Submitting is easy once you stop thinking about it
Christopher B. Wright
queried. Today I sent out a query letter to another agent. For a brief
moment I obsessed over the query letter, wondering if it wasn't good
enough, but I decided I've already spent far too long (the better part
of a year) trying to get it "just right" so I might as well use it
until someone writes back saying "look, your query letter sucks." Once
I realized that, the act of printing out the letter and stuffing it in
an envelope with a SASE became as easy as it should have been to begin
with.
I've got my next potential publisher all queued up and ready to go,
too, in the event I get a "no thanks" from the current one.
I don't have to think about it any more! What a relief.
Christopher B. Wright (ubersoft -at- gmail -dot- com)
R. L.
wrote:
Secretary hat. :-) What can be easier than, for a few moments, to carry a
letter that isn't yours to the mailbox?
R.L.
hm, where's a role model in Williams for actually reading your ms instead
of putting off the treat till I feel the moment is just right to do it
justice....
--
RL at houseboatontheganges dot com
for Indian river read styx
Christopher B. Wright
That reminds me, I need to start working on that again. I've been
getting distracted by far too many things...
Oh look, something shiny...
Frank
Christopher B. Wright wrote:
> Hah!
>
> That reminds me, I need to start working on that again. I've been
> getting distracted by far too many things...
>
> Oh look, something shiny...
[chuckle]
LMurdock
letter to send out another query. Although it used to be frowned upon,
it is now common practice for authors to send out multiple queries.
However, multiple submissions are still regarded as unwelcome. A query
becomes a submission once an agent or publisher expresses interest in
your work and asks for further materials. At this point, it is
considered bad form to send out queries/submissions to anyone else.
If you want someone to take a quick look at your query letter, I'm
always happy to offer a quick professional peek and response (a.k.a.
- it's good or it needs some work) for free (just to ease your
mind).
Let me know if I can help.
All the Best,
Lindsay Elizabeth
MS Editor and Publishing Consultant
TheMurdo...@hotmail.com
Frank
How about the other side of that? I queried a small press in April
regarding my series of novels. They jumped all over it and have
expressed great interest...even asking for some minor conceptual
changes. We started talking about contracts but they haven't sent one.
They said they would shortly. Then nothing. I asked for an update
and they said they were waiting for the sales figures for 2005's 1st
half to set their new books budget for 2006. This sounded reasonable,
but another two weeks went by. I emailed for another update. That was
two weeks ago and there's been no response.
Am I being unreasonable? I feel like I am not, as I have not queried
these novels to any other publishers since this press responded so
exuberantly in April.
Same question with an agent. I queried an agent with a book that was
co-authored with my friend. She did not like the book, but liked the
writing and asked for a different book. I sent her one of mine and,
with his permission, my friend's first.
The agent said she was interested in my friend's book. I said that was
wonderful and put the two in direct contact. I asked her if she was
interested in mine or taking a pass. She asked for more time because
she really wanted to work with both of us. I said okay, and have not
queried any further agents.
In the interim, she has signed my friend to a contract and according to
him, she has a large publisher interested in the book. After three
weeks, I sent her another email, asking the same question. Are you
interested, or are you taking a pass? That was over a week ago. No
response.
It should be noted that all of my emails have been pleasant and
businesslike.
So my question is, on both, do you think I am being unreasonable in my
expectations? I am not thin-skinned and have a stack of rejections
like every other writer who braves the waters. I'll gladly move on to
the next agent or publisher...but I don't want to tank a good
opportunity, either. Mostly, I just want an answer.
Zeborah
> How about the other side of that? I queried a small press in April
> regarding my series of novels. They jumped all over it and have
> expressed great interest...even asking for some minor conceptual
> changes. We started talking about contracts but they haven't sent one.
> They said they would shortly. Then nothing. I asked for an update
> and they said they were waiting for the sales figures for 2005's 1st
> half to set their new books budget for 2006. This sounded reasonable,
> but another two weeks went by. I emailed for another update. That was
> two weeks ago and there's been no response.
>
> Am I being unreasonable? I feel like I am not, as I have not queried
> these novels to any other publishers since this press responded so
> exuberantly in April.
I don't know about timeframes for novels for small presses; that might
be a bit quick, though I would think it would be perfectly reasonable to
ask them to give you a date by which they'll let you know; it would also
be reasonable if you gave them a date after which you'd withdraw the
submission, though I'd probably wait longer for that myself.
But in any case, you can certainly query other publishers (ie send out a
one-page letter, but not the manuscript itself, saying, "Are you
interested in my series of novels, they're about [paragraph-length
blurb]. Let me know if you're interested in seeing a copy of the
manuscript") while you wait on this one. It's just that if one of those
publishers writes back and says yes, they do want to see the manuscript,
as I understand it it's safest to then either a) withdraw it from the
first small-press, or b) tell the requesting publisher that the
manuscript is with someone else at the moment and you'll send it to them
if/when it becomes available.
> Same question with an agent.
Same answer, I think: you could ask for a deadline, or give her a
deadline, and/or query other agents in the meantime.
> It should be noted that all of my emails have been pleasant and
> businesslike.
You're definitely doing that right. :-) And you've kept writing on some
other project in the meantime too, right?
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
Patricia C. Wrede
news:1125718359....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> How about the other side of that? I queried a small press in April
> regarding my series of novels. They jumped all over it and have
> expressed great interest...even asking for some minor conceptual
> changes. We started talking about contracts but they haven't sent one.
> They said they would shortly. Then nothing. I asked for an update
> and they said they were waiting for the sales figures for 2005's 1st
> half to set their new books budget for 2006. This sounded reasonable,
> but another two weeks went by. I emailed for another update. That was
> two weeks ago and there's been no response.
>
> Am I being unreasonable? I feel like I am not, as I have not queried
> these novels to any other publishers since this press responded so
> exuberantly in April.
The general rule of thumb at a large publishing house is that you can expect
to see your contract about six to eight weeks after the editor makes you an
offer. They *can* do it faster, and they do when they're excited about a
hot manuscript or when the moon is in the correct phase, but it can take
longer, too.
Small presses are all over the map. I know of a couple that have about a
one-week turnaround, from offer to contract-in-mail; others can take months,
because the small press is basically a labor of love run by one guy in
between doing his day job (and yes, some of these publish more
books-per-year than you'd think possible for something one guy is doing in
his spare time). Or sometimes it's just that small presses, being small,
tend not to have a lot of depth in staffing -- if something goes wrong or
gets difficult, everybody has to drop everything to deal with it.
Four or five months, however, is getting to be a bit much. If you know
other writers in your field, or if there's a "black hole" web site for your
genre, ask around or check to see if there's any scuttlebut about what's
going on -- if the press is fighting not to declare bankruptcy, you have one
situation; if it's a one-man show and his mother just died, you have a
completely different one. If you can't find out what's going on that might
make the situation more reasonable, you have a tough choice: hang in there
for a while longer, or decide you've sunk enough time into this and pull the
book. You can, to some extent, split the difference, by sending a note
stating that if you don't have a contract within another three weeks (or
another month, or whatever deadline you think is reasonable), you will pull
the book. This will, however, make some places cancel their offer
immediately and return your ms.
The thing that makes me a bit nervous is your comment that "they were
waiting for the sales figures for 2005's 1st half to set their new books
budget for 2006." Does this mean they have not actually made you an offer
yet? The usual procedure is for the editor to write or call the author and
say "We would like to buy your book for a $xxxxx advance and standard
royalties; would that be OK?" If they only said "We'd like to buy your
book; would you make these revisions?" you haven't actually got a sale yet.
This does *not* necessarily mean you're being taken advantage of; I've known
people who've run small presses who have been utterly clueless about
standard business practice, legal niceties, and so on, but who were also
utterly and completely honest and ethical and hardworking and so on. Most
of them wise up fairly fast, however.
If you *have* an offer and you have accepted it, there's no reason why they
should have to wait to see current sales figures in order to send you a
contract.
You can also, as Zeborah said, query other publishers without pulling the
book, though you won't be able to submit it elsewhere if you get a positive
response. My feeling on that, in this particular situation, is that it
would be a bit grey -- if you *really believe* that things are going to work
out with this publisher, then there's no point in querying other places; if
you seriously think this deal is going down the tubes fast, then there's no
point in not pulling the book.
> In the interim, she has signed my friend to a contract and according to
> him, she has a large publisher interested in the book. After three
> weeks, I sent her another email, asking the same question. Are you
> interested, or are you taking a pass? That was over a week ago. No
> response.
It sounds very much as if this agent likes your friend's work, doesn't care
so much for yours, and doesn't want to tell you because she's worried about
the effect it might have on her working relationship with your friend and/or
the relationship between her client (your friend) and you. In any case, the
same decision and procedure applies: wait, pull it, or give her a deadline
by which you will pull it. In this case, however, there's an additional
consideration -- could you really work with an agent who doesn't communicate
with you and/or sees your work as less important/less worthy of
attention/less interesting and exciting than that of her other clients? The
agent-author relationship is complicated and has often been likened to a
marriage; it is generally not a good idea to rush into it if you have any
doubts. (Which, by the way, says *nothing* about whether she'll be the
right agent for your friend. I have a couple of friends whose agents would
drive me to screaming fits within a week; they each love and adore and get
along marvelously well with their agents, and can't understand why I stick
with mine.)
> So my question is, on both, do you think I am being unreasonable in my
> expectations? I am not thin-skinned and have a stack of rejections
> like every other writer who braves the waters. I'll gladly move on to
> the next agent or publisher...but I don't want to tank a good
> opportunity, either. Mostly, I just want an answer.
It can be extremely hard to walk out on what looks like a good opportunity,
especially early on when you aren't really convinced, in your heart of
hearts, that there will ever be *another* good opportunity. If I were in
your shoes, though -- well, honest and truly, if I were in your shoes, I'd
do my best to find out what was going on before I burned any bridges. IIRC,
you're not doing SF/F, particularly, but other genres (including literary
fiction) have their own gossip networks -- they're just a little harder to
plug into than the SF/F one. If there's a specialty bookstore nearby that
carries your kind of books, go and talk to the staff (especially if they
have *any* of the books by your small press publisher on the shelves).
Bookstore owners/managers often have a very good and useful picture of how
publishers work and/or what's going on with them. If there's an independent
literary bookstore that supports local writers -- the kind that sponsors
readings and crit groups and has signings by anyone local who's published
something -- that'd also be a good place to ask. If you know other writers
in your field, ask if they've worked with XYZ Press or Ms. Jane D. Agent, or
if they know anyone who has, and what they thought, and whether they think
it'd be worth waiting. (Sometimes, a particular small press will have a
reputation for being nearly terminally disordered on the business end of
things...but also for picking top-quality books. In such cases, it can be
worth putting up with the disorganization for the prestige factor.)
Patricia C. Wrede
Frank
Zeborah wrote:
>And you've kept writing on some
> other project in the meantime too, right?
>
> Zeborah
Yes, I'm working on a couple of books outside of the series that is
under consideration (one fantasy, one with a hockey setting...maybe I
should combine them! [grin] ), as well as some short stories.
Thanks for your insight. Between you and Patricia, I've received the
answers I was looking for.
Frank
Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
> The general rule of thumb at a large publishing house is that you can expect
> to see your contract about six to eight weeks after the editor makes you an
> offer. They *can* do it faster, and they do when they're excited about a
> hot manuscript or when the moon is in the correct phase, but it can take
> longer, too.
>
> Small presses are all over the map. I know of a couple that have about a
> one-week turnaround, from offer to contract-in-mail; others can take months,
> because the small press is basically a labor of love run by one guy in
> between doing his day job (and yes, some of these publish more
> books-per-year than you'd think possible for something one guy is doing in
> his spare time). Or sometimes it's just that small presses, being small,
> tend not to have a lot of depth in staffing -- if something goes wrong or
> gets difficult, everybody has to drop everything to deal with it.
I suspect this is the case. They had some sort of office catastrophe
involving water damage at one point.
> The thing that makes me a bit nervous is your comment that "they were
> waiting for the sales figures for 2005's 1st half to set their new books
> budget for 2006." Does this mean they have not actually made you an offer
> yet?
It's a bit murky, and that's part of my concern. They said they wanted
the series and outlined what kind of press they were and what type of
advance and terms the contract would contain. These exchanges were, I
felt, something more than discussions but less than negotiations.
>The usual procedure is for the editor to write or call the author and
> say "We would like to buy your book for a $xxxxx advance and standard
> royalties; would that be OK?" If they only said "We'd like to buy your
> book; would you make these revisions?" you haven't actually got a sale yet.
And that is where things are. They asked for some content changes
regarding profanity and in one scene, sexuality. I didn't find the
requests at all unreasonable and I made them. The email I got about a
month before the sales figures email (which was a month ago) stated
that they liked the changes and wanted to offer a contract.
> This does *not* necessarily mean you're being taken advantage of; I've known
> people who've run small presses who have been utterly clueless about
> standard business practice, legal niceties, and so on, but who were also
> utterly and completely honest and ethical and hardworking and so on. Most
> of them wise up fairly fast, however.
I hope that occurs here.
> If you *have* an offer and you have accepted it, there's no reason why they
> should have to wait to see current sales figures in order to send you a
> contract.
No, the offer wasn't concrete enough to be accepted. It was more of a
general, 'this is what our offer would like.' I think the purpose was
to make sure I understood we weren't talking about a Harry Potter-esque
advance or royalties. As it was, the advance was very small, but the
royalty percentages were in line with what I've read from sample
contracts at the SF Writers site.
> You can also, as Zeborah said, query other publishers without pulling the
> book, though you won't be able to submit it elsewhere if you get a positive
> response. My feeling on that, in this particular situation, is that it
> would be a bit grey -- if you *really believe* that things are going to work
> out with this publisher, then there's no point in querying other places; if
> you seriously think this deal is going down the tubes fast, then there's no
> point in not pulling the book.
I think your reasoning is sound and I should, as both of you have
suggested, ask for a definitive date, after which I will pull the book.
> It sounds very much as if this agent likes your friend's work, doesn't care
> so much for yours, and doesn't want to tell you because she's worried about
> the effect it might have on her working relationship with your friend and/or
> the relationship between her client (your friend) and you.
This was exactly my belief. Ironically, if she knew my friend better
(or me, for that matter), this would cease to be an issue. But it
isn't reasonable to expect someone to know those things after only
meeting someone via email (in my case) or in person once (in his).
>In any case, the
> same decision and procedure applies: wait, pull it, or give her a deadline
> by which you will pull it. In this case, however, there's an additional
> consideration -- could you really work with an agent who doesn't communicate
> with you and/or sees your work as less important/less worthy of
> attention/less interesting and exciting than that of her other clients? The
> agent-author relationship is complicated and has often been likened to a
> marriage; it is generally not a good idea to rush into it if you have any
> doubts. (Which, by the way, says *nothing* about whether she'll be the
> right agent for your friend. I have a couple of friends whose agents would
> drive me to screaming fits within a week; they each love and adore and get
> along marvelously well with their agents, and can't understand why I stick
> with mine.)
Excellent point, and well-reasoned analysis.
Although relayed by my friend, some of her comments and attitude
bothered me. I tried to tell myself, though, that it was merely my
reaction to being the odd man out in the situation.
Whether that was the case or not, your point is very important. An
author-agent relationship is akin to a marriage and we all know the
dangers of rushing into one of those too quickly!
> > So my question is, on both, do you think I am being unreasonable in my
> > expectations? I am not thin-skinned and have a stack of rejections
> > like every other writer who braves the waters. I'll gladly move on to
> > the next agent or publisher...but I don't want to tank a good
> > opportunity, either. Mostly, I just want an answer.
>
> It can be extremely hard to walk out on what looks like a good opportunity,
> especially early on when you aren't really convinced, in your heart of
> hearts, that there will ever be *another* good opportunity.
I believe there will be other opportunities...I just don't want to blow
this one if it is real.
>If I were in
> your shoes, though -- well, honest and truly, if I were in your shoes, I'd
> do my best to find out what was going on before I burned any bridges.
*lots of good advice snipped*
Your insight and advice (and Zeborah's!) is much appreciated. I will
mull it over a little, check out a few things and take action.
Meanwhile, I finished revising a 5000-word story for submission and
trimmed 38 words out of an 838-word story to qualify it for a
flash-fiction contest with publication as part of the prize (in
addition to $$). So, even though the publisher and agent situations
are a bit thorny right now, I'm not sitting on my hands.
[boy, re-reading that last sentence, it could be a painful mixed
metaphor! Ouch!].
Thanks again for your well-thought out and timely responses.
R. L.
>Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
/snip/
> They had some sort of office catastrophe
>involving water damage at one point.
/snip/
>And that is where things are. They asked for some content changes
>regarding profanity and in one scene, sexuality. I didn't find the
>requests at all unreasonable and I made them. The email I got about a
>month before the sales figures email (which was a month ago) stated
>that they liked the changes and wanted to offer a contract.
>
>> This does *not* necessarily mean you're being taken advantage of; I've known
>> people who've run small presses who have been utterly clueless about
>> standard business practice, legal niceties, and so on, but who were also
>> utterly and completely honest and ethical and hardworking and so on. Most
>> of them wise up fairly fast, however.
/snip/
>> It sounds very much as if this agent likes your friend's work, doesn't care
>> so much for yours, and doesn't want to tell you because she's worried about
>> the effect it might have on her working relationship with your friend and/or
>> the relationship between her client (your friend) and you.
>
>This was exactly my belief. Ironically, if she knew my friend better
>(or me, for that matter), this would cease to be an issue. But it
>isn't reasonable to expect someone to know those things after only
>meeting someone via email (in my case) or in person once (in his).
/snip/
>>If I were in
>> your shoes, though -- well, honest and truly, if I were in your shoes, I'd
>> do my best to find out what was going on before I burned any bridges.
Not that I know anything about the modern publishing world ... but having
worn a small publishing hat myself long ago (in a different field)....
From the facts you've mentioned above, the publisher could still be quite
sincere and interested, just having problems not related to your book. And
could eventually put however much resources they do have to spare, into
doing the best job they can for your book.
If you think all this shows less than the professionalism and resources you
want from a publisher, that's a different question.
R.L.
Patricia C. Wrede
>
> Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>
>> The general rule of thumb at a large publishing house is that you can
>> expect
>> to see your contract about six to eight weeks after the editor makes you
>> an
>> offer. They *can* do it faster, and they do when they're excited about a
>> hot manuscript or when the moon is in the correct phase, but it can take
>> longer, too.
>>
>> Small presses are all over the map. I know of a couple that have about a
>> one-week turnaround, from offer to contract-in-mail; others can take
>> months,
>> because the small press is basically a labor of love run by one guy in
>> between doing his day job (and yes, some of these publish more
>> books-per-year than you'd think possible for something one guy is doing
>> in
>> his spare time). Or sometimes it's just that small presses, being small,
>> tend not to have a lot of depth in staffing -- if something goes wrong or
>> gets difficult, everybody has to drop everything to deal with it.
>
> I suspect this is the case. They had some sort of office catastrophe
> involving water damage at one point.
That tends to make things a lot more understandable, if no less frustrating.
>> You can also, as Zeborah said, query other publishers without pulling the
>> book, though you won't be able to submit it elsewhere if you get a
>> positive
>> response. My feeling on that, in this particular situation, is that it
>> would be a bit grey -- if you *really believe* that things are going to
>> work
>> out with this publisher, then there's no point in querying other places;
>> if
>> you seriously think this deal is going down the tubes fast, then there's
>> no
>> point in not pulling the book.
>
> I think your reasoning is sound and I should, as both of you have
> suggested, ask for a definitive date, after which I will pull the book.
Yes, if they've had some sort of catastrophic problem, asking for a date is
more reasonable than just setting one. You might want to make a phone call,
with a follow-up this-is-what-we-discussed e-mail. Sometimes these things
go better if there's actual personal contact, where everyone can express
sympathy for everyone else's difficult position.
Re: agent
> Although relayed by my friend, some of her comments and attitude
> bothered me. I tried to tell myself, though, that it was merely my
> reaction to being the odd man out in the situation.
>
> Whether that was the case or not, your point is very important. An
> author-agent relationship is akin to a marriage and we all know the
> dangers of rushing into one of those too quickly!
Not to mention the problems with picking the wrong partner. Every agent has
a different style, and different priorities. Some go for big advance money,
no matter what it takes to get it; some are more interested in a "win-win"
where both editors and their clients are happy; some are big on constant
communication, even when there's nothing much to say; some only talk to
their clients when there's a deal in process or some other business to
cover; and so on. If you get an agent who doesn't share your ethics and
attitudes, it can get ugly.
>> It can be extremely hard to walk out on what looks like a good
>> opportunity,
>> especially early on when you aren't really convinced, in your heart of
>> hearts, that there will ever be *another* good opportunity.
>
> I believe there will be other opportunities...I just don't want to blow
> this one if it is real.
"Is it real?" is a different question from "Is it right for me?" or "Is it a
good choice?"
> Meanwhile, I finished revising a 5000-word story for submission and
> trimmed 38 words out of an 838-word story to qualify it for a
> flash-fiction contest with publication as part of the prize (in
> addition to $$). So, even though the publisher and agent situations
> are a bit thorny right now, I'm not sitting on my hands.
>
> [boy, re-reading that last sentence, it could be a painful mixed
> metaphor! Ouch!].
<*snicker*>
Yes, that's the main thing -- to keep working while all this other stuff is
going on.
Patricia C. Wrede
Frank
Thanks, all of you. My attitude has improved significantly after
hearing your opinions (especially regarding the publisher).
It's also good to know that these frustrations aren't unique.
R. L.
wrote:
>"Frank" <frank...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:1125782030.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
/snip/
>>An
>> author-agent relationship is akin to a marriage and we all know the
>> dangers of rushing into one of those too quickly!
>
>Not to mention the problems with picking the wrong partner. Every agent has
>a different style, and different priorities. Some go for big advance money,
>no matter what it takes to get it; some are more interested in a "win-win"
>where both editors and their clients are happy; some are big on constant
>communication, even when there's nothing much to say; some only talk to
>their clients when there's a deal in process or some other business to
>cover; and so on. If you get an agent who doesn't share your ethics and
>attitudes, it can get ugly.
So how do you find out stuff like that about agents in advance, so as to
send your query to a personally-compatible agent?
Frank
Well, I took some of the advice given here. I decided to wait until
next Monday (the 12th) to follow up with the agent, just so that I
could feel that I've been very reasonable. But I did send another
inquiry email to the small press publisher. I expressed my enthusiasm
at the prospect of working with them (and said why), reminded them that
I had not submitted any of these novels (part of a series) anywhere
else since we began our discussions in April and flat-out asked them
for a time-frame in which they would be making the offer that was
discussed in general terms previously.
The result?
Well, one day of crickets. Then, this afternoon, an email that the
contract proposal was complete and would be mailed tomorrow.
I'm not breaking out champagne or anything yet...what the contract says
*exactly* is my next concern, but I have to say thank you for the
advice meted out here in this NG. All I wanted was to move to the next
stage. Even if the deal is unacceptable or falls apart, following the
advice resulted in a exactly what I was hoping for---movement.
Obviously, I'll query that agent again before I sign anything...and
review the contract with a very fine tooth comb.
But thanks...Patricia, Zeborah, R.L. I appreciate it immensely.
Patricia C. Wrede
> Re: the slow publisher/slow agent issue.
> I'm not breaking out champagne or anything yet...what the contract says
> *exactly* is my next concern, but I have to say thank you for the
> advice meted out here in this NG. All I wanted was to move to the next
> stage. Even if the deal is unacceptable or falls apart, following the
> advice resulted in a exactly what I was hoping for---movement.
>
> Obviously, I'll query that agent again before I sign anything...and
> review the contract with a very fine tooth comb.
Having a contract in-hand will give you a bit more leverage with the agent,
too. It's not an iron-clad guarantee she'll take you, by any means, but if
you've decided you really do want to work with her, then asking if she'll
negotiate the contract for you on some agreed-upon bases (standard
percentage rates or flat fee) gives you a nice excuse to contact her.
Do check the SFWA model contract; I believe it's up at their web site. I
think the Author's Guild has one, too. The one you're looking at very
likely won't look anything like either of these, but they'll give you some
ideas of what things you *may* be able to negotiate on, and what sorts of
things to watch out for.
One of the things you especially want to look at is the reversion clause. I
know an author who sold a novel to a very fine small press; the novel was
quite successful, and a major publisher wanted to pick it up. But there was
no reversion clause in the contract, and the small press wouldn't revert the
rights because they were quite happy with the sales, though the author could
have gotten six or seven times as many copies sold, at least, from the
bigger house.
> But thanks...Patricia, Zeborah, R.L. I appreciate it immensely.
Glad it's worked out well for you so far.
Patricia C. Wrede
Zeborah
> Well, one day of crickets. Then, this afternoon, an email that the
> contract proposal was complete and would be mailed tomorrow.
Congratulations, and good luck for it saying everything you want it to
say!
Suzanne A Blom
Catja Pafort
> Well, one day of crickets. Then, this afternoon, an email that the
> contract proposal was complete and would be mailed tomorrow.
Congratulations! Well done!
(And well done for handling this situation professionally, not flying
off the handle _or_ thinking they hate you anyway and slinking away
dejectedly)
> I'm not breaking out champagne or anything yet...what the contract says
> *exactly* is my next concern, but I have to say thank you for the
> advice meted out here in this NG. All I wanted was to move to the next
> stage. Even if the deal is unacceptable or falls apart, following the
> advice resulted in a exactly what I was hoping for---movement.
>
> Obviously, I'll query that agent again before I sign anything...and
> review the contract with a very fine tooth comb.
Unless you're a lawyer with experience in publishing, I would strongly
recommend using an agent. This is not personal experience, just the
experience of too many others.
With a contract in hand, getting an agent shouldn't be too difficult -
you have done your research, I hope? A short list of agents you'd like
to work with if your number one preference isn't interested?
"Dear Agent, I have an offer on my series X" should get attention
quickly enough - which will put you in the position to evaluate _them_.
Catja
Frank
Catja Pafort wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
> > Well, one day of crickets. Then, this afternoon, an email that the
> > contract proposal was complete and would be mailed tomorrow.
>
> Congratulations! Well done!
Thanks. But all I really did was listen to some good advice.
> (And well done for handling this situation professionally, not flying
> off the handle _or_ thinking they hate you anyway and slinking away
> dejectedly)
>
> > I'm not breaking out champagne or anything yet...what the contract says
> > *exactly* is my next concern, but I have to say thank you for the
> > advice meted out here in this NG. All I wanted was to move to the next
> > stage. Even if the deal is unacceptable or falls apart, following the
> > advice resulted in a exactly what I was hoping for---movement.
> >
> > Obviously, I'll query that agent again before I sign anything...and
> > review the contract with a very fine tooth comb.
>
>
> Unless you're a lawyer with experience in publishing, I would strongly
> recommend using an agent. This is not personal experience, just the
> experience of too many others.
No, not a lawyer. Your point is well taken.
> With a contract in hand, getting an agent shouldn't be too difficult -
> you have done your research, I hope? A short list of agents you'd like
> to work with if your number one preference isn't interested?
Actually, I am remiss here and don't have a short list. I've done my
research regarding agents in general and I've looked at the ones I've
queried instead of just dashing off query letters shotgun-style. But I
will have to do some more research to get a short list.
> "Dear Agent, I have an offer on my series X" should get attention
> quickly enough - which will put you in the position to evaluate _them_.
>
> Catja
You make a great point.
More good advice. Thanks.
R. L.
Pafort) wrote:
/snip/
>With a contract in hand, getting an agent shouldn't be too difficult -
>you have done your research, I hope? A short list of agents you'd like
>to work with if your number one preference isn't interested?
>
>"Dear Agent, I have an offer on my series X" should get attention
>quickly enough - which will put you in the position to evaluate _them_.
Sounds like good strategy: making use of the contract to get a choice of
agents -- even if the contract doesn't prove acceptable to you.
Dorothy J Heydt
R. L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:48:13 +0100, use...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja
>Pafort) wrote:
>
>/snip/
>
>>With a contract in hand, getting an agent shouldn't be too difficult -
>>you have done your research, I hope? A short list of agents you'd like
>>to work with if your number one preference isn't interested?
>>
>>"Dear Agent, I have an offer on my series X" should get attention
>>quickly enough - which will put you in the position to evaluate _them_.
>
>
>Sounds like good strategy: making use of the contract to get a choice of
>agents -- even if the contract doesn't prove acceptable to you.
Once you acquire an agent, the agent can negotiate an acceptable
contract for you.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Richard D. Latham
One would think that agents would read r.a.s.c looking for posts
saying "I just sold me first novel, anybody know a good agent ?".
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Richard D. Latham <lat...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>One would think that agents would read r.a.s.c looking for posts
>saying "I just sold me first novel, anybody know a good agent ?".
No. Neither agents nor editors read newsgroups looking for new
clients. In the first place they are generally too busy, and in
the second place it is not their job to make offers on MSs. that
have not been submitted to them.
Frank
Update...package arrived with contracts today. Have not been able to
review them yet, but at least the problem I originally posted about has
been solved!
Again, thanks!
Marilee J. Layman
>Update...package arrived with contracts today. Have not been able to
>review them yet, but at least the problem I originally posted about has
>been solved!
Yaaaay!
--
Marilee J. Layman
Frank
How about a bit of irony to go with it?
An e-press that I queried in April, which also does trade paperbacks
for some titles, sent me an acceptance email earlier today.
Bill Swears
you listening?
Bill
--
Bill Swears
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin, 1755 "Historical Review of Pennsylvania"
To think that was once a right wing comment. In the land of Homeland
Security it seems.. Suspiciously left-wing.
Marilee J. Layman
Hey, an embarrassment of riches! Now you talk to an agent!
--
Marilee J. Layman
Frank
Marilee J. Layman wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2005 23:11:35 -0700, "Frank" <frank...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Marilee J. Layman wrote:
> >> On 12 Sep 2005 22:22:24 -0700, "Frank" <frank...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Update...package arrived with contracts today. Have not been able to
> >> >review them yet, but at least the problem I originally posted about has
> >> >been solved!
> >>
> >> Yaaaay!
> >>
> >> --
> >> Marilee J. Layman
> >
> >How about a bit of irony to go with it?
> >
> >An e-press that I queried in April, which also does trade paperbacks
> >for some titles, sent me an acceptance email earlier today.
>
> Hey, an embarrassment of riches! Now you talk to an agent!
>
> --
> Marilee J. Layman
I'd better.
Looking over the contract terms more closely last night and then again
today, and subsequently doing research, they are quite likely the most
horrible terms possible for the author.
Blecchhhh.
I guess every negotiation has to have a starting point...
Dorothy J Heydt
Frank <frank...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>> On 13 Sep 2005 23:11:35 -0700, "Frank" <frank...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey, an embarrassment of riches! Now you talk to an agent!
>
>
>Looking over the contract terms more closely last night and then again
>today, and subsequently doing research, they are quite likely the most
>horrible terms possible for the author.
YES. The publisher will ALWAYS send a new author, whom it
suspects of not knowing any better, the boilerplate contract with
the best possible terms for the publisher, which has about a 99%
correspondence to worst for the author. Then you get an agent
who negotiates about every single clause and demonstrates that
maybe two of those horrible clauses are non-negotiable and must
stay in, and of the rest six or eight can be eliminated and the
rest made more palatable. That's what agents are for.
Frank
And thus I must begin anew my search for one (armed with offers, at
least!), as the other element of my "No Response Saga" has played
itself out today.
I sent an email today to the agent who had not responded. I politely
told her I hadn't heard from her and though I knew she was very busy, I
needed to know where she was with my submission. Did she need more
time? Was she interested, or no? I also let her know about the two
offers. Then, in an additional few lines, I laid the cards on the
table regarding my friend (her new client). I wrote that she needn't
have any concern over any reaction from him or me if she took a pass on
representing me.
It may have been a tactical error to have put that in the message, but
I felt it was the only way to eliminate that element from the equation.
I sensed that she did not want to represent me and that she was only
hesitating due to being unsure how it might affect her new client
relationship with my friend. I told her that regardless, he and I
would be friends and we would be professional.
Intuition sucks, because I was quite right (at least one of you had the
same take on it, I believe). She didn't admit it outright, but within
a few hours of my email, I received a return email, declining to
represent me. She complimented my writing but felt the work needed
"more fine-tuning."
Why am I laying this all out? Well, I guess to wrap up what I started,
for one thing. But secondly, to say again that I appreciate the
advice, observations and feedback from the folks in this thread. I
posted with a pair of problems--no reply from an agent and no reply
from a publisher. The input I received here was sound and
well-reasoned. Moreover, even though I wish the contract had been a
beauty and the agent had said yes, I am satisfied. Both of the
original problems have been resolved.
Thanks.
Catja Pafort
> I sent an email today to the agent who had not responded. I politely
> told her I hadn't heard from her and though I knew she was very busy, I
> needed to know where she was with my submission. Did she need more
> time? Was she interested, or no? I also let her know about the two
> offers. Then, in an additional few lines, I laid the cards on the
> table regarding my friend (her new client). I wrote that she needn't
> have any concern over any reaction from him or me if she took a pass on
> representing me.
>
> It may have been a tactical error to have put that in the message, but
> I felt it was the only way to eliminate that element from the equation.
> I sensed that she did not want to represent me and that she was only
> hesitating due to being unsure how it might affect her new client
> relationship with my friend. I told her that regardless, he and I
> would be friends and we would be professional.
>
> Intuition sucks, because I was quite right (at least one of you had the
> same take on it, I believe). She didn't admit it outright, but within
> a few hours of my email, I received a return email, declining to
> represent me. She complimented my writing but felt the work needed
> "more fine-tuning."
I'd say it's a good result. It's *truthful*. You really would not be
better off with an agent who doesn't believe in your work and who takes
only half-hearted steps in representing you. In the end, being an agents
bottom priority is not going to boost your career at all, even if she is
professional about it.
So, query the next on your list. You have a contract offer, you have
ideas, get them on your side.
Catja
Brooks Moses
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>Once you acquire an agent, the agent can negotiate an acceptable
>>contract for you.
>
> saying "I just sold me first novel, anybody know a good agent ?".
Why? We've had maybe two of those sorts of posts in the five years I've
been reading. It doesn't seem worth the time.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Dorothy J Heydt
Brooks Moses <bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Richard D. Latham wrote:
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>Once you acquire an agent, the agent can negotiate an acceptable
>>>contract for you.
>>
>> One would think that agents would read r.a.s.c looking for posts
>> saying "I just sold me first novel, anybody know a good agent ?".
>
>Why? We've had maybe two of those sorts of posts in the five years I've
>been reading. It doesn't seem worth the time.
In any case, agents don't read these groups. (a) They haven't
got the time. (b) A legitimate agent doesn't seek out clients,
much as he might like to if he's just starting out and needs the
business.
In fact, it's customary for the agent, even once contact has been
made, to wait for the client to ask, "Will you represent me?"
It's like the old shibboleth about the girl can't ask the boy
out, she has to wait for him to do so. In my case, after it had
bounced several places, a friend of mine took _The Interior Life_
to her agent and said, "Now listen, I know you're supposed to
wait for her to ask you, but this girl is pathologically shy."
[Those were her words, though I would've thought "decently
reticent" was more like it.] "You are going to have to ask her
because she'll never ask you." So he did, and he's been my agent
ever since, though I haven't given him a whole lot to sell.
Brooks Moses
> In article <433250AC...@cits1.stanford.edu>,
> Brooks Moses <bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>Why? We've had maybe two of those sorts of posts in the five years I've
>>been reading. It doesn't seem worth the time.
>
> In any case, agents don't read these groups. (a) They haven't
> got the time. (b) A legitimate agent doesn't seek out clients,
> much as he might like to if he's just starting out and needs the
> business.
I'd be surprised if (a) were completely true, given that agents ought to
have at least as much time for it as writers. (That is, enough leisure
time if they so desire, but it's a bad idea to let it take up the
work-time!)
On the other hand, (b) is definitely true. As is (c), which is that if
any agents _do_ read the group, they probably don't want to delurk for
fear of mobbing. Since Teresa stopped posting, we don't seem to have
any (long-form fiction) editors, either, do we?
- Brooks, hereby waving at the lurking agents who he logically expects
must be reading this. :)
Dorothy J Heydt
Brooks Moses <bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <433250AC...@cits1.stanford.edu>,
>> Brooks Moses <bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>Why? We've had maybe two of those sorts of posts in the five years I've
>>>been reading. It doesn't seem worth the time.
>>
>> In any case, agents don't read these groups. (a) They haven't
>> got the time. (b) A legitimate agent doesn't seek out clients,
>> much as he might like to if he's just starting out and needs the
>> business.
>
>I'd be surprised if (a) were completely true, given that agents ought to
>have at least as much time for it as writers. (That is, enough leisure
>time if they so desire, but it's a bad idea to let it take up the
>work-time!)
I doubt it. I think agents -- who, after all, have to READ all
the manuscripts all their clients are writing -- have about as
little spare time as editors, which is to say, none whatever.
>
>On the other hand, (b) is definitely true. As is (c), which is that if
>any agents _do_ read the group, they probably don't want to delurk for
>fear of mobbing. Since Teresa stopped posting, we don't seem to have
>any (long-form fiction) editors, either, do we?
>
>- Brooks, hereby waving at the lurking agents who he logically expects
>must be reading this. :)
I doubt it....
David Friedman
But none of them have responded, which obviously supports his analysis.
--
Remove NOPSAM to email
www.daviddfriedman.com
Alter S. Reiss
> Richard D. Latham wrote:
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>Once you acquire an agent, the agent can negotiate an acceptable
>>>contract for you.
>>
>> One would think that agents would read r.a.s.c looking for posts
>> saying "I just sold me first novel, anybody know a good agent ?".
>
> Why? We've had maybe two of those sorts of posts in the five years I've
> been reading. It doesn't seem worth the time.
And that's ignoring the fact that if there was a hypothetical agent
lurking, just waiting for a post like that, the person who sold their novel
would still probably not sign with them, unless they also happen to be one
of the agents recommended by a local pro. At which point, the whole
excersize becomes a bit pointless.
Frank
Update, hearkening back earlier in this thread...
The advice to use the offers to get an agent was good advice. I've
encountered at least 3 times as much interest than querying the novel
or series alone. I'm in the midst of several conversations with
several agents, and all seem promising.
If any *are* lurking here, I haven't commmitted yet. ;-)
Richard Eney
this subject heading would make?
-- Dick Eney
Frank
Frank wrote:
> Update, hearkening back earlier in this thread...
>
> The advice to use the offers to get an agent was good advice. I've
> encountered at least 3 times as much interest than querying the novel
> or series alone. I'm in the midst of several conversations with
> several agents, and all seem promising.
I'm curious if anyone knows of a location where contract terms are
defined. My contract offers defines several terms, including
"Publish." I find their definition appalling and assuming or inferring
a number of rights just in the definition.
Any place on the 'net where defintions of these terms might be
available? None of the sample contracts I have found have them.
Patricia C. Wrede
The copyright law used to include a legal definition of publication; I don't
know if it still does, but I believe it's available somewhere on the U.S.
copyright home page, http://www.copyright.gov/
Publishers' contracts tend to reflect their individual corporate experience
(or, sometimes, their lawyers' experience). One of my publishers spent much
space in three different places in the contract making it quite, quite
explicitly clear that the publisher alone determines that a manuscript is
acceptable, that this determination is made when the final ms. is submitted,
and that they don't have to publish a manuscript they deem unacceptable even
if the author has signed the contract. None of my other contracts have more
than a casual mention of any of this. It's fairly obvious that some idiot,
some time back, sued the one publisher because they rejected his final ms.,
and their lawyers responded by trying to bullet-proof the contract.
I don't recall ever having noticed a definition of "publish" in any of my
contracts, but I'd have to check to make sure. Later today, maybe.
Patricia C. Wrede
Frank
> > defined. My contract offers defines several terms, including
> > "Publish." I find their definition appalling and assuming or inferring
> > a number of rights just in the definition.
> >
> > Any place on the 'net where defintions of these terms might be
> > available? None of the sample contracts I have found have them.
>
> The copyright law used to include a legal definition of publication; I don't
> know if it still does, but I believe it's available somewhere on the U.S.
> copyright home page, http://www.copyright.gov/
>
> Publishers' contracts tend to reflect their individual corporate experience
> (or, sometimes, their lawyers' experience). One of my publishers spent much
> space in three different places in the contract making it quite, quite
> explicitly clear that the publisher alone determines that a manuscript is
> acceptable, that this determination is made when the final ms. is submitted,
> and that they don't have to publish a manuscript they deem unacceptable even
> if the author has signed the contract. None of my other contracts have more
> than a casual mention of any of this. It's fairly obvious that some idiot,
> some time back, sued the one publisher because they rejected his final ms.,
> and their lawyers responded by trying to bullet-proof the contract.
>
> I don't recall ever having noticed a definition of "publish" in any of my
> contracts, but I'd have to check to make sure. Later today, maybe.
>
> Patricia C. Wrede
The definition was: "Publish" means the right to, directly or
indirectly, reproduce, modify, create derivative works based on,
distribute, transmit, sell, license, rent, lease, lend, publish,
manufacture, publicly perform, publicly display and/or otherwise
exploit the Work or any portion thereof, or any derivative work based
on the foregoing, by any and all means or methods, and in any and all
media, now or hereafter known, and in any and all languages.
Now, am I being paranoid, or does that sound like a ton of other rights
being inferred?
The other major sticking point (among several more considerably sticky
ones) was a clause which stated that they have sole discretion as to if
a manuscript is acceptable and if it is not, they may "complete" it to
their satisfaction without my participation...and charge me for it!
There are a couple of other clauses that, I believe, are designed to
take complete ownership of the work (and remember this is a series,
too) from me.
Needless to say, when I look back at how much I wanted to get these
contracts, I recall the adage to be careful what you wish for.
The additional bit of irony here is that I'd had the contracts for
about two and a half weeks when the point of contact with the publisher
had the temerity to chastise me for my "delay." This, after we'd begun
our contacts with my query in April, a query that was almost
immediately answered.
I was also informed that the contract was "fair and standard" and they
were not likely to be "able" to change it.
My friend, and co-writer for one of the books, is pretty much quit with
this deal. I've been in contact with several agents and they are
considering me and I am considering them. If that works out, I'll have
some professional help to see if there is a salvagable agreement here
somewhere. Barring that, I've detailed my points of negotiation and
will send it back to the publisher.
Sorry for the tirade. Frustrations of the first-time novelist :-) .
Wilson Heydt
Frank <frank...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>The definition was: "Publish" means the right to, directly or
>indirectly, reproduce, modify, create derivative works based on,
>distribute, transmit, sell, license, rent, lease, lend, publish,
>manufacture, publicly perform, publicly display and/or otherwise
>exploit the Work or any portion thereof, or any derivative work based
>on the foregoing, by any and all means or methods, and in any and all
>media, now or hereafter known, and in any and all languages.
>
>Now, am I being paranoid, or does that sound like a ton of other rights
>being inferred?
IANAL. I have, however, been reading Groklaw alot (www.groklaw.,org, for anyone
interested,)
I am suspicious of the wya that definintion is using "derivative works". To me, it
impl es that they are claiming rights to any spin-off or any sequels, as well as
movie, game or dramatic works based on what you're selling them. Probably other stuff
as well.
--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA
My dime, my opinions.
Patricia C. Wrede
> The definition was: "Publish" means the right to, directly or
> indirectly, reproduce, modify, create derivative works based on,
> distribute, transmit, sell, license, rent, lease, lend, publish,
> manufacture, publicly perform, publicly display and/or otherwise
> exploit the Work or any portion thereof, or any derivative work based
> on the foregoing, by any and all means or methods, and in any and all
> media, now or hereafter known, and in any and all languages.
>
> Now, am I being paranoid, or does that sound like a ton of other rights
> being inferred?
I wouldn't assume malice aforethought; it sounds rather like the sort of
thing they have in movie-option contracts (I *howled* when I got my first
one; the boilerplate includes a statement that the option covers "all rights
in the universe" -- what, they're worried about Martians violating their
copyright?). It *does* sound rather like something they put in the
boilerplate to catch unwary novices. If they have a schedule of sub-rights
in the contract -- which they should -- then what you do is add "except as
otherwise indicated in this contract" to the above paragraph, and then
negotiate heck out of the subrights. If they *don't* have a specific
listing of subrights, then this is apparently supposed to cover them all,
and you'll have to argue it word by word here.
You should also think about what effect this definition will or won't have
on your reversion clause (and if there isn't one, getting them to put one in
should be high on your list). Most reversions these days are "on OOP," and
with such a broad definition of "publish," that seems likely to be "never."
Which you really don't want.
I went through my contracts, and none of them include a definition of
"publish," even in the parts of the boilerplate my agent had taken out. The
relevant section is usually Paragraph 1, called "Author's Grant" or "Grant
of Rights," and one typical example reads:
"The Author hereby grants to the Publisher during the full term of
copyright, and any renewals, continuations and extensions thereof, in each
of the following countries and territories: a) The exclusive right to
print, publish, distribute, and sell the Work, in whole or in part, in book
form in the English Language in [list of "exclusive territories," usually
the U.S. and Canada], and to sell the same nonexclusively for export to
[list of "nonexclusive territories"; sometimes given as an attachment or
appendix]."
> The other major sticking point (among several more considerably sticky
> ones) was a clause which stated that they have sole discretion as to if
> a manuscript is acceptable and if it is not, they may "complete" it to
> their satisfaction without my participation...and charge me for it!
That is an extremely normal clause...for *nonfiction* books, especially
textbooks. Nonfiction can frequently be completed by somebody else. The
first part is normal for anybody -- the publisher *does* have sole
discretion to decide whether a ms. is acceptable. You need to get them to
strike the last part of that -- the "they may complete it to their
satisfaction" part.
> There are a couple of other clauses that, I believe, are designed to
> take complete ownership of the work (and remember this is a series,
> too) from me.
Option clauses are standard; ownership clauses are not. If they've slipped
stuff like this in in several places, you need to be really careful about
getting them all struck. If it says something like "publisher has an option
on the author's next work, under the same terms as this contract..." you
need to strike the "same terms" part (the whole clause, if you can, but
usually you can't), and get "next work" modified to "next work in the same
genre" or "next work in this series" if you can.
Oh, and when you succeed in making changes, what you do is, you draw a line
through the relevant part of the contract (in ink!) and then stick a quarter
in the margin and use it to draw a circtle. You draw a line through the
circle to divide it in half, then put your initials in one half and one of
those Post-It sticky flags on it so their contract-signer can also initial
the change. On both/all copies.
> Needless to say, when I look back at how much I wanted to get these
> contracts, I recall the adage to be careful what you wish for.
This is why most writers have agents these days.
> The additional bit of irony here is that I'd had the contracts for
> about two and a half weeks when the point of contact with the publisher
> had the temerity to chastise me for my "delay." This, after we'd begun
> our contacts with my query in April, a query that was almost
> immediately answered.
>
> I was also informed that the contract was "fair and standard" and they
> were not likely to be "able" to change it.
Some publishers don't negotiate certain clauses; I've never heard of any
that refused to negotiate *anything*, not even packagers.
> My friend, and co-writer for one of the books, is pretty much quit with
> this deal. I've been in contact with several agents and they are
> considering me and I am considering them. If that works out, I'll have
> some professional help to see if there is a salvagable agreement here
> somewhere. Barring that, I've detailed my points of negotiation and
> will send it back to the publisher.
Normally, you don't send the contract back. You talk to the agent,
detailing your points, and come to an agreement about what can be changed.
Then *you* make the changes, lining out the parts you are removing and
typing in minor rephrasings. For major rephrasings, you insert a number and
add a sheet at the back of the contract, like footnotes, with signature
lines. Then you sign and initial everything and send it back. If you have
an agent, the agent does all this.
If you *get* an agent at this point, you turn the entire negotiation over to
him/her, contracts and all. You and the agent discuss what things you find
objectionable, agree on which things you will accept if necessary and which
things are deal-breakers, and then the agent talks to the editor and reports
back, along with providing his/her own recommendation as to whether the
agent thinks you should or should not take the offer.
If there is any hope of getting an agent involved in this, you naturally do
not give in to the publisher's pressure; you don't sign anything until
you've had the agent look at it. This sounds like a particularly nasty
piece of boilerplate, which means that there may be things left out that
ought to be in it. Those are a lot harder for a novice to spot.
All this doesn't necessarily mean that this is a nasty rotten publisher you
don't want to work with, BTW. It just means their lawyers wrote a really
nasty boilerplate contract. Still, it might be worthwhile talking to some
of their other authors, especially long-term ones, to find out how often
they *enforce* some of those provisions...
Patricia C. Wrede
Catja Pafort
> The definition was: "Publish" means the right to, directly or
> indirectly, reproduce, modify, create derivative works based on,
> distribute, transmit, sell, license, rent, lease, lend, publish,
> manufacture, publicly perform, publicly display and/or otherwise
> exploit the Work or any portion thereof, or any derivative work based
> on the foregoing, by any and all means or methods, and in any and all
> media, now or hereafter known, and in any and all languages.
>
> Now, am I being paranoid, or does that sound like a ton of other rights
> being inferred?
If it was me I'd be running in the other direction. With my mss under my
arm.
It seems to mean that you'll sell _all_ your rights to your work and
world - with nothing in return.
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I published, but foreign rights tend to be sold
seperately, merchandise rights are seperated out, as are the script
rights ('create derivative works based on') Film rights can be *very*
lucrative. They might, of course, never ever happen; but you never know.
AND it's supposed to be for forever, so you can't get your rights back.
This does not sound good to me.
> The other major sticking point (among several more considerably sticky
> ones) was a clause which stated that they have sole discretion as to if
> a manuscript is acceptable and if it is not, they may "complete" it to
> their satisfaction without my participation...and charge me for it!
That they should be allowed to determine whether it's acceptable - yes.
The rest? That sounds like a moneyspinner to me.
> There are a couple of other clauses that, I believe, are designed to
> take complete ownership of the work (and remember this is a series,
> too) from me.
>
> Needless to say, when I look back at how much I wanted to get these
> contracts, I recall the adage to be careful what you wish for.
Look on the bright side. You didn't sign it yet. And it might get you an
agent; who'll hopefully say 'don't touch with a bargepole.'
> The additional bit of irony here is that I'd had the contracts for
> about two and a half weeks when the point of contact with the publisher
> had the temerity to chastise me for my "delay." This, after we'd begun
> our contacts with my query in April, a query that was almost
> immediately answered.
I don't know anything about mysteries, but that sounds too bloody quick
for me in any case.
Have you checked the publisher? What is their catalogue like? Any known
authors? Any known books? Any mentioning on the 'editors and predators'
page?
> I was also informed that the contract was "fair and standard" and they
> were not likely to be "able" to change it.
Look into the mirror. Do you have 'mug' tattooed on your forehead? No?
Well done. Proceed to 'I do not feel comfortable with your working
practices, I do not like your contract, if you are not willing to
negotiate, we have no deal.' Of course a boilerplate contract will never
look wonderful for the writer, particularly the first-time writer,
that's what agents are _for_ - but there ain't no such thing as a
standard, and there's better be no such thing as 'can't negotiate at
all.' After all, if they offer a contract, they must want it. If they're
bonafide, they'll want _you_, and if they screw you now, that'll be it.
> My friend, and co-writer for one of the books, is pretty much quit with
> this deal. I've been in contact with several agents and they are
> considering me and I am considering them. If that works out, I'll have
> some professional help to see if there is a salvagable agreement here
> somewhere. Barring that, I've detailed my points of negotiation and
> will send it back to the publisher.
If it were me - I'm not comfortable with the law - I'd hire a
professional to deal with it instead of meddling with it myself. From
what I can see - mind that I'm writing in a different genre, a different
continent, and I'm not even published yet - this outfit doesn't sound
genuine to me.
Catja
Patricia C. Wrede
news:1h3tpbk.9naodl1y3r253N%use...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid...
> Frank <frank...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The additional bit of irony here is that I'd had the contracts for
>> about two and a half weeks when the point of contact with the publisher
>> had the temerity to chastise me for my "delay." This, after we'd begun
>> our contacts with my query in April, a query that was almost
>> immediately answered.
>
> I don't know anything about mysteries, but that sounds too bloody quick
> for me in any case.
Publishing is always "hurry up and wait." In the case of a contract,
however, they don't have anything actually driving their deadlines (like
production), because unless they're idiots, they don't schedule a book until
they have the final, acceptable ms. in their hot little hands. So
pressuring the author to sign up in a hurry is...well, pressure. There's no
real need to give in to it.
>> I was also informed that the contract was "fair and standard" and they
>> were not likely to be "able" to change it.
>
> Look into the mirror. Do you have 'mug' tattooed on your forehead? No?
It's not *that* far off. A number of publishers get fairly pushy with new
authors, just to see if they can get away with something; there's no malice,
and they back down pretty readily if you call them on it. If they *don't*
back down, that's another matter.
Checking out the publisher on the "editors and preditors" lists makes sense.
Getting all exercised and angry and outraged when you don't have a
particularly good feel for what "normal" is in publishing and you're working
off a moderately paranoid they're-all-trying-to-rip-me-off attitude is...not
usually a good idea.
> Well done. Proceed to 'I do not feel comfortable with your working
> practices, I do not like your contract, if you are not willing to
> negotiate, we have no deal.'
No.
The preferred method of dealing with this sort of situation is "I've studied
your contract carefully, and these are the changes I'd like to have made in
it." If the answer is "Sorry, this is take it or leave it," then you
*decide* *rationally* whether or not you are willing to take it, even though
you don't much like certain provisions. Can you live with however it comes
out? It is highly unlikely that a first-time author with no leverage is
going to be able to get everything changed that he wants changed. You pick
your battles, and decide (preferrably in advance) which points are
deal-breakers. If you can't get your deal-breakers, then you say, very
politely and professionally, "Thank you, but I'm afraid that's just not
acceptable. Since we don't seem to be able to come to an agreement, I think
I'd best go elsewhere."
Many writers do have a considerable degree of difficulty maintaining a
proper level of professional detachment. Not to put too fine a point on it,
some folks would, if they had their druthers, go roaring belligerently into
their editors' offices, looking to fight the good, just, true, honorable
fight. And if they did that, they'd get bounced out on their ear and
probably become notorious in New York publishing as someone that nobody
wants to work with because they have an attitude problem. This is why
people have agents. (One more reason, anyway.)
Patricia C. Wrede
Wilson Heydt
Patricia C. Wrede <pwred...@aol.com> wrote:
>"Catja Pafort" <use...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1h3tpbk.9naodl1y3r253N%use...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid...
>> Frank <frank...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The additional bit of irony here is that I'd had the contracts for
>>> about two and a half weeks when the point of contact with the publisher
>>> had the temerity to chastise me for my "delay." This, after we'd begun
>>> our contacts with my query in April, a query that was almost
>>> immediately answered.
>>
>> I don't know anything about mysteries, but that sounds too bloody quick
>> for me in any case.
>
>Publishing is always "hurry up and wait." In the case of a contract,
>however, they don't have anything actually driving their deadlines (like
>production), because unless they're idiots, they don't schedule a book until
>they have the final, acceptable ms. in their hot little hands. So
>pressuring the author to sign up in a hurry is...well, pressure. There's no
>real need to give in to it.
When Bjo Trimble received the initial proposed contract for the
Start Trek Concordance, she sent back a copy of the SFWA sample
contract. After that, actual negotiation took place.
In this instance, one should at least *read* the SFWA smaple
contract.
Bill Swears
> I was also informed that the contract was "fair and standard" and they
> were not likely to be "able" to change it.
>
One of the SFWA articles mentioned that many publishers have about six
clauses they insert, that they will remove fairly easily when you
challenge. But My sticking point would be where they say they'll edit
the work and charge you for it. My understanding is that legitimate
publishers don't charge for that service.
Mundania publishes their sample contract on-line, along with english
explanations.
> http://www.mundania.com/contract.html
I thought it was an interesting read.
Alma Hromic Deckert
wrote:
>I
>When Bjo Trimble received the initial proposed contract for the
>Start Trek Concordance,...
Start Trekking now! <G>
A.
Frank
Patricia (and others):
Thanks for your well-thought out replies to this thread. I agree with
you whole-heartedly. While I rant a little bit here, that is
essentially venting. Though I am not a published novelist yet,
therefore not technically a professional, there is no reason not to
behave in a professional manner and I have done so throughout this
process with the publisher. I will continue to do so. If we reach an
agreement, great. If not, I will politely decline.
I've checked them out and there are no listings on Preds&Eds or other
similar online resources.
Like you wrote, I think this is just a case of the publisher seeing
that I am unpublished and unagented and sending an initial contract
severely loaded in their favor. Though they say they are unlikely to
change anything, I will wait to see if that bears out or not.
What is the worst that can happen, so long as I behave professionally?
We don't reach an agreement or they say no and I go elsewhere. The
revisions I made at their suggestion actually improved all three
manuscripts, in my opinion. All the supplementary work I've done will
still be useful, regardless of where the books are eventually
published. And my foray into the legal side of this business will, at
the very least, be an education.
I am in no hurry to sign anything. I'm 37 and have been writing on and
off since I was 11. I don't feel the need to sign a bad contract in
order to be validated, and I know that is why many first-timers make
that mistake. We're so thrilled that someone wants us that we just
sign away. Luckily, I've read a bit (here and elsewhere) and am
hopefully avoiding some of the pitfalls. My thanks to you who have
helped in that, calling out the locations of those pitfalls as I
stumble along.
R. L.
wrote:
/snip/
> This is why
>people have agents. (One more reason, anyway.)
I haven't been following all this, but didn't he say he had several agents
interested in negotiating this contract for him?
Then wouldn't the question be about the timeframes here, how soon he
expects to hear from the agents and choose an agent to negotiate it, vs how
soon the publisher wants an answer?
What about a polite professional note saying "You'll hear from my agent
soon." And maybe a polite nudge to each agent mentioning the publishers'
hurry?
--
RL at houseboatonstyx com (insert 'the')
"Transition scene" and "action scene" and
"descriptive scene" tell you what kind of scene.
http://tinyurl.com/7px68
Patricia C. Wrede
news:11k2nrl...@corp.supernews.com...
> Frank wrote:
>> I was also informed that the contract was "fair and standard" and they
>> were not likely to be "able" to change it.
>>
>
> One of the SFWA articles mentioned that many publishers have about six
> clauses they insert, that they will remove fairly easily when you
> challenge. But My sticking point would be where they say they'll edit the
> work and charge you for it. My understanding is that legitimate
> publishers don't charge for that service.
It's not editing the work and charging you for it. It's getting someone
else to finish up a job that you were supposed to have done yourself, but
for some reason didn't. And it's a fairly standard clause, which is
standardly struck out of fiction contracts. It works like this:
Most large publishing houses do both fiction and non-fiction. They do not
have separate boilerplate contracts for each type of book, however (or at
least, they didn't use to -- in these days of word processors, somebody may
possibly have become enlightened. But I wouldn't hold my breath; this is
publishing, after all).
Anyway, if the publisher publishes both fiction and nonfiction, there is
generally one boilerplate contract for both types of book, OK? And when
somebody writes a NON-fiction book, especially ones dealing with science, or
reference material, or textbooks, it is often possible -- likely, even --
that the material isn't going to be very different, no matter *who* writes
it. And with textbooks, especially, it is absolutely vitally important to
stick to the publication schedule; things simply *cannot* be let slide for a
month if the writer's house burns down or he is hospitalized with Lyme
Disease or whatever.
It is, in other words, quite reasonable and rational to have clauses in a
NON-fiction contract that say that if the first author can't do the job
properly and on time, the publisher can hand the manuscript of "Dark Star
Matter and the Heat Death of the Universe: A Survey" to some other author to
polish up so they can get it out on time. And it is quite reasonable, also,
for the publisher to expect the original author to pay the stand-in,
especially since this is stated up front in the contract and shouldn't come
as a nasty surprise.
So the clause gets put in the boilerplate contract (which covers both
fiction and nonfiction, remember?). And new FICTION writers get the
contract, and get heebie-jeebies and start ranting about evil publishers and
having their work stolen and altered and over-controlling editors and the
like...when all they have to do is say "Excuse me, but I believe Clause 38
belongs in the NONFICTION contracts, and this is a work of FICTION where
it's not appropriate" and most publishers will say "Ooops, sorry" and will
strike it out.
And if it *doesn't* get struck for some reason, it still really makes no
practical difference, because it doesn't get enforced for FICTION. It's a
NONFICTION book clause. Yes, yes, *in theory* an evil nasty horrible Enemy
Editor could tell you your ms. was "unacceptable" and then charge you more
than your initial advance for a rewrite...but really, I can't imagine that
actually happening. For one thing, you could just pull the book. You'd
have to give back the advance money, but you *can* do this, even if you have
a contract. For another, any editor who did something like that would find
his pool of well-known pros drying up faster than fast, not to mention
getting a prominent spot on the "Editors and Preditors" lists and probably
being shunned by his fellow editors in case such monumental lack of sense
might be catching. And for finally, there's no *reason* why they'd bother
to do something like that -- it's a lot of hassle to no purpose, because
it's *easy* to change the schedule on a *fiction* title (in fact, none of my
publishers even schedule most of their books until they actually have the
final acceptable ms. in their hands).
If the ms. is really, truly unacceptable, it's not *worth* finding someone
who's willing to polish it up, because the publisher doesn't need to publish
a textbook on astronomy by the start of the school year, or to have a book
on bird-watching for the spring line-up because that's how the line has been
planned. The publisher doesn't *have* to get the book up to speed and
publish it; he doesn't *need* that particular book, he just needs some
novel, and he's got other people who can fill the hole, if he was
injudicious enough to leave one.
What normally happens when an author turns in a "final" ms. that is
unacceptable is that the publisher rejects it. Period, the end. The author
has to return the advance money (though it is customary for the publishing
house to give the author a chance to re-sell the ms. somewhere else, so that
the old advance can be paid to the first publisher out of the money from the
re-sale, thus easing the strain on the author's cash flow), the publisher
gives the ms. back, and that's the end of it. This doesn't happen very
often -- I can think of maybe two instances that I've heard of, not counting
that Hollywood brouhaha a few years back when that soap opera star insisted
in court that the publisher was contractually obligated to take her ms. even
if it was "unacceptable"...and then complained loudly and bitterly, in
public, when the publisher published the ms. as she had turned it in,
without editing or ghost-writing. I believe the famous last words were
something along the lines of "They're doing this on purpose to embarass me!"
Which may have been true, but was more likely a side-effect of the fact that
the publisher didn't want to sink any more money into the project than they
already had.
Patricia C. Wrede
Patricia C. Wrede
news:mcs2k1tuqdp0c0j5a...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 05:12:28 -0500, "Patricia C. Wrede"
> <pwred...@aol.com>
> wrote:
> /snip/
>
>> This is why
>>people have agents. (One more reason, anyway.)
>
>
> I haven't been following all this, but didn't he say he had several agents
> interested in negotiating this contract for him?
I don't think the interest is quite that strong; it's more like "he's
talking to several agents," not "he has several who're willing to do it and
all he has to do is pick one."
> Then wouldn't the question be about the timeframes here, how soon he
> expects to hear from the agents and choose an agent to negotiate it, vs
> how
> soon the publisher wants an answer?
If he is quite, quite certain that one of the agents he's talking to will
agree to negotiate the contract, sure. I didn't think it was that cut and
dried.
> What about a polite professional note saying "You'll hear from my agent
> soon." And maybe a polite nudge to each agent mentioning the publishers'
> hurry?
I wouldn't say anything to the editor about "my agent" until I actually had
one. Too many things can go wrong. Same for pressuring the agents; you're
more likely to get "Oh, well if you're in a *hurry*, you'd better go with
someone else; I'm not going to have time to really look at this until
November" than "Sorry; I'll make sure to get back to you by the end of the
week." OTOH, there *are* some time constraints, and that's something the
agent(s) should probably know. It's a bit of a balancing act; I think I
would probably phone the agents rather than write a note, because then I can
be sure the slightly embarassed, rather nervous and apologetic tone of voice
really *will* come across, and I can adjust on the fly if it doesn't seem to
be working right. Also, it leaves less incriminating evidence for later.
But that's my preference, not an arcane bit of Secret Publishing Ettiquette,
so anybody who'd rather do it some other way...go for it.
Patricia C. Wrede
Dorothy J Heydt
Marilee J. Layman
>The definition was: "Publish" means the right to, directly or
>indirectly, reproduce, modify, create derivative works based on,
>distribute, transmit, sell, license, rent, lease, lend, publish,
>manufacture, publicly perform, publicly display and/or otherwise
>exploit the Work or any portion thereof, or any derivative work based
>on the foregoing, by any and all means or methods, and in any and all
>media, now or hereafter known, and in any and all languages.
>
>Now, am I being paranoid, or does that sound like a ton of other rights
>being inferred?
>
>The other major sticking point (among several more considerably sticky
>ones) was a clause which stated that they have sole discretion as to if
>a manuscript is acceptable and if it is not, they may "complete" it to
>their satisfaction without my participation...and charge me for it!
Run!
--
Marilee J. Layman
Richard D. Latham
> Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>> "Frank" <frank...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > I'm curious if anyone knows of a location where contract terms are
>> > defined. My contract offers defines several terms, including
>> > "Publish." I find their definition appalling and assuming or inferring
>> > a number of rights just in the definition.
>> >
< snip >
>
> The definition was: "Publish" means the right to, directly or
> indirectly, reproduce, modify, create derivative works based on,
> distribute, transmit, sell, license, rent, lease, lend, publish,
> manufacture, publicly perform, publicly display and/or otherwise
> exploit the Work or any portion thereof, or any derivative work based
> on the foregoing, by any and all means or methods, and in any and all
> media, now or hereafter known, and in any and all languages.
>
> Now, am I being paranoid, or does that sound like a ton of other rights
> being inferred?
>
> The other major sticking point (among several more considerably sticky
> ones) was a clause which stated that they have sole discretion as to if
> a manuscript is acceptable and if it is not, they may "complete" it to
> their satisfaction without my participation...and charge me for it!
>
> There are a couple of other clauses that, I believe, are designed to
> take complete ownership of the work (and remember this is a series,
> too) from me.
>
<snip>
Not being a published author, and all, my take is guaranteed to be
worth at least what you paid for it ... but, I think your answer
should be extremely short.
Did you leave the part out where you also forfeit 10 years of your
expected life-span, and additionally your immortal soul, at their sole
discretion ?
I'm reminded of a story about a set of negiotations carried out in the
early 20th century, by courier and telegraph.
Having received , by courier, a copy of a proposed contract, the
response was "Fuck You.<stop> Nasty letter to follow <stop>".
If you're too well behaved to use foul language (even in a good cause
such as this) , consider the elliptical phrase "and the horse you rode
in on".
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com
sharkey
>
> Not being a published author, and all, [...]
> If you're too well behaved to use foul language (even in a good cause
> such as this) , consider the elliptical phrase "and the horse you rode
> in on".
Well, I'm not a published author either, and nor am I a lawyer,
but I've been involved in contract negotiations before and I can
tell you that this sort of thing is entirely normal.
The first version of a contract is generally full of clauses requiring
the other party to dedicate themselves indefinitely to a vaguely defined
task, while releasing yourself from any requirement to actually pay
anything for it before, say, the heat-death of the Universe.
These clauses are basically coded messages from your lawyer to theirs,
saying "See? Here's some stuff for you to delete! We're playing the
game and keeping you in businesss too!"
There's no need to feel insulted or get emotional about it, just
strike any clauses which are obviously to your detriment, and any
clauses which don't seem to mean anything at all, and any clauses
which refer to documents you don't have a copy of ("The Work" being
defined by "Whatever we decide as we go along, nth edition").
After that, you'll just have to fall back on good will and
civilization (eg: there's a risk to you that you'll get royally
screwed by clause 27B/6, but there's a risk to them that you'll
subsequently win a Hugo and get to mention them in an acceptance
speech.)
I'm not a published author either, and nor am I a lawyer, but I've
found that negotiations tend to fail to proceed if you tell the
other part to go take a flying fuck too early in the process ...
-----sharks
Frank
Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
> "R. L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
> news:mcs2k1tuqdp0c0j5a...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 05:12:28 -0500, "Patricia C. Wrede"
> > <pwred...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> > /snip/
> >
> >> This is why
> >>people have agents. (One more reason, anyway.)
> >
> >
> > I haven't been following all this, but didn't he say he had several agents
> > interested in negotiating this contract for him?
>
> I don't think the interest is quite that strong; it's more like "he's
> talking to several agents," not "he has several who're willing to do it and
> all he has to do is pick one."
Somewhere in between. There were a couple who were all over it, but
purely to negotiate and close this one deal. I am looking for a more
traditional agent/author relationship and so were several others who
responded and asked to see a synopsis and sample chapters. I have sent
those materials and am waiting to see how that shapes up before I
consider the more mercenary, one-and-done offers.
> > Then wouldn't the question be about the timeframes here, how soon he
> > expects to hear from the agents and choose an agent to negotiate it, vs
> > how
> > soon the publisher wants an answer?
>
> If he is quite, quite certain that one of the agents he's talking to will
> agree to negotiate the contract, sure. I didn't think it was that cut and
> dried.
It is not.
> > What about a polite professional note saying "You'll hear from my agent
> > soon." And maybe a polite nudge to each agent mentioning the publishers'
> > hurry?
>
> I wouldn't say anything to the editor about "my agent" until I actually had
> one. Too many things can go wrong. Same for pressuring the agents; you're
> more likely to get "Oh, well if you're in a *hurry*, you'd better go with
> someone else; I'm not going to have time to really look at this until
> November" than "Sorry; I'll make sure to get back to you by the end of the
> week." OTOH, there *are* some time constraints, and that's something the
> agent(s) should probably know. It's a bit of a balancing act; I think I
> would probably phone the agents rather than write a note, because then I can
> be sure the slightly embarassed, rather nervous and apologetic tone of voice
> really *will* come across, and I can adjust on the fly if it doesn't seem to
> be working right. Also, it leaves less incriminating evidence for later.
> But that's my preference, not an arcane bit of Secret Publishing Ettiquette,
> so anybody who'd rather do it some other way...go for it.
>
> Patricia C. Wrede
I haven't, and won't, breathe a word about having an agent until it is
a fact that I do. I think that it would be unprofessional and
unethical to do so.
Also, I think you're right about not pushing too hard, too quickly and
I am not doing that, either. If the right agent wants to take me on,
it will occur in its own time. I don't believe there is any time
constraint other than an artificial one the publisher may try to
impose, so I am comfortable giving it a little time to work itself out
on the agent front. Things don't happen overnight. And I've never
purchased a car or anything else as a result of hard-sell tactics
(quite the opposite reaction, actually), so there's no danger I'll
frantically scrawl my name in blood if the publisher applies
unreasonable pressure.
That being said, I like to believe the best in people and I am hopeful
that things will get worked out to our mutual advantage.
I appreciate this discussion, not just from the perspective of its
pertinence to my current situation, but it is an interesting look at
the business side of writing in general.
R. L.
>
>Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>> "R. L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
>> news:mcs2k1tuqdp0c0j5a...@4ax.com...
/snip/
>There were a couple who were all over it, but
>purely to negotiate and close this one deal. I am looking for a more
>traditional agent/author relationship and so were several others who
>responded and asked to see a synopsis and sample chapters. I have sent
>those materials and am waiting to see how that shapes up before I
>consider the more mercenary, one-and-done offers.
I didn't know thatsort of thing happened, tho I suppose it makes sense. Did
they say they were full up, or it wasn't their genre, or what?
/snip/
>I don't believe there is any time
>constraint other than an artificial one the publisher may try to
>impose, so I am comfortable giving it a little time to work itself out
>on the agent front. Things don't happen overnight. And I've never
>purchased a car or anything else as a result of hard-sell tactics
>(quite the opposite reaction, actually), so there's no danger I'll
>frantically scrawl my name in blood if the publisher applies
>unreasonable pressure.
I wonder how soon it's necessary to answer the publisher's pressuring at
all.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/houseboatonstyx/
Brooks Moses
> Not being a published author, and all, my take is guaranteed to be
> worth at least what you paid for it ... but, I think your answer
> should be extremely short.
>
> Did you leave the part out where you also forfeit 10 years of your
> expected life-span, and additionally your immortal soul, at their sole
> discretion ?
>
> I'm reminded of a story about a set of negiotations carried out in the
> early 20th century, by courier and telegraph.
>
> Having received , by courier, a copy of a proposed contract, the
> response was "Fuck You.<stop> Nasty letter to follow <stop>".
>
> If you're too well behaved to use foul language (even in a good cause
> such as this) , consider the elliptical phrase "and the horse you rode
> in on".
There was an article in _Physics Today_ last week about Einstein's one
encounter with submitting an article to a journal that sent it out for
peer review, in about 1937 or so.
Essentially, upon getting back comments from an anonymous reviewer
stating that the reviewer thought Einstein's conclusions were wrong,
Einstein sent back essentially that sort of letter (though, of course,
rather more politely worded) explaining how he had not sent his article
to this editor for it to be sent out to some anonymous "expert" for
commentary prior to publication, and that this was completely
unacceptable, and that he was never sending the editor an article again
unless the editor published the article as it stood. The editor stood
by the review, and Einstein stood by his word and never published there
again.
Meanwhile, shortly thereafter, the anonymous reviewer talked to
Einstein's coauthor -- without actually letting on that he'd seen the
paper -- and conveyed some of his concerns.
And the upshot is that Einstein and coauthor published the paper, about
a year later with the conclusions completely revised and corrected as
the reviewer had originally suggested, in another journal. And thus
produced a useful addition to the field, rather than a controversial and
completely incorrect declaration that something was impossible when it
was in fact quite possible.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Frank
Frank wrote:
> That being said, I like to believe the best in people and I am hopeful
> that things will get worked out to our mutual advantage.
>
> I appreciate this discussion, not just from the perspective of its
> pertinence to my current situation, but it is an interesting look at
> the business side of writing in general.
For any interested in the continuing saga...
I waited a month from the time the contracts were offered to make my
first substantive reply. I'd queried a number of agents in the
meantime. Some passed outright, either because of the genre or without
comment. Several showed interest and I have sent those agents the
materials they requested, but haven't heard back yet.
30 days seemed like a good benchmark to me. I didn't have an agent
yet, so I knew that I wasn't going to sign anything, but I felt I
should at least begin the negotiation process.
I sent a detailed letter outlining my concerns. Chief among them were:
* the massive grant of all rights, in all languages, in all formats
* the exclusivity agreement (3 years, applying to all novel-length work
as writer, contributor or editor, regardless of genre)
* First refusal rights that gave them 180 days to decide and if they
took a pass, the work could not be placed elsewhere within the 3 years.
* no breakdown of subsidiary rights or the split between
author/publiser (not necessary because of the first point in this list)
* Publisher has "sole discretion" as to if the work is acceptable and
the right to assign it to another author for revision to meet it's
standard.
* Right of publisher to match terms from another publisher for a work
they initially refused.
* $100 advance
* Once yearly accounting.
* Out-of-print definition vague
* right of the publisher to sell the rights in the first bullet, with
no mention of a split...thus giving 100% to publisher.
The royalty rate was 6% for the first 1500 copies, 7% thereafter for
trade paperback, which I was comfortable with. But it was hazy, at
least to me, what the 6% was being derived from...
Anyway, I sent the letter, worded very businesslike and purposefully
injecting words and phrases that indicated a willingness to negotiate.
Unfortunately, after about a day, I got a brief email back telling me
that my changes were "sweeping" (true) and reflected an obvious lack of
understanding of the publishing business (only partially true).
They pulled their offer.
It's a strange emotional state right now...at the risk of sounding
crude, I feel like a guy who really wanted to get into bed with a girl,
but had some misgivings that it might not be such a great idea for him
because it might lead to an unhappy marriage, then gets dumped by said
girl. It's an odd sense of relief and disappointment. Make any sense?
Hopefully, the agents I queried will respond favorably. Of course, my
first order of business will have to be to tell them that the offer in
no longer in place. I fear that may look like a bait and switch,
causing problems on that front, too.
I do appreciate all of the insight from folks in this NG as this
situation has evolved. I may very well have made a mistake by
beginning negotiations myself (duh). On the flip side, maybe I saved
myself a whole lot of heartache.
Patricia C. Wrede
>
> 30 days seemed like a good benchmark to me. I didn't have an agent
> yet, so I knew that I wasn't going to sign anything, but I felt I
> should at least begin the negotiation process.
This was probably an error, if you thought you *were* going to be able to
get an agent to negotiate the contract -- primarily because, if you'd
*gotten* an agent, and the agent had come in, he/she might have discovered
that you'd stated as a "major concern" something that was normal and not
mentioned something that really was major, thus making the agent's job much
more difficult than it would otherwise have been.
> I sent a detailed letter outlining my concerns. Chief among them were:
>
> * the massive grant of all rights, in all languages, in all formats
It is perfectly normal for the boilerplate contract to contain this
provision; publishers *always* try to grab all rights. However, it is rare
indeed for an agented contract to let them get away with it. This is,
normally, about the most negotiable thing in a contract.
> * the exclusivity agreement (3 years, applying to all novel-length work
> as writer, contributor or editor, regardless of genre)
That's absurd. What if somebody offered to pay you to write the descriptive
matter at the front of a corporate report (the bit that explains what the
company has been doing for the last year and why it's so cool that you own
shares in it)? You'd have to turn it down?
There *is* usually a clause that says something about the writer not writing
something else that will "interfere" with or "compete" with the work in
question, but that's usually another nonfiction-book clause and can
frequently be taken out.
> * First refusal rights that gave them 180 days to decide and if they
> took a pass, the work could not be placed elsewhere within the 3 years.
That is completely unreasonable. The norm in publishing is that a publisher
gets first refusal for 2-3 months (that's 60-90 days), and if the publisher
doesn't want the ms., the writer can submit it elsewhere right away.
> * no breakdown of subsidiary rights or the split between
> author/publiser (not necessary because of the first point in this list)
Sorry, but it *is* necessary, unless the publisher is going to get 100% of
all the income from subsidiary rights, which is insane. The usual
boilerplate specifies a 50-50 split on foreign rights, which can frequently
be negotiated to get the author a better percentage on anything the
publisher is keeping, and various other percentage splits on movie and
dramatic subrights and so on.
> * Publisher has "sole discretion" as to if the work is acceptable and
> the right to assign it to another author for revision to meet it's
> standard.
I went through this already twice, but once again: "Sole discretion" is
*ABSOLUTELY NORMAL* and correct. The "right to assign it" is a clause
that's leftover from NONFICTION BOOK CONTRACTS.
> * Right of publisher to match terms from another publisher for a work
> they initially refused.
That is a clause that some publishers *try* to get put in contracts, because
it has obvious advantages. It's high on all the "get this clause removed
even if you have to drop your advance to do it" lists.
> * $100 advance
*What*? OK, I've heard of small advances, but at 6% of a $10 cover price,
that only has to sell 167 copies to earn out, and you can probably do *that*
from friends and family. If that's all the more copies they think they can
sell, you'd be better off self-publishing.
This is basically a token advance; if they were going to do this, they might
as well have offered a royalties-only contract.
> * Once yearly accounting.
Some small presses do this, I understand, but industry standard is twice a
year.
> * Out-of-print definition vague
That's fairly normal, especially in these days of just-in-time publishing.
You were right to try to get it locked down, but it's not always possible.
> * right of the publisher to sell the rights in the first bullet, with
> no mention of a split...thus giving 100% to publisher.
Which is absolutely insane.
> The royalty rate was 6% for the first 1500 copies, 7% thereafter for
> trade paperback, which I was comfortable with. But it was hazy, at
> least to me, what the 6% was being derived from...
OK, first off, royalty rates are based on cover price. There are two kinds:
flat-rate (meaning, X% on all copies) and split rates, which is what you
have here: X% on the first Y-many copies sold, X+Z% on copies sold
thereafter. Sometimes there's a double break --X% on the first bunch, Y% on
the second bunch sold, Z% on everything sold after that.
Standard royalty rates vary depending on whether they are for hardcovers,
trade paperbacks, or mass-market paperbacks. The usual hardcover rate is
10% on the first X many copies (usually somewhere between 15,000 and 25,000,
depending on the particular publisher), 12-1/2% thereafter. Standard trade
paperback varies a bit more; when I started, it was 8% on the first X many,
10% thereafter, but now it seems as if either a flat 8% or a 6% and 8% break
is more usual. On mass market paperbacks, 6% on the first 100,000 copies,
8% thereafter is normal; first-time authors usually get a flat 6% rate.
So 6% and 7% on a trade paperback is maybe a little low, but not
unreasonably so.
> They pulled their offer.
In the long run, it is probably just as well, though I'm sure you don't feel
quite that way at present.
I would suggest that you consider sending this information to whatever
writer's organization you belong to -- I believe they all have committees
that deal with unconscionable editorial contracts. If you haven't yet
joined a writer's organization, consider sending the information to several,
*pro bono*. The SFWA website has an "Editors and Preditors" page that I
think has a link for stuff like this.
EVERYBODY PLEASE NOTE: All this stuff does *not* mean that this is a scam
publisher, or that the publisher is somehow "not legitimate." Most of the
stuff Frank describes here has been done, at one time or another, by
well-known publishing houses; some of it is, as I have said, extremely
common in the boilerplate contracts (the publishers stick it in there
*assuming* that 90% of their authors will know enough to ask for its
removal, but they figure that if they can get it through even a couple of
contracts, well, it might be to their advantage). The net effect, in this
case, is outrageous, yes, but legitimate publishers are quite as capable of
being outrageous as anybody else.
> Hopefully, the agents I queried will respond favorably. Of course, my
> first order of business will have to be to tell them that the offer in
> no longer in place. I fear that may look like a bait and switch,
> causing problems on that front, too.
>
> I do appreciate all of the insight from folks in this NG as this
> situation has evolved. I may very well have made a mistake by
> beginning negotiations myself (duh). On the flip side, maybe I saved
> myself a whole lot of heartache.
See above about the negotiations part. As regards the heartache...I'd say
"headache," rather. Some of those clauses would almost certainly have come
back to bite you in a couple of years.
It's hard for a first-time, unpublished author to walk away from a situation
like this (which is, in essence, what you did by sticking up for your
rights). It is, however, sometimes necessary. I wouldn't wait for the
agents to contact you; notify them right away that the offer has been
withdrawn, explain why, and (if you have one that you're particularly
interested in persuading to take you on) apologize for having been too
impatient to wait; then say that you're still interested if they are. If
you don't want a record on paper of you eating humble pie, call them.
And start sending that ms. around to other places.
Patricia C. Wrede
Frank
Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
> "Frank" <frank...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1129069352.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > 30 days seemed like a good benchmark to me. I didn't have an agent
> > yet, so I knew that I wasn't going to sign anything, but I felt I
> > should at least begin the negotiation process.
>
> This was probably an error, if you thought you *were* going to be able to
> get an agent to negotiate the contract -- primarily because, if you'd
> *gotten* an agent, and the agent had come in, he/she might have discovered
> that you'd stated as a "major concern" something that was normal and not
> mentioned something that really was major, thus making the agent's job much
> more difficult than it would otherwise have been.
I think you're right. In retrospect, I should have waited until I had
an agent or until the publisher pushed the matter.
> > I sent a detailed letter outlining my concerns. Chief among them were:
> >
> > * the massive grant of all rights, in all languages, in all formats
>
> It is perfectly normal for the boilerplate contract to contain this
> provision; publishers *always* try to grab all rights. However, it is rare
> indeed for an agented contract to let them get away with it. This is,
> normally, about the most negotiable thing in a contract.
And they were not at all willing to negotiate it.
> > * the exclusivity agreement (3 years, applying to all novel-length work
> > as writer, contributor or editor, regardless of genre)
>
> That's absurd. What if somebody offered to pay you to write the descriptive
> matter at the front of a corporate report (the bit that explains what the
> company has been doing for the last year and why it's so cool that you own
> shares in it)? You'd have to turn it down?
Well, I discussed this with them prior to the actual contracts coming,
and basically any novel-length work, regardless of genre. Your
corporate work example would probably fit, since I'd be a contributor
to a novel length work.
> There *is* usually a clause that says something about the writer not writing
> something else that will "interfere" with or "compete" with the work in
> question, but that's usually another nonfiction-book clause and can
> frequently be taken out.
As a first time writer, I would have been okay with this clause being
modified to resemble what you describe. The books were a crime fiction
series. I'd be okay with no novel length work that would compete with
that series. But should I be kept from shopping around the fantasy ms.
I'm working on? Or the mainstream one? I don't think so. I even
threw out the carrot of using a psuedonym as a negotiation piece. I
think my stance on this was more than reasonable.
> > * First refusal rights that gave them 180 days to decide and if they
> > took a pass, the work could not be placed elsewhere within the 3 years.
>
> That is completely unreasonable. The norm in publishing is that a publisher
> gets first refusal for 2-3 months (that's 60-90 days), and if the publisher
> doesn't want the ms., the writer can submit it elsewhere right away.
This was one my major problems with the offer. It felt more like
indentured servitude than a contract ("You'll write only what we want
you to write and nothing more or less!).
> > * no breakdown of subsidiary rights or the split between
> > author/publiser (not necessary because of the first point in this list)
>
> Sorry, but it *is* necessary, unless the publisher is going to get 100% of
> all the income from subsidiary rights, which is insane. The usual
> boilerplate specifies a 50-50 split on foreign rights, which can frequently
> be negotiated to get the author a better percentage on anything the
> publisher is keeping, and various other percentage splits on movie and
> dramatic subrights and so on.
When I wrote 'not necessary', I meant that within the confines of this
contract there was no longer a need to break it down because they had
already claimed 100% of all subsidiary rights.
Of course, you're right that it is very necessary. This was one area I
did a fair amount of research on to see what the range was...and
100%/0% isn't fair! :-)
> > * Publisher has "sole discretion" as to if the work is acceptable and
> > the right to assign it to another author for revision to meet it's
> > standard.
>
> I went through this already twice, but once again: "Sole discretion" is
> *ABSOLUTELY NORMAL* and correct. The "right to assign it" is a clause
> that's leftover from NONFICTION BOOK CONTRACTS.
I guess it wasn't the sole discretion part that bothered me so much as
the absolute right to assign it if it did not meet their requirements.
If someone were to be at unscrupulous, it doesn't seem like there would
be much I could do legally.
I did bring up the non-fiction leftover clause, but they didn't address
it.
> > * Right of publisher to match terms from another publisher for a work
> > they initially refused.
>
> That is a clause that some publishers *try* to get put in contracts, because
> it has obvious advantages. It's high on all the "get this clause removed
> even if you have to drop your advance to do it" lists.
This is advice I've heard here and elsewhere on the 'net and books, so
I gave it a go.
> > * $100 advance
>
> *What*? OK, I've heard of small advances, but at 6% of a $10 cover price,
> that only has to sell 167 copies to earn out, and you can probably do *that*
> from friends and family. If that's all the more copies they think they can
> sell, you'd be better off self-publishing.
I thought it was pretty paltry, too.
They did write that they expected to break even at the 36 month mark,
which was the justification for the 3 years exclusivity clause.
> This is basically a token advance; if they were going to do this, they might
> as well have offered a royalties-only contract.
> > * Once yearly accounting.
>
> Some small presses do this, I understand, but industry standard is twice a
> year.
And this was one of those things I mentioned, but didn't insist upon.
If they are geared toward that business model, it wasn't a battle I
wanted to fight. I mentioned it because twice yearly is industry
standard and it was a bargaining chip I was more than willing to give
up later.
> > * Out-of-print definition vague
>
> That's fairly normal, especially in these days of just-in-time publishing.
> You were right to try to get it locked down, but it's not always possible.
>
> > * right of the publisher to sell the rights in the first bullet, with
> > no mention of a split...thus giving 100% to publisher.
>
> Which is absolutely insane.
Absolutely.
This press claims to have a lot of foreign dealings and is going into
audiobooks, so I was more than willing to give them those rights with a
fair royalty rate or a fair split if they sold them.
> > The royalty rate was 6% for the first 1500 copies, 7% thereafter for
> > trade paperback, which I was comfortable with. But it was hazy, at
> > least to me, what the 6% was being derived from...
>
> OK, first off, royalty rates are based on cover price. There are two kinds:
> flat-rate (meaning, X% on all copies) and split rates, which is what you
> have here: X% on the first Y-many copies sold, X+Z% on copies sold
> thereafter. Sometimes there's a double break --X% on the first bunch, Y% on
> the second bunch sold, Z% on everything sold after that.
>
> Standard royalty rates vary depending on whether they are for hardcovers,
> trade paperbacks, or mass-market paperbacks. The usual hardcover rate is
> 10% on the first X many copies (usually somewhere between 15,000 and 25,000,
> depending on the particular publisher), 12-1/2% thereafter. Standard trade
> paperback varies a bit more; when I started, it was 8% on the first X many,
> 10% thereafter, but now it seems as if either a flat 8% or a 6% and 8% break
> is more usual. On mass market paperbacks, 6% on the first 100,000 copies,
> 8% thereafter is normal; first-time authors usually get a flat 6% rate.
>
> So 6% and 7% on a trade paperback is maybe a little low, but not
> unreasonably so.
I was okay on the rate, but it wasn't clear that the rates were based
on the cover price or the wholesale price or something else entirely.
Obviously 6% of cover price is a lot better than wholesale.
> > They pulled their offer.
>
> In the long run, it is probably just as well, though I'm sure you don't feel
> quite that way at present.
It doesn't, but it does. The hope/desire to succeed part doesn't feel
that way. The coldly logical part is nodding it's head in emphatic
agreement.
> I would suggest that you consider sending this information to whatever
> writer's organization you belong to -- I believe they all have committees
> that deal with unconscionable editorial contracts. If you haven't yet
> joined a writer's organization, consider sending the information to several,
> *pro bono*. The SFWA website has an "Editors and Preditors" page that I
> think has a link for stuff like this.
I will givet that some strong consideration. I have used those sites
myself to avoid a couple of publishers and agents.
> EVERYBODY PLEASE NOTE: All this stuff does *not* mean that this is a scam
> publisher, or that the publisher is somehow "not legitimate." Most of the
> stuff Frank describes here has been done, at one time or another, by
> well-known publishing houses; some of it is, as I have said, extremely
> common in the boilerplate contracts (the publishers stick it in there
> *assuming* that 90% of their authors will know enough to ask for its
> removal, but they figure that if they can get it through even a couple of
> contracts, well, it might be to their advantage). The net effect, in this
> case, is outrageous, yes, but legitimate publishers are quite as capable of
> being outrageous as anybody else.
I've avoided mentioning the publisher by name just so that no one
things that I believe them to be a scam. I don't think they are a scam
or I wouldn't have spent the time I did with them. I do have less than
generous feelings toward them right now due to the time I spent working
with them and then to get kapowied with those contract terms...but I
did that of my own free will.
> > Hopefully, the agents I queried will respond favorably. Of course, my
> > first order of business will have to be to tell them that the offer in
> > no longer in place. I fear that may look like a bait and switch,
> > causing problems on that front, too.
> >
> > I do appreciate all of the insight from folks in this NG as this
> > situation has evolved. I may very well have made a mistake by
> > beginning negotiations myself (duh). On the flip side, maybe I saved
> > myself a whole lot of heartache.
>
> See above about the negotiations part. As regards the heartache...I'd say
> "headache," rather. Some of those clauses would almost certainly have come
> back to bite you in a couple of years.
>
> It's hard for a first-time, unpublished author to walk away from a situation
> like this (which is, in essence, what you did by sticking up for your
> rights). It is, however, sometimes necessary.
I agree. I'd rather stay unpublisher for a while longer than to enter
into a contract that would come back to bite me later on.
As this situation was unfolding, I kept recalling the contracts that
singers John Mellencamp and Bruce Springsteen both signed early in
their career in order to get a record deal. Years later, they
discovered clauses in their contracts that were very damaging (like not
owning their own songs). The reverse of this is the contract that
David Morrell's (sp?) agent negotiated for First Blood, which ended up
netting a tidy sum from clauses he hadn't even thought about (movies,
movie sequels, merchandise).
I kept thinking, what if these books take off and down the road a piece
a film or TV movie is made from them? The answer is, I'd get nothing.
>I wouldn't wait for the
> agents to contact you; notify them right away that the offer has been
> withdrawn, explain why, and (if you have one that you're particularly
> interested in persuading to take you on) apologize for having been too
> impatient to wait; then say that you're still interested if they are. If
> you don't want a record on paper of you eating humble pie, call them.
Good advice. Will do.
> And start sending that ms. around to other places.
>
> Patricia C. Wrede
Already doing that, and will do it again today.
Thanks for all the insight. I hope that this thread has been
beneficial to other writers who are at my career stage, too.
Joann Zimmerman
frank...@msn.com says...
> As this situation was unfolding, I kept recalling the contracts that
> singers John Mellencamp and Bruce Springsteen both signed early in
> their career in order to get a record deal. Years later, they
> discovered clauses in their contracts that were very damaging (like not
> owning their own songs). The reverse of this is the contract that
> David Morrell's (sp?) agent negotiated for First Blood, which ended up
> netting a tidy sum from clauses he hadn't even thought about (movies,
> movie sequels, merchandise).
Did either Mellencamp or Springsteen have an agent? Because as I read it
here, the difference between either of them and Morrell is that he had
an agent and the other two didn't.
This might suggest something.
--
"I never understood people who don't have bookshelves."
--George Plimpton
Joann Zimmerman jz...@bellereti.com
Patricia C. Wrede
>
> Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>> There *is* usually a clause that says something about the writer not
>> writing
>> something else that will "interfere" with or "compete" with the work in
>> question, but that's usually another nonfiction-book clause and can
>> frequently be taken out.
>
> As a first time writer, I would have been okay with this clause being
> modified to resemble what you describe. The books were a crime fiction
> series. I'd be okay with no novel length work that would compete with
> that series. But should I be kept from shopping around the fantasy ms.
> I'm working on? Or the mainstream one? I don't think so. I even
> threw out the carrot of using a psuedonym as a negotiation piece. I
> think my stance on this was more than reasonable.
>
Well, this is the option clause part, and for a lot of publishers, it is
simply just not negotiable for first-time writers. If you've given them a
fantasy, and you want to write a Romance next, you still have to give it to
them first. The part about not showing it to *anybody* for three years is
uncommon and ridiculous, but the option clause, in general, is one of the
most unreasonable and toughest bits for a new writer (who has no leverage)
to get changed, even with a good agent.
To give you some idea: my first contract had a full-scale option clause:
whatever I wrote, they got to see it next. After the first couple of books,
my agent started getting changes: first, a reduction in the amount of time
they had to look at it; then it changed to "next fantasy novel"; then "next
adult fantasy novel"; then "next novel in the xxx series." But it took
about ten books' worth of contracts to get to that point.
>> > * no breakdown of subsidiary rights or the split between
>> > author/publiser (not necessary because of the first point in this list)
>>
>> Sorry, but it *is* necessary, unless the publisher is going to get 100%
>> of
>> all the income from subsidiary rights, which is insane. The usual
>> boilerplate specifies a 50-50 split on foreign rights, which can
>> frequently
>> be negotiated to get the author a better percentage on anything the
>> publisher is keeping, and various other percentage splits on movie and
>> dramatic subrights and so on.
>
> When I wrote 'not necessary', I meant that within the confines of this
> contract there was no longer a need to break it down because they had
> already claimed 100% of all subsidiary rights.
>
> Of course, you're right that it is very necessary. This was one area I
> did a fair amount of research on to see what the range was...and
> 100%/0% isn't fair! :-)
"Fair" has very little to do with contractual agreements. And I don't mean
that in a bad way. There are authors I know who *prefer* contracts that I
would consider ridiculously unfair, because, well, because that's how they
like to run their business for some reason. And 100%/0% is actually fairly
normal...in a work-for-hire contract.
But you're talking original fiction, and this kind of grabbing of subrights
is *not* normal, for any genre publisher I know of.
>
>> > * Publisher has "sole discretion" as to if the work is acceptable and
>> > the right to assign it to another author for revision to meet it's
>> > standard.
>>
>> I went through this already twice, but once again: "Sole discretion" is
>> *ABSOLUTELY NORMAL* and correct. The "right to assign it" is a clause
>> that's leftover from NONFICTION BOOK CONTRACTS.
>
> I guess it wasn't the sole discretion part that bothered me so much as
> the absolute right to assign it if it did not meet their requirements.
> If someone were to be at unscrupulous, it doesn't seem like there would
> be much I could do legally.
>
Well, yeah -- that's why you get that part taken out.
>
>> > * Right of publisher to match terms from another publisher for a work
>> > they initially refused.
>>
>> That is a clause that some publishers *try* to get put in contracts,
>> because
>> it has obvious advantages. It's high on all the "get this clause
>> removed
>> even if you have to drop your advance to do it" lists.
>
> This is advice I've heard here and elsewhere on the 'net and books, so
> I gave it a go.
It's actually not that common to see it any more, to the best of my
knowledge; it used to be in a lot more boilerplates, and there are some
serious horror stories from back when revolving around it, but these days
you don't hear about it much. If this were a normal publisher, I'd be
surprised that they weren't willing to just drop it. Given the rest of what
you say about them, though...
>> > * $100 advance
>>
>> *What*? OK, I've heard of small advances, but at 6% of a $10 cover
>> price,
>> that only has to sell 167 copies to earn out, and you can probably do
>> *that*
>> from friends and family. If that's all the more copies they think they
>> can
>> sell, you'd be better off self-publishing.
>
> I thought it was pretty paltry, too.
>
> They did write that they expected to break even at the 36 month mark,
> which was the justification for the 3 years exclusivity clause.
Excuse me, but again, *WHAT*?
The advance is usually set at the level the publisher expects the book to
sell -- that is, if the publisher expects the book to sell 100 copies at
$.60 royalties per copy, they'll offer a $60 advance. That's 100 copies
*total*; the idea is that if they set the advance right, they won't have to
pay the author anything else, and the author won't owe them anything else.
"Breakeven" usually means the point at which the publisher has made back the
publication costs of the book, which is a totally different thing, and can
occur long before the author earns out his advance...or long after.
If the publisher expects to hit breakeven on total sales of 167 copies,
they're either planning on charging a fortune in cover price, or they're
publishing on the really, really cheap. If they expect to breakeven at
sales of 1000 copies (a far more reasonable expectation, for a short-run
small press, IME), and they expect to hit that figure 36 months after
publication, they ought, theoretically, to have offered you a $600 advance.
If they can't afford to pay advances *in* advance, they shouldn't offer them
at all; they should be going with a royalties-only contract, with
explanations as to why.
>> > * right of the publisher to sell the rights in the first bullet, with
>> > no mention of a split...thus giving 100% to publisher.
>>
>> Which is absolutely insane.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> This press claims to have a lot of foreign dealings and is going into
> audiobooks, so I was more than willing to give them those rights with a
> fair royalty rate or a fair split if they sold them.
Even with my very first contract, for which I did not have an agent, and in
which I basically gave away the farm, I got half of all foreign and
subrights sales.
<re: royalty rates>
>> So 6% and 7% on a trade paperback is maybe a little low, but not
>> unreasonably so.
>
> I was okay on the rate, but it wasn't clear that the rates were based
> on the cover price or the wholesale price or something else entirely.
> Obviously 6% of cover price is a lot better than wholesale.
If a publisher wants to play that game, they do it other ways. "Royalty
rates" meaning "percent of cover price" is *way* too ingrained in the
industry for them to try to muck around with definitions of it; instead,
what they do is play with a different sub-clause, the one that says you get
a different amount on books that are sold at "above-normal discounts." This
was originally meant to apply to remaindered books, which get wholesaled at
barely-just-above-cost, or even below-cost, but I've heard of publishers
claiming that they had a "standard" discount of, oh, 40% of cover price, and
that *anything* more than that was "below standard." And since the big
chain bookstores, and even many of the larger independents, routinely get
45, 50, or even 60% discounts, that means that most of their sales are at
"above-normal discounts." This is not something you can do anything about
in the contract, however; it's scummy accounting practice, which is
different.
>> > They pulled their offer.
>>
>> In the long run, it is probably just as well, though I'm sure you don't
>> feel
>> quite that way at present.
>
> It doesn't, but it does. The hope/desire to succeed part doesn't feel
> that way. The coldly logical part is nodding it's head in emphatic
> agreement.
Consider it a learning experience. :)
> I've avoided mentioning the publisher by name just so that no one
> things that I believe them to be a scam. I don't think they are a scam
> or I wouldn't have spent the time I did with them. I do have less than
> generous feelings toward them right now due to the time I spent working
> with them and then to get kapowied with those contract terms...but I
> did that of my own free will.
There have been, are, and will be publishers who try to grab more than is
normal or reasonable. Some of the big New York houses have had bad
reputations for a time; some still do, while others have reformed; some will
no doubt try stuff like that again at some time in the future. It is always
worthwhile asking around. It's harder to find out what the deal is with the
smaller presses, simply because they have fewer authors publishing with them
who can compare notes.
>> It's hard for a first-time, unpublished author to walk away from a
>> situation
>> like this (which is, in essence, what you did by sticking up for your
>> rights). It is, however, sometimes necessary.
>
> I agree. I'd rather stay unpublisher for a while longer than to enter
> into a contract that would come back to bite me later on.
>
> As this situation was unfolding, I kept recalling the contracts that
> singers John Mellencamp and Bruce Springsteen both signed early in
> their career in order to get a record deal. Years later, they
> discovered clauses in their contracts that were very damaging (like not
> owning their own songs). The reverse of this is the contract that
> David Morrell's (sp?) agent negotiated for First Blood, which ended up
> netting a tidy sum from clauses he hadn't even thought about (movies,
> movie sequels, merchandise).
This is why you get an agent. This is why you *let the agent* negotiate the
contract. Even when you've done a lot of homework and really done your
best, when all is said and done you'd still be a first-time author doing his
very first contract negotiation. The odds that there'd be something buried
in some sub-clause somewhere that would turn out to be really nasty and that
you didn't notice because you didn't have the experience to look for it
are...high.
>> And start sending that ms. around to other places.
> Already doing that, and will do it again today.
>
> Thanks for all the insight. I hope that this thread has been
> beneficial to other writers who are at my career stage, too.
Me, too. It's not often that people get a chance to see this kind of
blow-by-blow description, and I think it's a really good reality check.
Patricia C. Wrede
sharkey
>
> Thanks for all the insight. I hope that this thread has been
> beneficial to other writers who are at my career stage, too.
Absolutely, it's fascinating, thanks Pat and Frank!
And good luck, Frank!
-----sharks
Daniel R. Reitman
<jz...@bellereti.com> wrote:
>Did either Mellencamp or Springsteen have an agent? Because as I read it
>here, the difference between either of them and Morrell is that he had
>an agent and the other two didn't.
>. . . .
IIRC, Springsteen's dispute was _with_ his management.
Dan, ad nauseam
Catja Pafort
> They did write that they expected to break even at the 36 month mark,
> which was the justification for the 3 years exclusivity clause.
I've worked for a small publisher who stocked most of their 500 copy
print runs in the back basement.
Such outfits exist. In my case, they were trying very hard to be genuine
in a niche market - but my, were they inept.
This really makes me wonder how many copies they expected to sell.
Most publishers, as I understand it, think in much shorter print runs -
they don't expect to stock a title for three years.
Catja
Frank
It was, so the analogy drys up at that point. The only part I was
using for comparision was that he signed an initial contract when he
was an unsigned artist and it later came back to haunt him.
Supposedly, he didn't even read it.
Later, he found he didn't even own his own songs.
The reason I found this analogy fitting is because, based on the
offered contract, while I would hold copyright to my books, I would
have zero control over any future work that didn't meet their
criteria...including shopping it elsewhere. The exclusivity agreement
was ironclad. If I wrote something during that period that they
didn't like, they first had 6 months to decide if they liked it or not.
Then they could just say no and it went on a shelf until the 3 years
as up. Or they could have someone else finish it to their liking and
charge me for it (Yes, I know now this is a holdover from non-fiction
works, but they refused to change it, so it would have applied). This
was for any book, period.
On top of that, there was some language that called the entire package
an "XX Identity" (where XX is the publisher's initials) and gave them
sole copyright and control over this. It looked to me that they could
easily say, "Your first book, now published, is an XX identity. We're
going to have our favorite author (one who has about 20 books with
them) write the next book in the series."
I know this may sound a little paranoid. Believe me, I don't think
that there are gobs of editors or agents out there waiting to steal my
precious work. I send it out all the time. I believe in 99.9+% of the
industry. But this publisher has only one author right now, who has
written all of their books. When I asked about this, they said they
were looking to expand, hence the interest in my work, which is a
different genre from the fantasy they mostly publish (and two suspense
novels, which is why I took a chance and queried in the first place).
They also said that they were bringing on several new authors in order
to do this and would be making some announcements in the next month or
so. This was April or May. It's now October, and there's been
nothing.
Maybe everything was square. But if the contract I was asked to sign
made it possible for something very bad (and very specific) to happen,
I was not about to sign it. When I sent in my concerns, there was no
negotiation, just a brief paragraph that was a little snotty and a
terse goodbye.
If I were on the other end of the deal, and was interested enough in an
author to offer a contract, knowing he was unagented, I don't think I'd
dump him when the contract negotiation came back. Especially if some
of the negotiated points were not completely understood by the author,
and the author's language was not inflammatory. I would think, since
I'd already spent months reviewing his work, requesting minor changes
and discussing matters with him, that I would spend just a little time
and answer his concerns, making it clear where I was not willing to
budge and maybe even why. After all, he seemed reasonable.
Ah, well, I guess that is exactly what they did...stated where they
would not budge, which was anywhere at all.
But now I just sound like I'm crying in my soup. Sorry for that. I
know there must be quite a few writers who have experienced something
similar, or far worse.
I did follow Patricia's advice (again) and have sent out eleven queries
since the contract offer was withdrawn. I stopped doing that in April,
due to the intense interest level this publisher showed.
Frank
Me, too.
The strange thing is, their bestselling (and sole) author is supposed
to have sold over 150,000 copies of his debut novel. And he's written
about nine or ten more.
Now, going into this, I knew "I'm not him" but just being published by
a press with good enough distribution to sell that many copies was
attractive. And if people came to the website to check out his books
and even just 10% tried mine, I could be well on my way to establishing
a readership.
That was the thought process, anyway.
Jonathan L Cunningham
>
>Catja Pafort wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>> > They did write that they expected to break even at the 36 month mark,
>> > which was the justification for the 3 years exclusivity clause.
>>
>> I've worked for a small publisher who stocked most of their 500 copy
>> print runs in the back basement.
>>
>> Such outfits exist. In my case, they were trying very hard to be genuine
>> in a niche market - but my, were they inept.
>>
>>
>> This really makes me wonder how many copies they expected to sell.
>>
>> Most publishers, as I understand it, think in much shorter print runs -
>> they don't expect to stock a title for three years.
>>
>> Catja
>
>Me, too.
>
>The strange thing is, their bestselling (and sole) author is supposed
>to have sold over 150,000 copies of his debut novel. And he's written
>about nine or ten more.
Do you believe them?
I know that you don't want to identify this company, but that means
only you can verify this figure - none of us can check it.
If it is true, it does seem strange how they are behaving. It sounds
very suspicious. (Not suspicious for the kind of small company Catja
mentioned, but 150,000 sales is, what?, a million dollars turnover?)
Jonathan
(Very interested in your experiences, since you raised the issue.)
--
Mail to spam auto-deleted, use jlc1 instead.
(That's jay ell cee one, if your font makes l and 1 look the same)
Patricia C. Wrede
> The strange thing is, their bestselling (and sole) author is supposed
> to have sold over 150,000 copies of his debut novel. And he's written
> about nine or ten more.
Based on whose count? If he sold 150K copies of his first novel, he ought
to be showing up on bestseller lists, the Amazon rankings, and various other
fairly-easy-to-verify places. Assuming he does, I am incredibly surprised
that he's still with a small press...
...unless, as mentioned before, the small press is his personal tax dodge.
Which would explain the contract -- by assigning pretty much all rights to
the corporate entity, the money doesn't flow through his tax forms. If it's
a partnership, he can still take what he needs as "draw" without paying
income taxes on what he leaves in the company, and the company can deduct
all sorts of things as expenses in order to reduce its taxes. If it's a
corporation, he gets his royalties (which, at 150K copies a book, should be
*plenty* to live on) and double-taxation on dividends, but depending on how
it's set up, he still has a lot of control over the overall income stream,
which can do a *lot* to smooth out tax payments.
Oh, and if they have an author who's written nine books and routinely sells
150,000 or more copies, they shouldn't be having the kind of cash flow
problems that could justify a paltry $100 advance. They're just being
cheap. Assuming, of course, that their figures are good.
Sorry -- you punched my "former accountant" button...
> Now, going into this, I knew "I'm not him" but just being published by
> a press with good enough distribution to sell that many copies was
> attractive. And if people came to the website to check out his books
> and even just 10% tried mine, I could be well on my way to establishing
> a readership.
Having some minor experience with a small press, I *very* much doubt that
the press itself has distribution this good. What is more likely is that,
because they have basically got "all rights" under their contract, they
*sub-contracted* their distribution to one of the big publishing houses, the
way Baen Books does. Even at 150K copies per book, nine or ten books just
isn't enough to support that kind of distribution organization.
"If something looks too good to be true, it probably is."
Patricia C. Wrede
Patricia C. Wrede
> On top of that, there was some language that called the entire package
> an "XX Identity" (where XX is the publisher's initials) and gave them
> sole copyright and control over this. It looked to me that they could
> easily say, "Your first book, now published, is an XX identity. We're
> going to have our favorite author (one who has about 20 books with
> them) write the next book in the series."
>
> I know this may sound a little paranoid.
It's not paranoid. Stuff like that has actually happened to real writers.
It occurs to me that the *other* approach to this sort of contract -- not
one I'd really recommend as a negotiating point, but one that I understand
from lawyer-friends is legally defensible -- is to say "This is obviously a
contract for *employment*, not for free-lance work, since you expect to own
everything I produce. Therefore, let's talk salary and benefits."
And I should also mention that there are various folks who've walked into a
contract like this with their eyes wide open and emerged relatively happy.
But most of them didn't go into it expecting a normal freelance book
contract; they were *looking* for something more like an apprenticeship
program.
If they've only ever worked with one author, they may (well, obviously,
*do*) have rather odd notions about what's normal and what they can get away
with. Partly because, if they've only ever worked with one author, they're
the equivalent of that author's private self-publishing company, even if
it's not the actual author running the place. And I can say from experience
that it can be quite a shock for a very-small-press publisher who's only
done one author's book(s) when they start working with somebody new who has
different priorities.
> But now I just sound like I'm crying in my soup. Sorry for that. I
> know there must be quite a few writers who have experienced something
> similar, or far worse.
"Far worse," definitely. Like, actually *signing* a contract of that sort.
> I did follow Patricia's advice (again) and have sent out eleven queries
> since the contract offer was withdrawn. I stopped doing that in April,
> due to the intense interest level this publisher showed.
Which is exactly what you should have done, ethically speaking.
Patricia C. Wrede
Catja Pafort
> >The strange thing is, their bestselling (and sole) author is supposed
> >to have sold over 150,000 copies of his debut novel. And he's written
> >about nine or ten more.
Selling a fifth of that for a self-published author (and a small press
publishing only one person is not far off - it won't have a marketing
budget for a debut novel!) is exceptional and very rare, and likely to
make waves. People will *hear* about it.
> Do you believe them?
>
> I know that you don't want to identify this company, but that means
> only you can verify this figure - none of us can check it.
And the verifycation should be easy - walk into five bookstores and see
whether this author is a) on the shelves or b) whether they can order
him.
Someone needs to get those books from publisher to consumers. I don't
think Amazon-only will do so. (Amazon *does* stock them all, do they?)
> If it is true, it does seem strange how they are behaving. It sounds
> very suspicious. (Not suspicious for the kind of small company Catja
> mentioned, but 150,000 sales is, what?, a million dollars turnover?)
It certainly sounds more and more suspicious to me.
Frank, I think you're well out of it. That may be only my personal
impression, but judging by everything you've said it does not sound
kosher to me.
Catja
R. L.
/snip/
>If I were on the other end of the deal, and was interested enough in an
>author to offer a contract, knowing he was unagented, I don't think I'd
>dump him when the contract negotiation came back. Especially if some
>of the negotiated points were not completely understood by the author,
>and the author's language was not inflammatory. I would think, since
>I'd already spent months reviewing his work, requesting minor changes
>and discussing matters with him, that I would spend just a little time
>and answer his concerns, making it clear where I was not willing to
>budge and maybe even why. After all, he seemed reasonable.
Considering that they were being flaky for several months and having
problems of their own, maybe something else happened on their end and they
wanted to back out, and used your reply as an excuse.
That would be a pretty fast flip, so soon after pressuring you for an
answer. Still, if they had been a one-author operation, doing your book
(series?) might have represented quite a strain on their resources; maybe
they chickened out. Or maybe the only way it would have been profitable to
them would be with those weird terms, which they were counting on a new
author accepting.
--
RL at houseboatonstyx com (insert one 'the')
Bill Swears
I haven't followed this terribly closely, but it does seem they flipped
awfully fast. some food for thought. A few months ago, I decided I
needed to talk to a couple of authors. Some googling, a little reading
up on the individuals, and I sent off e-mails. The authors I sent
e-mail to replied, and answered my questions.
If you consider the publisher worth looking further at, try to contact
one of its authors, whose work you like. Somebody who can actually tell
you what kind of success they've had with the publisher might inform
your opinion a bit. Especially if the someone shares a mutual
acquaintance with you, that you can discover.
Bill
--
Bill Swears
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin, 1755 "Historical Review of Pennsylvania"
To think that was once a right wing comment. In the land of Homeland
Security it seems.. Suspiciously left wing.