I've not seen a lot of agents who only want to rep author/illus. only, but it seems like I'm seeing that more--possibly because I'm reading through sub guidelines more than I used to even when I know it's not a fit.
Out of curiosity, why do some agents only want author/illus.? On one hand, it offers a couple benefits, but on the other, it seems restrictive.
Maybe I can sneak another question in...about the role of the illustrator vs. that of the writer. (I use "versus" since it is beginning to feel like that). Writers move a story forward through dialogue, action, etc., writing the story that needs to told (blah-blah-blah). I thought illustrations supported the text--you write with scenes in mind, and how they could get illustrated. Though since reviewing critiques on this forum, I'm getting a different message. (?)
I write so if a child was blindfolded, their mind would naturally form the imagery. (I don't give stage directions, etc. )
E.g.: if I have a gruesome-looking character, their appearance is revealed when the character evokes reactions in others.
Let's say I have a sentence that accomplishes the above example. Should it not have been written at all, leaving an editor/agent to see it for themselves as an illustration? Or, should it stay, leaving an editor/agent to decide if it should get cut, perhaps for word count and/or because an illustration can "say" it?
As writers-illustrators, when you perform both functions on a ms., you decide these things for yourselves. (Then the editor/agent has their say.) But when you are providing text only, do you write with imagery in mind?