Merits of Literary Agent vs Direct.

[Keri]

Hello everyone,

I've been working on doing some research on the merits/rewards of going through a Literary Agent as opposed to approaching those Publishers who do take submissions without one yourself. I do know there are some publishers who don't accept unsolicited submissions, so that could be one benefit.

I'd like some personal feedback for a first-time novel on what you have experienced in this area.

 

[Mark Robson]

A great practical advantage is that the agents have experience of negotiating terms with publishers. My agent got my first offer doubled. I would not have had the guts, nor the clout to be able to manage this. If you can get a good agent to represent you, then believe me - they earn their cut of your royalties.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It depends, in part, on what your first priority is. Are you in a hurry just to see your book published, or are you looking for a certain kind of publisher -- large press, small press, speciality, or whatever? Are you hoping to make a career of writing?

With these things in mind, you might want to research some of those publishers who are open to unagented manuscripts, and find out if these are the same publishers who would be near the top of your list if you weren't thinking about an unagented submission. If none of them are, then that might be the answer to your question right there: you'll need an agent in order to approach the kind of publishers you want to consider your book.

But if some of those publishers do appeal to you for other reasons, then yes, you might want to send the manuscript in yourself. Because once you have a deal on the table, it's much easier to get a really good agent to represent you.

Once a publisher makes you an offer -- but before you say a word about whether or not it's acceptable -- then bringing in an agent to negotiate the deal would almost certainly be a wise choice. It's not just the money. Publishing contracts can be very complicated, and there is more to getting you the best deal possible than just the size of the advance. In addition, how much money a publisher spends to get the book is often a factor in how they handle it afterwards -- as well as how much (or how little) they're willing to offer you in subsequent contracts.

 

[John Jarrold]

Yes, I entirely agree. It's a personal matter, and also very much about business. I employ a contracts associate to go through each publisher's contract with a fine-tooth comb - they can run to twenty pages or more. But I do know some authors who much prefer to deal personally with publishers and negotiate their own rights - not many, though.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Personally I think it's best to try and get an agent first.

A lot of people simply have not reached a publishable standard of writing and don't realise it. I figure if you do have a work that is of publishable standard and saleable then the agent is in the best position to connect you with the right publisher. It's also a much faster process. And if you submit to every relavent agent, and everyone sends back a standard rejection letter, then IMO it means you need to look at your manuscript again.

However, if you submit to publishers you're going a much longer route - generally slower response times, so if you do need to work more on your MS then it takes much longer to find out. And - in the rare instance that you are able to get a deal, could you have had a better one?

When I was first submitting I found a lot of the big publishing houses wouldn't take unsolicited manuscripts anyway, and that an agent was the only way to get your work to them.

I know it's hard to get an agent - but I figure that, at the end of the day, if your work is good enough to be published by a traditional print house, then you simply need to persevere in getting an agent to represent it.

Of course, this is especially if you're aiming at the bigger publishing houses. If giure why aim low, though.

And, it's just my opinion.

 

[Commonmind]

When I was first submitting I found a lot of the big publishing houses wouldn't take unsolicited manuscripts anyway, and that an agent was the only way to get your work to them.

Unsolicited means you simply haven't been given permission by the publishing house to submit your manuscript; having an agent is not the only way to "get your work to" one of these houses, the query letter still works as a means of correspondence between aspiring author and possible publisher.

Sorry for the correction, but the way you put it made it sound as if an agent were required, which is not the case.

 

[John Jarrold]

Depends on the house. Some simply won't accept anything that's unagented or from unpublished authors, others want contact before accepting scripts direct from unpublished authors - but unfortunately there is sometimes confusion as to how they word that. I certainly know one London publisher who say 'no unsolicited typescripts' and mean 'no unpublished, unagented authors'. And it is ALWAYS a good thing to contact a publisher or agent personally, anyway.

 

[StevenSavile]

My personal take on it is every hour I spend on the business side of it, trying to chase down potential markets and leads is time I am not writing. My agent (hello again John) has a network of contacts he can explore, a wealth of knowledge gleaned from years in the biz, and most importantly when I am being a pissy prima dona over a contract, offer, ridiculous edit or whatever, I can do it to him without damaging the relationship with the publisher/editor. He goes in, fights my corner, and generally makes me look good. My agent is, after all, my public face in many situations.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Unsolicited means you simply haven't been given permission by the publishing house to submit your manuscript; having an agent is not the only way to "get your work to" one of these houses, the query letter still works as a means of correspondence between aspiring author and possible publisher.

Sorry for the correction, but the way you put it made it sound as if an agent were required, which is not the case.

No problem - it was simply my personal opinion.