Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
Unfortunately there is a built-in potential conflict of interest, with a very high likelihood of it becoming an actual one. To have any chance of being published the industry forced authors to use agents. Agents dependant on the goodwill of their contacts at the various publishers. Personal friendships were not exactly uncommon. I'd say agents were what I would call a "captive" industry. As for praising agents? Perhaps Stockholm Syndrome. Or simple gratitude for being published at all under the prevailing conditions.
So what qualifications did/does one need to be a literary agent, other than ones connections? An MFA or a major in literature does not qualify one to negotiate or interpret contracts.
I'd say pretty well all. Including self-published authors. They can't afford too many supporters, particularly unqualified ones, if each of them wants 15% of their earnings.
|
Being a literary agent is a business, just like many businesses. How do you know you are hiring a good plumber? You use recommendations from people who have used them before. I believe that most agencies have lawyers who specialize in publishing contracts. Agents look at your book, give you advice on making it more attractive to publishers, help you find a publisher and negotiate a deal for you. They basically handle the details so you don't have to.
Publishing isn't the only business that really require a middle man. Computer contracting is mostly done through contract firms in the US these days. Most sports figures have agents. Most people who buy and sell a house use a real estate agent, at least in the US. I doubt that literary agents are any more likely to have a conflict of interest than any other representative. Can you get by without an agent? Sure. You can also represent yourself in a court case. It's just not particularly wise to do so.