What I appreciate most about this update is that you're able to address real systemic issues with publishing while also not budging on your "tough love" approach with your subscriber. I think that's pretty cool personally.
I'm curious how comps figure into this. It makes sense that publishers look at similar writers/books when considering advances for new submissions, but what about agents? If you get a query that says "this book is x + y" are you also doing a mental calculus of how lucrative the deal might be? I think that's totally fine but just wanted to explore the intersection between the two things. Especially, since the rule I've heard with comps is that you don't want to say you're the next Sanderson or Martin. So is there a sort of sweet-spot agents look for where a book is not-too-overambitious but also not so niche that there's no audience?
Thank you again for bringing more transparency to the process!
What I appreciate most about this update is that you're able to address real systemic issues with publishing while also not budging on your "tough love" approach with your subscriber. I think that's pretty cool personally.
I'm curious how comps figure into this. It makes sense that publishers look at similar writers/books when considering advances for new submissions, but what about agents? If you get a query that says "this book is x + y" are you also doing a mental calculus of how lucrative the deal might be? I think that's totally fine but just wanted to explore the intersection between the two things. Especially, since the rule I've heard with comps is that you don't want to say you're the next Sanderson or Martin. So is there a sort of sweet-spot agents look for where a book is not-too-overambitious but also not so niche that there's no audience?
Thank you again for bringing more transparency to the process!