First of all--not that I think you should say so--but if any agent says, "Oh yeah? Another agent offered you representation? Well, WHO? Who are they??"--or even a gentle, "Oh, that's interesting. Who?"--I would consider it pushy, rude, and a breach of etiquette.
There's a reason you're supposed to write "An agent" versus "[Name of agent]." We exist in a small world; in many cases we know each other--and just as all New Yorkers would go crazy if they were expected to talk to everyone on the subway, there are times we have to pretend we have more space and territory. We really, truly don't want to know that we're competing with friends for the same project. That's like finding out you're both writing a piece for the same publication--and comparing how much you got paid. No good can come of it.
So. That's the part that's for us. What about for you?
The minute an agent asks this question, he/she is placing you in the middle of what may be an ongoing debate/competition/industry question/drama--it's pulling you into a situation (perhaps a fight, if for some reason the agents don't get along) that just isn't fair. That's like two old friends bringing you into a generations-old battle--and you just met them. It'll cloud your judgment and make it all the more challenging to make this already difficult decision.
I've heard of nasty tricks over the years--agents badmouthing each other to potential clients; agents spreading rumors about other agents; agents putting authors in incredibly unfair situations. Oddly (or perhaps not so), a lot of this sounds intergenerational--I don't think I have to say who makes what argument. Some agents take an "all's fair in business, love, and war" approach.
I've even heard of an agent harassing once-potential clients who'd already signed with other agencies--the story involved (it sounded like) about five calls and a fax (of doctored Publishers Marketplace listings--naturally, this agent "accidentally" cut out a sizable chunk of the competition's deals--called the other agent inexperienced--and then said, "So I assume I should send you my Author-Agent Agreement?").
That's just slimy. And though you may want someone like that to represent you in certain legal cases (I suppose--perhaps if you know the other side has someone like that too), or perhaps to go on the attack if you're running for office and the other side is mud-slinging--but I don't think it'll help you much in terms of finding you a good relationship with an editor.
Will it get you more money? Well, editors won't (and can't) be bullied into offering more. They have formulas and a ceiling number from their company. And to get really large numbers, you need an auction; to get an auction, you need two (usually three) editors who can stand working with that agent. I suppose that, in some cases, preempts are also quite large--but this seems rarer.
Now, it's possible you'll come across an agent who is well-intentioned but just wants a better sense of his/her competition. Perhaps some agencies have a policy of allowing their agents to ask this question. I don't think you should assume that asking this question automatically makes an agent slimy, but I still don't think it's good form.
These things don't happen often, but the stories stick with us. No one wants to be a part of that. That said, this is all easily avoided by simply refusing to tell each agent the names of the other agents interested.
All of that said, here are some good responses. Let's practice.
Agent: So, who else made you an offer?
You: Oh, it's an agent at [choose one of the following]:
- A major agency
- A [well-known] boutique agency
- A small but well-known agency
- A company the agent started
- New York
- LA
- [If it's something else, leave off this part]
- A number of bestsellers [in the [your genre] genre]
- A strong [your genre] list
- An active interest in expanding their [your genre] list
Et voilà! You've successfully, truthfully answered their question without telling them--well, much of anything. Then again, I suppose we do this often in real life to account for others' rudeness--if someone asks how much your house cost, you say "Too much!" or "We got a good deal"--you don't give them a figure.
It's their faux pas, not yours. Now, Ms. Post (in my excellent 1940s edition) makes it quite clear that it's never polite to point out another's rudeness. It's best, methinks, to give an answer like the one above and to move on.
24 comments:
This is a great post, but it leaves me frightened of some agent's tactics that you listed above. Is that just me?
Thank you!
I wished I'd read this post when I was on the search for an agent with my last book.
Like a fool, I named the agent who had offered representation and the agent who had asked "WHO?" never even had the courtesy to respond.
I've wondered all this time whether I'd done the "wrong" thing. Regardless, I realized early on that the "WHO?" agent wouldn't have been the one for me considering that was their attitude.
Thanks so much for answering all these questions. I'm always learning something from your blog!
Oh, dear. I read somewhere that "of course" you should tell the asking agent who made the offer. It wouldn't have occurred to me not to.
I've read two agents who admitted it may not be right, but they do ask for a name in order to know who their competition is -- but don't hold it against the writer if they'd rather not say.
I told one of them on twitter that, if I were that declining writer, I'd then be worried my refusal would impact my chances.
Great post, GK.
Wouldn't leaving out the agent's name encourage some authors to simply claim they have an offer of representation in order to prod a hesitant agent into offering?
I'd like to believe that the agents on my list wouldn't stoop to such tactics. If they did, I wouldn't want to work with them anyway.
From an eternal optimist.
Nice post. I read it and thought:
Oye, the narisha zach in the yenta-ing in which some agents engage amazes me. It all brings me back to one word: professionalism.
I like your suggested stepped reply. It shows class. If the agent still pushes for a name, perhaps the agent is not one who should be considered for representation because she might try to control and hock over everything. It could be a huge red flag. Run.
And sign with the other agent.
The issue I have with your answer is that it removes accountability from both the agent and the author. If an agent doesn't want to know if they're competing with a friend for a manuscript, then they shouldn't ask the question. If an agent starts using slimy tactics upon learning who else is offering, then the author should recognize that and decide whether or not they want to consider having a slimy agent. Heck, I think it would be better for an author to answer the question just to see how the agent reacts; that will give the author a great idea about how the agent would handle pitching the manuscript.
Personally, sometimes I ask, sometimes I don't, and the answer doesn't change my approach much. If I know the agent is particularly editorial, then I'll realize that emphasizing my editorial side won't make me stand out, so I'll emphasize other things instead. It's not about badmouthing others, it's making sure you present your agent self in the best way.
And if it turned out the agent was a friend of mine, my response would be, "Oh, Miss Snark? She's great. I'm not sure what she sees for your book, but here's what I see." And if my friend agent got the book instead of me, the most that would happen is the next time we were at drinks, I would playfully shake my fist at her and say, "Darn you and your sheer awesomeness!"
This is a business, after all. Surely we all can take the competition like adults.
Amy B.,
You make a good point: certainly no one is going to not be friends with a fellow agent because he/she got a book--we will, in fact, high-five them as you mention. I meant simply that it's uncomfortable to always, always know--if, for example, we all went around with äppäräts that told us how we have all kinds of ridiculous coincidences with every person we pass on the street I, for one, would find it overwhelming. Are there times I'd love to ask? Yes! Would I shriek in horror if I discovered I was up against a friend? Of course not. But do I think it's fair to ask the author and force him/her to decide instantly whether to partake in all of this? No. I just don't.
But I can certainly see why some schools of thought would find it perfectly tempting and/or acceptable. It's not so much the asking but the baiting that sometimes occurs after these interactions: it's good for the agent, but not necessarily so for the author. Is it fine in most cases? Yes. Does it sometimes lead to situations quite bad for the writer? It does. I received an outpouring of emails on the topic this morning (gee, I wonder why that is?) :) and it would seem that there are many instances of writers being thrust into really uncomfortable, stressful situations by poorly-behaved agents.
You're also right that sometimes watching how agents behave with this information will shed new light on who they are as people and professionals. It also opens writers up to a whole world of drama--something that I'm sure many writers would prefer to avoid. Should a writer who is curious, wants more information, and/or is willing to deal with that ask/offer this information? Sure.
But I don't think any writer should be forced into the situations that can create. It should be up to the writer, not the curiosity of the agent.
Chumplet,
You're right, some authors do lie. However, we can usually figure that out. See this post:
http://agencygatekeeper.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-do-we-know-youre-lying-wellll.html
I tend not to get into these discussions because invariably, someone is going to claim I am being a bully for stating my opinion and someone else will claim I am kissing ass for exactly the same opinion.
Even so, here is my opinion. If I have a manuscript out and I get an offer on it, I will contact anyone else who has the manuscript to let them know. If an agent asks who offered, I tell them.
In my previous life as a writer, one agent responded Agent 1 was very talented and successful, but before I made a decision would I consider what Agent 2 had to offer. It was nice to have something to compare to. I wound up comparing four agents before making a decision.
Not a single one of them was derogatory about another agent. Every one of them was pleasant and professional and I really was amazed and humbled by the attention they gave me.
Anon,
It sounds like you did everything right for your situation. It's always polite to tell the other agents that you have an offer, and it sounds like you had a great group of agents to work with.
I just hate the idea of agents bullying writers into giving up this information, thus putting them in situations that can quickly become unfair. It's assumed that agents generally get what they ask for--and new writers often think they have to comply with every agent request or else be unagented forever.
The real question is: who benefits? If only the agents benefit (and potentially put the writer in a terrible situation--many of you have written in with such situations today), I don't think it's worth it.
If, as a writer, you know what the possible outcomes are, and want more information, go for it.
The most important thing I'm trying to get across is that it's your right to not disclose this information--and, in most cases, I think it's to your benefit not to.
Obviously, if you have a feeling that it's a great agent who won't cause trouble, that's one thing. But if you're not sure, I think it's wise to be careful about how much information you give away.
"It's not so much the asking but the baiting that sometimes occurs after these interactions." Well, exactly. But the negative interactions of a few poorly-behaved agents does not mean all agents who ask the question are pulling an author into Drama. (I honestly can't imagine what the drama would entail, but maybe that's simply naivety.)
For me that's like reading a couple of bad first-person novels and then deciding I should be wary of all first-person POV. The form/question itself isn't the issue, the person behind it is. I think any author would be able to tell the difference between agents who act like those Anon 4:22 dealt with and agents who are badmouthing other agents and trying to bully the author. And those authors who can't, well, I can't see how these guidelines won't really help them with that either.
Think of it this way. If you go to a doctor for a second opinion, and he asks the name of the doctor who gave the initial diagnosis... do you think you have a right to not disclose the name?
Suppose a student is admitted into the class of another teacher because he was having problems in another school with his teacher. Do you think the student has a right to not disclose the name of the school or teacher?
OK, these are not analogous situations, but they all speak to the right of privacy. An agent can ask for the names of other agents that showed interest in the work, but the writer has the right to not reveal the information. If the agent is persistent or gets all huffy... as I said, run. You might be doing yourself a huge favor and saving money on Excedrin.
It seems a bit self-involved for an agent to demand to know the names of other agents and it comes across as being from the point of view of how this information will impact her:
"Oh, it's a major player? I value this agent's opinion. I should be interested, too." "Oh, it's a small player? Let him have the project. It must not be very worthwhile."
An agent's argument at her blog is: "If you don't know who your competition is, how are you supposed to know how to hone your pitch?"
The pitch should be honed based on the excellence of the perceived project, not based on the weaknesses or strengths of other agents who are "competition." It shouldn't be an attack on other agents. It should be a pitch based on the agent's own success stories and what she can bring to the table.
Yikes... it's shocking to read phrases like "crock of shit," "what the fuck" in another agent's counterpoint. And to call other agents "scumbags" who may be less experienced or have less power serves to weaken that counterpoint. It's a backfire because the language in the argument is too angry and emotional.
There is nothing "amazing" about that other opinion. All I could see was the green halitosis coming right off the blog page.
I strongly feel an agent asking for this information, the names of other agents offering, is unfair to the writer.
There's already such a power imbalance -- writers are numerous, a dime a dozen, vying for an agent's representation.
Some of us would feel like we *had* to give names, as if, if we said no, it could negatively impact our chances of signing with that agent, esp. if a writer didn't have the luxury of multiple offers.
That's where the unfairness lies -- in the power imbalance already at play.
There would be writers who would spill names due to this imbalance, regardless of their real feelings about the disclosure.
Sure, there are some writers with steel cojones who could navigate this situation differently. But for most writers, beaten down by Query Road and perhaps by years of rejection, giving names or not giving names might not feel like such a self-determined choice.
Speaking for myself, I'm glad this boundary is in place. I'd want it to be about my writing, my novel, my day in the sun, FINALLY, not about the dynamics between agents.
You'd never let a painter, contractor, nanny, broker, lawyer or doctor ask about their competition. It's easy to forget sometimes, but agents work for US. Not the other way around.
Well, this post has certainly been illuminating--in that it brought a few out of the woodwork. I've just deleted a blog from my bookmark list, knowing that I will never want to work with anyone suffering from--er--green halitosis. (Thank you, Marjorie!)
GK, dear friend, if you dare change one word of this delightful blog to suit the critics....!
Thank you, Jeannie. And not to worry. Though I've heard of a number of other cases involving writers cowering in fear/deleting posts/making public apologies for daring to have agent wish lists (apparently hopes and dreams are not permitted, either), this post is going nowhere.
Truly, my favorite comment had to do with how I was clearly unreliable/out of touch because I dared quote "a book from the 1940s." Um, no. Sorry. Etiquette was published in 1922. But I digress.
Hi Amy B.,
Another well-reasoned post.
And of course trouble--from whatever decision a writer makes regarding telling or not telling--is blessedly rare.
I'm not suggesting writers question every agent's every move. As you say, and I've said before, the vast majority of agents are wonderful people.
But in terms of learning about this prospective agent, not answering would, I believe, yield more.
This is a golden opportunity to see what not simply giving in will be like--before signing.
Ideally, the author-agent relationship will last many years--and disagreements are inevitable, whether over changes to the manuscript, approach to sending out the work, which deal to choose, what have you. In most situations, both parties will work together amicably--but you have to choose someone you can work with.
Again, in the vast majority of cases, everything will be fine. But knowing this information ahead of time can prevent future situations--again, rare--where a future conflict would have created a problem between author and agent.
However each side responds, this seem far more valuable information than whatever agents say about each other (which is, of course, usually "Oh! S/he's great!").
Believe you me, there have been times I've been dying to know who else offered--but I don't ask, because I know that, no matter how sweetly I do so, no matter how many "and really, if you're not comfortable, don't answer" assurances I give, that "an agent asks, therefore I must answer!" pressure will still be there.
So, no. I don't think authors always know, as you suggest, what agents are likely to react to this information--even if it's only to say, "Oh, you'd be crazy not to go with him/her! I'm bowing out"--in which case a writer might be stuck feeling a choice was made for them.
Even better, that the book is from 1922. : ) *Loved* that you posted a picture.
One of my all-time favorite possessions is a first edition, Macmillan, 1928 copy of Fireflies, by Rabindranath Tagore.
Just wanted to third Marjorie's second posting. Finesse and class never go out of style.
I won't cower in fear. I have excellent self-esteem and come to any table as an equal. My cartoons are on the verge of becoming an internet sensation, so I don't have to kiss anybody's tuchas.
I should explain my comment regarding "green halitosis." A reply at a blog to this blog entry was so angry that I got a visual of that reply.
I could see all that venom turning into green halitosis as it emerged into the air.
I am not a "hand wringer." But, the words in the reply came from such an angry place. The points would have greater validity if stated with much less emotion.
The reply was sort of cartoonish. I might cartoon some green halitosis... for the "marjorie-cartoons."
Thank you, ladies.
Also, I should clarify--the owner of, as Marjorie put it, the green halitosis--well, she's actually said to be quite lovely in person. I only met her briefly, so I can't say for sure, but I know people who know her and like her quite a lot. And she's certainly very smart and business savvy. I wish she'd made a good, reasoned argument, because--well--I confess I'm unconvinced, and I think it's a topic worth discussing.
Here's another analogy: let's say you're with a new boyfriend and about to have "the talk"--but, you tell him honestly, you're also seeing other people. "Yeah? Who?" he asks. Well. If you don't tell him--or if you say "Hmm, I think that's private information"--and he freaks out, you stand to learn a lot very quickly. There's your answer. If you tell him and (best case scenario) he says, "Cool, they're great guys," you learn nothing. If he drops you because one of them is the school's big man on campus, or thinks less of you because one of them's a band geek, you end up with fewer options. If he says something bad about them, you're left with more questions--why did he say what he did? Did he know something in "guy world" that women don't see? Was he jealous? Can the rumors he stated be confirmed on Facebook?
Really, it comes down to what writers prefer. It's just very important to me that they know they have this option--from the other reading material available this week, one would think they didn't.
I met the owner of the "green halitosis" in person about two years ago at a panel discussion of mystery books.
In person, she is quite lovely and charming. And the evening was quite worthwhile and interesting.
The "green halitosis" was only a reference to how that blog reply appeared to me. I was not attributing any personal characteristics. The reply has a bitter tone and I got a visual of green halitosis when I read it. My thought was, "Angry much?" An argument is better presented when it is depersonalized.
I am not against peppering pieces with salty language, but in that blog entry the language resulted in the collapse of the points in the response. All I could see was anger.
Anyway, I got a good idea for a cartoon and it appears in "marjorie-cartoons."
I have seen (somewhere online) another agent say that they *do* ask this question and the reason is more benevolent:
They want to make sure the author whose work they enjoyed would end up in good hands whether or not they turned out to be theirs (paraphrasing).
So it's not always information requested for nefarious purposes. Some writers, being new to the game, might fall victim to a pay-to-play "agent"'s unbridled flattery.
So if you're business-savvy, and you know what you want in an agent, you might have nothing to gain from divulging this information. It might be best to treat the situation like an employer looking to hire; the applicants show their cards and know nothing about the other applicants' hands.
If you're relatively new to researching and submitting, it might turn out to save you years of pain, suffering and searching for a slimier-than-thou attorney to sue for the resultant damages.
Just thought I'd make the discussion even more complicated.
:)
:),
Yes, theoretically. However, I only know of one agent of this sort who is not skewered on Preditors & Editors. In other words, there are more objective sources for this information.
Post a Comment