I've had several personal positive rejections from editors, but by the time they arrive in the mail my heart has moved on to another story.

I've been researching agents and the most important thing I look for on their websites or blogs is that if they are an agent for the writer, not for the book. Michael, it sounds like you do that.

Jany Yolen told me she has been with the same agency her whole career. They represent her no matter what genre she writes. That's what I want, I never know what whether it will be a poetry day, a picture book day, a non-fiction article day, to work on my MG WIP or my YA WIP. She said having an agent means you don't have to spend time trying to find a home for your work, you can concentrate on producing more work.

That is what I want. The freedom to write and not worry about where to send my work.

For that matter, I would rather feel that my manuscript had been carefully considered and attended to by several editors, and choose the best combination of editor-house from the greatest number of choices, than to have my offer 10 days faster. I'd hope my book would be around for years, and that the relationships would last for years, and that those 10 days would recede into irrelevance.

No offense taken! I've got a pretty thick skin, anyway. Glad you enjoyed the debate. I'm hoping to bring more to the blog!

– Michael

I feel I need to clarify something I said. I didn't mean that longer deadlines will guarantee higher advances, but only that they'd grant more time to analyze the projects and make wiser decisions, which is good for the publishing industry as a whole.

However, you obviously know the market better than I (unpublished as I am, for now) and if you say, and the editors agree, that you are fair then I have nothing less to say. This is what I'd expect from an agent (tough but fair). Maybe I was too harsh on my comment, and I apologize if you felt it was somehow unpleasant. It was not my intention.

Finally, I must say the debate is most interesting and valid. Something important to reflect upon. Thanks for sharing your opinion and stimulating this.

And, yes, I think agents and editors can work together to make sure the time that is necessary is given for an editor to get done what needs to get done.

On your final paragraph, I think that while the current situation in publishing — with many editors being let go and becoming agents — will cycle again and balance out. There just isn't enough good material to go around to support too many agents.

– Michael

Because when you're not in a situation where's there's a pre-empt (and let's face it, an editor can't pre-empt everything, but that doesn't mean they aren't *really* eager at the thought of working on a project just the same), then I think agents DO serve themselves and their authors best to allow enough time for an editor to take a project through the standard channels her house has in place for getting an offer together. Because (most) editors don't get to work in a vacuum of taste alone, making offers dependent entirely upon their enthusiasm-—if they did, I don’t think we’d even need to be having this conversation.

Absolutely, an editor can (and will) drop everything to read, especially when it’s a project that she feels has been carefully targeted to her, or when it’s from an agent whose taste she regards highly. But it's harder to assure that her colleagues in Sales, Marketing, Finance, etc. will be able/equally motivated to read and respond on extremely short notice, especially depending on whatever is happening at that moment in their piece of the publishing arena–and the responses of all those key colleagues are directly reflected in the offer I get to make to an agent/author. That said, I think some of this comes down to relationships, too—as I feel that ALL of publishing does. It’s my hope (and has been my experience in several recent situations, actually) that if I lay out a rational timeline and explanation of what hurdles I need to get through in order to make the offer I’m hoping to make, an agent will recognize the serious intent and choose to work WITH me, not against me, even if they’d have preferred to have sold the book yesterday.

I’m not sure what the answer is, but while I’m glad the conversation has been opened (thanks, Cheryl & Michael!), I do think the whole things unscores something worrying about the current system, which feels a bit unsustainable to me—there more and more agents every day, submitting more and more and more manuscripts to less and less editors (who are also managing more and more projects)—and something is going to break down eventually! As editors, do we dare miss the opportunity to buy a project that an agent went out with 2 or 3 days ago that we’d really love if only we had time to read it and get an offer together? And what if doing so means poorly serving the books-in-progress that we also really loved when we bought them–projects that also now desperately need our attention right now, too? I wonder what Ursula Nordstrom would say to it all?

To Casey: yes, editors do pull offers if you sit on them too long. They realize that the more time passes, the more likely they are to have competition.

To anonymous agent: As editors can attest, I submit to everyone from assistant editors to publishers, depending on who I think will be the most enthusiastic champion for the project. As for unresponsive editors, I find it much less of a problem on the children's side of the business. I'll speak to this in my post today in response to Cheryl's response. So much responding!

To Catherine: I was going to propose to Cheryl that we discuss this at a conference. I think it's a good idea, too.

To anonymous: After I responded yesterday, I worried for a moment that the title of her post meant it was satire and I'd missed the joke. Fortunately, that was not the case.

– Michael

酒店兼職

台北酒店

打工兼差

酒店工作

酒店經紀

禮服店

酒店兼差

酒店上班

酒店PT

酒店