I know I've posted a lot on the subject of agents lately, but I feel it's important to share this information as I find it.
If you've ever thought like I did once--that ANY agent is better than no agent, or at least an okay-but-not-great agent is better than a superstar agent, read this blog. This is how editors think.
I had NO idea.
No, it turns out, an okay-but-not-great agent is NOT better than a superstar agent. Agents are not on equal footing. A agent who is a nobody is no better than none at all.
Wow. I was so clueless, thinking that editors would give at least *some* special treatment to submissions from agents, even those they'd never heard of. My submissions wouldn't sit in slush for months at least. Right? After all, the envelope and cover letter had the words "Literary Agent" on them. That meant something, didn't it?
Want editors/publishers to take you seriously? Then you'll need a powerful agent who has a proven track record of sales and a solid reputation. Don't settle for less. You will regret it.http://jasonpinter.blogspot.com
Wow. He really lays it out there, doesn't he?
Bottom line: Don't think for a minute that even if you are:
1. Able to get an editor to read a manuscript you'd submitted to the slush
2. Able to gain an offer from said editor
...that your contract will look anything like one an agented author would get. It won't. And it's also very likely a contract "negotiated" by a newbie agent will look no better.
Happy agent hunting! Shoot for the top!
Go Ahead, Share Your Thoughts! .