The Agency Has Come Forward

[rachelmanija]

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.

Comments

[(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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

I heard that too! It must be true!

[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?

[(Anonymous)]

So Rose Fox, who has been running publishers weekly for how many years, and who publishes hundreds of reviews a month, keeps a secret list of people who have made negative comments? And then orders one of her enormous stable of reviewers to issue a bad review if one of those people shows up a few years later with a book? Really?

Your paranoia aside, how was she expected to "fact check" an article that specifically does not name the agency? An article (unlike the highly unprofessional agency response) not aimed at the agency, but at a widespread problem that, judging from the enormous response, others have noticed?

I am staying anonymous because after all, you or your boss might be keeping a secret list that will prevent me from ever voicing an opinion on the Internet.

[rosefox]

Speaking of fact-checking: I am a reviews editor at PW; I don't run it. I edit between 60 and 80 reviews a month in two sections: SF/fantasy/horror, and romance.

I do appreciate your defense of me, though!