III. An Answer to Mr. Heinemann. IN the October number of the Author there appeared a most interesting letter from Mr. W. Heinemann, on the subject of the literary agent, which stated very distinctly and lucidly the view of an eminent publisher on this question. He took no middle line, and from the point of view of both author, publisher and literature, condemned the agent with resonant anathemas. This was very valuable, because it stated the case of the publisher frankly and without loophole for misunderstanding, and leaves no doubt as to why the publisher-for we cannot be wrong in taking Mr. Heinemann's utterances as excellently representative dislikes the agent. On certain points I feel myself hopelessly incapable of agreeing with Mr. Heinemann: he says, for instance, that "no author would be so quixotic as to employ a literary agent if he did not hope to get as much more out of the publisher as the agent's commission represents." Would Mr. Heinemann, therefore, argue that the landlord who employs an agent hopes to get as much more out of the tenant as his agent's income represents? Both author and landlord appear to me to employ an agent primarily for a very different reason, namely, that by using one they save themselves a good deal of trouble, and of time which they find they can otherwise employ more profitably. More especially is this true, I think, of any author who either contributes to magazines or desires a serial appearance for his work. In his case (particularly if the author does not habitually read the magazines in which he wishes his work to appear) the agent is invaluable. If he is at all competent he will be far more likely to know that magazine which will be suitable for his author's work, and in the case of serialisation what magazines have openings, than the author himself. Given then that the agent has arranged a good serialisation for a story, is the publication of it then to be taken out of his hands? That does not seem to me quite fair. Publishing is a business. At least, in the majority of cases I do not suppose that a man embraces that calling with the sole and altruistic aim of bringing masterpieces within the reach of the million (though he is probably quite happy in reaching the million); and, while no good publisher would wish that the imprint of his house should godfather a work of rank and beastly tendency, yet his object is primarily to make his business pay. Unless, then, he finds that the employment of an agent by an author tends to make his business less paying, I do not see what grounds he has for complaint on this score. If, on the other hand, he does find that this is the case, it seems to me a very good argument, from the author's point of view, for employing an agent, even at the sacrifice of that "intimate intercourse with the publisher" which Mr. Heinemann finds so helpful. Nor, again, do I see that the "immediate money return" (on account of royalties, I suppose) which Mr. Heinemann accuses the agent of fostering is procured "at the cost of all dignity and artistic repose." Personally I have published books both. with and without immediate money return, but I do not recollect any disturbance in my own reposefulness. In fact, I do not quite see what Mr. Heinemann means. I suppose there are bad agents as well as good ones; I suppose also there are bad publishers as well as good ones, but I am happy to say I have never yet met an inferior variety in either kind, nor do I wish to. More especially I desire to steer clear of the figure, which Mr. Heinemann's vigorous protest calls up-a sort of Mephistopheles, by whom the unfortunate author is "pledged and sold body and soul to syndicates and publishers on time bargains years ahead!" Now, authors are not probably a business-like class; they are much too futile and dreamy-that, indeed, is why they are right to employ agents-and it is exactly to save an author some gross mistake of binding himself that agents may be, and I think often are, useful. Certainly I have never met with one who would not strongly dissuade an author from the very course which, it appears to Mr. Heinemann, they are apt to inculcate. But here, again, publishing is a business, and it would surely be equally illjudged on the part of a publisher to buy the yet unwritten produce of an over-driven author, for he would probably make a very bad bargain. Nor, again, do I see why the author should not get as much as he can for his work. Given that he has completed his book, his artistic effort is over. His book is now a property, to be sold, and the agent, rightly, so it seems to me, gets as much for it as he can, asking terms (unless his author has a strong predilection for a certain publisher and I think most authors have) not from one house only, but, if the terms there offered do not seem sufficient, from another, or, if he chooses, from a third. Why he should let one publisher have it cheap, if, ceteris paribus, he can get more from another, or why such a proceeding is derogatory to literature, I cannot imagine. But, as this business of securing the best market for the goods is a matter requiring time, trouble, and experience, and is not to all experience, and is not to all a congenial employment, it seems to me only wise of the author to entrust it to someone who presumably has the experience, and for whose time and trouble he is content to pay. And here, I imagine, Mr. Heinemann's far more serious accusation against the agents applies. He says he has not always found. them scrupulously honest. It is very distressing that it is so, but, on the other hand, from the author's point of view, it is equally distressing to find he has in his ignorance signed some contract which gives his publisher a quite undue share of profit in the success of his book. Such contracts have been signed. But it is really beside the point to argue the question on such grounds. Dishonest agents I hope are as rare as dishonest publishers, and bona fides must be assumed for the abstract argument. Nor is it on such grounds that personally I employ an agent. As I have said, I have never yet met with a dishonest publisher, and I do not employ an agent to save me from his possible clutches. On the other hand, in the case of a book which I once published without employing an agent, I found that no account had been rendered to me for over three years, and that when, with suitable courtesy I hope, I applied for it, it was not without some personal trouble and "dunning" that I succeeded in getting it. Now, I object to dunning anybody: I do not happen to like it. But I do not in the least object to instructing my agent to do so. That is one of the things for which "he is there." And, in this case, I regretted I had not employed him before. Finally, I disagree with Mr. Heinemann in his assertion that agents are of no use to the untried author who at present has no market. It seems to me that it is exactly here-if they are competent-where they are most useful. The agent knows, more or less, what ten per cent. on a sixshilling book means. The untried author has no idea. And this innocent child of nature is confronted with a document which says that twelve copies are counted as eleven, or thirteen (I forget which), that he receives ten per cent. on the first thousand and twelve and a half per cent. on the second, that in case of a colonial edition he gets 24. per copy, and something obscure occurs to remainders, which are also obscure. More particularly there may be a sublime silence about American sales and American copyright, and he knows nothing of the stringency of law prevailing in that remarkable continent, which really seems expressly designed for the confusion of budding authors, and as likely as not American rights and protection then get left out of the contract altogether. Poor bleating lamb yet that sinister shepherd the agent could have saved him. And here I speak from bitter experience. True, it is not in any sense at all the business of the English publisher to make his author acquainted with copyright law. But it is the agent's business WITH regard to the very interesting discussion now being carried on in your paper in reference to Literary Agents, I venture to offer a few suggestions. An inexperienced author-I mean an author who is not well acquainted with the publications or the personal characters and characteristics of large numbers of publishers-is very likely to attack the wrong publisher, or to attack the right publisher in the wrong way or at the wrong time. I know this by bitter experience. Fortunately (or unfortunately), I still believed that my books ought to be published. But the number of possible publishers was too vast. It was the same with editors. There were too many of them, and I did not know which (if any) would be likely to accept this or that article at this or that time. One of my chief mistakes was to try the oldestablished firms first. Then I found an experienced agent, and he immediately said, "This piece of work will be accepted by A. or by B. or by C. or-by no one. That piece of work we'll offer to A., if he does not accept the first piece. This third piece of work is, I fear, hopeless." Within a few weeks he had placed all the MSS., except two, that I put into his hands, and had bearded several lions (as I then thought them) and had arranged for future works. Apart from this agent I think I should have given up in despair. With another agent, however, I might have paid initial fees and then have been just as badly off as before. But it seems to me that the inexperienced author is likely to do better if he tries to choose an agent than if he tries to choose a publisher or editor. For there are far fewer agents than publishers or editors. It is far harder to make mistakes in attempts to find a good agent. There is another point. The sensitive author despairs because he has his MS. rejected, let us say, by two publishers. They state that they do not see a public for the book. The agent is not sensitive offer him a good commission, and he will try again and again. He may be refused by some publisher who would have accepted the MS. direct from the author. But I fancy that few The agent, then, is likely to save the author V. EUSTACE MILES. To the Editor of THE AUTHOR. Personally I fail to see Mr. Heinemann's cause for complaint. All other arguments against the My Finally, I should like to ask Mr. Heinemann, Yours truly, Castor, Peterborough, VI. WILLIAM LE QUEUX. SIR, It happens occasionally that a publisher FACT. DURING the summer months the Secretary "Dear Sir, I have decided to discontinue my subscrip- We would like to make some remarks upon it. In the early days of the Society the publishers were very naturally opposed to the idea of having their agreements and their methods of doing business overlooked by the Society of Authors, and one of the best known houses sent round a circular to all the authors who published with it, asking them not to join the Society. Those days, we are glad to say, have long passed; not only have authors as a mass found the Society useful, but even in some instances the publishers have been bound to acknowledge that the work it does is good and fair. From the letter quoted above it would appear that the agent is also objecting to have his methods looked into from the point of view of the Authors' Society. That a feeling against having their business arrangements overlooked has been growing amongst agents is clear from the information that has come to the Society. The interest of publisher and author is bound to be antagonistic; it is natural, therefore, that the publisher should object. The interest of agent and author is identical. It is very serious, therefore, for the author when the agent assumes an attitude of antagonism. We must state finally that the placing of your work in the hands of an agent an additional reason for belonging to the Society, as an author in this position has two people to look after, firstly the publisher, secondly the agent. Perhaps after all the letter was only an outcome of the silly season. LITERARY, DRAMATIC, AND MUSICAL PROPERTY. I.-Cost of Production. standing against the total from "The Cost of Production" of £7 13s. The moulding is the same price in both estimates, and the binding also. When a fresh edition of" The Cost of Production" is brought out it will have to be entirely revised, and it is hoped that it will be possible to include an exhaustive statement at the same time of the American cost, which American publishers boast is as low if not lower than the English. Authors, note this statement. ESTIMATE FROM "THE COST OF PRODUCTION." 500 Copies, crown 8vo, Small Pica type. Composition, 17 sheets at £1 78. 6d. per sheet Printing, 17 sheets at 5s. 9d. per sheet 98. 58. which was issued in 1891. The book is now out of print; but to show that the prices for printing, paper, etc., were fair at the time of issue-although at first this was frequently denied by the publishers-and are fair at the present date, a second estimate is put forward which was obtained from a printer only a year ago. The printer's name is not given, but it is sufficient to state that he is a man in a large way of business, with works in the neighbourhood of London, who does extensive trade with the chief publishers. On comparing the two estimates, it will be seen that the composition is considerably cheaper, as much as 5s. a sheet, and the printing 6d. a sheet. The paper is also cheaper, the total £6 78. 6d. from the author's point of view, would be much more satisfactory than a branch publishing house, and we commend it to the notice of some of the larger printing firms. It is useless at this hour of the day to grumble about the American Copyright Law. It is better than no copyright law, but the Americans, save only a small intellectual minority, have failed to grasp the great principles referring to literary property. The day may come, and we hope at no distant date, when they will take a more enlightened view of the position, and join the signatories of the Berne Convention. What authors have to do at present is to make the best of existing circumstances, and it will be more satisfactory for the profession to have a trustworthy English printer established in New York than an English publisher, however trustworthy. III. A Publisher's Trick. A well-known publisher, writing to an author who objected to the terms of his agreement, stated as follows, "that the agreement was settled by K.C., and is identical with the one signed by all my authors." We have frequently pointed out before that the Publishers' Agreements issued by the Publishers' Association were approved by Mr. Joseph Walton, K.C., who has recently been raised to the Bench, and we have shown in the pamphlet published by the Society how disastrous they are to authors. Mr. Walton, no doubt, followed his instructions and approved the agreements that best served his clients, the publishers. So that the point which the publisher is putting forward, although it has been frequently successful in silencing the objections of authors, is really no argument whatever to induce an author to sign an agreement. In fact, if anything, it should at once lead him in the opposite direction. A clever K.C., when asked. to draw an agreement, would be bound to make that agreement more strongly in favour of his client than the layman who might be drawing a similar document. The second part of the publisher's statement is untrue. But if it were true, it is no argument, because certain authors are ill-advised in signing an agreement, that other authors should be equally ill-advised, and we have pointed out on former occasions with regard to the publication of books in a series what a trap this argument has been to the unwary author. Again we find it necessary to put forward these remarks, because again the publisher brings forward his misleading statements. IV. Copyright in Siam. We print the following cutting from the Bangkok Times. It is interesting as showing the gradual evolution of literary copyright in foreign countries. It was not long ago that Japan joined the Berne Convention, and now Siam has passed a Copyright Law. This, perhaps, may be followed by their becoming signatories to the treaty. There seems to be little doubt that as friendly intercourse between nations increases, copyright will become universal at no distant date, and it is to be hoped that when this point is realised, legislators will also realise that there is absolutely no reason why it should not also become of unlimited duration. "A new law published in the latest Gazette brings Siam into line with Western nations in the matter of copyright. The preamble points out that hitherto authors have had no protection for their work in this country, anyone having the right to republish and sell any book. The new enactment follows the lines of the English law, giving protection for forty-two years, or the period of the author's life, with a grace of seven years, whichever is the longer. To copyright a book it has to be registered at the Royal Scribe Department within twelve months after publication; the fee charged is five ticals, and a copy has to be presented to the Department mentioned, another to the Royal Library, and another to the Royal Buddhist Library at Wat Benchamabopit. Translation is also prohibited. The passing of such a law is a wise proceeding, even if the able. We hope it may have the effect of encouraging the result on literature cannot be expected to be very noticeSiamese author. But as trade bulks so very much larger than letters in modern Siam, it is to be trusted that the Government will without delay follow up this law with another giving protection to trade marks. The need of some system of registration which will protect both the seller and the buyer of genuine articles is very real. consular courts in Bangkok enforce laws to prevent the perpetration of such frauds, and the anomaly of the Siamese courts being unable to do anything in the matter has been pointed out often enough." V.-Press Copyright. The The letter in your last number signed "Old Bird," and a recent correspondence in a contemporary anent the republication of a leading article. in a London newspaper practically unaltered in matter or phrase, the second version differing only from the first in the signature appended, suggest a larger question than any personal dispute. The subject of press copyright is one which has often been discussed, and the possible legislation for its betterment has been many times forecast, but the result so far is nil. A quarter of a century ago, when the mills of the press, following a high precedent, ground slowly, the grievance of journalistic theft was not so keenly felt and the delinquent was only in a small way of business. At present the malpractice has become so systematic and universal that we have arrived at the preposterous position of a journal being deliberately undersold and paradoxically pushed out of the market by the illegitimate sale of its own contents. This is a sweeping statement. Let us examine it. Examples of the Tit Bit order of papers in which the same paragraph goes the round of all and appears consecutively in the whole series are not relied on. The identical item apparently serves as well for all as for each, and from the regularity with which it reappears, and from the dim memories which it often reawakens, it was not original to the paper first issuing it. Nor is the dissemination of the world's news, the beneficent |