A point to debate

I promised that I would divulge one of the reoccurring issues of the book launch, so here goes.

During my years of breaking into the publishing world, I followed the tried and tested path of writing a chapter, a synopsis, and a covering letter before praying to the great book god that it gets delivered on time and accurately to an agent out of the Writers Handbook. (Every year I used to buy a copy, and every year I would ear-mark those agents, old and new who would best fit the type of stuff I wrote. I wouldn’t just go for any, you understand, nor would I just go for those who listed authors I’d heard of. No, I was quite sensible in my approach). And then I would wait for a response.
And wait.
And wait some more.
And when two to three months passed by and I would finally get a reply (from just the one agent, you understand, as you are not allowed to send your work to more than one agent at a time - it’s frowned on) I would discover whether or not they wanted to see the rest, or whether I got a - not interested - letter that are churned out time after time after time, without any pointers to see where you went wrong.

Sound familiar?

It should do for most reading this, as it is the common scenario for most first time writers. I would waste years sending stuff off to agents, usually only managing four to five a year because it took so bloody long for them to read a chapter, a synopsis and then get someone to type a standard reply to me.
I suppose we should understand that agents do get an unbelievable high number of first chapters sent to them a week (according to one agency they get about 3,000 a year) so I can understand why time drags by. But one thing I could never understand is why we are allowed to send our work to only one agent at a time. The excuse that I have heard time and time again, is that if writers were allowed to send out to more than one and it was common practise, then the market would be swamped (that’s rubbish - its swamped anyway). The unofficial version I heard from an agent was that most agencies don’t like playing against each other. But why not? Afterall, agents have often played publishing companies against each other, so why shouldn’t a writer be able to do the same with an agent?
As the Mafia says, “It’s just business. Agents are gatekeepers to being published. Pure and simple. Yes they have other roles too, but these are roles relevant to only writers who are published or getting published. For an unpublished writer they are the guard and the gate who more often than not just shakes their head when you want to pass by, denying you entry because you are not deemed a cash cow in most cases (there are a few agents who will take a risk, but these are like hen’s teeth). Most publishers won’t look at you unless an agent is holding your hand, so it brings a certain dilemma to new writers. If an agent won’t take a risk on a new writer, then how on earth do they get published?

I know there will be a few out there who don’t like football, aren’t into football, and are even bored by the mention of it, but bare with me here, as football is a bigger business than books, like it or not. If football was run the same way as the publishing industry in terms of new talent - football would die as a sport and a spectacle, as we’d still be watching over-the-hill pros kicking about a bag-of-wind match in and match out, providing nothing fresh or exciting to the game. Why? Because it’s the agents who would now have complete control over the new talent in the game, and not the clubs, and agents wouldn’t take the risk or the time scouting for talent.

In the footballing world, the top clubs have academies for rising stars, nurtured from a young age to compete on the centre stage when they are ready enough. It’s not the agents who dictate who these newbies play for, but the clubs who spot them and bring them on. The agents only get their hands on their cash-cows when they’re fully developed. Now look at the publishing industry.
There is talent there, in abundance, and Macmillan apart (with Macmillan New Writing), only the smaller publishing houses are taking a risk on them. Some even ignore agents to find this talent. But the big clubs, those HarperCollins and Hodders who continue to use the agent as gatekeeper, are seeing little in terms of new talent - talent they could take a risk on, even nurture, for greater profit later on.

This has been happening for some time now, and the publishing industry wonders why sales of books are falling. Yes, there are other reasons, like TV, DVDs, computer games etc. but the likes of JK Rowling and Putman have shown people will buy big if it’s well written and fresh, not the same formulaic rubbish they’ve been contracted to write for the same publishing house over the next ten years - in other words, an agent’s cash cow. Don’t get me wrong though, agents do have their uses. But I think the question is, do we really need to have them there as gatekeepers, and should publishers spot the talent themselves and take small risks, than let cash-hungry agents dictate the state of the publishing world for everyone, reader and writer alike?