Shooter, that is depressing. Though I can imagine that sometimes it's true, it seems a very supine attitude from the agent - a sort of learned helplessness.

One of the things I found out by working in literary agencies is that all agents are not equal. Nothing like equal. Some are great big successful organisations, and some, like one of the ones I worked for, are just one person in a back bedroom, with very little clue.

Yes, it's one of the well-kept secrets. The next stage of that secret is that how their submissions to publishers are regarded varies a lot too. Though I'm not sure how you find out about any of that (unless you're Catkin) until at least you meet them.

Harry Bingham's new book Getting Published (sorry, I seem to keep plugging it at the moment, but it is very good) has a list of things to ask an agent when you get to the point of meeting them, and some of the questions are about submissions strategy: what they do if the book doesn't sell to the first six, and whether they reckon they're taking on you, or this book, and so on. You may not get a ruthlessly honest answer, but their attitude to the question will be quite revealing.

Catkin, I think the thing with the age of protagonists is that some editors feel more strongly than others that it has to be 'right' for the demographic of the readership. And no sex scenes over... sixty? Never mind what real people (and Garcia Marques) do/does...

Emma

I agree with your opinion of the role of sales/marketing, Alex. However, if that's the way it works, it's sensible to accept it than kick against it, I suppose.

It's a fact about the modern commercial world that marketing people often get involved in decisions about which business to go for. However, I think some facets of that involvement are worth kicking against, especially when dealing with creative work. Marketing people are not good judges of what is saleable art (of any nature). What they are good at is planning a strategy for raising the profile of a company or product. That's their remit, in fact. But they do this based on past statistics (e.g. of demographics, consumer opinion, comparable products or services, etc.). Such statistics are notoriously bad at predicting the likely reaction of the public to novel ideas or products. This is why, for example, films that are expected to do really well sometimes bomb, while low-budget films that were never expected to be big can sometimes take the world by storm.

Given a role in deciding which products to market, marketing people will often go for the things that they think are most easily marketable, where the message is a simple one to get across. In the arts, this means something where the message is, basically, "another one of those things, there". That's hardly a route to creative diversity.

The solution for improving the diversity of books, to my mind, is not to involve sales or marketing departments in the decisions about which ones to publish. Rather, they should be involved once the decision is made by people who appreciate creativity. For the marketing department, this means as soon as publication is agreed (so that they can plan how to promote it). For the sales department, it means pretty much just as the book is about to go on sale (so that they can start phoning around shops and book wholesalers, to get their sales channels primed).

Alex

Alex, thank you for that. I think that's the clearest explanation I've met for the stressed involved in getting marketing/sales involved... It's the old thing of the book trade just not being like a normal industry, isn't it. The usual rules don't apply

Emma

I totally agree with you, Alex.

... and I'm going to get that book, Emma. It sounds very useful.

It's a fact about the modern commercial world that marketing people often get involved in decisions about which business to go for. However, I think some facets of that involvement are worth kicking against, especially when dealing with creative work.

I only meant it's not worth getting too worked up about a situation that's unlikely to change. I've already said I agree with you.

Jan

I wonder how Stephen Hawking's publishers managed it? Or did the fact that he's already a celebrity trump all other considerations?

He has the all important 'platform' required for non-fiction authors.

I sometimes think one of the biggest problems facing writers who are trying to get published is the sheer cumulative weight of novels stretching back over hundreds of years yet still available to the contemporary reader. For instance, I read a reasonable amount, but most of the books I read were written by authors now long dead. Why do I read dead authors as opposed to living ones? Because their reputations are established: you know what you're getting. What chance has a new writer got against the serried ranks of the established classics?

Maybe the answer is to pass a law instituting a complete cull of all novels in any form within a period of ten years from their publication. That way, new novelists would be in with a chance. But I can envisage various problems with such a solution...

By problems, I guess you mean global warming from all the book burning? Surely that can be overcome by pulping them into papier mâché bricks as an alternative to concrete in major construction?

Can't you just see the snob-appeal in that idea? "Oh, our house was constructed one hundred percent from copies of the works of Jane Austen. Hardback editions, of course."

I do think houses are only really effective if you build them from Folio Society books.

Emma

I agree that older people have problems getting novels published. I read recently ( I think it was in David Armstrong's How not to Write a Novel) that publishers barely break even with a debut novel and it's not much better with the two or three that come after.

I'm going to take ten years off my age if I'm ever asked. They don't ask for your birth certificate, do they? I'll say I've had a hard life.

Sheila