Login   Sign Up 



 




This 41 message thread spans 3 pages:  < <   1   2  3 > >  
  • Re: Probably old, but still relevant: To agent or not to agent.
    by EmmaD at 14:20 on 04 July 2006
    Well, there's nothing like a university lecturer for constructing a wonderful rage based on poor knowledge of the facts, and if the kind of academic writing I've come across in the last five years is anything to go by, it ill-becomes any academic to froth at the mouth about general terms evolving into specialist meanings: they're the worst offenders of the lot. Normal cheese is made with rennet, which is made from dead animals, whereas everything else in cheese is made from animals that aren't killed to make it - which is a pretty standard definition of vegetarianism, I'd have thought. Ditto an inorganic carrot, which partly consists of inorganic substances - i.e. non-organic fertilisers or pesticides. What's so apoplectic-making about that? Way back, it's true, 'literature' must have meant anything made of letters, but until the legitimising in the late 20th century of popular culture as a subject of academic inquiry, the distinction between 'high' (i.e. literary) art and the rest, was acknowledged by all as a principle, however much the place of individual works was argued about.

    I could get all apoplectic about my current beef (organic or otherwise) which is mistaking prevaricate (=equivocate, lie) for procrastinate (=put off, delay), but I won't.

    Emma
  • Re: Probably old, but still relevant: To agent or not to agent.
    by GaiusCoffey at 14:48 on 04 July 2006
    I'm sure somebody will feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but to venture a long way off thread for the sake of my amusement:

    Vegetarian in its new meaning is a fairly recent softening. The term vegan now means what vegetarian used to up until at least the seventies.

    For organic (relating to or derived from living matter) / inorganic (not consisting of or deriving from living matter) ... Every living creature is dependent on some form of inorganic substance; sodium-chloride (common salt), for example, or more obviously water. Equally, by definition, every living creature has to be organic (derived from living matter).

    As for literary... depends on your dictionary, temperament and desire to put off doing the day-job.

    And as a closing word, I am aware that pedantry is one of the seventeen deadly sins. Were I to believe in a god, I might fear for my afterlife.

  • Re: Probably old, but still relevant: To agent or not to agent.
    by rogernmorris at 16:10 on 04 July 2006
    Sorry, I missed this thread. Coming late to the party, as usual. I submitted Taking Comfort directly because I knew my agent wasn't going to be doing anything with it. He'd shown it to one publisher and the view that came back was that it was felt to be too stylistically difficult for 'the general reader'. This one rejection (from an editor who had initially been incredibly encouraging, and virtually said that an offer was a formality, she just had to talk to a few other people) inclined him to think that the book would be difficult to place. There was something else of mine that he was more actively representing, and which I knew he was going to be concentrating his efforts on.

    At first, I didn't tell him about submitting to MNW because I didn't think he would approve. Then I got a message from Mike Barnard at MNW saying that the book had gone on for further assessment so I thought maybe it was in with a chance. At that point I came clean. My agent harrumphed a bit, but basically said, 'Well, we'll see what happens.' Then when I got the word that they wanted to publish it, I called him. He said he would look the contract over for me, which he did, advising me to sign. There was still nothing in it for him.

    Although there were aspects of the contract that concerned him, he said it was by no means the worst he had seen. He reckoned that for me, and for my book, getting published by Macmillan New Writing would be a very good thing. I believe it has been. He is still my agent.

    Sorry, I haven't had time to read all the threads on this post. I read the first few, saw my name, and thought I'd better put in an appearance. Hope this has helped in some way.
  • Re: Probably old, but still relevant: To agent or not to agent.
    by GaiusCoffey at 16:21 on 04 July 2006
    Thanks, that clarifies a lot for me. By the way, I looked your book up on Amazon, impressive review rating, good luck with it!
  • Re: Probably old, but still relevant: To agent or not to agent.
    by Colin-M at 16:30 on 04 July 2006
    "organic" simply means more expensive - just like "fair trade"

    I can't stand the type of vegitarian that quotes what they can and can't eat like they'll die if they let slip for a nano-second - it's like a self inflicted allergy.

    I did live with a vegan who I had a huge amount of respect for. For him it was a personal choice, something he had to decide for himself and not something he would ever have tolerated being forced upon him - for that reason he never tried to convert or "educate" others.

    oh, while I'm on a roll, just thought I'd mention vegetarian sausages - because they make me laugh. There is something hilarious about a product that is designed to taste like a dead pig so animal lovers can enjoy the flavour without guilt - fucking madness. How many real sausages had to be eaten to work out that the veggy ones tasted right?

    Colin M
  • Re: Probably old, but still relevant: To agent or not to agent.
    by rogernmorris at 16:34 on 04 July 2006
    Thanks Gaius. I have been truly blessed in amazon reviews! (Big thanks to HollyB and Optimist.)

    You could always give MNW a try, you know. Maybe at the same time as querying agents.
  • Re: Probably old, but still relevant: To agent or not to agent.
    by Account Closed at 17:00 on 04 July 2006
    Roger - nice to see you on the thread - especially as I've been taking your name in vain!! All in a good cause, of course ...

    I must admit it's getting all too intellectual for me, being the simple soul that I am - suffice it to say that should I sell work directly without my agent's help, I would certainly give him his cut. I do have some morals, people!! As indeed I offered to in the light of my recent BBC success (also done directly) - although, in view of the relatively minimal income value and being a gent of the old school, John refused to accept anything.

    And, actually, my contract doesn't specify that I can't do this - so my WW moral rating is surely soaring ever higher!!

    )

    A
    xxx
  • Re: Probably old, but still relevant: To agent or not to agent.
    by Account Closed at 17:42 on 04 July 2006
    Colin,

    'You can't polish a turd' - I absolutely love that and need it imprinted on the front of my screen, every time i'm tempted to dig out last year's novel.

    Gaius,

    On a very simplistic level, i think a lot of it depends on how confident you are to deal with the contract on your own - foreign rights etc, i haven't a clue and would rather have an agent thrash out the best deal for me than do it myself - you sound pretty savvy and would probably do okay on your own.

    I have submitted direct to publishers, eg Piatkus Books, but always intended to find myself an agent before putting my name on any dotted line.

    My way of thinking is 15% of not a lot is not a lot anyway, so i'm not bothered.
    For me it's worth it to have someone in the know check over the small print and act as a sounding board for me.

    Casey
  • Re: Probably old, but still relevant: To agent or not to agent.
    by GaiusCoffey at 18:01 on 04 July 2006
    On a very simplistic level, i think a lot of it depends on how confident you are to deal with the contract on your own

    I believe saying no to giving them any rights that they aren't planning to use should be a fairly sound starting position so I'd probably not get entirely screwed over. The trouble is, if you keep those rights, you then have to sell them yourself too... and I'm not at all sure where I'd begin with that.

    I have submitted direct to publishers, eg Piatkus Books, but always intended to find myself an agent before putting my name on any dotted line.

    I'm curious about this, so let me know how you get on. Again, I've heard / read stories about agents who refuse to touch people with a pre-existing offer on the grounds that it is harder to negotiate up after a dialogue that they weren't privy to and that may have progressed a long way - kind of like moving the goal posts halfway through a game of football. Therefore, they might end up taking the responsibility for a bad deal that they had no hand in making.

    My way of thinking is 15% of not a lot is not a lot anyway, so i'm not bothered.
    For me it's worth it to have someone in the know check over the small print and act as a sounding board for me.

    I'm starting to come around to that POV myself, now that I have convinced myself that the amount of money isn't so small as to be worthless to the agent - you get nowt for nowt etc.

    Gaius


  • Re: Probably old, but still relevant: To agent or not to agent.
    by Account Closed at 18:38 on 04 July 2006
    Piatkus books rejected me ( with a very encouraging letter, i would definitely recommend them).

    And you're absolutely right, Gaius, the money is worth it to the agent, so surely they are going to try and get you the best deal (ie for them).

    Without an agent,i know i'd just be so chuffed at the prospect of getting published, i'd probably accept anything

    Casey
  • Re: Probably old, but still relevant: To agent or not to agent.
    by GaiusCoffey at 18:53 on 04 July 2006
    Thanks, shame you got rejected, but from your recommendation I'll check out their list to see if my stuff will fit with them.
    G
  • This 41 message thread spans 3 pages:  < <   1   2  3 > >