Agent research -- what do you really know?

Sorry for the blog silence as of late -- new job, following up on agent submissions, all of that fun stuff. But trust me I've been thinking about y'all and wondering just how much I should post about my agent search. Originally I was going to have a query tracker (sans agent names) where I would list every query, request, rejections, etc. But then a friend pointed out that you generally don't go into a job interview shouting out how many rejections you've gotten.

So that's left me a little gun shy on posting. After all, this blog is out there for all to see, maybe even a potential agent (yes, I know they have much much better things to do).

While I contemplate how much of the details of my search to post (feel free to chime in the comments with your thoughts), let me talk about something else I've been pondering and that is agent research.

Now, when I first started the query process, I was committed to personalizing every query letter and really knowing the agents I was submitting to. I didn't want to take a scattershot approach; rather, I wanted to take a measured and educated approach. And so in my research I set out to find those agents that I thought would like my book and want to offer representation. After all, that was my goal: find an agent who wanted to represent my book.

I started my research with the agents I already "knew," and then moved on to the agents whose blogs I read regularly. I then looked at the hot selling YA books and figured out who their agents were and wrapped everything up with a few recomendations from friends. In the end, my list contained about 13 agents to query first.

As part of this research I read their clients' books, I looked up their recent sales, checked out their websites/blogs, and agent-query. I created a large index card for each agent with their contact information, their preferences, and any other tidbits. On the back of each card I kept a log of what I'd sent out and when and any responses (this was in addition to a spreadsheet with the same information).

I was really really proud of my approach. I knew a lot about these agents, enough that when people posted on loops about them asking questions, I was able to answer them. I felt great about the way things were going.

But now I question my approach. Because when I started to look past all the stats I'd compiled, what did I really know about these agents? What did I know about Agent A other than the fact she had some hot YA sales? What did I know about her style, her history, what she's like to work with? The same with all the agents -- what did I really know?

When I started this whole process, a friend asked who my top choices were and I had to shrug. I felt like I was back in 9th grade when someone asked me who I wanted to go out with and my answer was "whoever wants to go out with me." Or when I was in law school during job hunt season and people asked what firm I wanted to work for and my answer was "whichever firm hires me."

And you know what happened in law school? A bunch of firms gave me offers and I had to choose and suddenly I realized that I'd positioned myself to get the offer, but hadn't prepared myself for what happens after that. How do you choose which firm to go to when they all pay the same, are all located in the same place, all have lots of attorneys, etc? I didn't even know what questions to ask to differentiate one firm from another -- honestly, to a 1L or 2L they were all pretty much fungible.

I would never intimate that agents are fungible, but sometimes when all you're looking at are the basic stats, it can get overwhelming. You can have a list of agents who all charge standard rates, who all work at well-known agencies, who all have a good solid track record with some phenomenal sales. You can have a list of "essentials" and it's pretty likely you'll find a lot of agents who fit your criteria.

And so how do you look past the initial research in order to figure the best match?

I guess what I'm saying is that, while I'm proud of the research that I did, I feel I fell short and was short-sighted. I think I should have looked beyond just "will this agent want me," and perhaps looked a lot deeper into "if this agent wanted me, woud I want this agent and would we make the best match?" In looking over my list, I can equivocally say that I would be honored to work with every agent on it. But is that because they are great agents, or because they would be a great agent for me?

Like interviewing for jobs in lawschool, it's hard to be picky when all the power rests in the employer hands. I'm just saying, sometimes you have to be prepared to figure out what's what if that power ever shifts to your hands.

What do you think? What sort of agent research do you think is necessary before querying? How did you approach these things?