as
you think you do, or you're being misleadingly narrow in your
definition. Most marketing isn't aimed at readers; it's aimed at book
distributors and booksellers, because that's the most cost-effective way
of doing things. And that is definitely the publisher's job, and most
do it, because an author would just make a hack of it.
> In any case, I list Breakthrough Promotions because it took me many
> years to find a book promoter who corresponded quickly and correctly,
> had unsolicited positive praise from someone I trust, seemed to know
> what they're doing and have the resources to accomplish it, and didn't
> charge the usual $2000-$5000 per month. So I offer them as one
> alternative to doing it on your own (I recommend two books to help with
> that), or being what I consider 'ripped off' by expensive book
> promotion companies. It's just a helpful link, nothing more. I really
> hope I find at least one more. Please tell me if you know of one.
You need to make it far clearer that it's not by any means an ideal
situation. "If you need [help with editing/help with promoting]"
doesn't tell authors "Ideally you should have a critique group / your
publisher should be doing this for you, but if you're *really*
desperate..." It tells them "If you don't know who else to pay, try my
friends." It tells them that this is perfectly normal and unavoidable.
And it's not.
It's a matter of emphasis.
<snip>
> I am, however, annoyed that my reputation is tarnished for the
> potential clients that don't bother to ask what's going on. I think
> because SFWA and others have been so adament about this, I have less
> science fiction and fantasy writers submitting to me now, and I'm
> unhappy about that.
This is just what I'm talking about. You have fewer sf/f writers
submitting to you because Preditors and Editors have listed you as "Not
recommended". Meaning a poorer selection of mss to represent, meaning
you can pick fewer mss or poorer mss, meaning you'll make fewer sales.
That's bad for your agency and bad again for your reputation.
> > Secondly, it's damaging to the new authors you want to help...
> > You're blurring the line between legitimate agencies and scam
> > operations, and increasing the likelihood of new authors naively
> > signing up with agencies that are scams.
>
> I disagree. I make the difference between what we do and what scammers
> do very clear on the web page and in person.
No, I'm talking about the authors who submit to you thinking you're
legit, discover you're associated with Zebra, think, "Huh, I guess
literary agents work closely with book doctors," are given an offer by
some scam agent who'll send them straight to their pet book doctor, and
take the offer because they think this is just what agents do.
You don't get to talk to every author in person.
And no, it's not that clear on your webpage at all. I went looking
around trying to find if it was somewhere I hadn't looked before, and
found:
a) Zebra Communications (as evidenced by their website) doesn't have any
better editing credits than Breakthrough Promotions has marketing
credits;
and
b) You charge for evaluation of screenplays.
http://screenplays.aboutwords.org/
Let me quote again from the AAR Canon of Ethics that you said you
followed:
"The AAR believes that the practice of literary agents charging clients
or potential clients for reading and evaluating literary works
(including outlines, proposals, and partial or complete manuscripts) is
subject to serious abuse that reflects adversely on our profession. For
that reason, members may not charge clients or potential clients for
reading and evaluating literary works and may not benefit, directly or
indirectly, from the charging for such services by any other person or
entity."
And quoting you:
"100% of the income for About Words Agency (and myself, since I work as
a literary agent full-time and own the agency) is from commissions. No
fees, ever."
Something doesn't add up.
<snip>
> Preditors and Editors, and whoever else might not be happy with how I
> work, do not at all affect my ability to get my clients' work in front
> of any editor. It's my opinion that they have affected my ability to
> get good sf/f submissions. I hope that changes.
That will only happen if you stop charging for screenplay evaluations,
and stop benefitting from allowing Zebra Communications to advertise to
your potential clients, and stop referring people to Breakthrough
Promotions.
Helen Hall
AboutWordsAgent <su...@aboutwords.org> writes
>
>I chose to offer to help
I have no interest in what you do on other forums, but even if your
motives are purely selfless, we don't do the Experts giving advice to
the Newbies thing here. Well, we do, but we do it more subtly. :-)
The way to be accepted in this group is not to swan in waving what you
hope are credentials, but rather to quietly join a thread or two, add
some comments and let us gradually get to know you. Once you have
established that what you say makes sense, we might listen to you on
other matters. Advice offered in this spirit is welcome. Advice offered
in a way that makes it look like you are touting for business is not.
Sorry.
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Nicky
Zeborah wrote:
> AboutWordsAgent <su...@aboutwords.org> wrote:
>
> > > Preditors and Editors, and whoever else might not be happy with how I
> > work, do not at all affect my ability to get my clients' work in front
> > of any editor. It's my opinion that they have affected my ability to
> > get good sf/f submissions. I hope that changes.
>
> That will only happen if you stop charging for screenplay evaluations,
> and stop benefitting from allowing Zebra Communications to advertise to
> your potential clients, and stop referring people to Breakthrough
> Promotions.
>
clients
then change your business practises so that they meet the
expectations and standards of that potential client base.
Nicky
David Friedman
zeb...@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
> Most marketing isn't aimed at readers; it's aimed at book
> distributors and booksellers, because that's the most cost-effective way
> of doing things. And that is definitely the publisher's job, and most
> do it, because an author would just make a hack of it.
At a tangent ... .
I would expect the marketing aimed at book distributors and booksellers
to determine how many copies are ordered. But publishers, I gather, are
at least as interested in the sell through rate--how many of the books
that are ordered get returned. After all, if they print 10,000 copies
and sell all of them they are in much better shape than if they print
20,000 and half of them don't sell.
And I would expect authors' efforts, directed at readers rather than
distributors, to be more relevant to the sell through rate.
S. Palmer
> Preditors and Editors, and whoever else might not be happy with how I
> work, do not at all affect my ability to get my clients' work in front
> of any editor. It's my opinion that they have affected my ability to
> get good sf/f submissions. I hope that changes.
My impression of the folks who handle P&E is that they are intelligent
and reasonable people who are interested in making sure that the
information they provide to authors is accurate. If the "not
recommended" tag is, in your estimation, unwarranted, I'd think it well
worth your while to make your case directly to them.
As an aside, whether or not I agree with your assessments of the
publishing industry or think you're an agent I'd consider using, I do
appreciate that you've hung out and tried to explain your position. If
you are sincerely interested in honestly and effectively representing
SF/F authors, I hope you are able to straighten out whatever combination
of your business model and/or reputation you need to. As a quick browse
through the listings on P&E aptly demonstrates, we could certainly use a
few more people in the "recommended" column.
-Suzanne
Zeborah
> My impression of the folks who handle P&E is that they are intelligent
> and reasonable people who are interested in making sure that the
> information they provide to authors is accurate. If the "not
> recommended" tag is, in your estimation, unwarranted, I'd think it well
> worth your while to make your case directly to them.
<snip>
Also to Writer Beware (http://www.writerbeware.org/). I just received
an email from Victoria Strauss in reply to a query I sent:
---
I got another heads-up about Ms. Graham from a rasfc member, and sent a
response, but I'm having a lot of trouble with email right now and can't
be sure that anything I send out is getting through! Just in case it
doesn't, here's Writer Beware's standard warning about About Words;
please feel free to post it if no one else does.
Through the late 1990's, Susan Graham was a working literary agent, with
a small track record of commercial book sales. But then apparently she
got sick, and stopped actively agenting. She appears at that point to
have turned all her submissions over to Bobbie Christmas, a.k.a. Zebra
Communications, an underqualified freelance editor who recommended her
own paid editing services to everyone who submitted. Writer Beware got
a lot of reports and complaints about these referrals. It wasn't
revealed that Graham was ill and not working--Christmas just claimed
that Graham had passed the writer's work on to her because it needed
help. In addition to making editing recommendations to current
submitters, Christmas also worked her way through Graham's backlist: in
2001 I heard from writers who'd queried Graham in the mid-'90's and
suddenly received editing solicitations from Christmas.
Graham got active again in 2002 with About Words Agency. However, she's
still involved with Bobbie Christmas and Zebra Communications. According
to the agency's guidelines, everything submitted goes first through
Christmas/Zebra, which acts as the agency's "clearinghouse". In
responding to writers who ask about this setup, Graham claims that
Christmas only helps sift through queries, and inserts "marketing
information" into replies. But according to documentation I've gathered,
replies include a cover letter from Graham recommending editing "before
you submit any manuscript", and a second letter from Christmas
suggesting that "perhaps your submission would benefit by using our
services." Even if no kickbacks are involved, this is a bit more than
just help with queries.
Some submissions do make it through this "screening" system to actual
representation, but I'm not aware that Graham has made more than a
couple of sales in the time since she returned to agenting. I've also
located one client of Graham whose manuscript was edited by Christmas
after he was taken on for representation. I would suspect--though I have
no proof--that this isn't an isolated instance.
- Victoria
---
AboutWordsAgent
> Also to Writer Beware (http://www.writerbeware.org/). I just received
> an email from Victoria Strauss in reply to a query I sent:
First, I consider what they said to be at least partly defamation of
character and slander, and all of it quite slanted in the most negative
way possible. Second, Bobbie Christmas is way overqualified as a
reader and evaluator. Just look at her credentials on her website, for
yourself. (http://www.zebraeditor.com/mentor.shtml). And third, I did
continue from where I left off after my sabbatical to spend more time
with my family. I had several clients that stayed with me, and at
least one that I can think of, that I took on from the queries that
kept coming in for many weeks after I shut down the business (at the
rate of 500 per week).
AboutWordsAgent
> > however.
>
> Do you mean the Canon of Ethics
> (http://www.aar-online.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=10337)?
> "[...] Members may not solicit or accept any payment or other thing of
> value in connection with their referral of any author to any third party
> for any purpose [...]
> author replies to ad, pays for Zebra's book editing services.
> advertising more.
Here's the thing: I do not benefit from Zebra's slush-reading
services. The way we do it is much more difficult and time-consuming
than simply inserting a form letter in the SASE or putting a "No" on
the query letter and sending it back. Zebra benefits very little,
perhaps one or two clients a year from it for many hours of work. The
real beneficiary of all of this is the thousands of authors who get the
free evaluation.
Moreover, although according to AAR Guidelines, we can pass on charges
to our clients for copying, shipping, long distance calls, etc., we
choose not to do so. It's better for the clients, and it shows our
good faith in the client and the projects. We literally invest our
time and money in each project.
> b) You charge for evaluation of screenplays.
> http://screenplays.aboutwords.org/
> Let me quote again from the AAR Canon of Ethics that you said you
> followed:
> "The AAR believes that the practice of literary agents charging clients
> or potential clients for reading and evaluating literary works
> (including outlines, proposals, and partial or complete manuscripts) is
> subject to serious abuse that reflects adversely on our profession. For
> that reason, members may not charge clients or potential clients for
> reading and evaluating literary works and may not benefit, directly or
> indirectly, from the charging for such services by any other person or
> entity."
> And quoting you:
> "100% of the income for About Words Agency (and myself, since I work as
> a literary agent full-time and own the agency) is from commissions. No
> fees, ever."
> Something doesn't add up.
1) Note that screenplays are not included in that description, because
they are not considered a literary work, but rather a dramatic work.
Different rules apply to screenplays. Many dramatic rights agents
charge for evaluating screenplays. It's quite
commonplace.
2) As the website states, all queries to the screenplay division of
About Words Agency get a one-page, free, no-obligation evaluation from
an expert, as with the book division. The in-depth evaluation for the
screenplays is optional.
3) Mr. Ly Bolia, who is not a literary agent, but rather the dramatic
rights manager, is in charge of that division of About Words, and is
the sole recipient of the evaluation fees for screenplays. The
literary agents do not benefit from the optional in-depth evaluations
of screenplays, nor do we participate in them. 100% of the income for
About Words literary agents comes from commissions from selling books
to publishers on behalf of our clients, as I said.
So, anybody want to talk about Book Expo, which is coming up May 19-21
in D.C.? I and the three other About Words agents will be there.
Oh, and for anyone who will be in Atlanta tomorrow/Saturday, May 6th,
Georgia Writers (the non-profit statewide writers organization I
co-founded in 1994) is having its annual Spring Festival, and I am
giving free evaluations by myself (and no strings attached, I promise!!
:-) ) in the afternoon, and giving a free seminar at 5pm entitled
'First Impressions with a Literary Agent' about writing a good query
letter and how to interview an agent. I hope to see you there!
Wilson Heydt
AboutWordsAgent <su...@aboutwords.org> wrote:
>Zeborah wrote:
>> AboutWordsAgent <su...@aboutwords.org> wrote:
>> > About Words Agency has always adhered to AAR guidelines,
>> > however.
>>
>> Do you mean the Canon of Ethics
>> (http://www.aar-online.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=10337)?
>> "[...] Members may not solicit or accept any payment or other thing of
>> value in connection with their referral of any author to any third party
>> for any purpose [...]
>> Authors submit to you; Zebra replies with comments plus advertisement;
>> author replies to ad, pays for Zebra's book editing services.
>> This payment makes it worth Zebra's while to keep reading the slush and
>> advertising more.
>> You benefit by receiving Zebra's slush-reading services.
>
>Here's the thing: I do not benefit from Zebra's slush-reading
>services. The way we do it is much more difficult and time-consuming
>than simply inserting a form letter in the SASE or putting a "No" on
>the query letter and sending it back. Zebra benefits very little,
>perhaps one or two clients a year from it for many hours of work. The
>real beneficiary of all of this is the thousands of authors who get the
>free evaluation.
If our resident economics expert is reading this thread, he will probably
rebut your arguments in detail....
I will simply note that you *do* benefit by examining fewer manuscripts, so
there is noZebra, on the other hand, benefits by having more people who actually *have* a
manuscript to pitch her services to. Whether this is cost effective for Zebra
would take a much more detailed analysis--for which I don't think enough data
has been presented.
Wilson Heydt
AboutWordsAgent <su...@aboutwords.org> wrote:
>Zeborah wrote:
>> Also to Writer Beware (http://www.writerbeware.org/). I just received
>> an email from Victoria Strauss in reply to a query I sent:
>> ...here's Writer Beware's standard warning about About Words;
>
>First, I consider what they said to be at least partly defamation of
>character and slander, and all of it quite slanted in the most negative
>way possible.
There is only one way I know of to establish the merits of that claim. Have you tried
it? If so, what was the outcome? If not, are you sure enough of your position
to try, or is your claim all hot air?
Mary K. Kuhner
AboutWordsAgent <su...@aboutwords.org> wrote:
>Here's the thing: I do not benefit from Zebra's slush-reading
>services. The way we do it is much more difficult and time-consuming
>than simply inserting a form letter in the SASE or putting a "No" on
>the query letter and sending it back. Zebra benefits very little,
>perhaps one or two clients a year from it for many hours of work. The
>real beneficiary of all of this is the thousands of authors who get the
>free evaluation.
If you don't benefit, why do you do it?
After all, presumably Zebra does not need your involvement in
order to offer free evaluations to authors; they can do that on
their own, using mailing lists they develop themselves.
They, and you, are harvesting addresses from authors who believed
they were contacting an agent to ask her to represent their
book, and treating them as if they were requests for free
evaluations, coupled with ads, from an editing company. Even
if you believe that receiving evaluations is in authors'
best interests, this is fairly dishonest.
It also means that you have an incentive (whether financial
or just social is not clear from what you've said) to solicit
more proposals from authors than you can handle, because it
helps Zebra (and doesn't hurt you) if you do. But this is
not in authors' advantage.
Finally, if I send in a proposal to an agent, and receive
in return an ad from a book doctor, it is going to be very
easy for me to conclude that the agent is recommending the
services of the book doctor; and this is specifically what
SFWA wants to avoid. Such arrangments are so odious that
it seems worthwhile to avoid even the suspicion that one
exists.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Mary K. Kuhner
AboutWordsAgent <su...@aboutwords.org> wrote:
>The
>real beneficiary of all of this is the thousands of authors who get the
>free evaluation.
There's a credibility problem when a company which sells
editing services gives an opinion on "why your book needs
editing."
If I wanted to know if my house were structually sound I
would prefer not to hire a building repairman to tell me;
he has an economic incentive to exaggerate the problems.
And we all know what happens when you let the tobacco companies
conduct research on the hazards of tobacco.
I don't know that I could take such an evaluation very seriously
if I were a potential client of the book doctor.
(I would be interested in seeing one, though. Would it
offend you if I submitted a proposal? I actually am looking
for an agent, though I don't know that I would seriously
consider your company, due to the Editors and Preditors
listing. But I don't wish to carry on a deception of my
own.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Catja Pafort
[Zeborah]
> > How many writers since 1994 have you helped to publication? 14? In 12
> > years? Can you explain why so few?
> It's more interesting to note that the average number sales for a
> beginning literary agent is one book in five years, and I sold thirteen
> in that same amount of time, during the time that was true.
>
> So it's really 13 in 5 years, and 1 more in 2 years. It's much tougher
> now to sell books, I've found (especially by first-time authors), than
> it was back then, although we hope to announce a few more sales soon.
I just want to mention that an established agent mentioned on her blog
recently the thirteenth sale _this year_, with, I think eight or nine
last year in the same period, and it's just about May.
If a beginning agent sells one book in five years, he's a hobbyist. Yes,
every business needs time to start up, but agents also need to live of
_something_, and fifteen percent of a single advance over five years is
not very much indeed.
Especially not if it's an average, because that means for every starting
agent who sells six or eight books a year when they start up there will
be five or six who don't sell _any_ - and if you don't make any sales in
five years, I cannot see how you could possibly call yourself an agent.
Selling may be difficult, and more difficult than ever, but, quite
honestly, if you can't sell, then you should look at another career.
Quite frankly, I would expect an agent to have a reasonably good rate of
being able to pick things from her slushpile that he can sell; if he
feels that he can't sell my book - because he doens't have the contacts,
or the book simply isn't right for the marketplace - I would expect him
not to take it on. If he _does_, that's no guarantee for a sale, but I
would expect a good agent to be able to sell at least half the books he
takes on in a two year period.
Catja
Catja Pafort
> I am, however, annoyed that my reputation is tarnished for the
> potential clients that don't bother to ask what's going on. I think
> because SFWA and others have been so adament about this, I have less
> science fiction and fantasy writers submitting to me now, and I'm
> unhappy about that.
Zeborah has laid out what part of your business practices scares off
potential clients. You can change those things, although it won't be
easy. Read your own slush, or have an assistant do it. Stop refering
people to freelance editors and marketers. Stop charging fees. Stop
making such a big deal about how you're helping writers and giving
seminars and concentrate on selling books.
And thats the big one. *Sell more books.*
I am agent hunting *right now*. I have a polished Mss in an envelope on
my desk, ready to go out. I query reputable agent with good track
records in the field, agents who demonstrate that they know the field,
and who can sell books like mine. I get rejections. I go on the net and
look up more agents, and here's what I do:
- I work of a reputable listing of agents.
- I go to the agency's website.
- I query first the agents who are mentioned again and again as good
agents, agents who are getting good deals for their authors, who sell
the books of people I know, who are well-respected in the industry.
(I've still got a fair few to go)
- I research agents I don't know well. I look at their sales list, and I
want it to be prominent and easily findable. Are they selling to the top
SF publishers? If not, it goes down the list. Are they selling fantasy
at all? If not, it goes further down the list. Are they listing 'sales'
to vanity publishers like Publish America? I hum 'Atlanta Nights' and
cross it off the list.
Your website coyly dances around the topic of which books you have sold.
IIRC the information is there somewhere, but not easy to find - which
was an instant loss of points.
> Preditors and Editors, and whoever else might not be happy with how I
> work, do not at all affect my ability to get my clients' work in front
> of any editor. It's my opinion that they have affected my ability to
> get good sf/f submissions. I hope that changes.
You know what you need to do.
Catja
Catja Pafort
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
[About Words Agency]
> > > http://www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/peala.htm
> >
> > That tells us that it is not recommended, quotes without comment from
> > the agency's self-description, and has a link to the agency's page.
> > There is no explanation of why it is not recommended.
>
> I think there's a point where one is expected to use one's own brain.
No, really???
> it is fairly easy to deduce that the reasons that About Words is not
> recommended are (as I posted in another message in this thread):
>
> * Recommends specific editing services by name without being asked.
> * Shares writer names with an editing service.
> * Requires writers to submit through a clearinghouse, such as an editing
> service.
> * Recommends specific publicity services by name without being asked.
You forgot the attempt to convince potential clients that their track
record (fourteen sales in five years, IIRC) is normal for the industry
and that no sales for a startup agency are to be expected.
This may, of course, be a case of ineptitude; someone setting out and
having no luck at all. _Most_ agents who hang out a shingle are,
however, familiar with the industry, might have a couple of clients they
acquired as assistants to another agent, or in their capacity as editors
etc, and will therefor have a modest amount of sales even in their first
year - in fact, if they weren't sure they would have sales, they'd
probably not set up on their own.
The Writers Beware take on agents to be avoided is lack of success seems
to be often the beginning of a slippery slope - someone sets out with
best intentions, but can't support themselves from their sales. (15% of
average first or second novel advances ain't much if you only have a
few.)
Some, of course, decide the business is not for them. Some work harder
or have lucky breaks or go and meet more editors and find out what they
need and break into the business. Some... look for other sources of
income. They write books about how to get an agent and sell them from
their website. They offer seminars and editing services. They begin to
charge fees...
Catja
AboutWordsAgent
I don't know that I could take such an evaluation very seriously
if I were a potential client of the book doctor.
(I would be interested in seeing one, though. Would it
offend you if I submitted a proposal? I actually am looking
for an agent, though I don't know that I would seriously
consider your company, due to the Editors and Preditors
listing. But I don't wish to carry on a deception of my
own.)
----------
I would be happy to post an evaluation or two on here, or send them
privately and let the author quote or comment to this forum whatever
they like from the evaluations. Let me know. You know my email
address, and you're welcome to reply to this, as well.
If you do decide to take me up on it, please send a query letter,
synopsis (fiction) or book proposal (nonfiction) and first 20 pages, in
Word doc format, as attachments. Email subject "Evaluation", please,
so it doesn't get lost in the queries.
-Susan
P.S.--We're in the middle of making another sale, btw.