Do you really need an agent?
- Thread starter Cheapjack
- Start date
J
Jetfire
Guest
I always thought having an agent helped.
It's certainly possible to get published without first having an agent, but you'll be limiting your options and making things harder on yourself. Most of the larger publishing houses prefer you to have an agent before meeting them, I believe.
I'm going to shuffle this off to TrekLit if you don't mind, Cheapjack. There are many professional authors there who will be able to give you the answers you seek in better detail.
I'm going to shuffle this off to TrekLit if you don't mind, Cheapjack. There are many professional authors there who will be able to give you the answers you seek in better detail.
If it's a script, then yes, absolutely you need an agent. For fear of nuisance lawsuits, studios simply will not look at any spec script that isn't submitted to them through a recognized agent. There are rare exceptions, such as ST:TNG, DS9, and VGR, which had an open submission policy that allowed anyone who signed a legal disclaimer to submit spec scripts. But I don't think there's any studio or production company in Hollywood today that follows such a practice.
With prose, agents theoretically aren't as essential, but you're vastly better off with one than without one. Yes, you have to give them a cut of the profits, but they have the connections to improve your chances of making a profit at all and to get you a bigger profit than you would without them, so it adds up. Because they get a fixed percentage of what you earn, it's in their own interest to help you make as much money as possible. And they can protect you from being taken advantage of. Just so long as you choose an agent carefully and don't fall for one of the scams.
With prose, agents theoretically aren't as essential, but you're vastly better off with one than without one. Yes, you have to give them a cut of the profits, but they have the connections to improve your chances of making a profit at all and to get you a bigger profit than you would without them, so it adds up. Because they get a fixed percentage of what you earn, it's in their own interest to help you make as much money as possible. And they can protect you from being taken advantage of. Just so long as you choose an agent carefully and don't fall for one of the scams.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
They may help protect you from being taken advantage of by others but they can still take advantage of you themselves. They're not in it to make you successful. They're in it to make as much money as possible. The two may or may not be compatible.
Biting the hand that feeds them?
In every profession there'll be a few bad eggs, but if an agent has a reputation there's usually a good reason for that reputation, good or bad.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
The agent isn't an agent out of the goodness of their heart any more than an editor is. Their job is to make as much money as possible. That does not mean that they will sabotage their clients. That also doesn't mean that they will go past a certain point to support them. They are not baby sitters or hand holders. It's all about making money with as little expenditure as possible. Of course, all these vary from case to case.
So agents and editors are in it for the money, is that it? Not because they like their job? Then somebody should've told them that they picked the wrong profession to get rich, because there's not all that much money in publishing (in general; I'm not talking about the exceptions like King, Grisham, Rowling, Brown or Meyer).
I take it you haven't read any of the many agents' blogs out there. Take some time and do that; it's worth it.
I take it you haven't read any of the many agents' blogs out there. Take some time and do that; it's worth it.
Of course. Everyone has to make a living. But as I said, what an agent gets is a percentage of what the client gets, so it's in the agent's own interest to help the writer make as much money as possible.
This is why you want to avoid agents who charge a "reading fee" or something like that. That's usually a scam. That's making them money while costing you money. It's not supposed to work that way. Reputable agents make money when they sell your work and take a cut (10-15%) of what you make.
Here's an important site with info on avoiding scams:
http://www.sfwa.org/for-authors/writer-beware/
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
Greg Cox just brought this up in the thread Are Trek Authors feeling the squeeze of less books? The agents and editors aren't there to make the books good, they're there to make them popular. Quite often the two are one in the same but it's not necessarily so. You may write the perfect thriller but if it doesn't sell there's no money for the agent and the publisher so the editor looks bad. Just because something is good doesn't make it popular and just because something's bad doesn't mean that it isn't.
That's not what Greg said. It's a cynical distortion of his actual statement, which is merely that editors are salaried employees of the publishing company (and he didn't mention agents at all).
And of course editors try to make books good. They want to have accomplishments they can be proud of, just like most people do. Maybe there are some editors who are primarily concerned with profit and don't care about quality, but I don't think I've ever worked for one.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
BOLD added by me
Popular and good aren't mutually exclusive. However, you can have one without the other. Preferably you have both.
Is McDonalds the best restaurant in North America? No, but it is the most popular. Could the make their food better? Yes, but that would cost more money and possibly affect profits. It's a balancing act. However, given the choice between more quality and more money, money will win out the vast majority of the time.
"Probe" anyone?
http://www.margaretwanderbonanno.com/bio.htm
Good and popular = best
Not as good but more popular = good for publisher/editor & agent, either way for the author
Good and less popular = not as good for publisher/editor & agent, either way for author
Not as good and less popular = not good for anyone
I'm not saying that editors don't care about quality, of course they do. But when it comes down to it it's all about the Benjamins.
^^ Except that this thread's about agents, not editors...
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
I should have added agent to the above line.
It is trivial to point out that people doing a job in a capitalist society are doing it in order to earn money. That's like pointing out that people inhale in order to take in oxygen. It's not a startling revelation, it's not a condemnation of an unethical practice, it's merely belaboring the obvious. I am at a loss to see how this subject is in any way relevant to the questions under discussion in this thread. The OP was asking if a scriptwriter needs an agent. The answer is yes. It is essentially impossible to market scripts without an agent. It is inadvisable to market original novels without an agent. Agents, like any other profession, have their more reputable and less reputable examples, and someone searching for an agent should be aware of what to look for and what to avoid. And "someone out to make money" is NOT something to avoid in an agent, because a reputable agent makes money by making you money, which is what you want. The thing to avoid is an agent trying to get money from you instead of for you.
Think Jerry McGuire. "Help me to help you."
