It’s Thursday! And I’m doing soup again because I was snarky about sick people last week and now I have sick people at my house. So being ugly doesn’t pay, just like Mama always told me. This soup is Roasted Butternut Squash. It’s pretty and yummy, but it does take a little time. Next week I’m probably going to feature pancakes or something… it’s time for something easy!
My friend Cleo Coyle who writes the Coffeehouse Mystery series for Berkley Prime Crime sent me a link to an interesting article. It’s Redactor Agonistes by Daniel Menaker, who is former Executive Editor-in-Chief of Random House and fiction editor of The New Yorker.
Usually I don’t quote a lot of text from articles (and, clearly, you can all read it yourselves), but his article struck a real chord in me—I think because it sounded honest. And, frequently, I think writers are told what we want to hear by our publishers and agents.
Mr. Menaker paints an interesting behind the scenes look at the publishing industry. He makes eleven negative statements about the editing job. Included among them are:
- The editorial department is frequently out of touch with the sales department.
- The acquisitions departments include competitive editors who are going to basically stab you or your favorite project in the back.
Check out #9:
Many of the most important decisions made in publishing are made outside the author’s and agent’s specific knowledge. Well, meetings are held to determine which of those books your company is going to emphasize — talk about most, spend the most money on, and so forth. These are the so-called lead titles for those seasons. Most of the time, the books for which the company has paid the highest advances will be the lead titles, regardless of their quality.
On readers:
I have this completely unfounded theory that there are a million very good — engaged, smart, enthusiastic — generalist readers in America. There are five hundred thousand extremely good such readers. There are two hundred and fifty thousand excellent readers. There are a hundred and twenty-five thousand alert, active, demanding, well-educated (sometimes self-well-educated), and thoughtful — that is, literarily superb — readers in America. More than half of those people will happen not to have the time or taste for the book you are publishing. So, if these numbers are anything remotely like plausible, refined taste, no matter how interesting it may be, will limit your success as an acquiring editor.
And this statement (should our feelings be hurt?):
Usually, writers, like anyone else who performs in public and desires wide recognition, no matter how successful they become, have an unslakeable thirst for attention and approval — in my opinion (and, I’m embarrassed to say, in my own case) usually left over from some early-childhood deficit or perception of deficit in the attention-and-approval department. You will frequently find yourself serving as an emotional valet to the people you work with. It can be extremely onerous and debilitating, especially given the ever-decreasing number of your colleagues and the consequent expansion of your workload.
And more about writers (and other problem areas of the biz), but this is funnier:
“–to say nothing of the welter of non-editorial tasks that most editors have to perform, including holding the hands of intensely self-absorbed and insecure writers, fielding frequently irate calls from agents, attending endless and vapid and ritualistic meetings, having one largely empty ceremonial lunch after another, supplementing publicity efforts, writing or revising flap copy, ditto catalog copy, refereeing jacket-design disputes, and so on–“
At the end of #11, I was feeling fairly horrified, but fortunately he ended with a good note. #12 included a list of fun parts of the job, including:
- Despite their often intense neediness, writers are often fascinating and stimulating company.
- And most important, within its plentiful samenesses, every day brings with it some highly variegated tasks and challenges. Every single book is its own unique enterprise, every agent his or her own kettle of fish, every writer an education (sometimes in dysfunction), every book jacket a distinct and different illustrational project.
I’ve been chewing over this article like cud for days. Thoughts?
“Usually, writers … have an unslakeable thirst for attention and approval … usually left over from some early-childhood deficit or perception of deficit in the attention-and-approval department.”
That’s a harsh statement! True? Might be. Writers definitely want their work to meet with approval, because that meets with sales, and that meets with bills being paid! At the same time, I hope most of us have some conviction of the worth of our work even if it doesn’t receive the recognition we think it deserves. I’ve written some things in my book based on conviction and that I know will not meet with the politically correct perceptions of today.
None-the-less, his words are a good warning for us to assess inner motives and strength of character. Good post!
Well like any job, it might be better if the job didn’t include dealing with people, but would be quite boring.
Writers have to write, whether for money or for free. There is no choice for the soul who has words erupting in their mind. Eventually those words will spew. Writers have to write and it would be nice if it included money.
Great Post, a dose of reality.
Thanks, Elizabeth, for that inside look at what editors deal with. One of the things I do when I’m not writing is that I edit and review for a textbook publishing company. I’ve found that editing and reviewing are, indeed, very hard, sometimes quite stressful things to do, so I understand Menaker’s point of view.
On the other hand, as a writer myself, I have to agree with Journaling Woman. We writers have stories in us; we have things we want to say, and we’d probably write whether or not we ever become wildly successful. Those stories are, as you say, a part of us – almost extensions of ourselves. Most of us don’t write for the glory of it or the money; we write because writing is what we do. I think Anna Nalick says it best in her song 2 AM (Breathe): “2 AM and I’m still awake writing this song. If I get it all down on paper, it’s no longer inside of me, threatening the life it belongs to. And I feel like I’m naked in front of a crowd, ’cause these words are my diary screaming out loud and I know that you’ll use them however you want to.”
Admittedly, that’s a little melodramatic, but I think it captures how many of us writers feel about our work.
Great thoughts to “chew on!” Thanks!
Warren–You’re right. When you put a lot of yourself into a book, naturally you want some validation. Because really, the book is almost a part of yourself at that point.
Hmmm. I guess I’m on another planet. My first thought was that he might think about finding another job. He doesn’t sound happy. Even if he’s right about writers and the way the industry works.
Karen
I wonder how many people are angry that he wrote this article? And how it will affect publishing in the future, if at all? It would be interesting to see what the long term consequences of something of these items are, like #9.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention! It was great to peek in and see what “the other half” is thinking!
A very interesting article – I plan to read the whole thing, but first I may need to have that soup ready to make me feel better when I’m done! I don’t think I have that thirst for attention but I probably do for approval. I wonder if you can have one without the other?
I think someone is an unsuccessful author and is just a little bitter that they had to find a different career! Some writers are demanding, some aren’t. I don’t think we’re looking for validation because we had crummy childhoods. Geeesh.
However the article about the right hand not talking to the left had has the ring of truth. I would think this happens in any large industry; which is what publishing is, after all.
Warm soup is in order. Perhaps it will validate me.
Elspeth
I think he probably nailed it with most of those statements!
Jane–I like my attention, but I don’t like it in-person, which makes me uncomfortable. I do like it online or emailed or in print. So I didn’t *think* this really applied to me, but now I’m wondering if it does. I had a lot of validation as a child, so that part doesn’t fit, though.
Journaling Woman–I *have* to write, like you. I journaled for years, wrote stories, sent things off, worked for magazines. It’s never been a huge money maker and I don’t enjoy in-person praise…but okay, I don’t mind a glowing review or two. :) And I absolutely love connecting with readers who enjoyed my book.
Margot–He made me want to send my two editors flowers! Honestly, though, I don’t think I’m difficult to deal with…I’m too scared of getting ditched in the rough economy. (But then, I guess we all say that.)
Diane–I was afraid that was the case, yes.
Karen–He sounds really crabby, doesn’t he? And my editors have been so nice!
Well, there’s a lot here to digest here. Some of it has the ring of truth…meetings, lunches, which books get the most support. Some of it sounds like carping and complaining…specifically about authors.
Now, Authors *can* be a pretty bizarre bunch, but in the main, I think we’re no different than the rest of the population. I think we’d all fit under the normal bell curve pretty well. Most of us write because we either “just have to,” or we simply enjoy it, like some folks enjoy golf or fishing. To whitewash us with some hocus-pocus psychological disorder from childhood, then try to smooth the waters with a backhanded compliment that we’re, “fascinating and stimulating company”—albeit needy—is disingenuous. My dog was fascinating and stimulating company. So, I guess I don’t think much of his analysis. Apparently he and I won’t be “doing lunch” soon, huh?
Best Regards, Galen
Imagineering Fiction Blog
I haven’t read the full article, but based on these excerpts, I’m wondering why he’s in the business he is. He doesn’t seem to like it much. Perhaps he has “unslakeable thirst for attention and approval … usually left over from some early-childhood deficit or perception of deficit in the attention-and-approval department.”
Helen
Straight From Hel
Writers, like any other entertainers, are by their nature seeking attention – sure – I can agree with that. I do NOT agree it’s some sort of misfit or deep seated “issue” or “problem,” though. We’re just talented extroverts. If there weren’t people like us, the shy peeps would have no books to read, no concerts to go to, no sculptures to admire, no sporting events to watch and root for – it’s part of what makes the world go round and be what it is. Perfectly normal. Relax and feel proud of yourself for contributing.
Marvin D Wilson
Working with companies like General Electric, I expect the environment I work in to be crzay and chaotic. One needs to learn how to take advantage of these opportunities and thrive therein.
And my wife loves roasted butternut squah soup. I’m printing the recipe. Thanks.
Stephen Tremp
Kristen–I’m sure he irritated plenty of his old coworkers with the article. He irritated me, too! Although it’s nice to know some of what’s going on in the background.
Galen–I don’t think he’d probably enjoy hanging out with any of us, since we’re so neurotic. :)
Helen–I think he’s a reviewer,currently, for the NY Times. So I don’t want to say anything too tacky about him, just in case. :) But it sounds like it was a good career move for him, under the circumstances he outlines.
Marvin–Yeah, I thought he was taking his analysis a little far.
Elspeth–Yes, that part worried me. I’m glad I’m not with Random House right now! I wasn’t so concerned about the issue he raised about the education-level of readers, since I’m not writing literary fiction.
Stephen–Good point! It’s just like dealing with a big company. Communication would be key and I think with layoffs and time constraints that communication may be lacking.
Hope she enjoys the recipe! :)
Elizabeth – I was so pleased to see that you found the article interesting. I now see that it was also a bit distressing, but then so is New York publishing. Very pretty picture at writers’ conferences, on CSPAN panels, etc…but do not scratch and sniff this vision. The smells that emerge may require a Hazmat team!
So…is it better to know how the sausage is made? I think it is. Philosophically speaking, this gets down to a Matrix question for the writer: Do you want the blue pill or the red pill? Do you want to sleep or waken?
IMO – Publishing is changing fast. Maneker’s article is an interesting historical artifact about what publishing was in the latter half of the 20th Century. It is becoming something else now, something new, and it’s exciting to watch.
~Cleo
Cleo–It’s good to hear from the other end of the stick. Sometimes I think I hear only the pretty things the industry wants writers to hear. Just like the Matrix–you’re right!
I’m excited about the changes coming around the corner. I think e-readers are going to level the playing field for the industry in so many ways.
Yes! “Level the playing field” is the perfect phrase. Could not agree more!
~Cleo