Is it time for writers to rethink attitudes about agents? (And, dare I suggest, agents rethink writers?)

I laughed a lot when I saw this photo from last week's Frankfurt Book Fair. With 7,300 exhibitors and almost 300K attendees at more than 3,000 events, I understand the need for organization, and I don't know if there was a special segregated potty for writers... but I doubt it. In any case (without even addressing the fact that the agent is assumed to be a man) the sign makes a pretty potent icon for the industry dynamic that's arisen in the last few decades.

When the advent of the home computer made the physical process of writing a book infinitely more achievable, a tsunami of aspiring writers started pursuing literary representation, which cast authors as beggars and agents as choosers, bringing about a massive shift in the power balance. I think indie publishing is now shifting power back toward authors - if authors are willing to grow a pair and do their own dirty work.

True or False?

Agents should champion books based on literary quality, not income potential.
True, in that perfect world where lions lie down with lambs and ice cream is an excellent source of calcium. I mean, yeah, but reality check that. Agents are supporting their families, just as writers are. And overall commercial success makes it possible for them to devote time to occasional windmill-tilting.

False, when it gets to the point that easy-selling crap completely trumps literary quality and gluts the market to the exclusion of the low to moderate (read "midlist") moneymakers, and that is the direction a lot of agents are going as the industry sphincter continues to tighten.

Agents are the best gatekeepers/tastemakers.
True, in that agents are (for the most part) educated, intelligent, bookish folk who do have insight into what readers want and what publishers will pay for.

False, in that marketability has become the primary (if not sole) criterion, not only for taking on new authors, but for strongly influencing the revision of manuscripts, and too many supplicant authors are willing to turn their backs on their own artistic vision in a desperate attempt to win that agency contract. ("What doth a man profit," Jesus asked, "if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul?") In a biz as capricious as publishing, you need intelligent guidance, but shared craft values and a common vision for the author's work are imperative.

Agents know more than authors about how to write books.
True, when the author is an amateur, in which case the author does not need an agent, the author needs a good critique group.

False, the rest of the time. A terrific agent excels in the art and craft of sales. A terrific author excels in the art and craft of writing. In that perfect lion-lays-down-with-ice-cream world, the two come together with mutual respect in an equal partnership that is peaceful and prosperous for all concerned.

Must end with my favorite Mitchell and Webb bit, which should be required viewing for any author before s/he rewrites based on agent input. (I know I've shown you this before, but it bears repeating. Or don't! Yeah?)