Do authors care if agent-publishers fairly represent them?

September 8th, 2011

Agent Jason Allen AshlockYesterday I read Jason Allen Ashlock’s “An Argument Against Agent-Publishers” where he argues that agents who serve double-duty as publishers cannot do so while “effectively represent[ing] an Author’s best interests.” According to Ashlock, this is a business model that begets not only a crisis of ethics but one of expertise. I have to say that I agree with Mr. Ashlock (also, I must admit that I personally like the guy after meeting him at Grub Street this past Spring), but I wonder if authors care? And is this good or bad?

To an unpublished author there are two seemingly insurmountable walls to publication: first, the agent; second, the publisher. Back in the day, it was editors who received unsolicited manuscripts; now it’s agents who receive tens of thousands of queries a year. It’s incredibly difficult to obtain representation. And once an agent has decided to take on your book, he/she then has to shop it around to publishers who may or may not be interested. So why wouldn’t an author be relieved to work with an agent-publisher who has miraculously dissolved that second wall?

Unpublished authors are desperate. I imagine some published authors are equally desperate, worrying that their backlist, which used to be a tiny pension, is now worthless and inaccessible to readers. Published midlist authors may feel as though their publishers have not been looking out for their best interests over the years, so why should they give up even more of the paltry sum they might earn through digital publication? Unpublished authors may come out of the gate wondering what a traditional publisher can do for them when all they read in blog posts in how they won’t be sent on book tours and no advertising or publicity dollars will be spent on them.

Authors are desperate for readers. Most don’t care how it happens.

So, no, I don’t think they care whether agent-publishers can fairly represent them. I don’t think most authors consider the publishing business fair to them in any way.

But they should.

And the agent should be their advocate. This is especially important for those authors most vulnerable to desperation — the unpublished and the medium-to-small sellers. It is the agent’s job to provide the best opportunities possible to the author. It is the job of the publisher (trad or not) to produce that work in the best possible format(s) with the best possible access to readers.

I have to admit that as an unpublished author, I would be relieved to work with an agent-publisher and avoid having to scale that second wall. Because sometimes I feel like I’m standing in a hole up to my waist, flailing my arms at the whole process. But I do deserve fair representation — we all do. And it’s hard to see how an agent-publisher could provide that.

The End – nearly there…

August 1st, 2011

I have to admit that I’m not much of a gamer, mostly because the games I’ve played (e.g., Bioshock) may involve a bit of strategy and have truly amazing graphics, but there’s no characterization or thematics, no”big ideas.” And what’s life without thinking about death or the moral consequences of murder or hedge fund management?

But today I read about The End over at Wonderland (the blog by Alice Taylor, hard-core gamer and wife of writer Cory Doctorow). Even though it’s for kids, it sounds like something I’d like to play. As Alice explains:

I’ve posted about this before because it was a treasured thing to commission – a game about death and philosophy – and has taken a little longer to gestate than I originally anticipated. So, with pleasure, a trailer for The End, from Preloaded, for Channel 4 Education.

Amanda Hocking thinks character more than Vonnegut?

June 25th, 2011


Amanda Hocking
is that girl you’ve heard about, that 26-year-old who’s made about $2 million selling her self-published books on Amazon. She also recently signed a four-book deal with St. Martin’s Press for another $2 million (reportedly), which is why she was interviewed in NYTimes Magazine last week. (I’m not going to bother with a link to that story because it’s behind the paywall — I read it in hardcopy.)

So the most interesting piece of the interview were her comments about literary versus pop writing. Hocking greatly respects literary writers and used to try to write in that genre (and yes, I’m calling it a genre), until her friend/assistant Eric told her “these books you’re writing aren’t you.”She then began writing the more light-hearted , action-packed, romance-laced novels that have been so popular. This is the interesting comment she makes about the difference between this (her) sort of writing and literary work:

Theirs [e.g., Vonnegut] are not actually character-driven, they’re not books about people. People are just used to explain an idea. And my books are about people — who might happen to have ideas.

How many times have you heard/read/said that the difference between literary and pop fiction is that the former are character-driven and the latter are plot-driven? And yet she’s absolutely right, isn’t she? You might disagree with me, arguing that theme/idea is secondary and character primary in so-called literature, but I think the best you’d be able to prove is equality.

Now, I don’t have a problem with this because I like to read fiction that presents complex ideas through the mouths of interesting characters living difficult lives. But I also enjoy fiction about interesting characters thrown into difficult situations requiring dramatic reaction without any greater theme presented than love conquers all or friends forever whatever. And okay, yes, those are themes/ideas, but you have to admit they’re general and common enough that they’re playing a flat third fiddle to character and plot.

What’s the point here? I have a strong tendency to think of an idea first, then the characters come to me with plot arriving late to the party like it’s some kind of diva. But I’m working on a book now where it’s very much the other way around — the main character and her voice came first, very strongly, with plot galloping in right behind her. But because I’m so used to working the first way, I’ve been slowing myself down, backstepping, trying to cram in some big ideas. Hocking’s comment made me realize that I need to go back to what I was doing initially; I need to let go of the big themes and let the story spool out. The big themes will show themselves. And if they don’t? That’s what revision’s for, right?

 

Robot librarian, anyone?

May 23rd, 2011

From GeekBeat.TV:

“Watch out, research is about to get even geekier! Not only does the new Joe and Rika Mansueto Library at the University of Chicago look like one of the domed ships in “Silent Running,” it’s got a highly automated book storage and retrieval system. The public areas of the library are above ground in a glass and steel dome. But all the books are held underground in a climate controlled area capable of keeping 3.5 million volumes readily accessible. Library patrons email their request to the library and within five minutes the robotic system has found the desired book and sent it up to the pickup area in the reading room. The video below shows the whole process.”

Only one downside as I see it: no browsing the stacks. I’ve found some great authors that way, such as Sherman Alexie (obviously I started at the As). Still, it’s thrilling that this library actually exists and print books are being saved and used. I’m not a Luddite, but I do love me some binded paper.