This post was written by me and Sherwood.

The unnamed agency in our previous post has chosen to present their perception of the exchange. We confirm that it was the agency we referred to. We stand by every word we wrote in our original article.

We did not wish to name them, because we preferred to focus on the larger issues. We did not spread rumors about them, and we don't know who did.

This is why we went public: After the initial exchange a month ago, we spoke in private to a number of other writers, without mentioning the name of the agent or agency. There was an overwhelming response of "Me too!" Many other writers had been asked by agents and editors to alter or remove the minority identity of their characters, sometimes as a condition of representation or sale. Sometimes those identities had been altered by editors without the writers' knowledge or permission.

That response, and posts like Malinda Lo's recent statistics make it clear that the problem is much larger than a couple of writers and one specific agency.

We urge you all to continue focusing on the bigger picture.

Discussion is welcome but abuse and name-calling is not. Please do your best to be civil.

ETA: Since several people asked: I do have an agent for my nonfiction, Brian DeFiore. He's great. The work Sherwood and I do together is very different from what we both do solo, and we wanted an agent to represent us as a team.
Page 2 of 3 << [1] [2] [3] >>

From: [identity profile] torrilin.livejournal.com


Heh. Was figuring it was something weird, but... isn't that like a real genre? Just having some gay male characters shouldn't be enough to make it "boy love".

From: [identity profile] evewithanapple.livejournal.com


It really is egregorious, how personal they're making this- especially considering the subject matter:

Authors: There seems to be a pattern of LGBT characters being excluded from YA fiction, and we're very concerned-
Publisher: But I'm a NICER person! I'm not a homophobe! The authors are being mean to me! ME ME ME ME ME!

From: [identity profile] dancinghorse.livejournal.com


That's the thing that convinces me most strongly that you're in the right (even if I didn't know you and Sherwood and find you to be quite clear and accurate in your thinking and in your reporting in other venues than this one). Their article is an obvious CYA, and the tone is defensive. The minute you get personal like that, you've lost the argument. Better for them if they had just kept quiet and let it blow over.

From: [identity profile] raeraesama.livejournal.com


This is true, although I have come across fans of the genre that believe otherwise.
ext_7025: (Default)

From: [identity profile] buymeaclue.livejournal.com


I wondered while reading their post if possibly it wasn't about them at all -- maybe they'd had a separate conversation with you guys, but not the conversation in question -- and that's why they didn't recognize the details! Which idea kind of appealed to me in a screwball-comedy sort of way. Sorry to hear that's not the case, and...yeah. One is certainly entitled to remember events differently than the other guy(s) -- that's kind of how memory works -- and one is likewise entitled to present one's side, but last I checked, one ain't obligated to take potshots in the process. Good grief.

From: [identity profile] torrilin.livejournal.com


Weird! I am pretty sure I do not live in a "boy love" novel despite having several gay male friends. For some reason, all the kissing and dating each other doesn't happen around me, or even mostly in public. This is because gay men are people, and that means they act like they are people.

Perhaps if your fans are stupid about it, I can loan you a two by four?

From: [identity profile] juliansinger.livejournal.com

I repeat myself repetitively


Wow, that was quick.

You guys were quite specific about not naming the agent, and you were also quite specific about focusing on what people could do, rather than blaming one person. The point is that market forces obvious, and taking the path of least resistance is also obvious, not that one person was a mustached villain.

From: [identity profile] movingfinger.livejournal.com


I'm left wondering: Doesn't anyone take good notes during these meetings? I can type fast enough to produce a virtual transcript, and I'm sure most of the people reading this can too. Moreover, wouldn't the agency have had a written-out list of points to cover in the meeting? I have trouble believing they have so little to do that they can rely on memory to provide prompts for all the issues they'd need to cover, and that there would not be some file, paper or electronic, in which a note would go, to the effect of "We talked with X and Y on such-and-such a date and these issues were discussed; the agreed outcomes were a, b, c".

I mean, that's how I behave in those business situations. Because people forget.

From: [identity profile] asakiyume.livejournal.com


Ditto. It's an excellent book that my child-of-the-appropriate age read and ranks among his favorite books.

From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


I came in with a written list of bullet points to discuss. However, I didn't get to any of them, because most of the conversation got taken up by discussing whether or not it was okay for a character to be gay.

From: [identity profile] copperwise.livejournal.com


Read your article and reposted it. Read their article, and if I had a bird or a new puppy, I'd be printing it out to use as...well, you know what I'd use it as. This is SUCH BULLSHIT I CANNOT EVEN TELL YOU HOW ANGRY I AM.

Going to go kick something now.

From: [identity profile] movingfinger.livejournal.com


What I'm wondering is what the agent's agenda looked like.

I think you have a good book to sell. Not "a good book, but." A good book.

The other aspect of this incident that nags at me, is how much worse publishing is without transom submissions. Electing to have a whole class of people unassociated with your business (effectively subcontracting without a formal agreement) handle an important function for you is going to weaken you in the long run.

From: [identity profile] ide-cyan.livejournal.com


Wherein rather than the foot fitting the shoe, the mouth opens to reveal it?

From: (Anonymous)


I don't know what the truth of this situation is because I wasn't there, but I think that Publishers Weekly was the wrong platform for this discussion and that it was irresponsible of Rose to take sides in the first place given her position. Here is my comment on the matter which is currently awaiting moderation at PW.

I am an author. I am not represented by Nancy Coffey Literary, but I have friends who are. I do not think what Rachel and Sherwood are saying in this article is true, and I am very upset that PW allowed it to be posted without fact-checking. I am also upset that Rose closed comments on the follow up post at http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/genreville/?p=1533, but I'm commenting here because I think that it was wrong for Rose Fox to post an article like that without fact checking it, and even more wrong of her to do that as someone who is in a position of power to affect author's careers.

I am afraid to speak out under my real name because I'm afraid PW and Rose will give my books bad reviews because I criticized her for doing this. I know some people will think that is unfair, but since she allowed two authors to post something which could damage an agent's professional reputation without fact checking or any PROOF that this happened at all other than their word, I do not trust her to be impartial in reviews either. I spoke to my agent and she said my fears were reasonable and that she felt the same way but would not say anything in public because she didn't want to risk hurting her clients by having Rose Fox or Publishers Weekly give them bad reviews.

I don't know if Rose/PW will even allow this comment to be posted or if they'll censor it, but if other authors or agents are reading this and share my concern I hope they will say so, even if we have to be anonymous. Then maybe Rose's boss or the powers that be at Publishers Weekly will address this situation responsibly and not allow PW to become a platform for unsubstantiated accusations of this kind in the future.

From: [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_profiterole_/


I blogged about this two days ago but I've just found out your LJ name, so I'm telling you now: Good luck with your novel, I'm looking forward to reading it, hopefully soon. *friending you*

From: [identity profile] juliansinger.livejournal.com

Re: I repeat myself repetitively


Other people who want to agree with me, what I should have said is "market forces are obvious." Just for the sake of my urge to edit.

From: [identity profile] tavella.livejournal.com


I don't know what the truth of this situation is because I wasn't there,
...
I do not think what Rachel and Sherwood are saying in this article is true,

One of these things is not like the oooother.

Plus, are you actually claiming that publishers and agents never whiten or straighten characters?

From: [identity profile] beth-bernobich.livejournal.com


Sherwood and Rachel never mentioned the agency's name. They never accused anyone in their article. They kept the conversation about the under-representation of LGBT characters in YA SF/F.


From: [identity profile] tool-of-satan.livejournal.com


This is completely illogical:

1. You say you don't know what the truth is, but the rest of your comment assumes that you do, since you obviously believe the agent.

2. The original post goes out of its way to not identify the agency in question. How does that "damage an agent's professional reputation?" The agent's rebuttal is what did that.

3. It's interesting how Rose Fox is being irresponsible because she "is in a position of power to affect author's careers." Apparently that doesn't apply to the agency, or, say, Colleen Lindsay: only Rose.

From: [identity profile] pingback-bot.livejournal.com

Followup on "Say Yes to Gay YA"


User [livejournal.com profile] swan_tower referenced to your post from Followup on "Say Yes to Gay YA" (http://swan-tower.livejournal.com/489896.html) saying: [...] our response to their manuscript that is true." Brown and Smith stand by their original article. [...]

From: [identity profile] nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com


I'm afraid to respond to this comment because you might track me down and kill me. You're anonymous after all-you might secretly be my best friend! One time, someone told me that a person on the Internet killed someone else.

From: [identity profile] woodburner.livejournal.com


I would be a lot more willing to assume good faith on their part were it not for the catty insinuation that your book must suck since you needed a new agent for it. (Because all agents represent all types of manuscripts so long as they don't suck, of course.) Also, jumping to the assumption of "exploiting the agent!" instead of "maybe there was a misunderstanding" didn't do anything for me either. (Because attempts by parties with less power to exploit parties with more power in a professional relationship generally work so well.)

From: [identity profile] yeloson.livejournal.com


two authors to post something which could damage an agent's professional reputation without fact checking or any PROOF that this happened at all other than their word

I wonder how that would happen since no one was named in the post.

Interesting that you're more worried about the POSSIBILITY people will develop mind reading powers and figure out this agent from this, rather than, you know, the PROVEN erasure of an entire group of people from fiction, a group with a PROVEN relatively high suicide rate and violence against.

Or was this whole comment a sample of your speculative fiction work?
Page 2 of 3 << [1] [2] [3] >>
.

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags