You Never Left Kansas, Dorothy

There's been a growing list of well-known and veteran authors leaving their publishers, and sometimes even their agents. For the most part, the establishment has stayed out of this discussion, but then came a twist when agent, Scott Eagan used a guest post by Ann Voss Peterson (that appeared on JA Konrath's blog) to discuss this issue.

To be fair, Mr. Eagan never linked to the post, but Ms. Peterson was the only Harlequin author appearing on an indie's blog that week so it was obvious that's what he was referencing. Ms. Peterson spoke on how it was unprofitable for her to continue working for Harlequin.

I would've linked to Scott Eagan's post but he took it off his blog after some unfavorable comments appeared. Unfortunately for him, deleted posts are very easy to recover from the archives. A commenter on The Passive Guy posted the archived link and the comments from the deleted post in PG's comment stream. The comments alone make for interesting reading.

I know a lot of people out there want agents. Some of you have agents. But I lost my zeal for representation a couple of years ago. Every time I researched agents, I couldn't shake the feeling that they were working more on the publisher's behalf rather than their clients.

When I research, I RESEARCH. I read the agent's blogs and web sites. I read the blogs of their client list. I read Publisher's Marketplace on what kind of sales they've made, what kind of deals they negotiated for their clients, and for which publisher. I scout out Absolute Write for the latest rumblings of any agent misconduct. Things like: What they said at a conference, inappropriate behavior, or how they mistreated or misled an author. You'd be surprised what a little sleuthing can turn up. (I might've missed my calling.)

Do I blame agents for wanting to make money? No. But I dislike this mantel of alleged altruism and partnership with the client.

If it were truly a partnership, then they'd be more amenable to letting the money go to the author and allowing HER to divvy it up. The author is paying them for their services. They shouldn't be paying the author for her work.

And if it were a real partnership, they'd sit down and explain EVERY clause and how it could affect their client's future earnings. That's what an advocate is supposed to do, isn't it? 

Instead, authors are treated like milk cows--cows with more than one pair of lips on those teats.

Harlequin is another issue. I sympathized with Ms. Peterson because I understand sweatshop mentality. I cut my teeth on that sort of work ethic when I was an artist. I took any job that became available, working for mediocre wages. But let me tell you, it is nowhere near the agenda that book publishing pushes.

Yes, Ms. Peterson made a living. I'm sure a lot of Harlequin authors do. But they have to work their tails off, spitting out book after book just to make a decent wage. Maybe that sounds good to some of you, but even when I worked in Corporate America, I received (paid) time off and lots of other perks for way more money.

I rarely speak out about these things. It's a personal choice for each writer, and I'm not about to tell anyone how to run his career. But for me, the writing was on the wall several years ago. It just took a while for it to become self-evident.

Some authors will never leave their publishers. Better a meager wage than no wage. That too is a choice.

And I truly believe some agents are honorable and honest with their clients. There's no monopoly on greed or dishonesty in any field. While their place in the new paradigm has shrunk, there's still a need for them in some avenues, particularly foreign rights.

I urge you to put JA Konrath and The Passive Guy on your reading list--not to sway you, but to keep you informed.

This isn't Oz, and the great and powerful wizard doesn't live here. We never left Kansas, guys. Get used to it.

***

By the way, by sheer coincidence, I interviewed The Passive Guy, aka, David P. Vandagriff for the OWW newsletter this month.