a finder's fee. There's nothing wrong with this necessarily, but I think the author needs to bear in mind (or have it pointed out to him) that this does reduce the number of agents who will see his work to those who will pay the fee, and exclude him from those who won't.

But there's nothing to stop a writer sending her or his work to whatever agents she or he wants to, whenever she or he wants to - it's not exclusive at all. Some do, some don't. Merely that, if an agency takes on a writer who was sent by an editorial service, then the editorial service gets a fee. (Which small - and it is small - source of income does help to keep the original fees for the writer down, too.) As far as I know, most of the big editorial services work this way.

Emma

Good discussion of the finding-fee issue here:

http://www.thebookseller.com/blogs/43648-a-code-among-consultants.html

Interesting that so many editorial services resist the idea of some basic kind of code of conduct. It makes you wonder...

Emma

Like to hear your views. At the moment, I'm leaning strongly to sticking to my friend's line regarding client's 'successes'.

I think it's fair enough for literary consultants not to promise to get people's work published - or, to put it the other way, it would be very foolhardy to promise to do so. But on the other hand, from the writer's point of view, a track record of publishing successes does provide some sort of index (though of course not the only one) of the consultant's competence. And if you're running a business and expect people to pay money for your services, you need a visible badge of competence and a sufficiently alluring selling-point for the client.

To put it bluntly, if I knew that no one who'd used a certain literary consultant had ever succeeded in getting their manuscript published, I'd be sceptical, as a potential paying client, about using that person's services.

I've used the services of a couple of well-known literary consultants and been satisfied that the advice they've given has (1) given me tools for improving the work overall, and (2) given me tools to make it more viable as a publishing prospect. These two things are not the same, though they overlap, but since most people who are willing to fork out several hundred pounds to have a critique done are seriously - however unrealistically or otherwise - hoping to achieve publication, it's realistic to expect that a consultant's advice will help improve their chances of getting published.

The bottom line for the writer, I reckon - assuming the advice and critique they receive is competent - is whether they are capable of implementing that advice effectively. That's the bit I'm still working on.

The point is that as an editor you can only really help to get a book from an F to an E, or a C+ to a B-, and so on. You may well be able to make a pig's ear into quite a nice soft leather wallet, but a silk purse can't be guaranteed - in fact I'd go as far as to say that it almost certainly isn't possible.

It's not really fair to compare individuals with the agencies, either, unless you do the maths properly. An agency with 60 editors averaging 10 MS a year is reasonably likely to be able to quote a success (though still not certain - a slushpile of 600 could well not hold any potential successes) whereas an individual working at that rate almost certainly wouldn't. And it's completely random, what the quality of what comes in, is. Anyone who insists on an individual editor being able to quote up a card carrying big-two-book-deal has absolutely no idea of the realties of the system: how weak most of the MS are, and how tough the competition is.

Emma

We might be talking slightly at cross-purposes. I was replying to Terry's earlier post which - I assumed - gave the perspective of a literary consultant working solo & providing critiques to fee-paying clients.

Considered in it's own right, I see the justice in what you are saying.

I did mean the literary consultancies (confusing that they often get called agencies). I think it's legitimate to ask them for some successes. Less so for individuals, numerically speaking.

But then, may the answer is we need more definitions of 'success'. Harry Bingham quotes a client who, when sent a report saying (in more constructive terms, obviously) that the book was absolutely terrible and not a word wwould be able to stand if it was going to get any better, said, 'Thank goodness, you've given me permission to give up.' I think that ought to be quoted as a success, don't you? It was a positive outcome, after all.

Emma

Yes, I think that's quite good & it perhaps takes a degree of courage to give a frank assessment of that kind.

One of the points I was sort of making, although I lacked the energy to make it properly, was that when you send off your manuscript to a literary consultant you don't just want advice on how to make it better in a general sense - you also want a commercial assessment, which involves having the thing held up against the yardstick of 'publishability' & its various shortcomings pointed out.

It must be a relief to be able to give up, in the sure knowledge, based on professional advice, that there's no prospect of success if one carries on. The problem for too many aspiring writers, like myself, is that there is, apparently, some prospect of success - or at least of improvement - but no real clarity about just how much...

Oh yes, you do need a market assessment. Good writing, and publishable writing, and writing that's likely to be published are three different though interlinked standards. But good writing, at the nuts-and-bolts level, comes first to my mind, and for the most part what I see has more than enough work still to do on on that standard before it could even begin to worry about markets and publishers. I do always talk about the market, not least how demanding it is, so that more often than not I then say, 'You'll have realised by now that I think Book Title needs an awful lot of work before it would be worth sending out.' Which I think its pretty unequivocal!

Emma

<Added>

And, yes, it's so hard to have people telling you you're getting there but... In some ways it's the hardest stage to be at, except for all the others! I don't know what the answer is except to go plodding on with the improving thing by whatever means suits you best.

Rupert, thanks for your comments.

I think it's fair enough for literary consultants not to promise to get people's work published - or, to put it the other way, it would be very foolhardy to promise to do so. But on the other hand, from the writer's point of view, a track record of publishing successes does provide some sort of index (though of course not the only one) of the consultant's competence. And if you're running a business and expect people to pay money for your services, you need a visible badge of competence and a sufficiently alluring selling-point for the client.

I'm still not sure about this. Or ... I think you're right but maybe not for the right reasons! It's probably true to say that most people who submit a book to a literary consultancy want to get it published. But it would be healthier, more realistic, and probably more beneficial, if they just wanted to improve their writing as a first principle. I used the analogy of painting earlier but, as someone else pointed out, even beginner artists get lots of chances to show their work. Writers don't: it's pretty much be published or nothing. Therefore, I guess it's no surprise they have their gaze fixed on getting a deal. However, what a good editor largely provides are the tools with which an author can work, and it's not the tools that a publisher buys; it's what's been made with those tools.

However, I think I agree that a consultant should be able to help improve a client's chances of publication. But overall, it depends on what a client wants from their writing. Which is why I spend a fair bit of time helping a them work out what they want, and advising on what is realistic, before we begin (if we do).

The bottom line for the writer, I reckon - assuming the advice and critique they receive is competent - is whether they are capable of implementing that advice effectively. That's the bit I'm still working on.

Brave of you to say so! One thing that surprised me, when I was working for an agency, was that some people appeared to spend a lot of money on a report, not so much to get instructive feed-back, but to be told that it's great, ready to conquer the world, etc. I won't work with someone looking for this kind of validation.

I've been thinking about the differences between an agency and an individual consultant. An agency has a wider range of readers and it probably has more contacts. On the other hand, it also has more pressure to stay in business, and is largely subject to chance on the ms which it receives. The temptation is to dangle the carrot of publication in front of potential clients, and to make a big noise about successes. An individual obviously cannot provide the same range of readers. Then again, anyone working with him knows they will get whatever he can offer (whereas with an agency you don't get to choose your reader). Also, he's more likely to work by word of mouth, which means anyone coming to him will probably have been recommended by someone who's already used his services. Similarly, clients can be referred to him by other consultants. Last week, for example, an author contacted me because I'd been recommended by a consultant friend. She doesn't work with novels, but I do. We've known each other's editing work for years, so the author has some kind of guarantee in such a recommendation.

Terry

C'mon, girlfriend - up and at 'em.
In this biz you really have to be able to get up and dust yourself off.
Unless the feedback you're getting is negative or you've had five hundred standard rejections you have to keep going.
Getting a contract with an agent/publisher is not the only acid test of your ability. Luck does come into it...a year before I got my agent, unknown to me, he gave a talk to a writers group in which he said he was looking for a female crime writer who wrote gritty stuff with a female protagonist.
How lucky was I that my first novel was the debut of Lilly Valentine, tough talking northerner, knee deep in kids in care, paedophilia, drugs and blackmail.
Yes, I can write but serendipity also played a star role.
Chin up.
Helen Black.

Thanks Helen, I know you are right, although I don't think the agent exists who is actively looking for someone who writes books about the kind of women you wouldn't look twice at in Tesco, in which nothing happens! (Which for some reason seems to be the territory I am drawn to).

I will just continue to hope that my work sneaks up on someone, grabs them by the heart/balls and won't let go until they do something with my book.

Lots of luck with your book by the way, I will look out for it, there is always room for one more stroppy northerner.

Hi

I've just come across this website and was having a browse through and saw your message about difficulty getting published. Forgive me if I've got this completely wrong, but not sure if you're just looking at mainstream publishers. I work as a freelance editor/typesetter for a small independent publisher based just outside Cambridge who take mainly new authors.

If you would like details, send me an email and I'll pass them onto you.

Again, my apologies if I've misinterpreted your intentions, but would love to be able to help if at all possible.

Gwyn

You're allowed to say the name, Gwyn, which one is it?


- NaomiM

Ooh, I think I know which it might be - are you in Wendens Ambo, Gwyn?

Caro

Hi again, sorry, I wasn't sure how these forums, etc. work so didn't want to overstep the mark by giving unwanted information. Anyway, the publisher is Melrose Books. I've had a chat with one of the directors and they've asked that you go to their website which is: www.melrosebooks.com - if you hit the 'contact us' button, that will take you to the relevant place for initial contact/submissions.

Good luck with it.

Gwyn