tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post2017812161957187732..comments2024-03-09T11:10:46.978-05:00Comments on Brooklyn Arden: In Response to "In Response to [My Previous Post]"Cherylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05972029478350879112noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-20689154526734224452009-09-02T09:44:26.954-04:002009-09-02T09:44:26.954-04:00This has been a really interesting dialogue to fol...This has been a really interesting dialogue to follow. Thanks for sharing these thoughts. It's good to know where editors are coming from.suzie townsendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04866855626210667678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-73574167624534417202009-08-29T13:20:48.789-04:002009-08-29T13:20:48.789-04:00To me, this sounds like the smell of money is the ...To me, this sounds like the smell of money is the main guideline in all of this. What Michael reminds me of is the salesmen who understands that if someone is left the time to think about the purchase, it probably won't happen. What has publishing become, that's my question? Where are the days when literature was the prime consideration? All I hear here is let's bid up the price and make my agency some money. Good for the agent but is it really good for the writers, and what about publishing in general? Have NYC agents ever heard of killing the goose who lays golden eggs? You all know that sooner or later the money is going to be gone, don't you? This can't go on forever, can it? Seems you guys are trying to make it happen as quickly as possible.<br /><br />There should be a moratorium where reasonable limits are set on advances. A few years ago seven figures made news. Now seven is no big deal. Now it's five or six or even god knows many millions it now takes. Where does it stop? I agree with Cheryl here. Time should be given to read and consider the MS and to come up with a deal that's reasonable for everyone. Publishers should not be forced by agents or anyone into making decisions that don't make good business sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-85171882705241974912009-08-27T12:03:39.815-04:002009-08-27T12:03:39.815-04:00Perhaps I'm stating the obvious here (as you m...Perhaps I'm stating the obvious here (as you may recall, I tend to do that), and perhaps my point of view is biased by my world (i.e. what investment bankers and lawyers do when they auction companies or sell large blocks of stock), but I note the following: <br /><br />1. based on what you have described, everyone is acting like a rational actor would in a market.<br /><br />1a. when publishers pre-empt, they are trying to avoid getting into a situation where there will be a bidding war over a manuscript that they like alot, and therefore, by pre-empting, publishers may avoid overpaying for a manuscript. At the same time, pre-empting does tip the editor's hand about his or her interest level in a manuscript, which might affect future negotiations relating to the manuscript and which might influence the agent's decision to launch an auction on the manuscript.<br /><br />1b. when agents try to force publishers into this auction situation, I imagine that the whole purpose is to whip up interest and create "pricing tension" (i.e. a situation where there are lots of bids that force the price up) and to extract a "full" price for the manuscript.<br /><br />2. By asking agents to provide a deadline for editors to respond, you're potentially weakening an agent's ability to get the best price because you're potentially limiting their ability to whip up interest among editors. Imagine if an agent in his or her cover letter asked that editors send indications of interest and offers by date X. By date X, isn't an agent's position potentially weakened if no one or not many people respond? Because in that situation, the agent is forced to call around to try to drum up more interest--you can't negotiate a better price without having an alternative. <br /><br />(I must confess that an agent's job might be more than just to get the best "price" -- softer considerations like editorial "fit" are probably considered as well).jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-63180817860086500382009-08-27T10:46:12.511-04:002009-08-27T10:46:12.511-04:00Thanks all! For the record, Michael posted a graci...Thanks all! For the record, Michael posted a gracious response (on which I've commented) here: http://dglm.blogspot.com/2009/08/in-response-to-in-response-to-in.htmlCherylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05972029478350879112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-20791634887358829772009-08-27T10:43:07.331-04:002009-08-27T10:43:07.331-04:00Thanks for sharing this, Cheryl! I read both your ...Thanks for sharing this, Cheryl! I read both your post and Michael's yesterday, and like Beth, I can see cases for both sides. But . . . I think I hedge more to your perspective as giving ALL interested editors sufficient time to read a manuscript & get their respective houses on board would really be the best means of matching the right editor to the right manuscript.Crystalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09968456960528987538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-18300515637416698022009-08-27T10:42:03.593-04:002009-08-27T10:42:03.593-04:00As an author, I'd prefer for an editor to take...As an author, I'd prefer for an editor to take the time to read my manuscript thoughtfully; and all the editors I know are swamped. This rush-rush thing sounds like those big kids who used to cut in line in grade school, frankly. It even smacks of what Jean Twenge calls "The Narcissism Epidemic" in her book by that name. ("MY project matters more than anybody else's!") Besides, considering some of the wait times I've seen over the years, eight weeks sounds wonderfully short!Kate Coombshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10138566291199003171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-51030283560948100902009-08-27T10:34:41.255-04:002009-08-27T10:34:41.255-04:00Yes, thanks for posting both sides of the debate! ...Yes, thanks for posting both sides of the debate! Such good points all around it's hard to choose just one side.Anna Clairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08774415814789806840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-41025700387777916822009-08-27T09:48:50.230-04:002009-08-27T09:48:50.230-04:00Oh wow...this is fascinating. This is one of those...Oh wow...this is fascinating. This is one of those rare situations where I see both sides clearly--and have no idea which is the better solution. <br /><br />Either way, I love seeing the debate!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431700962951592287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-87418789274023329382009-08-27T08:49:26.610-04:002009-08-27T08:49:26.610-04:00Thanks for sharing, Cheryl, that was very interest...Thanks for sharing, Cheryl, that was very interesting... I can see exactly what both of you are saying, although I think I'd like to see things happen your way, because you are right, more time means having a house more behind a project and it also means more options for the author to find the editor who is their publishing soul mate...but waiting is hard too. Would love to see other responses to this.Frankie Diane Mallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06066659801542129040noreply@blogger.com