Blogger: Janet Kobobel Grant
Location: Books & Such Main Office, Santa Rosa, Calif.
Because Memorial Day is a day of remembrance, I thought it would be interesting to think back to what publishing was like in, say, the 1980s. (Yes, that era is so dead.) The other day, my assistant, Michelle, asked me how an editor’s role has changed since then. Some of my responses surprised her; so I thought it might be helpful to you all to “listen in” to how I answered Michelle.
I’m going to start out by writing about the changes from the perspective of the author because, back in the ’80s, I morphed back and forth from editing to writing books. To set the stage, let me tell you the title of my first book: But Can She Type? In the book I examined unique qualities that I believed women brought to leadership positions in business.
The very title of the book shouts out one major change since the ’80s. Yes, I wrote the manuscript on a typewriter. It was electric and had a correction ribbon, but still…I have to say, typing a book is a major discourager to all wannabes.
I think we all would guess that technology has made a major difference in publishing, but my project portrays another change that has taken place. My publishing experience involved five major rewrites of the manuscript after it was contracted. Yes, five.
But Can She Type was published by InterVarsity Press, which takes each manuscript through a fairly rigorous process. If I remember correctly, the first round of rewrites involved my reviewing the critiques and suggestions of three reviewers who had a special interest in my topic, were college professors, etc. I also had what seemed like reams of comments from my in-house editor. Juggling so many perspectives on the manuscript felt like corralling five rambunctious toddlers.
After that major round of making changes, under my editor’s watchful eye, I painstakingly tightened, clarified, illuminated, excised, revamped and generally wrestled the manuscript to the ground through for four more rounds. I don’t think the manuscript was bad to begin with, or IVP never would have offered me a contract, but the publisher had a strong commitment to making a manuscript reach its potential.
I was sick of the book by the time it was all over. (Remember, I had to retype the manuscript with each round.)
So here are the questions my experience raises:
- When was the last time an editor had the luxury of grinding through five revisions with an author?
- Would a publisher today invest in five rewrites from a first-time author?
- Would the author be willing to rewrite five times?
I think the only question to garner a yes might be the last one.
Editors’ schedules are as tight as pickles stuffed in a jar. If the editor can’t move a manuscript onto the copy editor by a certain date, other projects the editor is supposed to be working on logjam. And then publication dates have to be moved; ads are run, but no books are available; publicity is scheduled that becomes meaningless; and sales reps have a title in the catalog that the publisher can’t deliver.
The ship is run much more tightly today, and leeway to work to make the manuscript everything it could be seldom exists–even if you’re a best-selling author. Actually, especially if you’re a best-selling author because the publisher is counting on your book to bring in the necessary funds to support the company’s structure. So the publisher’s commitment is to release the best-selling author’s title as quickly as possible to start the infusion of cash.
That’s part of the reason publishers are creating books of 500-some pages. Who has the time to hone the piece into the sharply focused book it could have been?
Now, my questions to you are: How many times have you rewritten your work in progress? What keeps you going? (I had a contract to nudge me forward–with the advance already spent, of course.)
Janet, I wrote a novel on a legal pad and took my first writing course back in the late 1980’s. My biggest nemesis was my typewriter–I was a horrible typist. I can’t describe the joy I felt when I purchased my first word processor in the early 1990’s. Without the technological advances, I probably would not be writing.
I am yet to be published–I was offered a job as an English teacher and had to take time off from writing–but I have been writing my nonfiction book on my blog and am almost done. I have to give credit to the faculty of last year’s Write-to-Publish conference and to Michael Hyatt’s posts and comments for helping me reach my goal. I rewrite as I go along, but I’m planning to do a final edit early this summer before querying agents.
I think my first book went through five revisions, but three of them were suggested by my agent before she sold the book (a compliment, btw, not a complaint). Since, I’ve had the luxury of extra editorial attention from Bethany House, but I suspect that’s not the case everywhere. I never mind rewriting so long as it improves the book.
However, in the context of the general angst over the future of book publishing, this brings up another question. If (A) publishers no longer have time to edit, and (B) as they themselves have said for some time now, they expect the author to shoulder the bulk of his own promotion, and (3) the economy has considerably narrowed acquisitions, where’s the advantage in going with a royalty paying publisher? Aren’t they helping to tip the scales against themselves?
I’ve done 2 major rewrites and several minor cosmetic surgeries. I keep going because I know it is a good story and I just can’t imagine letting it go.
Dale, leave it to you to ask the hard questions! I agree with you that publishers would do well to ask themselves what added value they offer to authors. The industry has been so publisher-centric since its inception that publishers are having a hard time recognizing they could be writing their own obit. They need to examine what it is they can offer authors that can’t be obtained anywhere else.
Currently, it still makes sense for most authors to remain with royalty-paying publishers because: 1) publishers reach into significant markets such as the box stores and the bookstores, which the author would be hard-pressed to connect with; 2) publishers have a nation-wide staff of sales reps (although sales departments in many publishing houses are being downsized); 3)most authors have a harder time finding an audience for their books than publishers do.
When I’ve mentioned to execs at publishing houses that they might soon be out of a job, they just grin and say then I will be too. But I find that response disingenuous and glib. As e-books become the dominant way readers access authors’ work, publishing will no longer be publisher-centric.
Oh, I believe publishers will continue to exist, and readers will continue to want to buy physical books–just as people still listen to the radio and go to movies. But if publishers don’t figure out how to integrate themselves more adeptly into the changing landscape of how books are created and delivered to readers, their future is not bright.
Since I’m relatively new to fiction writing, I’m still working on unplugging my internal editor. It’s hard to say how many times I rewrite a story, because every day when I sit down to write, I read and revise the last chapter I wrote to get a feel for rhythm and pacing before I pick up with a new section. My last manuscript went through three more full edits after it was “finished” (Is any book ever really finished?), the last at a publisher’s request. Though there is no promised contract, I still highly value her expertise. I was happy to try her suggestions, and I agree that they made the story stronger.
What keeps me going, I think, is a desire to grow as a writer. Edits are where I wrestle with weaknesses and apply newly learned skills. When I go back and read the first draft of my story, it is very encouraging to see how far I’ve come.
Lynn, that’s the gratifying part of rewriting, isn’t it? That we can see how far the manuscript has come.
Janet, I am currently doing the first of an anticipated two revisions for my editor on my debut novel but before she received it, my agent and I had done easily five rounds of revisions.
I love the process of editing, I must admit–and have come to find a somewhat predictable structure in its process–and the anxiety along with it. Revising always seems like that sweater thread that gets pulled too much and soon you’ve nothing but a pile of yarn–yikes! Then, amazingly, you find yourself putting it back together and it looks and feels even better, every time. Or, more often, I think of myself as a mechanic looking at an engine in parts–I know that all the pieces are there to make a working engine and I try to find calm in that, but it still seems a million years from parts to whole!
I will be the first to admit that some revisions take me further out on that precipice than others, but I remain committed to the process, and always so grateful for the outcome.
I loved your reminiscence of the older days of publishing. I still have my original, letter-headed rejections from (gasp!) unsolicited manuscript submissions to Harlequin, among others–and I still am so appreciative of the personalized comments. Just as I am of all the agents and editors along the way who have so generously given of their time and consideration–even the smallest suggestion can make such a difference in helping to strengthen a writer’s craft.
I love that Kregel put my debut novel through a rigorous editing process. Leanne Hardy was one of the editors that helped make the book so much better. In her brutality, she chopped away 5 chapters from the middle of the book forcing a rewrite to make the end match the beginning. I love rewriting, so the challenge was exhilirating. However, the final editor requested changes that would have undone what previous editors had suggested. That was confusing for a novice like me. Still I grew in leaps and bounds from the editing process.
I can understand how you were sick of your book by the time it was published… especially since you used a typewriter. The idea that IVP would hire three readers — professors, no less — to critique the project is fantastic. It shows the commitment level of the publishing house. Dale is right on.
What does a publishing house offer these days?
1. Marketing? Less and less.
2. Means of Distribution? Not any more.
3. Production of the saleable product? Not any more.
4. A rigorous editorial process? Less and less.
5. A de facto employer, paying advances so we can write? Yes, but less and less for rookies. A wise agent said, “Don’t quit your day job.”
5. A gatekeeper? Yes, to a degree. (The self-published books I’ve bought just aren’t up to the quality of traditionally published books).
So, what’s a publisher?
I’m still trying to figure that out… but I want one, and I’d accept one in a heartbeat. Isn’t that weird?
Gosh Janet, that’s a tough question to ask? How on earth am I going to remember how many times I have written and re-written my novels and non-fiction in the span of 40 years? Many.
Bill, it isn’t weird that you’d eagerly accept a contract from a royalty-paying publishing house. As I said in my response to Dale’s questions, currently that decision still makes sense. And there’s the additional factor of being invited “in” to an exclusive club. It’s tough, really tough, to obtain a contract nowadays. So to have one offered is reason to be pleased that your work passed muster. You succeeded where so many others failed.
Another reason to go with a royalty-paying publisher is that often–not always–but often you develop collegial relationships with editors, marketers, and even sales reps. It’s nice being in a community of boosters for your book, and the people who work at publishing houses tend to be bright and engaging–and to love books. Those factors, plus the ones I mentioned in response to Dale’s comments, make royalty paying publishers attractive to writers.
For the love of my Brother. Word processor, that is. It was such a fine purchase during my freshman year because then I didn’t have to share with others in the typing lab.
I wonder if we write lazier now because of the ease of technology. I can switch chapters back to front and twist them inside out in a matter of minutes to totally rearrange my timeline to make my WIP stronger. That would not have been feasible or desirable back in the day.
I think we may have been more concise back then for this reason. Now it is so easy to tinker we don’t even consider our rough drafts as anything but a throw away manuscript.
At least I don’t. : )
Oh, goody! I get to be contrary!
Dale, I hear what you’re saying, but I can tell you we don’t expect an editor to shoulder the bulk of his/her promotion/publicity. What we do require is that any of our authors at B&H partner with us in those areas, but we carry the bulk of it.
You’re right, though, that the economy has narrowed acquisitions. But even in that there’s good news. Where I worked with 20-24 books a year while working for Multnomah, I now work with 14-16. And yet, I can tell you the overall marketing budget for my line at B&H is even larger than it was for the books at Multnomah. (Yes, I’m talking dollars to dollars.) Working with fewer books in a line has meant not that marketing dollars are cut to the bone, but that more money is put behind each book.
And Bill, B&H offers a good deal of marketing. Just ask our Pure Enjoyment authors. Our marketing director, Julie Gwinn, does a lot both for individual authors and for the line. As for publishers not offering a means of distribution or production of a saleable product, can you explain what you mean? We’re producing plenty of product, and we’re supplying them to a wide array of distributors. No, the editorial process isn’t as rigorous as it used to be, but it’s still plenty tough. And the counsel not to quit your day job has always been sound. It’s never made sense for anyone to do so until they’ve replaced their income at least 3 years in a row. Shoot, I’ve published a lot of novels and novellas, but I couldn’t make a living as a writer. Not many folks can. Nor should they expect to. It’s like any other business we own. It takes a lot of work and a lot of years to become successful.
And being with the right publisher, one who believes in and supports you, who will get your books into the best outlets, whose sales force will do everything it can to place your books in as high-profile a spot as they can, whose design team creates powerful covers to catch a reader’s eye, who gives you an advance based on the promise of what your book will do, who writes off countless dollars in unearned advances because that promise didn’t deliver (and yet, for a time, continues to contract you)…
Being with the right publisher is a powerful tool for gaining that success.
Just sayin’…
Karen Ball
Executive Editor, Pure Enjoyment
B&H Publishing Group
Whoops! Make that don’t expect and AUTHOR to shoulder the bulk of publicity.
Ah, where’s a good editor when I need one?
Karen, I appreciate your perspective on this discussion. As is often the case, we’ve been talking in generalities about publishing, and you’ve taken us to the specifics at B&H. I gotta tell ya (as if you didn’t know), not every publisher offers what B&H does in terms of marketing. Julie Gwinn is AMAZING! And wonderfully enthusiastic about every book and every author she works with.
Janet’s post and this discussion gave me a fresh perspective on the publishing industry. I’m impressed by Karen Ball’s passion for her role at B&H in helping authors to succeed. I know they must feel so blessed to have her in their corner. As to the questions asked: I’ve made five major revisions to my novel. Each time I go back to revise the story it becomes fresher and is more tightly written. I keep at it because I believe in the story and its entertaining value. I’m also an editor at heart and being a fast typist is also an advantage.