Talk:Literary agent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fact/Date Oct 2008[edit]

Since ALL of the Writers' Markets list whether agents are AAR members or not, it seemed inappropriate to cite just one. I changed "most" to "many" since there are far more agents who AREN'T in the AAR than agents who are. If you spend much time on sites that give info on agents (AgentQuery, QueryTracker, Preditors & Editors, Publisher's Marketplace) you just see that the AAR agents are fewer than the non-AAR agents. Does that make the fact too mushy?

I also added two links at the bottom. Here's my logic for adding them -- the page references this type of site ("most agencies list their specific submissions requirement on their Web site or in their listing in major directories"), and it seems legitimate to me to provide visitors with links to a couple of the top (reputable) directories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsesama (talkcontribs) 01:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


This article is advertising for the agents. Is that appropriate on WP? Alan Liefting 06:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree and was wondering if I should write a page about the agency I am signed up to. If the list of agents got really big then perhaps it should be revised. As it stands it is only a few and many will find it useful. It is very difficult to get published without an agent and many of the contributers here might be looking for one. The agents only make money if they manage to sell the work of their authors so it is not really direct advertising. Besides a good agent will have loads of people coming to them anyway, by overtly advertising they would only be making more work for themselves.

We could limit the list of agents to those who have died. Seriously, that would take care of a lot of the problems. GeorgeLouis 15:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Andham2000 Andham2000 11:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to read a list of dead agents? It wuld seem to me that WP sourcing requirements and notability criteria should take care of the advertising problem. --Pleasantville 12:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Being a publishable author doesn't automatically make you an expert on modern publishing contracts and practices, especially where television, film, or foreign rights are involved. Many authors prefer to have an agent handle such matters." That part in particular really sounds like an agent wrote it to promote himself. Littledots 15:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree Littledots. This article could use some pretty good clean-up and revisions, and possibly more information and sections. Nobhody (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Randomness, slushpiles, and blockbusters[edit]

Michael Allen's theories about the publishing industry are non-falsifiable, to put it charitably. His essay continues to be read because some aspiring authors find it consoling to believe that many of the industry's selection procedures are random. (They aren't.) Perhaps more to the point, Michael Allen's theories have little or nothing to do with an entry on literary agents and how they work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

You've got an external link to my site. Here's a little more about it:

I adore my latest little press release. I sent it to twenty thousand (20,000) US Publishers:

UK Publishers:

US Agents:

UK Agents:

Movie Agents:

Movie Producers:

Movie Studios:

along with sundry Media Guys:



and Bloggers:

and didn't hear an intelligible peep from any of the totalitarian twits...which exactly proves my point: American fascism kicks every other kind of fascism's ass nine days a week. Onward, Christian soldiers. Might makes right. Don't ask, don't tell. Arbeit Macht Frei. The glory that was the USA is of another day. You think it's funny but it's snot. Ooh-rah.

Here's the press release:

New News

Ginny Good (ISBN: 0972635750) is a narrative nonfiction account of what really went on in San Francisco in the sixties...and a bunch of other stuff nobody knows. It was the best, brightest, most beautiful work of literary art published anywhere in the world so far this century but nobody got to read it 'cause it didn't get any hype from the money grubbing media and entertainment ghouls who run the permanently closed propaganda gulag. Oh, well. I just got all the rights back from the publisher and made it into a free e-book and a free audio book. Yippee!

And here's a link to a short sample chapter from the free fifteen-hour audio version of the same gorgeous book.

If you want a copy of the whole thing on .mp3 CDs, let me know and I'll gladly send you a copy. Thanks. G.

Gerard Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)