Comments on: AgentFail

By: Tyson F. Gautreaux

Tyson F. Gautreaux — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:31:01 +0000

I just want to tell you that I’m all new to blogging and seriously loved your website. More than likely I’m likely to bookmark your blog post . You amazingly come with fabulous articles. Thanks a bunch for sharing with us your web page.

By: Proximity Marketing

Proximity Marketing — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:17:48 +0000

Online Article……

[…]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available […]……

By: PKV-Vergleich

PKV-Vergleich — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:46:43 +0000

Cool sites…

[…]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[…]……

By: fontanna czekoladowa

fontanna czekoladowa — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 03:11:46 +0000

Websites worth visiting…

[…]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[…]……

By: Alice Turing

Alice Turing — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 17:17:19 +0000

>This is all briliant stuff, and of course true. But one of the problems with agent-searching is in fact a problem with Being Human and Trying to Survive This Wretched Thing we Call Life… and it’s all about shades of grey.I had an agent who ticked most of the Good Agent tick boxes. They had a good background and track record in the industry. They were building up a new list, and therefore had room for new clients – and some time to spend reading submissions. They were (I believe) genuinely passionate about my book. They were prepared to play the long game and didn’t insist that every client had to be an instant success. They were prepared to have editorial discussions and give input and advice. They were neither dictatorial nor sycophantic.But they turned out to be fundamentally flawed in a key area. Professionalism prevents me from going into it in any detail in a public forum, but my point is this:People rarely fit into neat categories and boxes. As the best character-writers know, villains always have redeeming features – and vice versa. What if you are desperate to have an agent (well, duh), and find someone who ticks so many boxes? Someone you like, gel with, and desperately want to trust? You have to decide whether niggling doubts are due to over-caution, or your own self-destructive tendencies, or are worth acting on. If the choice is between not-quite-sure-about agent and no agent at all, it’s incredibly hard to know how to play it.Sadly another thing I discovered is that nobody in the industry is going to confirm any doubts you have unless the agent in question is an out-and-out charlatan. I tried checking with various professionals and professional bodies, but (quite rightly, from a professional and legal standpoint) none of them were in a position to back up what I was half-vaguely worried about. Later (too late) these turned out to be well grounded fears.This isn’t a criticism of this blog post, just a reminder that life is a horribly complicated thing, and hindsight is no use without a time machine. Dagnabbit.

By: Cheryl Linn Martin

Cheryl Linn Martin — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:49:38 +0000

>It's always good to get a peek into someone else's world because it's just too easy to judge when you don't understand.

Thanks for sharing!

By: LBDDiaries

LBDDiaries — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:44:45 +0000

>Very eye-opening. People don't always think about the other side of the story (and writers tend to be "me" focused)! I appreciate this post & will go check out the other ones now – (wandered over here via retweet by Pamela Hutchins).

By: Camille Eide

Camille Eide — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:47:03 +0000

>Seeing how it is from the other side helps wise us up when we're tempted to be self-sighted. You guys are amazing. Thank you Wendy and Rachelle for being real, for working your butts off for us, and for keeping us aware of the struggles of someone other than ourselves. :-)

And Sara - Well said and Amen. We can never have too much grace!

By: Martha Ramirez

Martha Ramirez — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:28:11 +0000

>Wendy's so awesome. I got the opportunity to meet her at James Scott Bell's class in Jan:)

By: Judith Leger

Judith Leger — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:59:55 +0000

>Thanks for sharing, Rachel. It's nice to see such honesty in this business! Blessings to you and Wendy.

By: Caroline

Caroline — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:02:01 +0000

>I read those posts last week, and found Wendy's thoughts to be so honest, revealing, and able to bring the need for grace into view.

Thank you for directing all of us to these posts.

By: Michael K. Reynolds

Michael K. Reynolds — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:23:56 +0000

>Rachelle,

I really love how agents in the CBA support and encourage one another. This is just another great example, and one of the reasons why I visit your Blog (and my agents' Blog -- Books & Such) daily. Thank you for all you do.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:13:53 +0000

>Rachelle–I understand but for requested mss. please agents, let us know ASAP if it's a yes or no so we can move on. Thanks for caring!

By: Rachelle

Rachelle — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:03:28 +0000

>Jan Cline: Good thought, but more agents are definitely not the answer. The number of slots at the publishers is the issue. If all the publishers decided to double their yearly output, that would help, but it's not going to happen!Folks need to remember that agents are not the problem here. The problem is the numbers.The publishers are contracting "x" books per year. However, the number of writers trying to get those slots is probably something like x times 1000.Anon 9:46 am: See above. Time management is not the problem. One available publishing slot for every 1000 querying writers is the problem.