Dear Miss Snark,
I have read a assemblage of material (wtf is an assemblage of material??) about taking the next step in submitting a manuscript. There is much debate about a writer's choice to submit their novel to either a literary agent or directly to the Publishing House. (there is?)
I know you are bias (as you should be) that all writers (new author's in particular) should seek the representation of a professional agent. Common sense tells me that the agent has a holding cell of contacts (yea, that's where I keep all my editors--in a holding cell); is centrally located to the publishing hub; are well versed to the print business.(publishing is NOT printing; two separate industries)
However, there are arguably proactive (and lucrative) reasons why a writer would choose to solicit (by query letter) the publishers direct without literary representation. My questions are: Should a new author attempt this? Is this considered tacky or unprofessional or just plain, greedy? Has this been known to work in the author's benefit?
You seriously expect me to say it works to an author's benefit to send stuff directly? Hell no of course it doesn't. It works to MY benefit. Every looney tune, badly spelled, lame brain query sent to a publisher is one step closer to that publisher no longer taking unagented submissions.
Most big publishing houses simply don't accept unagented material.
Smaller houses do. Have at it. Let me know if anyone escapes my holding cell long enough to reply.