Yes, you don't have to multiply that 1000 by every agency in WAAYB.

On the other hand, you sort of have to multiply it by each agent you submit to, because with each one you're starting afresh. Or have you already said that? I never was any good with numbers...

Yes, probability dictates that you are starting afresh in with the other 1000 for each agent: if you submitted to 1000 agents you aren't guaranteed to be taken on by the last one. On the other hand, there are only (say) 1000 others in total who you've got to be better than, and (say) 100 agents who're choosing between you all.

But it's all rather nonsense, because of course it leaves out individual variations of talent and taste...

Emma

But it's all rather nonsense, because of course it leaves out individual variations of talent and taste...

That's what I meant - each agent has different preferences, so you're submiting to a new 'field' each time, as it were. Oh I don't know, I've confused myself now.

Yes, me too, but I know what you mean. Fundamentally, talking in terms of probability isn't the point, because what makes a match between your work and an agent isn't about numbers. (Note to self, check maths out with mathematician sister). 'It only takes one' is encouraging, but it's also true. But you can't know that, which is where submitting widely comes into it...

Emma

Years ago, when I was having a go at fiction I took Carole Blake's (v respected agent)dictat that 'you must only submit to one agent at a time' seriously (actually, she said you are allowed to submit to more than one, but you've got to say so in the covering letter).

Now I really regret it! The whole business took ages (I sent off in batches of about 3) and although I got some 'very positive rejections' I wouldn't be surprised if my mention of 'other agents' in the covering letter didn't put some people off.

Now I'm rather more worldly-wise. When I was sending out my non-fiction book I did it in two batches of 6 (spaced about 2 weeks apart) - am very pleased with my agent, but over a coffee once she happened to mention she'd recently chatted to another agent (one at her old agency) who had mentioned I'd offered my stuff to her too - and the vibe from her (my agent) was a tad frosty. Still, by that point we were signed up together and it would have been a bit late for her to get all pouty.

Thing is, agents are quite an odd bunch psychologically in some ways, I think (Hi Simon T, if you're reading this!) - they are, essentially 'in sales' and have to have the chutzpah and confidence to push work they believe in...however, in personality terms that often goes with having a fair-sized ego. I think that's where the whole 'You must only approach me and not have any prospective other agents on the go' mindset came in, historically. And of course, it puts them at an advantage in that the author is so grateful for their attention as opposed to thinking 'hmmm...this person is ok but are they really the best possible person I could have representing my work?' and shopping around a bit.

It's like dating, really. Before you're committed (signed with) someone, you ought to be able to see/approach other people.

So yes, a rather rambly reply but as others have said I'd suggest sending out manuscripts to several at a time.

And of course, it puts them at an advantage in that the author is so grateful for their attention as opposed to thinking 'hmmm...this person is ok but are they really the best possible person I could have representing my work?' and shopping around a bit. It's like dating, really. Before you're committed (signed with) someone, you ought to be able to see/approach other people.

This is true, although when I had lunch with my now-agent before I signed with him, he was at pains to tell me why I should sign with him, pitch himself if you like, and said he was aware I might be seeing other people, etc, and that I'd probably want to go away and think about it.

I said I wasn't seeing anyone else, and then we agreed to go steady lol.

I think a good agent should be aware that if they want to represent you, others probably will as well, and so they are, to a greater or lesser extent depending on how much they/others want you, almost suditioning for you.

Yes, I think it's quite often an elephant in the room thing - you all know you're thinking about others, but nobody quite says anything. To some extent it just feels rude - like talking about your last date to your current one. But I think it's also to do with egos, in the sense that publishing is all about harnessing different kinds of ego (and writers' egos are no smaller than anyone else's, just different) to make things happen in a hugely competitive and very narrow-margin industry. Sometimes it all works better if the more ego-battering things are played down...

Emma

I took pleasure in telling my agent that only one other agent had the novel, but I'd been very focused in my submissions because I only wanted to work with him. I'd done my homework, and I could tell he was impressed that a) I'd read a good percentage of the authors he represents and b)I was up to date with his latest sales.

In the past, I received rejections because I didn't bother to do that, and some MS went to agents and publishers who didn't publish the stuff I do. Knowing what an agent likes is half the battle, I feel.

JB

I think it's excellent that you'd done your research and were focused, Waxlyrical. We all want to feel wanted so your agent must have felt good about the fact that you'd done lots of research and really wanted to work with him.

I had a *relatively* open mind re agencies when I kicked off - I found the reputations of the 'big hitters' (Curtis Brown, AP Watt) alluring, but then I'd had some professional contact with Carole Blake and Darley Anderson too and had a lot of respect for them. There's one agent (who shall be nameless) who I took one look at at a social bash and thought 'cokehead' so that person was ruled out immediately though they've got an excellent reputation and are doing well, years later.