Here's a little crazy for your Monday morning. Don't know where to start: With the author (deemed a troll) who wrote back to his rejector, who is the blogging agent (blagent) Jessica Faust at BookEnds. Or with the agent who then responded! Oy. Check out the comments section egging the agent on.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Mouthy Rejection Talk Back
Here's a little crazy for your Monday morning. Don't know where to start: With the author (deemed a troll) who wrote back to his rejector, who is the blogging agent (blagent) Jessica Faust at BookEnds. Or with the agent who then responded! Oy. Check out the comments section egging the agent on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I side with the agent, hands-down. The writer, clearly a loon, has no idea what he's talking about.
Oh come on! How could you side with the agent? (Unless you are a publishing shill masquerading as a fake blogging writer with the clever name "writer, renewed." ) That's like siding with cops who step out of professional role and beat the crap out of criminals because they can get away with it, then say later that somehow the criminal deserved it. When you're an agent, you should really show a little professional restraint. Dealing with the broken hearted (because you just broke their heart) is part of your job. Suck it up a little.
hostile
Re-read your hostile comment.
Oops, I meant "writer, renewed."
Sometimes I hate how the Internet can obscure the tone of a comment. I really didn't mean the opening of my post to be so hostile, as much as funny. Guess the humor didn't read. My searing energy was directed at the agent, not you, Writer,Renewed, though I do think it's dubious to side too much with the enemy. (I know, I know: you don't think of rejecting agents as the enemy, but I do.) I guess I was Just sick of the sound of agent's whining and then being praised. I've been too rejected lately by the lot of them. But I do think they should learn to suck it up, and not waste time responding to responses from writers they've rejected. That's all.
Point taken.
The reason I don't see the agent as an enemy, however, is for the simple reason that they receive 99.9% of stuff that they can't take, use, or that isn't right for them. Does it make them the enemy because they can't take on everyone who sends them stuff?
It seems to me the writer needs to suck it up in this instance and not waste any more time on it. The odds are against him. Against him in a big way. So the agent rejected him. Big deal. There are innumerable reasons why writers get rejected. But an agent has to, A) feel committed to the work, and/or B) believe there's a market for it. Why does it make her the enemy if the work being sent fits neither criterion? And why did the writer feel compelled to make a big deal out of it? It just made him look foolish. And amateurish.
But...we can agree to disagree, I guess. Maybe everyone just needs to suck it up.
Post a Comment