Sarah, It's funny but I don't feel sad at all when I'm writing, in fact I feel fabulously rich - it's only when I start submitting that I feel sad and pathetic.

Ashlinn
(could someone please tell me how to do smiley/winking faces? I've never mastered them.)

Casey, we cross-posted. I know what you mean. How about changing the title, the first few opening lines and submitting under your maiden/mother's/cat's name or would that be a bitter, twisted, underhand thing to do?

A.

<Added>

Actually I think the 'no multiple submissions' rule is so ridiculous that I completely ignore it. Otherwise it's a bit like trying to fertilise an egg one sperm at a time.

Heh, heh Ashlinn, you naughty girl! However, i do multiple submissions, but i'm not sure about this because it's a competition.

Yeh, i meant i was sad with regards to submitting - constantly checking emails, phone messages etc etc.

: followed by ) =
: ( =
; ) =


Casey

Believe me, a recommendation from a scout of the calibre of Cornerstones would win my vote above all the unsolicited stuff.

The agent I'm with told me a long while back, (and before she took me on) when I asked if it would be worth my while using editorial services like Cornerstones, she replied that a script being forwarded to her from Cornerstones got no more attention, and was held in no higher esteem than a script sent to her direct. I was really asking if an editorial agency would help my writing - what was interesting was the she thought I was asking if an editorial agency would help my submission.

So using an editorial service as a conduit to agents, rather than an aim to improve your script for you to send to agents yourself is possibly naive.

Of course, the other concern an agent might have when receiving a script direct from an agency is, "How much external work has this script had".

I don't think there's much doubt that the winner would get an agent

This is probably true, so wouldn't it be so much better to offer representation of the final script as a prize. AT least you've got something more solid to aim for.

Colin M

Colin
With the agent you mentioned, that response would only be because she doesn't have a relationship with Cornerstones. They have agents they specifically scout FOR. They carry a lot of weight in this case. I know this because they submitted something of mine and the agent in question got back to me very quickly, with a lovely personal approach (no unfortunately!) and said she would like to see the next thing, which cheered me up.
Just wanted to add that so there was no misunderstanding.

That's very, very interesting, Colin, what your agent said. Possibly it is better to use an editorial agency once you have made many submissions and not got anywhere on your own - they could probably work out the areas you need to work on.
I have come to this conclusion myself, i might submit for a few months, and if don't get even a single positive comment, i'll probably use one of these agencies so that i know where i'm going wrong and stand a better chance with my next book.

I still think the prize is okay, if you are considering to use one of these agencies anyway, and is probably an ideal competition for someone who has been submitting for a while, got nowhere and has no idea why.

It is interesting though, why this year's prize has less kudos than last year's.

Casey

<Added>

Hmmm, good point Caroline

Do you ever think the whole thing is getting a bit out of hand though?

In the beginning a writer wrote a script and send it to a publisher.

But soon the publishers got too many scripts and thought it would be best for agents to cut through the slush pile for them.

But more people were writing, and the agents' slush piles are growing, so now we get some agents using editorial services to weed out the crap.

Great for the publisher. No slush pile
Great for the agent. No slush pile
Great for the editorial agency - lots of money!!!
Shit for writers who now have to shell out.

It's the equivalent of paying an agent to read your stuff, and we know what the WAYB say about that.

It was reported here on WW that a certain agent accepts submissions only from editorial services, writers with a track record or an MA in Creative Writing. All this agency really need to do is to put a note on their entry in WAYB as "no shite, thankyou".

but every writer turns out pages of shite as part of learning their craft.

My personal view on edorial services is that aren't "services" at all - they're money machines. They take money from people who aren't even nearly ready for publication. It's like Brian Sewell charging nursery kids for an art critique.

Unless, of course, you can reassure me by saying that Cornerstones return scripts, and money, to writers who are clearly not ready for the service they offer.

I think to be fair to them, Colin, if you look at their website, they always request a sample of your work, and comment on it for free, before saying whether you are 'suitable' for their services.
I can't remember the exact wording, but my distinct impression was that if you evidently have little idea of your craft yet, they will not give you a critique, they critique people who understand the basics of what is needed.

Back in July they commented on such a sample of my work and were very helpful, pointed out some clunky dialogue and overwriting, no pressure to shell out for the full service, just gave me a quote. In the end i didn't, decided to finish the book first.

As for the rest, i blame the publishers, they are less and less prepared to nurture writers and expect a higher and higher standard of submission.
Casey

Unless, of course, you can reassure me by saying that Cornerstones return scripts, and money, to writers who are clearly not ready for the service they offer.

I don't know about others, but Cornerstones rejects (with refund) about 50% of the scripts they receive.

And Caroline is right; they have a relationship with a handful of agents, not everybody.

It's the equivalent of paying an agent to read your stuff, and we know what the WAYB say about that.

I can't agree with this. A fee charging agent doesn't get back to you with a 12 page critique from a professional editor.

The route isn't for everyone, I agree. But they shouldn't be confused with scams.

Harry

Brilliant. I'm reassured, because that's exactly what I asked for. Let's hope they set a standard for all editorial agencies, similar to the rules of not paying an agent - that they will assess you first.

Actually, I do know of an agency, (Artellus, I think) that do charge, but they assess your sample first, decide if it's for them and charge only if they request a full script. It's quite cheap compared to an editorial agency so I gave it a go. They rejected my samples. They don't do Young Adult.

I only have the impression they are money machines because I've had reports from readers who say "most of the stuff I read is utter shite."

Then again, from a business POV, if people are willing to pay...

But they shouldn't be confused with scams.

I wouldn't call them a scam, but I think it's generally bad for a writer if editorial services become the norm, and the standard route to getting your script to an agent, because it makes writing accessible only to those who have the money, and sometimes, it's the people with no money who have the more interesting stories to tell.

I have come to this conclusion myself, i might submit for a few months, and if don't get even a single positive comment, i'll probably use one of these agencies so that i know where i'm going wrong and stand a better chance with my next book.

But shouldn't a writer be able to work out where they're going wrong themselves? Isn't that part of what it means to be a writer? Isn't the external editorial process meant to be about tidying up and trimming and clarifying here and there, not telling you where you're going WRONG? Or are you talking about stuff like market taste and trends and target audience end genre and getting advice on that? I don't know much about all this so am eager to find out, but this does sound strange to me. And in respose to Colin's last remarks about editorial services then I'd say if a writer needs them to read their stuff so they can find out where they're going wrong then the editorial services certainly should be getting the cash, and lots of it!

Z

Zooter, i don't think a new writer does know where they could be going wrong. I wrote my first novel in a vacuum, knew nothing about backstory, show not tell etc until i joined this site.

The sample of my work i talked about, when Cornerstones pointed out my clunky dialogue and overwriting, yes, i could see exactly want they meant, but i would NEVER have seen that on my own, and it hadn't been picked up on WW either (it was a piece i had had critiqued on here).

Colin, can you remember any more about Artellus? I looked at their website, they said send 3chaps and synopisis, is it then that they may ask if you want to pay someone to read the whole thing?

Casey

Colin, I see what you're saying, but I think if the editor's any good, they can work with any level of writing - the function of those agencies isn't just to prepare things for publication. People submit to them for all sorts of reasons.

In the book trade itself not many of them seem to have heard of anyone except TLC, though obviously the particular agencies Cornerstones or Hilary Johnson or whoever scout for have, and must find it fruitful or they wouldn't bother. Other than that - important - case, I'm inclined to suggest that since you don't know how the agent you're approaching thinks, it's as well not to mention that you've been gone over by such an organisation.

Interestingly, the bloke who runs the one I work for (who's a successful thriller-writer himself) says that it's often the least good writers who react most positively to a report, even though it's saying 'this has a very, very long way to go before it's anywhere near worth submitting to agents.' He feels that for many of their clients, it's getting the book out of their system, seeing if they can write a novel, being read, and being taken seriously, that they want. In their heart of hearts (or even publicly) they'll acknowledge it's not publishable.

When you work on your own, it's extraordinarily hard to get any feel for where your writing is in the various spectra of good-bad, beginner-accomplished, commercial-literary. Your work just doesn't read to you as it does to others, and writers know that. If an agency report makes a writer feel 'Well, I'm really glad I did that, I got those words on paper and said those things, but it was bloody hard work and I think I'd rather have a life', then the agency's doing its job just as much as when it helps give an accomplished MS a final polish before it goes out into the wide world to seek its fortune.

It is a lot of money, but less than an Arvon week, for example, and for blow-by-blow feedback on a novel, particularly, it's hard to beat.

I wish we celebrated the basic act of creative writing more, and didn't always talk as if writing is wasted unless it results in a contract. Everyone knows about Sunday painters, and most people don't think they're wasting their time. What these not-good writers are doing is a similarly important part of their, and more generally human, existence. You need to be worryingly driven and slightly mad to struggle as hard to be published as most writers have to: why should we assume every writer thinks that's the best use of their human capacities?

Emma

;(

Just practising.
Thanks Casey.

A.

<Added>

;)
OK trying again.

By the way, I never met anyone who considered themselves a writer who didn't dream of being published but then I don't know that many.

<Added>

; )

<Added>

Casey, help! Why can't I wink?