I know not many people are lucky enough to get several agents wanting to represent them all at once, but if they do how would you recommend they go about making their decision? Is it better, say, to go with the more famous agency that has other big names on their books? Or go with the agency that represent far less people as they may have more time to concentrate on the author? And also, how do you know if an agency’s good and will you treat you well?

From a previous post, it’s clear that you can’t chop and change agents so it does seem that one has to make the right choice from the off.

Many thanks

Remy

Assuming you've checked them out in Preditors and Editors and they are legit agents, I think the best thing to do is ask again when you are in that lucky position. At the end of the day it usually boils down to which agent you feel most comfortable with after you've met them.



- NaomiM

One thing I've noticed when people report back from meeting multiple agents, is the urge to go with the agent who asks for the least work/rewriting of the mss. The easy option is not necessarily the best option.

<Added>

Another thing to remember is only a precentage of first novels are published - someone put the figure at 10% of newly agented authors. So don't fall for false promises. Maybe go with whoever 'gets' the book and is prepared to stick with you for the long run and mentor you as a writer, rather than a 'quick buck'.

<Added>

And by "'gets' the book", I mean sees it's faults as well as it's strengths.

I'd agree with Naomi that you're likely to get a 'feel' for one over the other(s) when you've met them. You must make sure it's based in some sort of reality though! And not just a great bonding experience with whoever you meet, especially if over an alcohol-accompanied free lunch! If it's a big agency, the person you meet might change jobs down the line, for example, so make sure you think you're compatable with the agency itself and not just your great new friend! If, say, you write crime, I'd have thought it a good thing if the agency's big on it, as they'll have the know-how and great connections with crime publishers.
It's good to get the feeling someone is really into your writing - after all, they need to put across a passion for it when trying to sell it. But I'd agree wtih Naomi that someone who makes good suggestions for improvements to your work rather than someone who flatters you senseless might prove to be a real gem in the long term (when you've made a right hash of book seven, say!)
Jx
P.S. not a bad position to be in, though, hey?!

As Jane says, pick an agent who deals with your genre. Some choices have been made on the basis that the agent handled authors the writer respected. Sometimes it's been a tough decision between a young but very keen(/hungry) junior agent building their client list and under the wing of an experienced agent in a large agency, or going with a respected 'one man band' agency. In such cases it usually comes down to gut instinct.

I'd say the most important thing is that the agent gets your work the way you do it, otherwise they'll always be trying to sell it (and get you to revise it) as something it's not. Do revisions ring bells about things you secretly know could be better, or turn the book into something else, and if the latter, are you willing to do it, not just to get published, but because it'll be a better book. One clue is to ask which editors they'd be thinking of sending it to - who else those editors edit tells you a lot about how the agent sees it.

Don't be dazzled by posh premises, do look out for signs of reasonable efficiency. I honestly don't think whether they have a lot or a few clients tells you much, of itself, because I know agents with a lot who are fab and agents with a few who are hopeless, and vice versa.

Ask how long they'd go on trying to sell a book before they gave up, and what they'd do then (i.e. are they interested in whatever you're writing next, or would that be the end of the relationship?).

Are you scared of them? You want an agent to be forceful on your behalf, and they're not your best friend, but they are the nearest thing you've got to a friend in the business. If you can't imagine ever feeling confident enough to ask them - albeit with a deep breath and a stiff gin in the other hand - about what's happening to your book and how things work in the trade and what to do if you think you've done something foolish which might have consequences, think twice about signing up.

Emma

<Added>

Also, if they're a newish agent, where have they worked before? They should have a good track record under the wing of a very established agent.

Wot Emma says

I had a choice between an agent who was hugely enthusiastic about my book and wanted to start sending it out right away, and an agent who also said very lovely things about it but wanted some revisions. As tempting as it was to go with the first, I knew that the suggestions for revision were good (and necessary) ones...and knowing my own impatience, I felt that it would be good to have an agent who took a more measured, thorough approach to things. Her list was also much more representative of the kind of thing I write (or would like to write!), and I felt that she really "got" what I was trying to do. Have just had a list of final edits from her, and am amazed at the time and thought she's put in to my work - we've haven't started submitting yet, but already I feel totally spoilt and very, very lucky to have her on side!

Hmm.
Speaking as an unagented wannabe...
It seems a bit strange to think we spend years learning a craft to then seek editorial guidance from people who have not and whose training and skills are necessarily quite different. Yes, they should provide feedback and be willing to say the things friends won't, and certainly to give an honest appraisal of saleability, but I think that editorial skills are low on the list for me with an ideal agent, when I am lucky enough to obtain one.

The thing is, though, Gaius, as writers we are comparing our mss against one novel - itself. Whereas an agent will be comparing it against hundreds, (if not thousands, in one includes the slush pile), so, yes, their training and skills are different to that of the writer's, and on the whole that is a good thing for the mss.


- NaomiM

Good agents have spent years learning a craft: editing and selling novels. Some kinds of editing are impossible to do yourself, and even experienced writer friends may not be ideal if they're not good at setting aside how they'd write something, to help you bring out a better version of how you'd write it.

In my case, my agent was Editorial Director of Viking for years, and what she's doing for me is what editors inside publishing houses used to do, and by all accounts don't any more (though both my editors do, very well). Until recently almost all agents had an editing background, though that's changing. As Naomi says, now that MSS have to be pretty much oven-ready before a publisher will pick it up, your agent is a very important part of readying it for the oven.

Emma

Some kinds of editing are impossible to do yourself

This is a no-brainer, and I of course agree.

In the absence of a publisher's editor, I have used paid editorial input in the past and intend to again in the future. I attend a writing group regularly and have lost count of the number and variety of independent readers I have sought for input, including WW. But, to paraphrase a well known WW-er, none of the above undermines my responsibility as a writer to make my work as good as I can make it, nor my legitimacy to decide what I want to achieve and whether or not I have done so.

as writers we are comparing our mss against one novel - itself. Whereas an agent will be comparing it against hundreds, (if not thousands, in one includes the slush pile)

But this...

My received understanding of an agent's handling of a slush pile may be wrong, but it is not romantic enough to include at any time a detailed reading, critique and appraisal of the majority of MSS. This type of reading is not a valid basis for editorial input, merely a way to filter for literacy in the writer and an inviting opening with a marketable story concept.

It is only the very few that the agent choses to market that I believe will be read in any depth.

my agent was Editorial Director of Viking for years, and what she's doing for me is what editors inside publishing houses used to do

Which is probably where I came in to this thread. Is this a good example of a side-ways career on the part of the agent that plays to his/her personality traits or yet another example of a self-defeating industry engaged in active self-destruction?

To draw a parallel with my paying work, I have yet to meet a decent salesperson who can put together a coherent sub-routine in code and it is quite normal in software sales for the salesperson to sidestep all discussion of the technical minutiae by organising a liaison between the geeks in the two company's respective back rooms.

Similarly, for publishing, the bull-nosed confidence and extroversion of a salesperson who can read a room and lead a negotiation accordingly seems to be totally at odds with the introversion and focus of an editorial genius who can see the nugget of story and help to bring it to the surface.

That doesn't mean I think an agent's input is worthless, and in Emma's case it sounds very valuable, merely that I believe people should follow their skills in life and I would be as wary of an agent whose editorial skills are better than their sales skills as I would of an editor who was more interested in ticking the boxes for a block-buster movie-script than character development...

G

<Added>

ticking the boxes for a block-buster movie-script

By the way, did anybody else watch "Snakes in a plane"?

It had _everything_ and I mean _everything_; love-interest, check, character redemption, check, surprising character twist, check, tension, check, admirable character traits, check, special effects, check, humour, check, poignant self-sacrifice, check, a pretty young woman's left breast, check, her breast again for no adequately explained reason, check, and once more, check...

The thing is, as a movie, it absolutely sucks. The kind of thing you might get if, for example, a skilled marketeer had been left in charge of editorial.

Thanks for all your advice.

Remy x

a detailed reading, critique and appraisal of the majority of MSS.

No agent would take you on without doing exactly that. The first read will be cursory, but the serious do-I-love-this-enough-to-take-it-on read is very thorough, because as well as seeing all the book's merits, the agent also has to read for the things which might make an editor not take it on, and decide whether they're mendable, and if so how.

The other thing to remember is that an agent is selling to editors, so to have an editorial background is extremely useful: they talk the same language, and know what editors are looking for, and can then explain why this book is just that. They can't do that convincingly if they haven't read the book properly. They also know what sales angles to suggest to the editors who are wondering whether to champion it, because the editors, in turn, have to sell the book first inside the publishing house before they can make an offer, and then, if they succeed, beyond it, down the bookselling chain.

Don't forget that writing is all about communication, and editing is all about communicating better. And selling is all about communicating what you know the potential buyer wants to hear. The skills aren't really so different. One of my first ever lessons in writing was overhearing my mother saying to my sister, who was filling in her UCCA form: "Don't say 'Wrote songs for school play', say 'Composed incidental music for major school production of Brecht's Caucasian Chalk Circle.'" Is that editing, or selling?

Emma

I think if you get a choice, you should go with the agent who seems the most enthusiastic about you and your work.
All agents, however 'big' or otherwise pull off fabulous deals. All have bloopers on their files. What matters is that they want to represent you and your work, unreservedly.
This doesn't, however, mean they will want your book as it stands. They may very well suggest revisions, but said revisions should strike you as insightful, improving your book, making it more of itself, and completely in tune with how you see your book. To be honest, I'd be wary of any agent who took on a first timer saying the book was perfect.
It should also go without saying that a good agent should have all the requisite contacts. He or she should be on very good terms with everyone in the industry. However, they should be detached enough to side with you should anything untoward take place, like a big fall out over edits!!!! Most agents have no problem walking this line. And editors expect it.
Good luck. I hope you make the right choice.
HB x

Interesting. I had a choice between three agents. One wanted no revisions at all, one wanted a few but nothing major, and one wanted a lot. I plumped for the middle one, although it wasn't really the uppermost consideration in my mind. In retrospect (the book was accepted for publication on the condition of very minor changes), I still disagree with the majority of the revisions the third agent proposed. To be honest, I felt that in many cases she was coming up with them for the sake of it. Every book is different, and I wouldn't say that suggesting extensive revisions is always an indicator of a good agent, either.

The main considerations for me were a) the other authors on the agency's list and how well I thought they fitted with my work, and b) how comfortable I thought I would be in dealing with the agent and the agency overall.