Question of the Month
copyright 2001 by Alicia Rasley
Ask me anything.... about writing, that is. It's all I know.
Here we go again. Another question about commas! You guys are lucky I love the blasted things. :) But first another warning sign of a crooked "agent".
Want some old questions? Click here for an archive.Is it customary for agents to insist on a professional edit before
uestion:
they will represent one's work?
Asa
nswer:
Well, it's a red flag for me. In fact, several agents were prosecuted by the state of NY for doing a kickback scheme with one of those "editors" (Edit Ink). The agents would refer the potential clients to a particular "editor", and the client would pay $5000 or so, and the agent would get 20%. (For more information, check my article on Scams.)
This is illegal, at least in NY, because it's a scam-- the agent apparently never meant to represent these people (and in fact, most of them had never actually sold any books for any clients-- they made their money off the kickbacks). The scenario was like this:
Agent solicits submissions.
Agent sends back a letter saying, "I like this, but it needs the sort of work only a professional editor can give. Send the book to ABC Editing and when they're done with it, I'll take another look or represent you."
Writer sends book to ABC Editing, and very soon gets a letter requesting $4 a page, or $10 a page, or $5000, or whatever. Writer pays, thinking that it's money well-spent because the agent is waiting for the perfected manuscript.
Meanwhile, ABC Editing cuts a check for 20% of that "editing fee" to Agent as a "referral". (I've seen a letter of solicitation from one of these "editors", requesting that agents refer "all your unpublishable submissions" and promising a referral fee, which "could add up to $1000 a week!")
ABC Editing maybe does a pass through the manuscript, correcting a few typoes and making a couple generic suggestions ("spice up the dialogue!"), and sends it back to Writer.
Writer re-submits to Agent. Agent might send it back for another edit, or reject it, or agree to represent it... and never do anything more. Writer's phone calls go unreturned. Manuscript lies gathering dust or gets thrown away in Agent's office.
Reputable agents might tell you the book needs work, but won't order you to hire someone to do it. In fact, they usually expect you to do the editing yourself. (It's possible that they'd suggest "an English teacher's review" if the manuscript shows a lot of problems with grammar and punctuation, but they won't suggest anyone in
particular.)Editing is one of the tasks of writing. Not all writers do a great job of it, and some help on the side by a reputable trained free-lance editor has certainly helped a number of writers, some of whom you have probably seen on the best-seller lists. :) It's just that any time an agent makes hiring an editor as a prerequisite for representation, and especially if he/she suggests someone, I think, "Scam!"
You can certainly hire a free-lance editor to do the work if you want, but actually, an agent would probably NOT like to hear that-- they'd rather think that you can improve your work by yourself and not have to bring in someone else. After all, if they come to represent you, they're going to be relying on your ability to make changes requested by publishers if needed, and so they want you to be your own best editor. :)
So I'd give this agent a miss if I were you. One thing I've seen is that agents who can make money selling books to publishers (which makes you money) have no need to take YOUR money ahead of time, because they can make a living off their commissions. That indicates to me that agents who charge fees or get kickbacks are never going to bother to try to sell books, because that's a lot more work than charging authors. And there's no reason to spend one moment with an agent who doesn't sell books.
By the way, none of this means that there's anything actually wrong with your book. "Agents" like this don't care if the book is actually good or bad; all they care about is getting you to spend money on an editor. To tell you the truth, they very likely don't even read the submissions. Why bother? It's not like they plan to sell it!
The SFWA Writers Beware page (Science Fiction Writers of America) is a good place to start to find out more about scams like this. A couple good agent-information websites are:
Todd James Pierce's literary agent page
and Agent Research and Evaluation.The Association of Author Representatives has a code of ethics which members agree to abide by, which excludes kickbacks.
Good luck!
Alicia
How about another comma question. Here's the sentence:
A regretful and much wiser woman, Terry sat by the fire considering her future.
Should there be a comma after "fire"?What about a comma before the word and? Should there be one?
A regretful, and much wiser woman, Terry.....
Louis
Louis--
This is a "discretionary comma"- use it if you like as long as it conveys the meaning you intend.The major purpose of commas in a sentence are to set off "elements of meaning" so it's clear that the words therein (I've never gotten to use that word before :) belong together and not mushed in with other words in the sentence.
Phrases at the beginning of the sentence are usually set off by commas because otherwise they might sort of blend in with the sentence-proper and the meaning would be lost. For example, "In 1815 Paris was recovering...."-- without the comma, the
reader might for a moment think that 1815 modified Paris (In 1815 Paris), and then reach "was" and for a second there be clawing, trying to find a subject to grab onto because the sentence's actual subject has already been used up. This only lasts an instant, but can spoil the coherence of the sentence for readers. With a comma
there, it's clear that it's 1815, and Paris was doing something-- that Paris is the subject of the sentence and not the object of the preposition. ("In 1815, Paris...")By the time she reaches the end of the main clause (that is, the major subject-predicate element), the reader has already usually gotten the essential bits of meaning and placed them in context, so the meaning isn't as fragile, and setting off elements isn't as important.
That's why, when elements like dependent clauses ("because the world is round") and participial phrases ("considering her future") are at the end of the sentence, they aren't generally set off by commas.BUT.... these final phrases and clauses are still separate sentence elements (that is, you can distinguish them as a phrase or a clause -- they are a unit of meaning in and of themselves, though not
complete enough to be a sentence), so it's only sentence position that says they don't need a comma.So, in my opinion, a comma is always allowed there if you think the sentence needs that little extra bit of "traffic control", or if (this is all-important in my case:) you think the sentence SOUNDS better that way.
Try this: Write it both ways, and then read each aloud, pausing for an instant after each comma.
A regretful and much wiser woman, Terry sat by the fire considering her future.A regretful and much wiser woman, Terry sat by the fire, considering her future.
Do you hear a subtle difference in meaning? Without the comma, there's a sense of, I don't know, ease, almost, relaxation. She sat by the fire considering her future. No big deal. Sitting by the fire is as important as considering the future to her right now.
In contrast, "She sat by the fire, considering her future" sounds more rueful, more contemplative. It sounds like that considering the future is so important, it needs to be set off by that pause.
Both are technically fine– which sounds more like you mean?
What about a comma before the word -and-? Should there be one?
A regretful, and much wiser woman, Terry.....
No, not unless there's some very good reason for it. And then, actually, the comma would be there to set off "and much wiser" as a separate element, to be considered off by itself. I could see this if you were setting up a contrast between the two adjectives,
say something like "rough-hewn and handsome".But then you'd need a comma afterwards, to complete the "setting off" of the contrasting element. Try "A rough-hewn, but still handsome, man"-- the commas set off "but still handsome" to show the contrast between that and what the reader is set up to
expect with "rough-hewn". Since "but" already does the contrast-marking, I'm not sure I'd bother, except when I really wanted the reader to get the contrast message-- maybe "A kind, but genocidal, leader," would be a better example.As you can see, where you place commas affects the meaning of the sentence. When there's no obviously right answer, the best technique read each option aloud and really listen to hear the difference. Your ear will tell you which meaning is the one you
want.Have fun! (Well, I think commas are fun. :)
Alicia
Click here for other questions and answers.
Or email me at rasley@juno.com.