It seems that the majority view is that it is essential to have an agent to get published. However, for first time authors who are unlikely to be selling film rights etc., the reason given for this is rarely "that it will make you more money" (a man can dream ) but rather "that publishers won't read it otherwise".

It is true that I have seen a number of publishers' sites that state that they will only accept a submission via agent, but it is just as true that very many successful authors (Roddy Doyle for eg) have not had an agent and so saved themselves a substantial chunk of earnings.

It seems to me to be self-defeating for publishers to enforce us to use a middle-man to push-up costs in an industry that is already being squeezed from every direction and where income is likely to be so low on a first novel in the first place. In other words, it seems to me that the best advice - for the industry, as well as for the individual - would be to go without an agent. This is in line with small publishers such as Snowbooks and a couple of authors who I have talked to (including one who was running an author's course and answered the inevitable question about whether it was worthwhile to have an agent and whether she had one with "well, I've sacked three...").

Like the sole lemming running away from the cliff, I have a suspicion that I am missing out on some basic understanding. Can anybody talk me around to the majority view?

Gauis, it's true that some very successful authors don't have agents - but don't forget they may have started their careers some years ago. As you've discovered, it's harder and harder to get through to mainstream publishers until you're represented, and I'd be suprised if there are many successful first-time authors now who don't have an agent.

Some reasons for having an agent that occur to me, in no particular order. (And yes, I'm parti-pris (sp?), as I have a fantastic agent, and I know there are some out there who are - shall we say - less fantastic.)

Even publishers who still accept direct submissions can't give them more than a cursory look. If something comes from someone they know has already sifted it - i.e. an agent - they look harder, and sooner.

Agents can talk in trade terms: they are far more experienced at explaining to an editor why your book will be successful (i.e. pitching it) than you are. An agent know what kind of advance those reasons should translate into, so her/his bargaining works better, which basically means more money. But often the bargaining chips aren't the money but different rghts, and I wouldn't begin to know how to value those. And more money doesn't just mean more in your pocket, it's also an earnest of good intent by the publishers, because they're going to have to work harder to earn it back.

Agents deal with the contracts, and know what's good, what's fair, and what won't do; though of course there is also the wonderful Society of Authors contract-checking service for members (and indeed their advice and support all the way through.) My UK contract for TMOL was 33 pages long, my US contract longer still - and how many WWers know what an escalator clause is?

Then long before film rights (yes, I dream too )there's handling all the subsidiary and translation rights, which some publishers don't do at all, and many publishers aren't as good at (or as interested in) as an agent. Plus a publisher takes 20% off those sales before putting them towards earning out your advance, so there's less money and you don't see any of it until you're getting royalties (minus agents commission as well) after the advance is earned out. Sub and translation rights your agent sells come straight through to them and then you. Thinking about money, royalty statements are notoriously baffling. Your agent is more experienced at working out if the publisher's got it right, which they usually haven't because they're baffled themselves.

Your agent is your representative; they're on your side, and they have an interest in a long-term relationship with you. If they don't sell your work they don't eat, and it's in their interests to keep on your publisher's back about promotions and sales and marketing: they know better than you can what's reasonable to expect. If your editor moves on, as they do, and the new one's never heard of you and doesn't much care for your back-catalogue, you've still got your agent who knows you and your work. And there's someone to decide that you'd be better off changing publishers/editors with the next book, and who to change to. I love my publishers to bits - they're fantastic - but I still like to know that there's someone extremely powerful standing at my shoulder in this strange new world I've been plunged into.

Well, for me, all that's well worth 10%-15%.

Emma

<Added>

Bang on cue, my agent rang up just now, and I was reminded of all the subtle thinking and discussing that went into her decisions about where to submit TMOL. I might have been able to research which imprints to submit to, but there's no way I could fine-tune, and then pitch, my approaches like that.

I think there are pros and cons, GC - and you have to do what suits you best. If you can get an agent, then that's great - as long as they're doing their job - but I'd say there's no harm in submitting directly as well, and then bringing your agent in afterwards if necessary. Didn't Roger Morris do this? - from memory I think our Roger has an agent, but that he submitted directly to Macmillan New Writing in order to get TC published (Roger - can you confirm?).

And, in the same way, my agent hasn't managed to sell "Maloney's Law" yet (and 4 publishers have had it since September, deep sigh ...), whereas I got a publisher for "A Dangerous Man" myself. And at this stage, am also submitting (a la Roger) "M's L" elsewhere to small publishers directly. After all, as far as I can see, there's no harm in it. Also, don't forget that most agents don't really like submitting to small publishers (which may well be the ones who will take you ...) as the returns are less.

A
xxx

parti-pris

Well, if nothing else, I've improved my vocabulary!

I have to accept the advantages that you list for having an agent, certainly they are in line with other things I have read. However, I maintain that for a first novelist, the primary aim is to get a book onto the shelves at all and the money that comes back from it is a secondary consideration.

So, perhaps, I should reword my original objection - I guess I'm looking at it structurally as well as personally.

The individual writer with an agent may make more money but, for the species Homo-sapiens prevaricatus literatus primarus as a whole, the enforced use of agents results in a collectively reduced chance of getting into print.

For example, to draw a fairly unlikely parallel, I wouldn't plan a four-storey building with seven self-contained units and underground parking without budgeting for an architect. The cost of hiring an architect is trivial when compared to the potential risk of it all going tits up.

However, I would not only plan, but be willing to go ahead and install a downstairs loo without looking up the number of a single architect. In this case, the cost of hiring an architect is prohibitive when compared to the value of the project - it would cost me less to get the loo replaced than to pay for an architect. [I am aware that this parallel breaks down due to %age agency fees, but run with me on this one... ]

Realistically, the chances of a first novel going all Dan Brown are nigh on zilch. Hence, (TMOL excepted, I must look out a copy when they reach Dublin) for most of us, downstairs loos are the rule.

You linked to a couple of posts on P&L in another thread and that stated in all too frank terms the risks of not earning out the lavish advance that your agent has negotiated for you (corroborated by Blake in From Pitch to Publication). In other words, for a first-novelist, getting too good a deal could effectively end your career.

Equally, with cut-price supermarket sales and demands for increasingly flexible discount structures continally undermining the concept of royalties on rrp rather than selling price, there is a structural argument against taking risks on small selling books that is getting progressively stronger.

To cut what has turned out to be an unexpectedly long rant short;

The enforced inclusion of a middle-man in the form of an agent seems to cut what is already a small pie still further. Although the intention may have been to reduce the workload of publishers by filtering the dross, the long-term result is surely that the agents will be unable to make money without placing equally severe rules and / or charging to read submissions.

In other words it is passing the buck, which is a perfectly valid option, and I would do the same if I was a publisher, but not necessarily one that we should encourage. Hence, my preference to go for a publisher that doesn't require an agent until such time as I can afford to pay one a sum of money that I find morally repugnant.

Thanks Anne
(in case you're spooked that I know your name, I looked up your profile and website -

It was only then she realised she’d forgotten to pack any knickers.

- what a line to end on)
I think your post more or less encapsulates what I'm thinking. First-time novelists should be a bit more like entrepreneurs with small businesses - it doesn't have to be the best way to do something if it gets you into the game and. just as excessive regulations that simply cannot be satisfied by a corner shop can squeeze out a small business, the requirement for an agent places an overhead that might squeeze out the first-timer.
BTW,

am also submitting (a la Roger) "M's L" elsewhere to small publishers directly

are you allowed to do this if your agent is actively promoting it elsewhere? If I were an agent, I would expressly forbid any such activity in the initial agreement. Which, because I agree with you that

most agents don't really like submitting to small publishers(which may well be the ones who will take you ...)

does seem to make agents counter-productive to the first-timer.

the primary aim is to get a book onto the shelves at all and the money that comes back from it is a secondary consideration.

Sure, but I do think that you're drastically reducing your chances of getting a book on the shelves if you don't try to find an agent, because it's that bit harder to get it looked at properly. Once you've got an agent, the chances of finding a publisher are pretty good - if they haven't submitted to fifteen or twenty editors, either they're not doing their stuff, or the feedback they've had has made them think it's back to the drawing-board time, in which case, you've got revisions to do.

Agents vary, but they mostly expect to do some tweaks on a book before they send it out. That's not to say you should send it out to anyone before it's as perfect as you can make it. But there will be things the author can't see, and agents are more attuned to recognising a diamond, if not in the rough, at least with a few facets still uncut. Editors aren't allowed the time to work on books; if all the facets aren't cut, they can't take it on. So for a given degree of publishing readiness, as you might call it, you're more likely to get a book picked up by an agent than you are by a publisher.

the requirement for an agent places an overhead that might squeeze out the first-timer.

I don't think it works like that, because the agent takes a cut of what you're offered, it isn't overhead, so the fact that you have an agent wouldn't deter a publisher. And there's nothing to stop you submitting to agents and to publishers who accept direct submissions at the same time. I don't think having an agent reduces the chances of being published, I think it increase it: they have every interest in finding terrific new work, and in selling it: if they won't take a book on, then maybe - just maybe - the answer is that the book isn't good enough.

Self-publishing is different - three cheers for Goldenford et al. - with a different set of sums, and agents don't come into it. I agree that it's an exciting way to get work out there.

Emma

Gaius, wou write: "The enforced inclusion of a middle-man in the form of an agent seems to cut what is already a small pie still further"

I can only speak from experience. Without my agent, I wouldn't be published. I'd be getting 100% of fuck-all. But of course, they're not miracle workers. Don't expect too much from them.

Best wishes

Jim

And there's nothing to stop you submitting to agents and to publishers who accept direct submissions at the same time.

If that is true, which based on Anne's comments I guess it must be, then I truly don't understand the role of an agent.
It seems to me that any agent worth his / her salt would insist on the exclusive right to market your book for the duration of the agreement as otherwise there are two fairly fundamental, unavoidable and major sources of dispute:
1. You get your book published by a small publisher the day before s/he tells you about a deal with a major publisher and the agent is annoyed at losing out on his/her cut of a much more lucrative deal
2. You get your book published by a small publisher and the agent still legitimately demands a cut despite playing no part in the whole proceedings
As such, it seems to me that you have to either do the one or the other.

That said, I am wavering and this is frustratingly convincing:

But there will be things the author can't see, and agents are more attuned to recognising a diamond, if not in the rough, at least with a few facets still uncut. Editors aren't allowed the time to work on books; if all the facets aren't cut, they can't take it on.

As is this, for pretty much the same reason:

Without my agent, I wouldn't be published. I'd be getting 100% of fuck-all.

Ho hum,

For what it's worth, I was 100% in favour before I was 100% against, so I am at least being consistent if I do another u-turn...

Regards,

Undecided of South Dublin

<Added>

ps: Jim, it says on your profile that you're due to be published May 18, I'm guessing (because I couldn't find it on Amazon) that is next year?

I think you have to go with the flow, GC! And, no, I'm not spooked at all if people look at my website. What is spooky is if they mix me up with either Anne Brooke, the Welsh poet, or Anne Brooke, the American artist - the 3 of us must get together sometime and form some sort of a name group!

And I don't think Roger's agent complained at all when he got his deal - he would have been a fool if he had!

)

A
xxx

Gaius, no, no, I mean that there's nothing to stop you submitting to agents and to publishers at the same time. Once you get an agent, they would expect to be doing the submitting for you to any publisher who accepts agented submissions (i.e. just about all of them, except MNW).

Once you have an agent, with any publisher that does accept agented submissions, you're much more likely to be read properly (or at all) if it came in via an agent. With really small publishers, it's probably up to you to negotiate with your agent what to do - most of these are below most agents's radar, it's true. But fundamentally, the agent doesn't get a cut of a deal they didn't do (many journalists only use their agents for book deals, and negotiate small jobs for themselves, which suits everyone), unless, having got the interest, you turn the negotiations, and the continuing representation (just as important) over to your agent. But deals don't happen overnight: if you're offered a contract by a small publisher (I assume that's what you mean by 'published' of the sort you agreed with your agent that you'd approach, not him/her, then you'd have plenty of time to see how things were going with big agents via her/him, before you decided what to do.

Emma

<Added>

tsk!

'then you'd have plenty of time to see how things were going with big publishers via her/him, before you decided what to do'

The enforced inclusion of a middle-man in the form of an agent seems to cut what is already a small pie still further.

A fair argument, until to you find that your publisher won't deal with translation rights, or is such a small publisher that they can't get your book in the main bookchains. Amazon is good, but it's not that good.

I'd rather have 8% of a big pie than 12% of a small one.

I don't think Roger's agent complained at all when he got his deal - he would have been a fool if he had!

I disagree!
If I were an agent and I took a book on, I would do so with the express intention of putting a lot of work into getting it sold. If the author then came along and said, "sorry mate, sold it without you", I'd be more than a little miffed, and justifiably so, both at my wasted work and loss of income.
BTW, who's Roger?

But fundamentally, the agent doesn't get a cut of a deal they didn't do

And on a similar line, "From Pitch to Publication" talks about a case where agent and author fell out with each other before negotiations had completed but after the agent approached the publisher. The negotiation and the deal were done entirely by the author, but because the agent had initiated the contact, s/he still felt entitled to a cut. There are any number of variations on this scenario to consider, some are quite messy.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm a bit wary of it all. If there were a way to engineer the middle man out, I would.

That said, it may be just as easy to sign a bad deal with a publisher as with an agent...

Ho hum,

G

ps:

I'd rather have 8% of a big pie than 12% of a small one.

Me too, provided the big pie is greater than 150% of the small one.

This is why, in From Pitch To Publication, Carole really hammers home the importance of you feeling that the agent is right for you, and if not - if there is anything about them that you don't think would make a good partnership - then refuse to sign.

It sounds preposterous when agents are seen as somewhere between a Golden Goose and a winning lottery ticket, but you are entering into a business partnership. Some people need friendly, chatty agents who take them for lunch, others might want someone more arrogant or fierce who sees business as business and isn't interested in being best buddies. Each to their own, but if you hope for the first and get the second, it could be a sour relationship.

Colin

<Added>

this was in reply to post before that one - you sneaked in :)

Me too, provided the big pie is greater than 150% of the small one.

I wish we could upload images on this site. We could work out a graph of the optimum moment at which to side with an agent or go direct to publisher.

Fuck it, let's write a book on it!!!

Colin M