But I do still think there is a place for these agencies, because I think a lot of people feel as I did, that their own instincts about their work simply weren't a reliable guide as to whether it might make the grade or not.

Of course there's a place for professional feed-back. But that's what it should be sold as. Agencies and independents can help you improve a manuscript. Full stop. They should also be clear up-front about the level of help they think you need, so you can make an estimate of whether this is the right time to pay for a report or whether you'd be better off doing more work yourself first.

What agencies shouldn't be doing it promising or implying that they can get you success where publishing is concerned, either direct or by you finding an agent first. What they definitely shouldn't be doing is taking a finder's fee of your eventual advance - your payment from a publisher they've had nothing to do with finding - for simply putting your book in front of an agent.

I think I'm starting to feel rather queasy abouty the whole industry that has sprung up feeding off the unpublished.

Yes, there is a sense that somebody has looked at the likely earnings of a writer and made the assumption that anybody still trying to write for publication must be a fool so should be parted from their money post haste.

agents such as Curtis Brown

And it is easy to remain cynical given the clear conflict of interest inherent in some business models...

Unfortunately, agency seems to have quite a few ways for this to happen at the moment, ranging from sending invites to purchase a "how to get published" book or course with every rejection to opening their own publishing houses with all the complications that introduces. Given that agency needs to be based on trust to be successful, this is a particular shame.

And yes, by giving up our time to read and edit six MSS at the shortlist stage we ask for a 10% commission as a one-off payment.

The decision whether or not that constitutes a good deal is up to the writers concerned, but I agree with Terry that it should be mentioned on the competition page details, rather than left for the writer to discover, as it is exceptionally relevant to the choice to enter the competition at all.

G

And yes, by giving up our time to read and edit six MSS at the shortlist stage we ask for a 10% commission as a one-off payment.

What the terms actually say is this:

Entry fee is £10 and is open to writers over 18yrs in the UK and abroad. Manuscripts must be complete, and the author unagented; self-published writers may also enter. The initial submission will be the first five pages and synopsis; a longlist of twenty writers will then submit the next 20 pages, from which a shortlist of six writers will have their full MS read. One adult and one children’s writer will then be selected for the prize.

i.e. no mention of 'editing' the final six manuscripts. Just reading them, which of course requires considerably less time and input than editing. Besides, they clearly won't be editing, since the prize of the competition is a editorial report! So, this is misleading. The 10% commission isn't an editing fee, it's a finder's fee.

@Terry - how can I contact you if I need another critique

Catherine - I've WWmailed you.

Terry

Interesting discussion. I agree with Terry and Gaius.

Terry, I don't know if you've noticed but one of your posts has been edited without a reason given.

wordsmithereen,

Thanks for the headsup. David Bruce WWmailed me to say he'd cut a line from one of my posts and I told him I understood why; so, no problem.

Terry

How's that different to you putting it in front of an agent?

About six months to a year different, maybe? Isn't that what your paying for here? Getting to the top of the slush pile?

About six months to a year different, maybe?

Based on what, exactly?

Isn't that what your paying for here? Getting to the top of the slush pile?

If it is, then you need to have a sit down and a long hard think, IMHO!

There is no legitimate way to define a third-party to a third-party to an executive reporting to a decision-making board as having direct influence on any purchasing decision!

Neither Cornerstones nor (to my knowledge) any of their competitors claim to have direct influence and if they did, they would be setting themselves up for failure as relationships depend on people and commercial success depends on the whims of people.

What they are offering is primarily editorial advice. Any consideration of links to agencies should be a secondary consideration for writers and, given the (IMHO) rather hefty price of that introductory fee, not one that should be taken on without a long sit down with a very large cup of tea and maybe, just maybe, two entire packets of chocolate hobnobs.

G

Well assuming your work is dazzling and you're a 1st time writer I'm guessing Cornerstones can get you read by agents quicker than can yourself. Which is what I mean by that's what you're paying for.

Well assuming your work is dazzling and you're a 1st time writer I'm guessing Cornerstones can get you read by agents quicker than can yourself.

That point is moot, I think.

Dazzling work is likely to stand out in any slushpile and standard turnaround times vary widely, but none that I've seen are as long as six months. When you also include the four months judging time, as per Cornerstones' own comment above, and the time to implement any feedback, and any other delays inherent in discussions with the various parties, and so on and so on...

And, in any case, six months to a year? In the world of publishing, how long is that really?

G

Terry, thanks for your response. As you will know from your experience both working for us for a short time, and then independently when you set up on your own, even dazzling manuscripts often need shaping. Talent, obviously, cannot be taught, but things like structure, pacing, plotting and characterisation can be and that’s why consultancies exist and fulfil a valuable role. With the competition we’re looking to find brilliant talent and give the authors any editorial help that’s necessary to ensure the story achieves its best potential. As I outlined above, the prize could be worth in the region of £800 for each manuscript. However, the other benefit to authors who are longlisted is that they’re bypassing the slush pile and getting their work in front of agents who are actively searching for talent. This can only be a good thing, surely?

As for our 10% commission on publication this is how we work ordinarily and is representative of the time and expertise that we put into a manuscript before submitting it on the author’s behalf. It doesn't just reflect an introductory fee. Once a manuscript has been flagged for our consideration by an editor we do not charge for further editorial input and often work with them over several drafts without remuneration, until it’s ready to submit. We feel – as do the authors who’ve gone down this route with us, see www.cornerstones.co.uk 'author journeys'for examples – that it’s a fair fee. By applying this fee to the WowFactor competition we are affirming our intent to work with the winning authors in an ongoing way if they don’t end up placed with an agent immediately off the back of the competition (which, as we’ve said, we cannot guarantee). I refer you to the last winner, Ellen Renner, who said, 'it launched her into the world of publishing'.

This leads me to the discussion of follow-up reports which I see has concerned some authors on this thread. Writing and editing is not a cut-and-dried process and the success of a revision is often dependent on how well an author has implemented feedback. We do charge for follow-up reports (as, I believe, most consultancies do since it requires the same degree of skill and time to read a second draft of a manuscript) but we don’t push these and do always stress that the author is free to submit to the trade themselves if they feel ready. Every author and manuscript is different and it is misleading when you suggest that after one edit a manuscript ‘should’ be ready to submit. That’s not how it works (or at least, not always – sometimes it does and it can happen fantastically quickly, as it did with our author Ava McCarthy).

I think this discussion is useful as it highlights issues for authors to bear in mind when assessing whether to opt for a consultancy or freelancer and there are arguments for both. The latter may well be cheaper but can that freelancer offer the same level of editorial quality and range of contacts? The author should ask both the consultancy and freelancer what their track record is and have they worked on MSS that have gone on to get published? Cornerstones has over 60 editors, respected for their skills and expertise; we oversee the project ensuring quality of service and we are scouts for literary agents. We're also known as a teaching consultancy, are guest lecturers at Oxford and teach all over the UK. Our book, Write a Blockbuster and Get it Published, Hodder, is a based on our self-editing techniques and workshops.

Terry, thank you for bringing up our competition and services to authors. In any case, I'm glad you got some repeat business out of it!

<Added>

And some quotes from authors whose MSS we worked on editorially post report, and then submitted to the trade:

"My time with Cornerstones was a great apprenticeship: they pushed me to produce my best work and helped me find my voice. A talented team and a joy to work with. As a result I’m now signed with Eve White and excited about the next steps."
Nick Cook, Cloud Riders.

Cornerstones taught me so much about editing and structure, but more - they helped me believe in myself and my writing. I now have an agent and a publisher and my first book comes out next year.
Celia Bryce, Anthem for Jackson Dawes, Bloomsbury 2013.

"The time and energy Cornerstones dedicated to my writing was invaluable. It's been a long journey, but with their help I now have an agent and a two book deal. Their report was the best investment in my writing I could have made."
Lorrie Porter, Fury, Meadowside 2013

Lezanne Clannachan
'Cornerstones offered a fresh perspective on my plot and helped me wrestle my synopsis into shape, and for the first time I started to believe in my book. I now have a wonderful agent and a publishing deal with Orion for April 2013.'

Haven't read the whole thread but having had some great advice from C'stones in the past, I know that they have very strong links with agents and DO get work seen more quickly than otherwise.

And it's just not the case that good stuff always rises to the top of the slushpile, sadly.

I was taken on by an agent AFTER I had got myself a publishing deal. She read the submission subsequently and was kicking herself. Fully admitted that it hadn't grabbed her when she'd quickly looked at it the first time round. When she read it again witn a keener eye, she loved it and signed me. She could easily have bent the truth and pretended that some minion had passed on it but she was very honest and said that for some reason or another, it hadn;t stood out to her on a first scan.

It didn;t come through C'stones but if it HAD then I bet she would have looked more carefully.

Helen, thanks for engaging in this debate. It can only help writers on this site gain a better perspective about the options for having their work assessed.

Terry, thanks for your response. As you will know from your experience both working for us for a short time, and then independently when you set up on your own, even dazzling manuscripts often need shaping. Talent, obviously, cannot be taught, but things like structure, pacing, plotting and characterisation can be and that’s why consultancies exist and fulfil a valuable role. With the competition we’re looking to find brilliant talent and give the authors any editorial help that’s necessary to ensure the story achieves its best potential. As I outlined above, the prize could be worth in the region of £800 for each manuscript. However, the other benefit to authors who are longlisted is that they’re bypassing the slush pile and getting their work in front of agents who are actively searching for talent. This can only be a good thing, surely?

I actually worked for you for nearly 18 months, so I'm not sure about 'short'. I certainly saw a ton of manuscripts in that time and seem to asked to be one of your mentors for your mentoring scheme. Yes, dazzling manuscripts need shaping, but then a publisher's editor is the best person to do that, since she is the one who's shaping the final book. Second best - and personally I don't think it's a good idea in most cases - is an agent working on a manuscript. Point being, that an editor is an editor. An agent is or should be an agent; an editorial agency should help to improve a manuscript - there is not a natural loop mechanism that connects agency to publisher. Here, you're slipping across lines of what an editorial agency's function is, i.e. to provide feed-back on a writer's manuscript, not to shape it towards final publication.

Again, this competition is not "bypassing the slush pile". The slush pile that counts is of course the one that is seen by publishers. You're talking about an agents' slushpile, which is already one step removed. Even then, you're careful to say that winning this competition will only "potentially lead[ing] to agent representation". You also don't mention that it's only going to be seen by agents you happen to know. In other words, we have a dazzling manuscript that will via your competition be seen by a limited range of agents who in any case are not offering representation. For this, the author has to pay you an entrance fee and later 10% of their worldwide rights, while giving up the opportunity to try all the agents you aren't involved with, and/or going direct to publishers and thereby cutting out both the agent and you. Hmmmm . . . I must be dense but I still can't see the advantage in going your route.

As for our 10% commission on publication this is how we work ordinarily and is representative of the time and expertise that we put into a manuscript before submitting it on the author’s behalf. It doesn't just reflect an introductory fee.

First, as others have mentioned, you should be up-front about this by including it in the competition details. Second, I'm not at all sure what 'time and expertise' is required for you simply to say to an agent that you think this is a great manuscript, please take a look. Third, how come you charge a percentage for this service but a set rate for your editorial services? Surely, the degree of time and expertise is the same for every manuscript. Or it be that the advance is the main payment most authors now receive and of course there is always the chance that they (and you) could strike lucky with a big one?

But anyway, the point is you shouldn't not be charging a fee at all for simply recommending an author. I, and many other independents I know, don't do make recommendations to agents or publishers on our clients' behalf, and for the simple reason that it oversteps our function. To do so leads to all that 'Gateway to the agents' nonsense, that, as you well know, play on the hopes and dreams of authors, instead of helping them to focus on the primary issue, which is improving their manuscript.

Once a manuscript has been flagged for our consideration by an editor we do not charge for further editorial input and often work with them over several drafts without remuneration, until it’s ready to submit.

I'm not sure I believe this but even if true, as I said above, I don't think it's necessary and can most likely be counter-productive to 'work over several drafts' with an author. Come on, you know how it works: if you have a 'dazzling' manuscript, that one of your (best) readers has worked on, you are then going to encourage the author to send it out. Why embellish it, especially when you know the publisher's editor will eventually want to work with it anyway?

Incidentally, I note that you haven't contradicted my point that you aren't in fact editing those final six manuscripts, just reading them.

This leads me to the discussion of follow-up reports which I see has concerned some authors on this thread. Writing and editing is not a cut-and-dried process and the success of a revision is often dependent on how well an author has implemented feedback. We do charge for follow-up reports (as, I believe, most consultancies do since it requires the same degree of skill and time to read a second draft of a manuscript) but we don’t push these and do always stress that the author is free to submit to the trade themselves if they feel ready. Every author and manuscript is different and it is misleading when you suggest that after one edit a manuscript ‘should’ be ready to submit. That’s not how it works (or at least, not always – sometimes it does and it can happen fantastically quickly, as it did with our author Ava McCarthy).

Helen, most of this sounds fine. As long as there really is no pressure on an author to get a follow-up report. But I've seen that pressure at work. And it's particularly pertinent where, say, a manuscript is a long way from being publishable, if ever. In such a situation, I wouldn't take it on in the first place, and certainly wouldn't encourage a follow-up - not unless the author had in the meantime made huge strides forward. In other words - to answer your 'misleading' point - what I'm saying is that there are two basic approaches an editing service can take. One is to be honest and up-front with an author right at the start, e.g. to tell them if you think their manuscript is a long way from benefitting from an editorial report; only to work with authors you know you can help; only continue to work on the same manuscript if it is genuinely beneficial. The other is to take on pretty much anything that comes your way and, if it's particularly poor, take the opportunity to offer a follow-up report, secure in the knowledge that it will certainly need at least one, maybe more before the writer gets anywhere near a professional level.

I think this discussion is useful as it highlights issues for authors to bear in mind when assessing whether to opt for a consultancy or freelancer and there are arguments for both.

I agree. The disadvantage of a freelancer is that they are just one person; therefore, they may not 'get' your writing (although an honest freelancer will obviously tell you this up-front and not offer to work with you). The disadvantages of an agency are that you could be paying three times more than you need to and you (usually) don't get to choose the reader/editor who works on your report.

The latter may well be cheaper but can that freelancer offer the same level of editorial quality and range of contacts?

As said, contacts should not be part of the service, not least because they're mostly redundant anyway. As for editorial quality - well, of course that's an issue. But I don't think you're right to imply an agency has a higher level. As said, mostly the author doesn't get to choose his reader/editor, and no agency can claim that every one of its readers has strong editorial experience. We both know there are readers working at agencies with very little experience of editing. In this respect, I challenge your claim that you have 60 'editors'. Most of these are writers, which is not the same thing, even if they may or may not have good editorial instincts.

As for

we are scouts for literary agents

this is pretty much an oxymoron. Aren't agents scouts for publishers? How can there possibly be a viable role for a scout for a scout for publishers? No literary agent is going to take on a writer just because an agency has put the ms in front of them. They're going to go on whether or not they think the ms has potential. And they can decide that just as easily when submitted to direct by the author.

Terry, thank you for bringing up our competition and services to authors. In any case, I'm glad you got some repeat business out of it!

I don't recall stating that I got repeat business out of your competition. I didn't. I mentioned that I'd just written a report for someone that would have cost them over three times more through you; but that had nothing to do with your comp.

As for throwing testimonials into the hat, I'll just quote one of mine here. It's about how I helped a writer to improve her book, full stop. It's from Lee Weatherly, one of your best editors and someone who teaches a lot of your writing courses:

"Thank you so much for reading and commenting on my first draft. I thought your comments were absolutely spot on, and found them extremely helpful. I really appreciated the time and care you put into your critique. You have a wonderfully acute story sense, and I agree with pretty much every point you made. In fact, you almost seemed to understand my story and characters better than I did, and I've no doubt that it will be a much better book for having had your editorial eye cast over it at an early stage. I can see now exactly where I was going wrong, and hopefully how to put it right. Thank you again."

Terry

<Added>

Sorry, typos in there: I actually worked as one of your Mentors. A few other typos too, apologies, e.g. should be 'you shouldn't be charging a fee'.

Caroline,

So what you're saying is you got a deal direct with a publisher. You didn't need an agent. You didn't go through Cornerstones. That's great. But then I get confused when you say you bet the agent would have looked more closely at your ms if it had come through Cornerstones. Even if it's true, how can that be relevant to your case? You're in a position to choose whether or not to have an agent at all, or at least to negotiate better terms with one. Why would you be wishing that you could have signed away 10% of your deal to an extra, unnecessary link in the chain?

Terry