There are a number of well-regarded authors who urge young writers to skip hiring agents and secure themselves entertainment lawyers. The reasoning is often, "Why pay anyone fifteen percent," and this sounds to me like the advice of the privileged. While I agree that if one had a relationship with an editor then there may not be a need for an agent, I imagine there are advantages to having an agent that could not be "replaced" by a lawyer, not least of which is genuine support (vague, I know, but you can't expect a fella to write coddling, can ya?). Do you have any thoughts on this? Are there more practical advantages to having an agent as opposed to a lawyer going to "war" for you?
Thank you. Enjoy the blog a good deal.
Do you like the new name? It is what you can expect if you remain nice.
This is the most idiotic advice I've seen since "ignore the SASE request".
First, an entertainment lawyer charges you by the hour. $375 an hour is what they charge here. Every hour you talk to them. Every time you talk to them. Every time you email them.
Now, I don't know what those boneheads who offered that advice do when they need any of the myriad things agents do that lawyers do not. All I know is that if I could get $375 an hour for soothing a client's fears about 14 rejections, the proposed change to a book title, weighing the merits of five different titles, getting reviews posted on Amazon and first serial rights, I'd make a lot more money than I do right now.
And that's not even counting all the stuff I do that doesn't involve the client: selling the book, negotiating the deal points, staving off the crazed editor who is rejecting the second book, reading the damn manuscript for typos three time.
Hell, I'm going to start charging you for reading this blog. Pony up.
PS Nice this