This guy’s got something against bovine
Dean Wesley Smith has got something against the publishing world, and so he’s writing a book about it, Killing the Sacred Cows of Publishing.
Smith, known primarily for his book adaptations of television shows, movies, etc., has identified over twenty-five of what he says are writing and publishing myths, and has been ever so kind as to set writers straight with a series of book chapters on his website (which, if you enjoy, you are invited to donate toward). But what Smith seems to have forgotten is that the entire writing/editing/publishing/agenting/reading world is subjective, and that his opinion does not make something fact.
To be sure, there are some gems up there, and some pretty unarguable statements: writing slowly does not mean writing well, and writing quickly does not mean writing poorly; all writers are different, have different habits and strengths and weaknesses; writing requires practice. Most (though not all) of what I agreed with had to do with writing advice—which is unsurprising given that Smith has published over ninety books (even if he did have a pre-established base for many of them, such as character and world).
What he really seems to hate, though, are agents*. He is quick to mention the 17-year relationship with his own agent and that he is friends with a few agents, but it is all but impossible to miss his disdain for their usefulness, unless they are top tier, and especially for new writers.
The myth he tackles here is that an agent is required to sell a book. This is, as I think everyone here knows, true; there are other paths to publication. There are small presses that accept and give serious consideration to work from unrepresented writers, there are stories of writers who find ways to get their foot in the door even at the big New York houses (such as at conferences), and there is always, of course, self-publishing. But while the most basic nature of this myth is true, what he argues for is in fact something very different. Let’s look at a few of his arguments:
It [reviewing slush] allows young agents to think they are the boss at times over writers. Of course, no longterm [sic] writers think this, and no respected, longer term agent thinks it either, but beginning writers and early professionals fall into this trap, and even go so far as to rewrite a book on demand of their agent.
Excuse me?? If the agent could write, they would be, instead of taking 15% of what a writer makes for writing. Yet beginning writers and young professionals who don’t understand how the business really works fall into this ugly rewriting trap all the time. Agents are your employee, they don’t tell you what to do, you tell them. Duh.
There are more than a few things wrong with this, the first the assumption that agents do not have the qualifications necessary to advise revisions. Ignoring for a minute here the agents that ARE writers (such as Nathan Bransford), and ignoring the fact that no writer is REQUIRED to make suggested changes (from an agent or otherwise), I can’t understand then why this same argument isn’t applied to editors as well. I suppose the assumption is that those with the necessary editing skills become editors. But as the big houses become more and more about the business of selling books rather than creating books, as there are fewer editors to do more work, no small amount of the revision burden has been taken on by (quite capable) agents.
A second example from the above quote gets at the beginnings of another part of Smith’s prejudice: that age is somehow a testament to skill. We’ve discussed that before. But Smith says the following:
Young agents don’t know contracts and how to negotiate a contract
…new agents … simply mail your book like a writer would mail their own book. It goes into the same piles as everything else the editor gets, including your manuscript that you talked to the editor about at a writer’s conference.
Again, editors are not held up to the same standards. Why? I think it’s because Smith believes it takes real qualifications to become an editor, but not an agent**. He says:
Anyone can be an agent. There are no rules, no regulations, no training. The old joke is “What does it take to become a book agent? Stationery.”
Sure, I could start advertising as an agent, just as I could start a babysitting, repair, technical, or design business. Just like I could start my own publishing house, or advertise an editing service (even without my degrees and experience). And yes, people have done this. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t hundreds of highly qualified, effective, connected, knowledgeable, and even young agents out there (I notice he neglects to mention the AAR). Sadly there are people that will try to scam you, and so, unfortunately, the burden falls to the writer to find out who is reputable and who has a record of sales.
A few more nuggets of Smith’s wisdom that I wholeheartedly disagree with:
95% of modern agents, especially agents you can get as a beginning writer, have no more clout with editors than a beginning writer does.
I would really love to see the source for this. But remember 76% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Also, they can’t think outside of any box. Science fiction and fantasy agents often would never look at going to a romance house with a book. Luckily, for paranormal romance fans, romance editors have no problem with science fiction and fantasy
If this is the case, then you have the wrong agent. There are bad agents just like there are bad doctors, and hair stylists, and technicians, and shoe store clerks.
Most agents you can get as an unpublished writer is not an agent you are going to want once you actually sell a book.
Again, I’d love to see the source for this, beyond one piece of anecdotal evidence.
Then, while congratulating a writer (in the comments) who has just sold a book to a publisher:
Congrats!! If the sale is to a major New York publisher, you shouldn’t be querying agents, you should be picking up the phone and interviewing them. And if they ask to see the work, ask them why? You have a contract in hand, their opinion doesn’t matter, then hang up. Hire someone to help you negotiate, not sit in judgment on your work.
To me, this piece of advice is worse than all the above, but it is also very enlightening if one wants to understand where all of this is coming from. To Smith, an agent should be nothing more than someone who handles contracts and various other tasks that the writer needs done. There is no need, in his mind, for an agent to feel passionate about their writers, or their writers’ books.
And then, when someone in the comments has the nerve to disagree with him (the horror!), he rejects everything, dismissing any argument as simply springing from the myths which he has taken so much time to disprove.
In the end, though, I’m determined to find a bright side (other than the pieces of advice that I actually do find good, such as that writers shouldn’t ever have to pay an agent to submit work, or that agents should make sure the writer knows which houses are looking at the work, and which have rejected it). And here it is: for every writer that Smith convinces that it is better to submit work blindly to editors before finding an agent, that’s one fewer writer I have to compete with when I start sending my own queries.
*Full disclosure: I would love to break into agenting; that must mean all my views here are invalid because I’ve REALLY bought into the myths.
**I’d like, then, for Smith to explain to me why it’s so difficult for me to find a job as an agent
You’re obviously having trouble because you don’t have your own stationery. Get with the program.
An excellent post, Kathryn, and bringing to light that there are very diverse views on what the role of the agent is. I suspect it’s changing, as it seems every few weeks we hear about another former NY editor starting his/her own press or becoming an agent because the agent relationship is actually closer to the writer and work than the editorial position is. I have my own opinions on the role of an agent, but they are softening as the lines between roles in publishing become more blurred. I feel generally that this is a positive thing, though of course it creates huge problems for those who either don’t recognize it or refuse to adapt to it. And maybe they’re right, too. Maybe they’ve got it right and us kids are mucking it all up. Maybe. But generally the roles are thus: Author writes, agent sells, editor makes better. And that’s as much definition as is needed, I think, as it allows for lots of gray area and filling in the gaps depending on what a particular project or writer needs. (“Selling” may first involve review, asking for revision, helping author shape manuscript into most sellable format. That’s gray all over.)
You’re absolutely right about all the change, and I’m inclined to think that’s a good thing, since stagnant businesses tend to fail.
And there are those stories about editors leaving to become agents, but just last week one of the agents whose blog I read announced she was leaving agenting for a job in publishing. Contrary to what Smith says, I believe the skills necessary for both jobs are close to interchangeable, it’s just, as you said, different when it comes to what the focus of the job is.
And I’ll go buy some stationary this afternoon. I’ll be unemployed no more! Who knew it was so easy?
Send me an email and I’ll talk to my guy about printing. I’ll make sure he does all your info in Monotype Corsiva, or maybe Lucida Handwriting.
Or, rather than fancy trinkets, do good work. I still have hope that doing good work will get a person noticed. So I have hope for you. You’ll land a gig.
Thanks for the vote of confidence! I still haven’t gotten even an interview, so it’s much needed.
And I prefer comic sans. Sends the message that I’m a true professional.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kathryn Houghton, Willow Springs. Willow Springs said: a response to Dean Wesley Smith's "Killing the Sacred Cows of Publishing." & his apparent loathing of literary agents. http://bit.ly/dsuJrW [...]
Wow, Smith’s opinions are very different from what Jofie Ferrari-Adler describes in his recent article in Poets & Writers.
http://www.pw.org/content/agents_amp_editors_qampa_agent_molly_friedrich
I want to work with an agent who is interested in building my career and not just selling the latest book. I want to work with agents like the ones described in the P&W article, not the ones that poor Mr. Smith must have encountered.