Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
As this question sort of got passed up, I'd like to bring it up again: Is there some part of "impartial third-party post-filtering, instead of publisher pre-filtering" that does not make sense?
|
I haven't addressed this because on the surface there is no problem. However, you haven't defined what makes a third-party impartial and what skill set(s) that third-party would need to properly evaluate a manuscript.
The biggest problem I see is what occurs after the third-party finds that gem-in-the-rough? Suppose the third-party told you, Steve, that your manuscript had great potential -- basically it was an interesting story and fairly good characterization, but it needs the help of a professional development editor and a professional copyeditor (they are not the same and do not perform the same function).
Now you ask what that would cost. The response is that it would be in the thousands of dollars, and no, it will not guarantee you that an agent or a known publisher will pick up your manuscript or that you will sell 10,000 copies over the Internet.
What do you think most authors would do?
If your intent is that the gems-in-the-rough found by a third party would now find a publisher, isn't that what agents do? How is this idea different in this case from the current agent scenario?