Dear Miss Snark,
Being quite happy with my hook and nearing the completion of my novel, I have started devoting some time to agent-obtaining strategy. Which agent to pursue is at the top of that list.
I'm not a humble man, so I believe my manuscript has all the ingredients necessary for stardom. Yeah, yeah, everyone scream in unison that I'll eventually be humbled, whatever. I think it's good, has an appeal to a large demographic, and has excellent movie potential.
So, I set out to peruse the agents on Agent Query and, after some time, got an understanding of what I was looking for. I love the underdog, but I don't want him representing me, so I'm looking for the agency that exudes the greatest amount of arrogance and self-important bluster as well as the most accolades such as Nobel Prize winning authors I can find.
Assuming, and I understand this is a difficult leap of faith, that my work is as good as I think it is, are there drawbacks to going with "the big guys"? I don't want a friend for an agent; I want someone who is the best at skinning the wealthiest cat. So I'll look for an agency with a track record, possibly even accede to their request of exclusivity for a time. If they reject the work, then, after extensive psychotherapy, move down the list. There are no drawbacks to landing the big guys if I can manage to do so, right?
Miss Snark is laughing so hard she wrinkled her Sunday go-to-meeting ensemble. Now let's see how many people in the comments column don't understand sardonic deadpan humor.