To agent or not to agent

Spacebunny passed along a request from a friend who is interested in publishing a novel. Among other things, the issue of an agent came up, and whether one should pursue one or not. On this particular issue, I think it really depends upon what one’s goal is, but in general, do as I say and not as I do.

I have only been represented by a literary agent twice. The first time, I did so primarily because every professional author I knew said that I should and in retrospect, I should have ignored the experts. It was a totally pointless thing to do since I’d already secured the publishing deal, the agent hindered the process more than he helped and has subsequently failed to sell a single foreign translation or produce any revenue at all in the twelve years that he has “represented” those two books.

The second time, I arranged to have The Chronicles of King David represented by a more influential agency that was also representing a series that happened to be the best-selling novels in the world at that time. Over the course of a year, they manage to dredge up a single offer from a publisher for only two-thirds the money that I’d received to NOT write a book on a different book contract that I’d negotiated on my own. Also, the publisher wanted to compress the trilogy into a single novel. The agency and I amicably parted ways after 18 months; I’ve since signed two book contracts, published three books, and have had no problem finding publishers interested in looking at my next non-fiction book despite having put in no more effort than making two phone calls.

So, you’ll understand if I am deeply skeptical of the supposed utility of literary agents.

However, as John Scalzi points out in a post well-worth reading, agents who are actually capable of placing books in other languages are extremely useful. I have not managed to do that, not even once, although it must be admitted that “desultory” would probably be far too strong a word to describe my efforts in that regard. In fact, I’m currently intending to find a literary agent for precisely that purpose.

So, in the end, my advice would be to pursue an agent if you cannot reasonably expect to find a publisher willing to sign you to a book contract on your own. However, I would also encourage you to not waste too much time on the entire process as not only is the average advance much smaller than you might think, but very few authors ever earn out their advances. In general, agents are better equipped to exploit success than they are to help generate it; note that John Scalzi and Raymond Feist, two novelists who are far more successful than the average, began by self-publishing themselves in one form or another.

If you want to write, then write. Just do it! There is no substitute for simply doing something instead of contemplating it, talking about it, marketing it, selling the concept, and posing thoughtfully in coffeeshops. Most first novels aren’t very good anyhow, so you might as well get it out of your system and publish it via Lightning Print or whoever; they’ll list it on Amazon and allow you to be disappointed with your Amazon rank immediately instead of waiting nine months to be disappointed by your royalty statements. I highly recommend reading the OC’s posts on the general subject. In the vast majority of cases, you’ll achieve 90 percent of what you want to do by self-publishing anyhow, all that’s missing is the vanity of having your writer status affirmed by an external source.

Which is nice, but believe me, the thrill of seeing your name on the spine of a book wears off faster than you’d think.

UPDATE – The OC himself suggests a previous post he’s written on this very subject at the Ranting Room, and it would behoove the would-be writer to peruse it. And don’t forget, what works well for one writer won’t necessarily work well for another since circumstances are often different.


Fantasies of the would-be philosopher-kings

Some readers didn’t understand why I included two chapters dealing with science in TIA. This endorsement of Obama should suffice to explain their relevance to those who didn’t grasp the connection between science fetishism and the New Atheists. Read it and see if you don’t agree that each and every individual who endorses it should be stripped of their science degrees and their intellectual pretensions:

Science is a way of governing, not just something to be governed. Science offers a methodology and philosophy rooted in evidence, kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method. Science is a lens through which we can and should visualize and solve complex problems, organize government and multilateral bodies, establish international alliances, inspire national pride, restore positive feelings about America around the globe, embolden democracy, and ultimately, lead the world. More than anything, what this lens offers the next administration is a limitless capacity to handle all that comes its way, no matter how complex or unanticipated.

Science, is there anything it can’t do? It sounds amazingly like the parody of the Corinthians-style ode to science I pointed out in the chapter entitled “Darwin’s Judas”. Even more amazing, these fetishists truly don’t see how they have made a quasi-religion of the object of their adoration. On a closely related note, one of our more thoughtful critics, Dominic Saltarelli, emailed me yesterday:

While I’m sure there’s plenty for us to disagree on in other matters, I just took a swim in some “secular, liberal, progressive” waters, and am still washing the sewage off. I tried talking a little sense into them regarding economics, because this is a crowd that sees the current economic situation as a fundamental failure of capitalism. So I tried injecting some facts into the discourse

It was like hitting vampires with sunlight. The venom some of these people resorted to in defense of just a damn economic model was, disheartening, to say the least. Having had this experience, whenever some refers to “Atheism as a religion” or to an “atheistic religion”, I think I know exactly what they’re talking about now, and it isn’t pretty nor something I wish to be associated with.

Just wanted to let you know, that I feel your pain.

He does indeed. Science fetishists, economically vacuuous secularists, liberal progressives… they’re not precisely the same, but there’s certainly a significant amount of overlap. And in each and every case, there is a near complete inability to apply even the most rudimentary logic to the subject at hand as well as an intense, emotional reaction to having their ignorance punctured with the verifiable facts.

And all of this is setting aside the obvious absurdity of the idea that the scientific socialist Obama could possibly be a champion of Reason and Science.


The camel’s nose

Delaware provides proof that suspicions of the obvious were well-merited:

Delaware State Police stopped Alvina Vansickle from purchasing a .22-caliber pistol for self-defense because she was too old and a woman, said Superintendent Col. Thomas MacLeish. The outrage that followed led to the revelation that Delaware State Police had been keeping lists of gun buyers for years; state law requires them to destroy these records after 60 days.

Did anyone seriously believe that they weren’t going to keep those records? Does anyone seriously believe that they aren’t going to use those records for the purposes of confiscation the first time they think they can get away with it?


Death by ice

If these polls are historically accurate, then Obama is going down in flames next Tuesday:

TRICK OR TREAT: GALLUP SAYS OBAMA +2

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote nationwide while John McCain earns 47%.

The state-by-state is the important count, of course, but state polls tend to lag the national ones by a few weeks. Always shift the polls by five percent to account for the pollsters’ pro-Democratic interpretations. And remember, “enthusiastic young voters” tend to talk about voting a lot more than they vote.

UPDATE – As I said: “Analysts have predicted that new voters, young voters and Hispanic voters will turn out in record numbers in this election. But as Nevadans continue to flock to the polls, turnout among those three groups is lagging, at least in the early going. While turnout statewide was nearly 25 percent through Sunday, it was just 20 percent among Hispanic voters, 14 percent among voters under 30 and 15 percent among those who didn’t vote in the last three elections, according to an analysis of state early voting records through Sunday prepared by America Votes, an organization that works to mobilize voters.”


New heights of band geekery

Spacebunny alerts us to a musical development that actually makes band camp geeks look cool and sexy by comparison. As for me, I can’t help but admire the way in which they embrace the ethos.

I await with great amusement the explanations of how your band camp or marching band was actually the height of your high school’s social pyramid.


In which I explain the silence

I haven’t been very posty today, mostly because I’ve been looking into what may – and I do stress the word “may” – be one of the most shameless attempted ripoffs in the game industry that I’ve ever seen. And that’s saying something, if you know some of the companies with which I’ve worked in the past.

Anyhow, a few of the facts are yet unclear so I won’t say anything more about it now, although all the news is actually out there on the Net so theoretically it might just barely be possible to figure out what I’m alluding to here. So, If you’re bored or need a break from Rothbard, do feel free to take a few wild stabs at it.

UPDATE – Upon further review, everything is kosher. No ripoff, no problem. More on this in a few months.


Dr. Doom speaks

The real Dr. Doom, not the Iranian wannabee:

swissinfo: How does the present crisis differ from previous ones?

M.F.: In the past few years everything went up – shares, commodities, consumer goods, real estate values, art and even bonds. Such a combination is extremely unusual. We saw the biggest investment bubble in the history of humanity. The current situation is possibly worse than the global economic crisis of 1929. And that is thanks to Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke [the former and current US Federal Reserve Board chairmen]. These two gentlemen must account for massive errors.
swissinfo: Governments are offering guarantees and are pumping thousands of billions into the markets. Is that a mistake?

M.F.: Yes. The losses are there and someone has to bear them. There are two possibilities. Banks go under and the stakeholders are left with nothing, as is the case with Lehman Brothers, or governments pump money into the financial system so that the incompetent financial clowns in Bahnhofstrasse [Zurich’s financial centre] and Wall Street can continue to eat in fancy restaurants.

I am clearly in favour of the first because the consequences of these state interventions are massive budget deficits. To finance these, governments have to acquire money. For that they have to borrow money, which makes state debt and interest payments soar. US economists have come to the conclusion from the trends that there will be a US state bankruptcy.

Don’t get too excited about the coming bear rally that should be kicking off soon. It doesn’t mean that anything is over, it’s just the usual down-up-down business.


Voxiversity II

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to start turning those pages. Today, Voxiversity II kicks off with our group study of America’s Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. You can download the entire book on PDF or bookmark the online text at the Mises Institute. However, Voxiversity I participants tended to find having the physical text on hand to be helpful, so you may wish to consider ordering the book from the Mises bookstore if you haven’t done so already.

Let me know if you’re planning to participate so I can keep a rough count of how many start and how many finish. Last time, we had about 100 start Thucydides and about a third that number completed it. I don’t actually care, I’m just curious about these things. The first reading assignment is the five Introductions to the five editions and the first quiz and subsequent discussion will be this Saturday.

CS emailed to ask: “I am interested in participating in Voxiversity II…. I know sweet f— all about economics (although I’m trying to learn) – am I too far behind in terms of background knowledge or is it worth it to give er’ a go??”

I would actually encourage those who don’t know anything about economics to participate, first because few of those who studied economics in college learned anything about Austrian theory anyhow, second because this will present an unusual opportunity to ask as many questions as you like of a fair number of people who have a decent grasp of the material. I would also encourage those who have such training to be patient and avoid the use of jargon when answering questions, i.e. don’t just say “marginal utility” or “IS/LM” and expect everyone to know what you mean.

In other, unrelated news, after consulting the OC, I have decided we will do the Summa Elvetica surge on Election Day so we can watch the Amazon numbers climb as the election returns come in. This will only be a 12-hour surge, so make sure to place your orders between 12 noon and 12 midnight EST on Tuesday, November 4th.


I blame the Ilk

Once you’ve paid off your debt, it’s time to go shopping:

Americans have cut back on buying cars, furniture and clothes in a tough economy, but there’s one consumer item that’s still enjoying healthy sales: guns. Purchases of firearms and ammunition have risen 8 to 10 percent this year, according to state and federal data.

My guess is that the regulars here account for at least 1.5 of that 10 percent. It brings a tear to my eye just thinking about how y’all are doing your Keynesian damndest to keep the American economy from contracting.


Why they hate Palin

I’m just talking about the Republicans, mind you. The reason is that the neocons and other faux-conservatives doubt her malleability and they are frightened of her star power:

Four Republicans close to Palin said she has decided increasingly to disregard the advice of the former Bush aides tasked to handle her, creating occasionally tense situations as she travels the country with them. Those Palin supporters, inside the campaign and out, said Palin blames her handlers for a botched rollout and a tarnished public image — even as others in McCain’s camp blame the pick of the relatively inexperienced Alaska governor, and her public performance, for McCain’s decline.

“She’s lost confidence in most of the people on the plane,” said a senior Republican who speaks to Palin, referring to her campaign jet. He said Palin had begun to “go rogue” in some of her public pronouncements and decisions.

“I think she’d like to go more rogue,” he said.

Palin’s vice-presidential revolt is interesting. She did exactly as she was told once selected, which got her into a lot of trouble. She’s not unintelligent; her weird answers and stilted performance in the early interviews were signs of someone who has been completely overcoached and is trying not to make a mistake. It’s important to remember that this was her first appearance on the national stage and she held her own in the vice-presidential debate despite being unprepared for the Biden BS storm.

(Someone like Biden is very difficult to handle if you’re not prepared for shameless lies, but if you are, they’re the easy people in the world to publicly demolish. The challenge is to be able to correctly anticipate the direction of their BS and have the facts on hand to discredit them once they start making stuff up.)

Neocons like Frum and Kristol, and RINOs like David Brooks and Ben Stein dislike Palin because she’s insufficiently impressed with the East Coast imperative, and despite her Christian Zionism so typical of the average evangelical, she simply doesn’t share their Israel-uber-alles perspective. While many of her views run pretty much in parallel with theirs, she’s not wedded to them, which makes her untrustworthy in their eyes. For example, what real conservative populist is going to continue funding foreign aid or further American adventures in the Middle East after another year of economic carnage?

The economic situation means that whoever wins this year is likely to be a one-and-done president. Palin is the leading candidate for the Republican nomination in 2012, so unless the New York-Washington Republican axis can blame a McCain loss on her somehow – which is absurd in light of the stock markets’ meltdown, if Obama wasn’t such a ridiculous candidate McCain would be losing in a huge landslide – she will be the favorite to win the general election. So, expect a significant part of the “conservative” commentariat to devote itself to destroying Sarah Palin over the next few years while attempting to build up other, less conservative figures in the mode of Giuliani and Romney.

Jindal and Bloomberg are the two obvious possibilities at this point in time. Normally, I’d say Bloomberg would be a ludicrous stretch, but then, they tried it with the Lisper, so who knows where the line is. Of course, Palin should never have paid any attention to the handlers in the first place. That was her fundamental mistake.

UPDATE – Right Wing News just published a poll which tends to support my contention. The vast majority of Republican bloggers love Sarah Palin, so it’s pretty much only the supposedly conservative media commentators, whose allegiance to conservative principles is extremely dubious anyhow, who dislike her. And note my votes in bold below, I was one of only six who expressed a negative view of her.

2) Do you think Sarah Palin has been a plus or a minus to the ticket?

A) Minus: 9% (7)
B) Plus: 91% (68)

3) How do you feel about Sarah Palin as a candidate?

A) I really like her!: 80% (61)
B) She’s so-so.: 12% (9)
C) I’m not a big fan!: 8% (6)