![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lauraanne_gilmanOver on the Persephone posting board, we're talking about agents, the getting and using of same. I threw in my two-bits, and thought some of it might be of interest to the folk here, too.
A good agent gets you into the hands of an editor with more pull with the editorial board (because they have a track record). More importantly, a good agent gets you into the hands of someone who is looking for what you're selling. That's the agent's main job -- to do the market research and making the contacts, while we're busy writing. A good agent is the best item in a writer's marketing toolkit.
A bad agent (and by that I mean one that doesn't know the editors/publishing houses and isn't in touch with the current publishing scene) is worse than no agent. A disliked agent (there is at least one out there who cannot get his phone calls returned, because nobody wants to work with him) is worse than no agent.
The rest is all personal fit. There were agents I worked with I like a great deal as people, and would never want them to represent me. There are agents I dislike as people, and felt were great agents, totally spot-on with their marketing assessments, their negotiation skills, and their commitment to their clients. And I know a lot of writers, with solid careers, who have loved the former people and hated the latter, as agents.
The advice I'd give people is to worry less about what other writers think of their agent, and listen to what the EDITORS think/say/do.
Meanwhile, in my still-maintained guise as a CT-registered voter, I called Ole' Joe's office again. He still has not decided where he stands on the FISA vote. Again. I don't even care what he decides, so long as he gets the hell off the fence and admits who bought him this time.
I really wish I'd taken the opportunity to kick Ole' Joe when we were both in New Haven.
And now I must stop re-waxing the cats, and write an editorial letter.
A good agent gets you into the hands of an editor with more pull with the editorial board (because they have a track record). More importantly, a good agent gets you into the hands of someone who is looking for what you're selling. That's the agent's main job -- to do the market research and making the contacts, while we're busy writing. A good agent is the best item in a writer's marketing toolkit.
A bad agent (and by that I mean one that doesn't know the editors/publishing houses and isn't in touch with the current publishing scene) is worse than no agent. A disliked agent (there is at least one out there who cannot get his phone calls returned, because nobody wants to work with him) is worse than no agent.
The rest is all personal fit. There were agents I worked with I like a great deal as people, and would never want them to represent me. There are agents I dislike as people, and felt were great agents, totally spot-on with their marketing assessments, their negotiation skills, and their commitment to their clients. And I know a lot of writers, with solid careers, who have loved the former people and hated the latter, as agents.
The advice I'd give people is to worry less about what other writers think of their agent, and listen to what the EDITORS think/say/do.
Meanwhile, in my still-maintained guise as a CT-registered voter, I called Ole' Joe's office again. He still has not decided where he stands on the FISA vote. Again. I don't even care what he decides, so long as he gets the hell off the fence and admits who bought him this time.
I really wish I'd taken the opportunity to kick Ole' Joe when we were both in New Haven.
And now I must stop re-waxing the cats, and write an editorial letter.
