In Defense of the Less Editorial Agent

First off, an apology: Due to unforeseen circumstances, I’m cancelling this month’s round of “An Agent’s Inbox.” And because of the general contest weariness I’ve noticed around the blogosphere/Twitterverse of late, I’m holding off on scheduling another until after New Year’s. I’m so sorry to anyone who was counting on entering a round this year!

The online writing community has always seemed a little preoccupied with the Editorial Agent. Someone asks about an agent's editorial-ness in almost every interactive interview I host, and it’s one of the criteria Casey McCormick regularly highlights on Literary Rambles.

I understand the preoccupation. We writers are an insecure bunch. When people tell us we’re crap, we tend to believe them, but when they praise our writing, we tend to get suspicious and make excuses for their opinions. (“They don’t really think that, do they? They’re just saying that to be nice. Or maybe they just have no idea what they’re talking about. I mean, last time I checked, this manuscript was pretty lame.”)

This attitude can be especially destructive when we start receiving offers on those “pretty lame” manuscripts. We want to sign with someone who’s going to rip our stories apart, make them swifter, better, stronger, so we might shy away from those who think our manuscripts are already good to go simply because we suspect they’re joking or stupid or both.

But just because an agent thinks our manuscripts are pretty good--or even great--as-is doesn’t make her wrong. She may just be a less editorial agent. And she may know exactly what she’s talking about. Here’s why:

1. I’ve noticed less editorial agents often have more clients, more sales, and more experience than their more editorial counterparts. This doesn’t hold true for everyone, of course. Some agents, no matter how long they’ve been in business, want to work with their clients on fine-tuning their manuscripts, and even some newer agents are better negotiators than editors. But usually, newer agents have more time for everything, including client revisions, so their interest in revising is more of a reflection of where they’re at in their careers than the condition of our manuscripts.

2. Because less editorial agents usually have more experience, their instincts are often right. Amazingly enough, agents who’ve sold a lot of manuscripts tend to know what sells. So we shouldn’t discount their opinions just because we’ve conditioned ourselves to discount anyone who says our writing’s good. We should take those opinions as compliments.

3. Sometimes, revision doesn’t make a manuscript better, just different. Every agent, every editor, and every reader is going to have a different vision for our stories. Some visions are better than others (“Oh, wait, you think I should cut the wizard out of my YA contemporary?”), but some are just different. So editorial agents may have a million and one ideas for tweaking our manuscripts, but that doesn’t mean those ideas are necessarily an improvement over what’s already there.

I really don’t dislike editorial agents; in fact, I suspect that if I were an agent, I’d be an editorial one. And when you’ve got offers on the table, you should always weigh your options rationally and go with your gut. But don’t let whether an agent is more or less editorial hold undue sway. Remember, an agent’s job isn’t really to edit your manuscript--it’s to sell your manuscript to someone who will.