I got the following question from a top writer who knows the answer, but I am sure he wanted me to make this very clear. So here I go.
Question: Are there good agents who perform according to the guidelines I have been talking about in these blogs?
The answer is: Yes, of course.
And even though I am getting known as anti-agent, I am not. Kris has a great agent that works perfectly with everything I have been talking about here. And I have had three good agents that worked perfectly for me as well. I am not agented at the moment because, as it has turned out in the last few years, I haven’t needed an agent’s help for anything. I might in the future, and if that day comes, I will hire a good agent (for me) in a heartbeat.
What I am banging against is not only the bad agents, the new agent model of rewriting their client’s work, and the refusing to mail work, but the stupidity of how writers deal with agents caused by the myths spread everywhere. And these myths, as Laura Resnick has pointed out in many of her great comments, are deep in all of us. I was no exception.
So, yes, there are great agents and good agents, and I think there are agents that fit every different writer’s style. Just this weekend I gave advice to a first time novelist (who just sold a four book deal ON HIS OWN) as to how to find a good agent and what to watch out for and if he was on the right track with his agent choice. (I thought he was.) Those that know me and listen to me and actually don’t get angry at every word I say realize I actually have no problems with agents.
I have problems with writers and how they deal with agents.
I believe we (writers) are all responsible for our own careers. We make the choices, we are the bosses. If a writer wants to hand over their entire income and career to a stranger without checking on them, just because of a myth, they make that choice. So I have nothing against agents at all.
Let me say this clearly: Bad agents would not exist without uninformed writers.
I am trying to help the writers get through the myths so they can make smart agent choices. Nothing more.
Now, one more point. I get a vast amount of anger directed at me by new writers because I challenge these myths and tell them they have to learn the business themselves. I understand clearly that the first defense when you don’t like message is to tear down the provider of the message. I expect that and the anger at me comes with two major focuses.
One: “Oh, he’s been around a long time and doesn’t know how it really is now.”
Two: “Oh, he only writes Star Trek and doesn’t know.”
Answering #2 first, the fact that I only write Star Trek must come as a complete shock to the fine folks at Pocket Books, who haven’t had me write a Star Trek book for almost nine years. (Hard Rain came out in 2002, I wrote it in 2001. However, I did keep editing for Pocket Books for a few years after that on Trek.) In fact, I haven’t written a media book of any type at all for over six years. I wonder how I’ve been making my living? Hmmmmmm…. The idiots who toss this out have never heard of pen names, of course.
Answering #1. Go to the top of this page and click on the “Workshops” tab. Kris and I, sometimes with the help of major writers and major New York editors, have been teaching workshops now to newer professional writers for over ten years, off and on. Most who have sold first novels out of the writers who have attended (a lot of first sales over the years, actually) have done it on their own, then gone and gotten a good agent, often with advice and help from me and Kris. A few got agents first and then sold, which is also just fine. Whatever works.
So, to be blunt, I have stayed completely informed about the current world, and stayed in close contact with hundreds of newer writers working to break in. I know the current world and what it’s like to break in. I have to do it as well every time I start a new pen name.
So I am not, in any way anti-agent. There are good agents out there. Great ones in fact.
But I am anti-uninformed-writer. I believe that the more informed and clear thinking writers are as a class, the better we all are in this business.
That clear enough?
(Next Killing the Sacred Cows of Publishing chapter coming on Monday.)
You’ve been perfectly clear on this up until now. It always strikes me as pretty amazing how writers (whose forte is supposed to be words) can read things and totally miss the forest for the trees.
I am writing a novel now and when it’s done I’ll be following the advice you’ve laid out so far because it just makes sense. It is my work, it will be my earnings, why shouldn’t I be the one in charge of what happens to it? If I need advice and/or help then I’ll hire the person who can advise and/or help me.
Great stuff, keep ‘em coming and I’d buy a dead tree edition of this when you put one out.
Heh. It’s funny. I know you aren’t. Most people don’t make it past the incendiary statement and probably make assumptions from there.
Honestly, I always get nervous linking to the articles, because I can see how many will just hear “ANTI-AGENT” and think it’s all bitterness. When I link, I worry that I am by-proxy being seen by non-Dean students as Anti-agent myself.
I’m not. Not even close.
Anyone who actually reads a complete post by Dean can see he is objective about matters, and is speaking from his and others’ personal experience.
Contrast that with a recent experience of my own involving sever subjectivity. Last week, I put up a tweet about how I had just finished reading Paul of Dune, by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson.
I got a reply back from some person, asking me, since I just finished it, to go to his site and critique his synopsis of the book, as he was interested in my feedback.
That site is a site dedicated to calling Kevin and Brian a pair of hacks that are making Frank Herbert turn over in his grave. Needless to say, I ignored the request.
Kevin and Brian write differently than Frank, that’s true. But their writing is no less good, and in some ways is better, even if only that they write in a more modern way: shorter chapters, fewer POV shifts, et cetera. Makes the story run faster. I like Frank’s books; those are the ones that made me want to be a writer. But I like Brian and Kevin’s as well. I love experiencing that universe, and I’m glad they’ve done it, no matter how it’s been done.
I like facts. I also like them to be doled out with a minimum of emotion. Dean’s good for that (as is Kris, by the way).
When I was a kid, my parents had the 10 Rules for a Happy Marriage (or 12, whatever it was) on the wall in our house. (Which was funny, as they got a divorce, but a quarter-century later remarried; another story.)
One of them that is appropriate here is, “It takes two to argue, and the one in the wrong is usually the one doing the most talking.”
I’d take that a bit further. Usually the person showing the most emotion is wrong in an argument. They are not arguing from a factual perspective and thus get frustrated and start to lose their cool. The person who has done five years of research on the subject never loses her temper because she knows she’s right, and if the other person is making fallacious arguments, she just says, “To hell with it,” and walks away.
I’ve spent my whole life having my words misinterpreted. I’m sure it will get worse once I become published. That just means I’m getting successful.
As you probably know you’re not the only one with this problem, it seems to be almost universal these days. I don’t know if people have gotten lazier or if it’s always been there in these numbers but the internet allows more of us to see it.
As someone else said, years ago about something else, (Paraphrasing them) Someone made a comment based on what they thought they heard someone say about what that person thought someone else said about something they thought they read.
Maybe some of these critics will get curious and actually read what you wrote.
I have been following your blog since it was posted on the Writers Digest forum by jamesarchie. I am also the originater of the thread you commented on over there.
I am a fairly new writer, with one short story published. I have one novel finished, which I have been querying agents, and another novel which I am working on. Since I started reading your blog, I have changed my work habits a bit and am more productive. I hope to have five novels published in five years, following your guidelines. I also hope to get more shorts published.
Reading your blog, I never got the impression that you were anti-agent. Just that you were trying to educate new writers about them and the tactics of some to the bad ones. It added some insight to my querying efforts.
Unfortunatley I feel that right now I have to deal with agents. I have about 12 active queries out right now with agents. Lord knows if I will ever get any contract with a publisher.’
Meanwhile, I will just keep typing away and querying and getting rejected. Sooner or later someone will be interested in what I am writing. At least that is my hope.
James has helped me a lot over on that forum, and this blog will help me more.
Now if I can just get that blasted novel sold.
I’m sorry, I know this has nothing to do with this particular post, but since I mostly read your website at work and can’t post there because it’s a Navy ship working behind a proxy, I wanted to take this opportunity to post a comment saying thanks! I really appreciate all the time you take to put into this blog.
It means a lot for aspiring writers like myself. When I get out of the Navy I plan to pursue writing in a much more diligent manner (for now it’s mostly writing down potentially interesting ideas and blogging about my failure as a writer, lol) and I hope to take a lot of your advice with me. I think it will help me be a bit more successful in my dealings with the Writer’s World.
BTW, I’ve justed had to ask my lawyer to contact a former agent of mine (the one who keeps screwing up my paperwork while repeatedly refusing to consent to split payments) yet AGAIN. This is the second time in about a month.
Because now, in the most-recent batch of paperwork which the agent refuses to agree to stop “handling,” there’s stuff missing. (sigh)
I don’t know if the agent has misplaced it, or if the publisher misplaced and the agent (who has repeatedly refused to consent to letting a copy of this paperwork be sent directly to ME by the publisher) just didn’t notice.
So now it’s one MORE stupid, annoying, tedious problem I’ve got to deal with this agent to sort out. (Or, rather, PAY my lawyer deak with this agent to sort it out, since once of the many many reasons I fired this agent YEARS ago was that I wanted to end regular contact between us–am I am sticking to that decision, despite the agent’s inexplicable and increasingly exasperating attempts to remain “involved” in my professional life.)
Dean, I think being “anti-uninformed-author” is a great way to put it.
And I see it as being similar to anti-uninformed-driver. Someone behind the wheel of an SUV who hasn’t learned to drive isn’t just a danger to himself, he makes the road a dangerous place for ME to be, too–so it’s in my best interest for everyone on the road to know how to handle their vehicle.
It doesn’t do OTHER writers–writers like ME–any good for someone to go around lowering the standards of my industry by not reading contracts, not protecting her rights, not caring what egregious terms or bad business practices are inflicted on her, etc.
If 99% of us in my profession would insist on best business practices, then the 1% who don’t care or don’t know any better would be just minor crackpots whose choices in no way wind up characterizing the standards of this industry.
But if 99% of you accept (nay, encourage!) terrible business practices, than =I= become a 1% crackpot minority when -I- insist on best business practices–and that’s a position which almost completely eliminates my chances of getting same.
Wow, well-said, Laura. And exactly right. The agent situation and what new writers think about agents has gotten so screwed up in this business, it’s like saying it’s just great and expected to text and drink at the same time while driving. Sometimes doing that you survive. Sometimes you lose everything and hurt others in the process.
And you are right, the defense the texting/drinking drivers use against us is that we’re the nut balls because we shout for sanity.
Well, lets keep shouting.
JD I was in your spot in 87-90 in the Army.
Keep a journal of your day-to-day stuff in the Navy. Maybe not your deepest emotional feelings in case it gets picked up–but nuts-and-bolts stuff of day to day life on the ship, in the service, and tech/equipment/gear/weaponry and MOS responsibilities.
It’ll be worth its weight in gold when you’re out and writing. Trust me.
I think I’ve said this before, but after reading these posts, I’m almost tempted to go back to college and get a business degree. It’s not so much about creativity, but about knowing how to run your business. I want to be known not just for writing, but a good business sense.
Amanda, I wish they taught that in college, but often they don’t. They do give basics and math and such, but alas, a good business sense comes out of thinking logically and making mistakes and learning from the mistakes.
Actually, Kris over the last year of business posts on her web site (http://www.kristinekathrynrusch.com) has give a pretty solid basic course on small business, more than you would get in a college program I’m afraid. College is taught by fine people who understand the theory but have never practiced. Kris gave a full year plus and still going of hard knocks learning.
Man, you ain’t lived until you’ve had the fifth largest publisher of science fiction and fantasy go down under you. We co-owned Pulphouse and trust me, wow did we learn a ton. We called the years of paying back the debts repaying our student loans for a higher degree in business. I’ve started, ran, closed down or sold just under 20 different business now over the years. My first real business (two smaller ones before) was in Palm Springs, California, when I got hired in 1973 to be the head golf professional of this country club there. And suddenly I was expected to not only stock a full shop full of clubs and clothing, but also lease and run a fleet of 120 golf carts. Trust me, at 23, I had no experience at all owning a clothing store, let alone doing the ordering, let alone leasing, running, renting, and maintaining a fleet of vehicles. Don’t even mention dealing with the banks and business loans and all that.
Crash course taught me a ton and luckily I made that first attempt work, but looking back, it was some good luck and also I listened to people who had done it before. So just keep listening and learning and practicing and learning from mistakes. Much better than ever sitting in a class and just listening to college professor who has never had a business in his life, let alone ones that have crashed.
Dean, everything you’ve said about agents’ proper roles and jobs makes perfect sense to me. I think what some folks are reacting against is they have used agents like you warn isn’t “best practice” so they feel they have turf to defend.
But in all honesty, I don’t see how any agent working under the “take over the career decisions of the writer” path can make it short of some alternate income streams of questionable repute. I guess some of them think if they go through enough writers like that, they’ll find the “blockbuster” best seller book their small group of publishers are looking for and make a killing.
But to me, it makes no sense why an agent would do anything more than negotiate contracts, because that’s the only place they legitimately make money. They took on the jobs the publishing houses didn’t want to do to cut cost, causing agents to take on that extra work for no additional reward/pay! What kind of smart business person takes that deal?
To me, helping agents to get out of that business model is good for them as well, not to mention the writer. They’ll have a better income with less work.
How can that be anti-agent?
I have two books published so far, due to building a relationship with a small indie press. I didn’t even have to submit a query or synopsis. I’m currently working on a synopsis that I plan to send out to several publishers, thanks to your encouragement. I’m glad I ran across these post before seeking out the agent route. I see no reason why I should turn this over to someone who most likely won’t put in the same time and care that I would, because that job doesn’t earn them any extra money. It does me.
Thanks, Brad and R.L. for the great comments. Very much appreciated.
Workshop on mystery just finished tonight with twelve of the best writers I had the pleasure to be around. Stunning work they got done. And having one of the most decorated mystery writers working teaching it didn’t hurt them.
After a workshop like this one, I remember why we do these things. They are fun. And I learn from them and the writers who attend.
Congrats to the twelve who got through it and wrote stories I will not soon forget. Wow. And great discussions tonight and last night as well.
Cheers
Dean
I have to say +1 on Nathan’s comment, J.D. Your Navy experience is going to be great fodder for your writing, even if you never write anything explicitly “military” in nature. FYI, I am a Warrant Officer in the Army Reserve, and have sold a bit lately. Broke in late last year. It can be done! Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!
Meanwhile, to Dean being the Darth Vader of the agent discussion, I think it’s merely indicative of how entrenched and near-religious the agent myth has become, that Dean causes such an allergic panic by merely advocating that writers exercise a little caveat scriptor when it comes to dealing with all aspects of the business, not just agents.
This is probably the #1 reason I sought Dean (and Kris) out as an instructor, after having first interacted with him due to the Strange New Worlds anthology. Tons of other writers spend oodles of time on craft issues and technique. Not very many spend as much time as Dean does on pragmatics — which are just as vital to gaining and keeping a career. Especially when he locks on to these controversial subjects and exposes all the bad logic and false premises.
Another indicator of the near-religious nature of the agent myth: anyone caught “spreading” advocacy similar to Dean’s, is similarly attacked. Sometimes in high, high dudgeon. I know this from personal experience. You can even become labeled a threat to new writers, and more experienced writers will try to insult, shout down, or otherwise bad-mouth you out of the discussion.
I’m grateful Dean has decided that the agent windmill could use a little tilting. Because my recent foray into the direct-to-editor world has been remarkably fun and yielded what I consider to be very positive results: Dean 1, Dean Haters 0.
“But to me, it makes no sense why an agent would do anything more than negotiate contracts, because that’s the only place they legitimately make money. ”
And just to reiterate, using an agent strictly or primarily for negotiations is a business I wouldn’t make, because I think it’s much too expensive and ALSO poor value for money.
On a current contract, it cost me a flat legal fee $1500-$1600 to have my literary lawyer negotiate the contract; it would have, by contrast have cost me $11,500 =PLUS= 15% of all royalties PLUS 20% of all subrights income to have a an agent negotiate the same deal.
(Admittedly, my legal fees are low, for a variety of reasons–including the NINC-member discount that my lawyer offers. There are reputable literary lawyers who might have cost me about $3,000-$4,000 for that deal, because their fees are higher. Note, however, that that’s =still= MUCH LESS money out of my pocket than I’d pay for a literary agent.)
MOREOVER, lawyers are extensively educated in contracts, and also educated in ethics and in negotiating tactics, and have formal licensig and formal ovesight of their profession. Whereas agents have no formal education or training at all, no licensing, and virtually no oversight.
So, really, if the only or primary service a writer is paying for is contract negotiation… who does the writer want doing that for her?
(Many writers expect the agent to know where to send the book and how much money to ask for. As we’ve discussed elsewhere on this blog, at length and often, those two widespread assumptions are full of unfortunate fantasies in real-world practice; and a writer willing to do a little research can figure out just as well herself where to send the book and how much money to negotiate for. Which, to those of us who didn’t inherit fortunes, may be worth the effort when it saves us such a large amount of money NOT to make our major-house sales via an agent.)
Laura said: MOREOVER, lawyers are extensively educated in contracts, and also educated in ethics and in negotiating tactics, and have formal licensing and formal oversight of their profession. Whereas agents have no formal education or training at all, no licensing, and virtually no oversight.
Now, folks, think that one through once again. We have gone over and over this here in these posts, but again, what Laura said is a top point in my logical, business and money brain. Maybe THE top point.
BTW, I had an itneresting talk this week with a successful longtime writer who, like many people I know personally, has an agent, generally thinks it’s better to have an agent, but recognizes that -I- had consistently bad agent experiences and am doing better without one, and so doesn’t argue against my choices.
So I was surprised to hear this writer say that although publishing is going to experience immense changes in the next decade that some publishers won’t survive, the real dodo bird in this whole scenario is the literary agent.
They’ve opted themselves out of a huge share of the new electronic and POD market, and it’s too late now for them to get into it. This writers also thinks that with the internet, e-publishing, and the rapidly-improving sophistication of translation software, the foreign subrights market will dry up in another decade (because someone in Poland or Japan with an internet connection and access to a translation program can buy the English e-edition of my book, without needing the intermediary process of a foreign subrights sales, human translation, and reissue of the book). Beacuse foreign markets already have such narrow profit margins, I think that’s an interesting prediction…
And, of course, one of the reasons that many people have given me for sticking with their agents is foreign subrights sales. As already discussed, it’s not actually a good reason in many cases; and my own subrights income has actually IMPROVED now as an UNagented writer. But it is nonetheless a common reason given for “needing” an agent… and one that this writer (long-agented) thinks is going to disappear during our lifetime.
There is also the question now of agents who demanding rewrites and agents who refuse to send a book out… losing the control they had now that a writer who’s agent is balking can saying, “Well, if you don’t think it’s marketably in New York, okay. I guess I’ll just self-publish it.” Thus exploring a revenue stream for that book from which the agent is omitted, -and- occupying the writer’s time (by writing that book despite the agent’s negative decree) with pursuing that income… during which time the writer is presumably NOT writing the next proposal to show to the agent.
Only writers who are extremely foolish and submissive are going to keep reporting going 2 years, 4 years, 6 years without making a submission simply because their agent wouldn’t send out the book. The writer won’t need to be as proactive, savvy, or brave as I had to be (if I may say so) and enter the agent-dominated major market on her own, as I did; she still CAN do that, of course (and I encourage it). But for allllll the writers who aren’t willing to do that… there IS a quiet, stay-at-home, make-no-waves alternative now when your agent won’t submit your book: Upload it to Kindle and Smashwords, or deal with a small e-pub/POD outfit that takes a strictly-fair percentage.
Those writers increasingly have an alternative now for all those books that their agents won’t send out–and over the next few years, it’s increasingly going to occur to them, “Instead of sitting here earning NO money for the 1, 2, 4, 6 years that my agent won’t send out my work, or retires it unsold after 3 submissions, etc… I could earn a little money for it by self-publishing it electronically. And instead of being read by no one at all, I could be read by people who’ve enjoyed my other books.” And there’s bound to be a tipping point where a writer thinks, “My agent has declined to send out or failed to sell the last three book proposals I showed him, and now I’ve by now accumulated $6,000 selling them myself directly on e-platforms… So do I really even want to go through the hassle of showing my agent yet ANOTHER book proposal he won’t send out? Why not just omit him from this process altogether? Do I really want to rewrite a book twice for him that he’ll show to only 3 pals and then promptly declare unsaleable? Why not just write the book I want to write and post it, rather than go through that demoralizing whole demoralizing process BEFORE I write the book I want to write and post it?”
I don’t think all agents will disappear. Big deals and big publishing will still exist. But I think a noticeable percentage of them WILL disappear in the next decade. I think the flaws in the business model will crack under the strain of publication options and revenue streams for their own clients which now exist outside their control, which control many of them have not used very intelligently (certainly not in my own experience–as stated before on this blog, more than 80% of my sales and my $ income over the years has come from books agents told me were unmarketable).
I’m afraid I totally agree with you on this again, Laura. In this upcoming crisis in the publishing industry that we can all see coming as soon as e-books hit 25% or so of all books sold (about 2012 at this rate), a bunch of major publishing will have to adjust and some will crash. (Long reasons why this will happen due to long-term contracts with web presses, trucking, warehousing, unions and the return system matched with price points…just leave it to say that there will be a huge shakedown and adjustment.)
When this happens, the agents, especially the ones that have gone completely to this new belief system, will crash along with it. We are seeing that already because that new agent model just doesn’t work on a simple small business economic profit and loss accounting sheet. You have to make sales to make money, and not sending out books, having clients rewrite, is just not a way to make money. Never has, never will be thankfully. So I agree, Laura, with you and the other writer you talked to. Agents have turned themselves into the completely useless attachment on the publishing system. (Not all, but many. Some of the old model agents who are also lawyers or fantastic at sales will survive.)
Kris has sold a number of books overseas just this last year and she did it all herself. She and I both have sold a number of projects into Hollywood and that has all happened without agents involved at all. Yup, the need for an agent for those is getting pushed aside by the internet.
And I agree with the decision so many writers are making to get books that have had a decent attempt at New York get into Kindle.
I personally HATE the idea that a writer doesn’t try New York first before going to kindle or epub, but there are reasons for some to do so. But even if the agent doesn’t mail it doesn’t mean the author just can’t mail it. When did professional writers become afraid of simply mailing a manuscript to an editor without an agent? That’s not the agent’s fault, that’s stupidity and fear on the writer’s part.
So I agree, I don’t think agents will disappear, but I will be surprised if in twenty years the “must have an agent” myth is still around.
Speaking of shake-ups, here’s JA Konrath’s announcement today about his deal with AmazonEncore to sell his next book for $2.99 on the Kindle, followed by a print edition later.
http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/05/shaken-by-ja-konrath-press-release.html
I’ve found his past candor about his e-pub stats on his blog–price experimentation, royalty rates, doing e-pubs compared to print runs, comparing epub sales done through print publishers through selling direct–fascinating stuff. But then I’m a numbers geek.
I’ll add something to Laura’s statement about wanting better business practices. Laura and I disagree about whether to use a pseudonym. In my case, I’m both an environmentalist and a sometime environmental consultant, as well as a very budding writer.
The environmental industry has some regulations, but there are substantial financial pressures to do low-quality work. I’m one of the ones who lobbies for quality standards. Why? Consultants who do their job right are substantially cheaper than the lawyers who handle the lawsuits the clients face from the environmental community when things are done badly. The consultant’s job ideally is to keep the shit from hitting the fan by helping the client design an environmentally and socially benign project. Too often, environmental consultants make their money either by giving clients cover for crappy projects, or by soaking the client for money and doing a shoddy job, thereby a) not helping the environment, b) driving up client costs, and c) contributing to legal tangles when the activists have to try and deal with the mess.
Sadly, the environmental industry doesn’t particularly like this line of argument, and that’s why I use a pseudonym online.
I’m just pointing this out as an example of what happens when you work in an industry with crappy practices and twisted politics. That’s why I’m so enjoying Dean’s posts.
Fortunately, authors like Laura don’t have to use pseudonyms to comment if they want their next manuscripts bought. I’m looking forward to the day when I can say this under my own name.
“Fortunately, authors like Laura don’t have to use pseudonyms to comment if they want their next manuscripts bought.”
Oh, you underestimate the power of resentment. There’s a major publisher who will never buy anything from me, specifically because I publicly disagreed with (and cited examples directly contradicting) false statements that the head of the house was making in an online forum about his company’s contracts, practices, and policies. (What was so absurd about the argument was that the information he was denying was not only readily accessible, but even publicly printed by his own company.)
I had a choice between saying something and living with the consequences (such as letting this invididual’s patently false and absurd comments go unchallenged in a forum full of people too afraid of him to point out the obvious), or saying something and living with the consequences–never selling a book to that house (which has been a real consequence, not a hypothetical one).
Short of serious consequences (such as physical endangerment, imprisonment, etc.) I don’t agree there are valid reasons to hude behind anonymity. But anonymity is certainly easier than accepting the consequences of speaking publicly. Anonymity is used as a means of not bothering to craft one’s argument. As already stated when talking about anonymity on those editor blogs, if I write something controversial or sensitive in my opinion columns (or, indeed, on the internet) I make damn sure I think through what I’m saying and am prepared to stand by it–since using my real name means I DO have to stand by. Whereas using some anonymous handle means I never have to take responsibility for it, and shoot off any old nonsense.
P.S. For the most part, I really don’t think it makes a difference if one posts anonymously in the reply-response areas of blogs. Reply-posts are made by visitors, and that’s a very casual status.
I also don’t think it matters if someone’s a foodie or a traveler or a fan of Renaissance costume, etc., and posts an anonymous blog purely for fun. I’ve never seen anything so controversial on a baking blog where I’ve thought, “Wow. It takes guts to say that in public about whipped egg whites.”
But I don’t think that people writing opinion columns, positioning themselves as professional experts on their own blogs, doing journalism, doing critical or conversational essays in public, etc. are credible (or, frankly, particularly worthy of respect) when they do that sort of thing anonymously.
I agree, Laura. There was a very good reason for W. Mark Felt to remain anonymous; his life could have been forfeit if he had been revealed.
There are other such examples, as well, but publishing is more than likely not one of them. (Except perhaps in places like Cuba.)
I just saw this today on an agent’s blog and was immediately reminded of everything you’ve ever written about agents, Dean.
Based on the statement below alone I would never work with this agent.
Before, I might have taken this statement as given and as a fact – now thanks to this series, I see it as a huge warning sign – anyone who thinks like this is so not the agent I want working for me.
Thanks so much for opening my eyes!