Where Have All the Book Editors Gone?

I came across a Stuart Evers blog entry in the Guardian about the new role of editors at book publishers:

These days, experience of shaping, honing and bringing out the best in an author is unnecessary to land a high profile role: all you need to be able to do is identify the product.

It's a sad observation, but has a lot of truth. I know editors who get frustrated with the entire process because they don't get to edit. All they can do is hope that the book comes in well enough constructed that they can free up some time for the market analyses and major manuscript resuscitations that are necessary. So here's my question: if editors don't get time to really edit and the authors have to do a lot of the marketing, then what is it that publishers really do?

Publishing Needs to Focus on Smarter Editors, not Smarter Readers

Photographer director Rob Haggart had a great post on what goes on the cover of magazines. You can feel his pain in, between, and on top of the lines:

Who should we put on the cover? How about someone who actually wants to be there and that the audience cares about. How about someone we can spend some time with a write a meaningful story and take interesting pictures of. I look forward to the day when magazines can return to serving their audience and not the newsstand. Until then you're stuck with 109, free, biggest, hot, ultimate, travel, toys, secrets, great, perfect, best, sex, abs, weight-loss, getaway, new, insider, easy, delicious, shortcuts, paired with a celebrity you keep seeing over and over on the covers of magazines.

He knows of what he writes, because he's been there: a former director of photography for Mens' Journal and Outside.

I agree that the dumbing down comes from the editorial side, only in a different way than many of this think - that is, many editors are bringing less intelligence to the job and assuming that they are talking to people who know even less than they, when that may not be so. How many times have you seen editors set off on a topic or story angle that assumed the worst of their readers, or that wanted to prove a theory of theirs, no matter how much evidence suggested that they were wrong?

Maybe if we want better copy that will really attract readers, the industry needs to stop low-balling salaries of everyone other than the EIC so they don't have to focus so much on the next jump of their career, because they aren't having to live out in NJ on $28,000 with 4 roommates. Perhaps magazines could attract some people who not only love the work, but are smart and willing to consider things from the readers' vantage. And maybe have more of those editors actually talk with a lot more readers. What a concept, talking to your customers.

The End of Paper Book Manuscripts?

Call it the beginning of the end - according to New York Magazine, Hachette Book Group has distributed Sony e-book readers to its editorial staff. Agents have to email files of manuscripts rather than sending paper. Apparently Simon & Schuster also has the devices (Amazon was too tardy with the Kindle), though only some of the editors actually use them. Unfortunately, there is no edit function, so editors can only read and not mark up documents, leaving some writers, I'm sure, cheering.

Editor Pat Strachan on Her Career and the Business

Poets and Writers magazine has an interview with Pat Strachan. Aside from the general interest for people in the business, there are some practical nuggets of advice you can mine. For example, she mentions the "stopper" - a term from her New Yorker days meaning some image "that causes the reader to stop and read in a daze over the next pages." So you don't want to follow something like that with a section that is critical to the book, because people will miss it. Or there's the most common problem with first fiction books:

They can be too controlled. I find a lot of first novels too careful and too polite. I mean, let’s face it, Housekeeping is a wild book. I don’t think Marilynne had ever published anything before, even short pieces. She was doing what came from her mind and her experience. Larry Heinemann’s book is another example, a graphic war novel, but just gorgeous. Sometimes others can be a little tight and a little fearful of being messy.

Certainly not something I would have known. Also, she generally knows within ten pages whether she'll like a book. It's definitely worth a read.

Distillation of the Writer-Editor Relationship

Something light for today - a bit of sketch comedy on YouTube that may sound frighteningly accurate.

The "Best Writer" Myth

If you've ever attended a writers' conference or read the first writing business self-help book, you've come across this dictum: "Show that you're the best writer for this job." It's been repeated so often that it has become a factoid, but like many factoids, it's not really true. It just sounds like it should be.

I know that is going to sound outrageous to many, but hang in for a moment. Editors say this repeatedly for two major reasons. One is that they hear other editors say this repeatedly, and who wants to look like a dope by saying something that colleagues might find wrong. The other reason is that they are actually, albeit inaccurately, trying to convey something they need, but that relatively few writers provide.

To get to the value, let's deconstruct this statement. Is there a "best writer" in any category? Obviously not. If there were, and if the editors were serious, you'd only see one version of any story. Imagine the quandary of of the women's titles or any specialty interest magazine. They'd never be able to run a second article on a subject. And if the editors were serious abut there being a best writer for a story, there would be such competition that editorial rates would actually - gasp - go up!

That's obviously a silly thought. Editors aren't so naive as to think that writers are this uniquely and singularly qualified. No, they're actually saying something slightly different. They want the best writer they can find for that topic at that moment without actually having to put in significant effort in looking. Best writer actually means some combination of seven things:

• The writer has an advantage in covering the story. That advantage may be expert knowledge, experience covering the topic, inside connections, proximity for something that needs live coverage, or any other factor that helps get a better story.


• The writer's style or voice lends itself to the topic or will provide a unique take that adds value to the reporting.


• The writer is well-known enough that having the person connected to the topic will increase sales of the magazine or newspaper issue.


• The writer's working style will mesh well with the publication's editorial process and needs.


• The publication can keep within its budget for the writer, which could mean that the writer is inexpensive enough, or that the necessary premium isn't too dear.


• The writer is available to do the assignment.


• The editor will look good in the eyes of his or her boss after the assignment is done.

As you can see, this is a subjective judgment of comparative superlative worth. The "best" writer for one publication might not be the "best" for another, and your standing at the apex of all possible writers drops quickly if the magazine decides that it can't afford you.

Now that we have the theory, let's get to the practical application. What editors really ask for when saying that they want the "best" writer is that writers pitching a story address these needs. In other words, we're back to thinking like the client and trying to meet the client's needs, both spoken and unspoken, material and emotional. To increase your fitness for that latest fitness story, weave answers for each of these points into your pitch. That doesn't mean the editor will see you as the best fit. It may be that someone else with a similar idea has a better degree of connection, or more expertise, or what have you. It might be that while two writers both have five out of the seven points, one has more of the ones that are a higher priority for that editor. But the greater a degree to which you can show that you will satisfy these needs, the better and better you look to an editor.

Dealing With Take-It-Or-Leave-It Editors

The process of negotiation generally assumes give and take - that one party will give some on one point and the other will yield on another. But there are times that a person or entity is unwilling to bend at all. A writer recently wrote me (via questions I said I'd answer for The Renegade Writer blog) about such a situation, where the editor basically said, "I sympathize with your position, but if you don't give in, I'll find someone else because all our contributors sign this." The writer had felt beaten up in the process and wondered whether all the well-known writers in the title also capitulated.

The first step to better negotiation and business is knowing that there is no beating - only an irreconcilable difference of opinion. What you need for your business is the most important issue; something that works for one writer might not for the next. Or there may be a time that you are either receiving so much money or that you are in such desperate need for some paying work that you are willing to hold your nose and sign away the rights. That, too, can be a valid choice, presuming that you aren't giving in because you're afraid to ask for more.

Don't judge your needs by what others do. Many nationally-known writers sign bad contracts because they either don’t care, are foolish about business, or are scared to negotiate. There are also many whom editors perceive as bringing enough audience and value that they're willing to make changes.

That said, there are also plenty of editors who claim, “Why, no one has ever brought up that issue before!” Equine-generated fertilizer. Of course they have. The editor is probably hoping that you won’t know that.

Most reputable publishers will negotiate to some degree, because they realize that they need to. More established writers may have more advantage in negotiations because there is more of a drive to use their work. Also consider that if a publisher is so inflexible before you write word one, how reasonable will the edit process be?

The main attitude to shift is the idea that someone beat you up. Nope. You simply said no because the conditions were not acceptable to you. That’s called being responsible for your business. And you can only get to an irreconcilable point by speaking up and asking for what you want in the first place. Consider it a cheap price for greatly strengthening your business.

One More Wrinkle on Amending Contracts

A writer pointed out on a forum that in my amending contracts post I hadn't discussed the "don't ask, don't tell" school of editors that accept changes without comment if you make them but refuse any changes if you ask.

Unfortunately, although simply amending the contract may seem like a solution in such circumstances, it isn't because the editors obviously don't look at what you do send. If they did, you'd be back in trouble because they'd resent that you actually changed something without asking.

Also, ever get a signed agreement with the changes back from these editors? If not, the door open, in case of a legal conflict, for the magazine to argue that the original terms were the ones that governed the relationship and that you wouldn't have proceeded without getting a countersigned changed document. To win you'd have to go to court, but the results would be uncertain, and that means you'd have already lost considering the costs of taking legal action.

Problems of Amending Contracts

Many freelance journalists who don't like parts of their contracts will mark up the documents they receive, initial the changes, sign, and send the paper back in without talking to their editors ahead of time. They might think this is effective, but it generally is the single weakest way to address contractual issues and can cause problems down the line. Not only are you less likely to get what you want, but you might unnecessarily ruin the business relationship at the same time.

Consider the entire exchange from the view of the editor. You mailed a contract to a writer, received a signed copy, and put it in a stack to file. Your days are busy and you spend a week or two on deadlines. Eventually, after editing the article that the writer had sent and getting it ready for the next issue, you are doing some filing and come across the contract. Just before you forward it to the contracts people, you notice a pen mark. And another. And others. You've spent significant amounts of time on your end of the assignment only to realize that the writer isn't willing to work under the terms you had thought were set. Now everything might be up in the air, all without enough time to recover and find another writer or another article.

Take it a step further. The signed version shows up directly at the legal department, which then calls you and asks why you authorized all these changes to the contract without talking to someone there. The writer has just gone from an inconvenience to someone who is damaging your professional reputation.

Back to being the writer. The editor should have noticed the changes at the start, but realistically it could easily happen that no one would see your demands until late in the game.

Why do many take this approach? Because they are afraid of confrontation and hope that by sending an amended version, their demands will sneak by and they won't have to talk to someone. Although this might work on some occasions, it's ultimately self-defeating. Each time you act from fear, you reinforce that feeling and response. The next time you get a contract, you're that much more likely to change, sign, and send and hope that it doesn't come back to haunt you.

Some argue that by mark up the contract and sending it in, you're legally declining the terms and counter-proposing another set, so that if the publisher uses the piece, those would be the terms covering the relationship. That might be technically right, but it's still a way of thoroughly screwing yourself. You are always, always, always better off contacting the editor regarding any terms and conditions that you find unacceptable. The editor might not be able to make the changes or might. Or the editor might be unable to bend on one issue and instead offer something else - possibly more pay or something else important - to make up for it. Even if there is no other reason at all, talking or emailing the editor with your concerns and what you're seeking helps you build a relationship, and it's the relationship that can become a steady income stream, not the piece of paper that the company overlooked and is now forced to accept.

Update: one more consideration here.

How Not to Tick Off Editors, Agents, and Others

Sally Wiener Grotta is a writer and photographer friend of mine who has a great blog entry on what not to say to editors and agents.

It's on the book end of things, but I think the comments are applicable to anything a writer does, whether book, magazine, corporate, or non-profit. Outside of the usual culprits - like "Don't screw up my name when sending something to me" - are some particularly relevant ones. For exmaple, the impulse to talk about yourself can be off-putting and can set off a red flag that you are going to be high maintenence. This is a perfect example of starting to understand your prospects and doing things to make them comfortable and happy. And when the prospects are happy, they're more inclined to give you assignments.