A "what not to do" in relation to looking for an agent

[troynos]

This blog post is starting to make the rounds and is a good example of what not to do. Bad attitude from the start, not understanding fully the situation and blaming it on others, and then "venting" about it on the 'net.

How to get yourself blacklisted – In the Inbox

 

[Russ]

That there was one seriously funny, crazy read. It almost had me feeling sorry for agents...almost....

 

[ddmealing]

Yeah that was picked up by virtually every agent & editor I know or follow on twitter. Insane how quickly a bad attitude like that can scuttle any hope of a career.

The whole 'tortured misanthrope' thing really doesn't work anymore, if it ever did. People have to like you to want to work with you, and the more I've delved into the publishing world the more I realize books are a team effort.

 

[Chessie]

The dude has a right to vent though. On his own blog, no less. If he believed that he was getting cheated by an entitled agent, then he has the freedom of speech to voice his opinion. Besides, how many of those agents are actually writing books? Some probably are. If anything, he shouldn't have mentioned the agent by name, but that's it. No one can tell him to shut up because they didn't like what he wrote on his own freaking blog. Don't read it then. Being a writer is all about freedom of expression, so they can stick their entitlement where the sun don't shine.

 

[skip.knox]

Of course he has the freedom to speak as he pleases. That was not the gist of most of the comments. Their central theme was simply that it was dumb to speak so on the Net. If I go to a party and I think it's boring with bad food and an idiot host, I can say that quietly to my friend, or I can stand up on a table and shout it to everyone there. Both are forms of expression. One is stupid.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Truth, dude shouldn't have spoken. The agent probably shouldn't have tweeted about it. At the very least the dude should have not used her name. Moron.

 

[troynos]

Of course he can say what he wants, but he also has to remember that it's the internet and it's viewable by EVERYONE, including the people he's talking about as well as the people in their network.

Not the smartest move.

 

[Russ]

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.

Publishing that on the internet was childish, mean spirited and downright stupid. And perhaps even slanderous.

 

[La Volpe]

Let me start off by saying that I agree with most of the people here. It was a dumb move to post angry rants about an agent (and agents in general) on the internet where agents would be able to see it.

However, if I get to nitpick:

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.

Publishing that on the internet was childish, mean spirited and downright stupid. And perhaps even slanderous.

I've heard that phrase before, and I'm a little hazy on how it works. If freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech, what's the point?

As an extreme example: Wouldn't this allow a government to kill people who criticize it (i.e. the very reason it was implemented, if I understand it correctly)?
I.e. You are free to criticize the government, but you are not free from getting executed because you said it.

 

[Russ]

Well if you want to discuss freedom of speech and use an extreme unrelated example I am happy to oblige.

In this case it has nothing to do with the government. It has to do with people calling him essentially, an idiot, for saying something stupid. That is a consequence of him exercising his freedom of speech.

You can look at that aspect of it two ways:

1) that freedom of speech works two ways, he is free to say what he did, and I am equally free to say he was an idiot for saying it or say "shut up" as my response to his published thoughts.

2) that with every right comes responsibilities. And when you exercise the right without an eye to your responsibilities you have failed and can be criticized for that failure.

Now realistically, people use the term "freedom of speech" far too loosely. The term really means that in some countries you are legally entitled to be free of unreasonable government interference with speech (the proper term is really freedom of expression but let's keep it simple).

First thing to keep in mind is that one's free speech rights only govern your relationship with the government not your relationship with other citizens. IF you publish something the government does not like on your website the government should not legislate it out of existence. But, for instance, if you publish something I don't like on my forum I am perfectly entitled to delete that crap and you likely don't have a remedy.

Secondly, as you probably aware, there are civil, citizen to citizen remedies for speech that is harmful. This is the area of defamation law including slander and libel or even the intentional interference with contractual relationships or infliction of emotional harm. So yup, there are plenty of potential citizen to citizen negative legal consequences for poor or flawed speech. There are obviously potential social or repetitional or functional consequences to speech that are not and should not be regulated.

In addition the government is allowed, in western democratic tradition and under all constitutions that I have studied, both to regulate speech or punish people for harmful speech in a reasonable fashion. Even in a country with freedom of speech enshrined in a constitution quite clearly that right is not absolute and the government can punish you for expressing yourself in inappropriate ways. This can range from regulating the size and placement of advertising or political signs, to the prohibition of the display or distribution of certain types of pornography, to playing your music too loud at 3 am, to executing people for treasonous utterances. The classic example is that one is not "free" to yell fire in a crowded theatre without consequence.

So in any context that I am familiar with, civil law, regulation, criminal law, ethics and philosophy, the statement "Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech." is quite accurate.

Freedom of expression is a fascinating topic.

 

[La Volpe]

<snip>

So in any context that I am familiar with, civil law, regulation, criminal law, ethics and philosophy, the statement "Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech." is quite accurate.

Freedom of expression is a fascinating topic.

That makes a lot of sense. I've always been a bit foggy on how exactly those laws work in practice, since I've never really had dealings with them.

I have seen numerous examples where freedom of speech is misunderstood; E.g. where a man is criticized for saying something insulting, and then he cries freedom of speech. Obviously his freedom to express himself has not been limited, and the other person was merely using that same right. So I'm with you on that. I was just curious as to how far this phrase is actually correct.

So if I understand correctly, freedom of speech is more specifically aimed at governments, and specifically with censoring what is being said. Ergo, person to person harmful speech has almost nothing to do with the constitutional freedom of expression, but is rather regulated by other laws. Is that right?

 

[Russ]

So if I understand correctly, freedom of speech is more specifically aimed at governments, and specifically with censoring what is being said. Ergo, person to person harmful speech has almost nothing to do with the constitutional freedom of expression, but is rather regulated by other laws. Is that right?

Absolutely. The biggest misconception that many people have about "freedom of speech" is that vis-a-vis the government it is absolute. It is not. I don't know of a single first world country where the regulation of speech by government is completely prohibited.

 

[troynos]

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.

People always forget that part.

 

[troynos]

Freedom of speech and the consequences of that speech is simply:

You can call someone an a-hole but you have to accept the responsibility and consequences of calling that person an a-hole. Maybe you lose a friend or people look and treat you differently, etc..

You can say whatever you want to your boss, but you have to accept that a consequence of that could be your getting fired.

It's the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater". That is technically against the law. You have the right to yell "fire" but the consequence of that freedom is that you potentially endangered the lives of everyone else in that theater by your actions and you have to deal with the consequences of that. You have every freedom to do it, but it's generally understood that it's not a smart thing to do.

 

[troynos]

In the case of the blog writer, he has every right to write what he did but now he has to deal with the consequences of that. Which would be: people like us getting a negative impression of him, agents getting a negative impression of him, potentially never getting a meeting with an agent again (which would probably just fuel more blog posts), and I'm sure there are other things that will happen as a result.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I just wanted to say something on the other side of this. I once submitted to an agent who I believe said something publicly, on Twitter, in response to my submission. It was a complaint about a theme, and I thought it was unprofessional enough, I never queried her again. This street goes both ways. If you, a writer, don't feel respected, take your pride and find an agent who will get excited about your work. You don't need to tolerate an agent who makes you feel uncomfortable, just like agents aren't obligated to represent books written by jerks.

 

[troynos]

Yeah, it does go both ways.

Basically, don't go ranting somewhere that is basically public and can come back to hurt you.

 

[emmarowene]

Wow, it blows my mind that anyone would actually comment defending that guy. Does he have a right to say these things? Sure. He can say whatever he wants. However, a relationship with an agent should be a really close, supportive relationship. If you go in with that sort of cynicism and negative attitude, of course an agent is going to feel uncomfortable working with you. If you post a scathing complaint online, of course any agent who googles your name (and most of them do!) is going to see that article, and see how you treated past agents who rejected you. It's not an issue of freedom of speech, it's an issue of protecting your own butt and, more importantly, being a decent human being (what need was there to bring her appearance into his complaints, for example? Completely uncalled for.).