Blogger: Janet Kobobel Grant
The American Association of Publishers recently held its annual meeting in New York, with best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell as the closing speaker. The theme of his message: We need an editor.
Gladwell used a variety of real-life anecdotes to make his point. He first told about a patient with prostate cancer who had to reckon with too much information–and not all of it necessarily helpful for the decisions the man had to make. Gladwell’s diagnosis of the situation: “What the patient needs is an editor.”
In his second example Gladwell said, “We didn’t have too much information [before 9/11]. “We had too much. We needed an editor…to take what mattered and throw out what didn’t matter.”
In another example, Gladwell depicted Steve Jobs’s great skill as editing down to what was most important.
As for publishing, Gladwell opined, “What will sustain this industry [is] if it returns to what we wanted [it for]…which is to be a tastemaker and a gatekeeper…An expert’s job is to place limits and impose standards.”
In closing he said, “Don’t give me more. Give me less, and make it good, and you’ll be in business forever.”
I believe this goes to the heart of publishing’s identity crisis. Publishing has forgotten what makes it unique but instead has become absorbed with transitioning into the e-world. In its scramble to turn the massive ship of each publishing house, with its large staff, mammoth warehouse, and serious office space, I see many publishers forgetting what distinguishes legacy publishing from self-publishing. One of those distinctions would be the person who combs through the submissions, buys what his or gut says to buy, and then surgically removes from the manuscript the detritus that the author couldn’t see.
As I’ve watched self-publishing bloom, my concerns center on what Gladwell pointed out: Who will be the 21st-century tastemaker? Who will be the gatekeeper?
If you think we don’t need someone to take on those roles, look to Gladwell’s examples–or the mammoth list of self-publishing books available to you on Amazon–it will make you cry, “What I need is an editor!” (More than 700,000 books were published in 2010 from 85,000 legacy publishers and self-publishing entities.)
The argument is offered that good books will self-select. Really? In such a sea of books, how do I decide which one to read? One way to edit down the number is by zoning in on books that already have been selected–by a legacy publisher.
I don’t know about you, but my reading time is limited; I’m not going to go exploring in the self-publishing word because I know that no filters have been applied. Now, I would buy a book self-published by an expert (e.g., Seth Godin), but I don’t have time to be adventurous in my reading options.
What I want is for publishing to re-empower the editor, who has been dethroned by marketing and sales, and let the editor serve as the tastemaker and gatekeeper we all need. (By the way, the majority of editors I know are people who love books and have the skill to make a manuscript all the author had hoped it would be. The area in which editors have lost clout is in making buying decisions.)
I have other thoughts on this subject, but this ought to be enough to get our conversation going. Tell me if you agree or disagree with me and why.
Note: Beginning this week, we’re changing the rhythm of our blog posts. In the past we’ve written in clumps, offering anywhere from two to five posts in a row by the same writer. As we receive more comments to our blogs, we’re finding that more and more of our blogging days are taken up in the online conversation, which we’re thoroughly enjoying. But to keep all the Books & Such agents from being distracted from their major job–caring for our clients–we’ve decided to each take a specific day of the week as our blog “offering.” The schedule will be: Monday, me; Tuesday, Wendy Lawton; Wednesday, Rachel Kent; Thursday, Rachelle Gardner; Friday, Mary Keeley.
So tomorrow you’ll be hearing from Wendy. Meanwhile, I’m looking forward to your response to today’s post.
Janet, I think I agree with you. Over the last year and a half, I’ve followed the self-publishing changes with interest, but for me it’s come down to wanting to be edited. I want to work with someone who can show me how to be better.
Yes, I could put something up on Amazon, and yes, it might turn into a nice bit of income. But then I’d be on my own. I want to work with a house that helps me improve and grow so that each book can be better than the last.
For me, it’s all about the editor.
I love it when my clients say, “I learned so much from my last manuscript’s edit.” That’s how it should be.
Sturgeon’s Law still holds and, unfortunately, it’s still a unilateral filter.
I’d certainly never disagree that your choice is valid. It’s your choice, after all.
For me? I have the same problem, but I’ve come to the opposite conclusion. My reading time is limited, but instead of avoiding the indie world, I’m avoiding the mainstream. What I find there is too processed, too bland. It’s fiction with the edges knocked off, stories with the same formulas. I’m not willing to spend my limited time on stuff I’ve read before with different names.
Sure, there’s a lot of stuff in indie-land that’s crap. But it’s still only 90% of it, and in sheer volume, I’ve got an unlimited supply of good stuff to choose from.
Personally, I welcome the opportunities of the new world but appreciate that my perspective isn’t for everybody.
Viva la difference.
Nathan, I’m curious as to what type of fiction you enjoy and how you make your selections in the indy world.
I just completed The Dovekeepers by Alice Hoffman, and it was an amazing novel, published via the mainstream. Not your standard novel by any means, it’s the story of Rome’s occupation of Jerusalem, and the Jews who end up at Masada. The author actually managed to make the story of Masada’s residents redemptive despite the horrific choice they made at the end.
I’m sure gems can be found in self-published books, just as they are in mainstream publishing, but those treasures are hard to ferret out regardless where one might look.
Viva la difference indeed.
I read almost exclusively in speculative fiction–the various sub-genres of science fiction and fantasy.
You’re right about gems being difficult to find, but I’m enjoying the search. 🙂
“…but I don’t have time to be adventurous in my reading options.”
Neither do I, Janet. I haven’t read any self-published works because I don’t have time or money to waste–even if it’s 99 cents–on a book I’ve never heard of by an author I don’t know.
I also trust editors to vet the good stuff–I’ve recently purchased several books by new-to-me authors released through different Christian publishing houses. Only one disappointed, and it wasn’t due to poor quality, it was just my personal taste.
Hooray for you for trying authors you hadn’t read before. I think it’s important we don’t let ourselves get into ruts about what we read and who we read. That’s one of the things I love about my book club; I keep being introduced to material I’d never seek out on my own. And that’s a very good thing.
Hooray for book clubs! I haven’t been a member of one in quite a while, but two books still haunt me from one I belonged to many years ago: Snow Falling on Cedars and The Hot Zone (about the ebola virus).
Another area of influence? I subscribed to Entertainment Weekly for years. From their book reviews, each year I averaged reading about half a dozen books outside my genre by authors I’d never heard of. I’m on the hunt for another bargain subscription to EW–I miss the reviews!
Thanks for responding!
Totally and completely agree. I am an editor by trade (though I work with curriculum…a bit different!), and I know the value of having a second pair of eyes on material. As a writer, I’m too close to the material. I think EVERYTHING is important…I wouldn’t have put it there if I didn’t think so. But an editor with a keen eye can swoop in and chop. He/she can be objective and keep an eye on the larger goal: keeping in what’s MOST important.
And I agree about reading self-published books. Unless I know the author personally or the author has a good reputation (like the example you gave), I’m not willing to put in the time to read it. It could be a very well-written book, but there are so many good books out there that HAVE been vetted by an editor and publishing house that I am not feeling desperate for reading selections.
Lindsay, that objective editorial eye is such a gift to a writer. Overusing one’s research can be a problem for both a nonfiction writers and a novelist; the editor helps to cut out the material that diverts the reader from the work’s thesis.
Excellent post, Janet. I fall somewhere in between because my review blogs have given me the opportunity to find so many excellent books from legacy publishers and self-publishing entities.
While my reading time is limited, I am willing to explore indie options because those authors are struggling to get their names out there. What do I choose? I usually stick with genres I already like: historicals, mysteries, thrillers, and inspirational romance.
One change I made this year is what I call a First Chapter Review. I read the first chapter of a book and then decide if I’ll go on. I post the first chapter review on my blog, so the writer gets some exposure, and I don’t wade through an entire book that doesn’t hold my interest.
I look forward to the new blogging schedule.
Cheryl,
I love the idea of your First Chapter review. It’s an excellent idea. I admit, however, that I usually only give a book one page, and sometimes only one paragraph.
Thank you for reviewing on your blog. I sure many people benefit from your work.
Christine and Cheryl, the important point is that both of you have set a limit regarding how far you’ll read in a book. I used to completely read every book I started. Well, that practice died a long time ago. Now I’m pretty much making my decision as Christine is, within one paragraph, maybe one page if I can’t decide.
Thanks Christine. I’m still afraid I’ll miss a good book solely because it has a slow start, but that only stresses what we’ve all heard: that first chapter really needs to grab them.
Cheryl, what a great idea! I always get through the first chapter, but I don’t always get beyond it. Love that you’ll post the review of the first chapter up and support authors. 🙂
The value of a great editor just can’t be underestimated (or passed over on the road to publication!). A great editor points out those mistakes authors might skim over (even reading their books aloud), mistakes in timeline or gaps in the plot structure, and overall flow of the book.
A great editor is nothing less than a master jeweler, pulling out the shimmering facets and beautiful cut in a rough diamond of a manuscript, so it can be fit for a publisher’s setting.
And the book will be something polished, that the author is proud of, not something up for ridicule.
Bottom line–editors rock!
Nice pun with the rough diamond and editors “rocking.”
I honestly didn’t even think of that! I just love the analogy of our writing being of value, but generally not so polished as it needs to be.
I have to agree with you both as a reader and a writer. I have publishers who put out the type of story I like on a regular basis, so I will look to their novels as the first I consider to read. Those are also the publishers who I hope to write for one day, not just because of the type and quality of the novels,but from how they describe the team atmosphere in which they work. I like that. Everyone using their gifts.
Additionally, I have read some self published books over the past few years and though I’ve found some real gems, unfortunately, there were a few big duds in the bunch. Not that I haven’t found some stories by publishing houses that I didn’t care for, but far fewer.
Still, in the end, I think it’s a good thing to have a team working together to make a whole. I believe that’s how God created us–to work as a Body!
I know other authors who set their sights on being published by a certain house because they tend to like what that house publishes, and the writer might well have patterned his or her book after that house’s style. That’s a perfect match!
Janet, I’m hoping that’s true in my case. We’ll see :o.
I’m so glad God hasn’t given me the financial resources to self-publish. As a newbie to the writing scene I know my options and I want to go the traditional route because I only want to present the best possible product to represent me and THE message.
I know how many changes I’ve made to my manuscripts from the information I learn along the road to publication. I want to develop the best story possible before it hits the ‘bookshelves.’ You’re right, I think it’s good as it is now, but I don’t know how much improvement can take place until a professional editor works with me on my material.
It all comes down to wanting to give my best to Jesus because He gave His all to me, and self-publishing is usually a shortcut that isn’t the best in the long run.
Wade, it’s great you’re working hard to hone your writing; that will pay off in the finished product. It can be so tempting to cut the process short and to become impatient.
Yes, I agree. We need editors as gatekeepers.
I think bloggers and trade journals can be gatekeepers, too, though. If I ever self publish, or even if I publish traditionally, I have some key bloggers I will send my book to for review and I will also advertise on some of the most popular blogs.
I think the thing that stopped most writers from self-publishing before was not the cost or the need of garage space for storing books. It was the huge problem of distribution. Now…Amazon has changed all that. Who cares if you can get your book into the brick and mortar store–most of my traditionally-published friends aren’t in the brick and mortar stores. So they might as well have self-published.
So I think if publishers want to stay in the game they have to do more than empower their editors to be gatekeepers. They do need to do that. But they also have to market and pay advances so they can get the best writers. And then? What’s to keep the best writers from making it big on publishers’ advances and then jumping into the self-publishing pool? Maybe publishers need to put in “no self publishing for ten years” clauses, or something. I don’t know.
It sure is an interesting time, though.
Sally, publishing still is on the merry-go-round of change. Where it will stop, no one knows. While the death of brick-and-mortar stores has been widely proclaimed, I just read Mike Shatzkin’s blog today in which he warns that publishing can’t afford to let bookstores go belly up.
As an agent, I have to say, I can’t imagine agreeing to a contract that called for an author to not self-publish for ten years. Tying my client’s hands is one of my least favorite concepts. Just sayin’.
Yeah, I’m not saying the ten-year clause would work. Just wondering how a publisher could ensure that if they gave good advances, they’d have some author loyalty.
Interesting about the brick and mortar stores–since I never shop at them anymore, I guess I’m projecting my own bias. I’d love to see figures on how many units are moved through different channels.
Janet, I completely agree with your comments. I teach writing. Most of my students believe that their papers are masterpieces. They are hurt and sometimes downright indignant when they receive my feedback. As a writer myself, I understand that it’s difficult to hear anything but glowing commentary about your work, but as you said to Lindsay, it is a gift to have someone else look at your writing and give objective feedback.
Being familiar with the my-work-is-a-piece-of-art syndrome, I have no interest in reading self-published books. I’m sure that there are some self-published authors who have put time, energy and care into their books. I’m sure their are those who have chiseled their mss into true works of art. The problem is: I can’t tell from the title or the cover which author has done this and which hasn’t. I like the gatekeepers of traditional publishing, not only as a reader but as a writer. An editor can see the flaws that I am too blind to see and help fulfill the story’s potential. Also, if I am published by a traditional publishing house, I know that my writing has passed the test of professionalism. That is important to me.
Thanks for this interesting post!
Oops! Obviously I need an editor.
I meant to write “I sure there are those who have chiseled their mss into true works of art.”
Thank God for editors!
Christine, I so agree about editors. One of the scary parts of blogging is that a misspelled word or a missing word or a grammatical error can slip through regardless how many times I read a post or my comment. I hate when that happens!
You make great points, Christine. It’s impossible to tell by a cover or the title if a self-published book has been professionally edited. I tend to ask if it sounds like a book I’m truly interested in. Granted, that also takes time, but if I am entirely honest, the majority of self-published books I’ve requested to read have been great. I feel part of that is because I’m particular about what I agree to read. How well the author words the query requesting a review also plays a hand in it.
The value of editors can’t be underestimated. I don’t think I made that clear in my original post, as I took it from a reviewing perspective. You’re simply not going to catch the number of errors and inconsistencies in your own work that someone else can. Even a critique group won’t catch everything. Editors should play a role in bringing a book to market.
Books and food–I have limited reading time and limited caloric intake (or at least I SHOULD). I hate it when I waste time reading something that’s not up to par or waste calories on less than delicious food. Which is why I read reviews and listen carefully to recommendations. There’s nothing wrong with the occaisional calculated risk, but I’m not willing to put just anything in my mouth or in my mind!
Sarah, the Verso study I mentioned last week indicated recommendations are the primary way readers select books; so thanks for reminding us of that proven method. The problem for self-published books is that recommendations generally are even harder to generate than for a traditionally published book.
Lots of good writers self publish because they don’t think there’s any hope of getting traditionally published unless they’re famous. But, with all the crummy self-published books out there chances are nobody will find the good ones. I hope the government will stop taxing publishers for warehoused copies of books. Then the publishers could take more risks on accepting new authors.
Janet, the warehouse tax certainly is one reason traditional publishers are resistance to taking risks with new authors, but as you know, lots of other factors come into play: sales reps who know they can sell Author A but have to work lots harder to sell New Author B–and despite the additional work still might not get many copies sold; how to help the new author get discovered by readers, etc.
I wish some publishing house could afford to take the risk of spending the same amount to publicize every book they produce. The ones by famous authors wouldn’t sell as well as they do now, but maybe the others would do enough better to make up the difference. Of course that would be a big risk, so it’s not likely to happen.
In a heartfelt conversation with a retailing expert one day, he proposed the idea that there are so many good stories that don’t get picked up by a legacy publisher. So wouldn’t all authors want ANY book written to reach the store shelves?
I think it came as a surprise to him when I answered that our goal isn’t to create an enormous, limitless volume of choices, but to instead put great choices on the shelves. Why? Because a child fed canned peas may grow up thinking he doesn’t like peas. Readers fed unripe books rushed to market may shy away from reading because of a string of sour experiences. An unweeded garden can’t showcase the choicest blooms and feels more like a floral minefield than the art it’s supposed to be. Our goal isn’t to plaster every bare inch of wall with creative graffiti, but to write those solitary messages, well-honed, expertly edited, that will draw the attention of readers and move them with their poignancy or soul-buoyancy. And how do you like all those metaphors? Okay. I need an editor. 🙂
Good point, Cynthia. I wonder if all authors want some boundaries or if some have a “libertarian” view that the cream will rise to the top. I may be cynical, but I think it takes more than being cream to make a book rise to the top.
I do agree. Cream doesn’t become butter (someone STOP the metaphor madness before I hurt somebody!) without being churned.
I think that’s why I have such respect and appreciation for every level of this process. The agent plays a critical role. The editors play critical roles. The marketing people, sales team, booksellers, librarians link arms with the writer to create the best possible environment, in theory, for a reader to find a satisfactory book worth his or her time. Technology may make it “possible” to bypass some of those steps. But cranking out books faster and in flood-stage volume seems to require greater, not lesser, attention to finesse so in all our striving we add to the pool of “keepers” rather than increase the pile of “discards.” And now, I need to put my opinion down for a nap.
I’ve always wonder how and your coworkers could manage to blog for a whole week, read and respond to comments, and do all your other work too!
It’s a simple answer: long hours.
I’m an editor at heart as well as a writer. I’ve been reading in the indie world, but I find myself editing the published works.
I would much prefer to have a hand in the manuscript before it hits the market.
In the last week, I’ve read two indie’s that needed an editor desperately, one ms still in draft form (and made pointed suggestions), and one traditionally published.
The latter is the only one I could give a 5-star review to.
We all need editors, desperately! We get too close to our works, and they suffer from the lack of binocular vision as a result.
Would that all writers had an incisive editor or a strict critique group.
While a critique group can help with broad issues, only an editor can delve into a manuscript with the kind of depth every written piece would benefit from. Viva la editor!
Absolutely! But at least a critique group can let the writer know that work needs doing and perhaps lead him/her to find that editor.
Why can’t we trust book buyers and readers to be their own gatekeepers, or tastemasters as you call it?
The problem is the extreme buyer’s market in legacy publishing. They take so few books because of their financial structure, that thousands of books of the same or better quality are being rejected simply for market reasons. To have a book accepted by a legacy publisher (or financing publisher, as I like to call them), you have to pass through an agent, an acquisitions editor, a publishing committee, pobably a marketing decision maker, and then some bigwig-VP or whatever. If any of those have a bad morning, or if they are fixated on finding the next blockbuster instead of an emerging low-end bestselling author, you are out of luck. It may have nothing to do withi the quality of your work; it’s simply a matter of timing.
The e-self-publishing boom is still less than two years old. We really don’t know how it’s all going to shake out.
David, I agree that we can’t tell where e-self-publishing will go. But my suspicion is that many of those who self-publish either forego editing or hire an editor with limited skill. What legacy publishing provides is a highly-trained editor who can take that strong manuscript and enhance the writing, heightening the quality of the finished product.
One of the benefits of reading books from traditional publishers is that I don’t have to plow through the vast array of self-published books. Part of what I *want* a publisher to do for me is to select and then enhance the best manuscripts. As a reader, I’m willing to have some good books not get published since I can’t read all the good books out there anyway. I view traditional publishers as serving an important role in my reading world. Sure, the decisions are subjective, but that will always be true in a creative art. Visual arts, music, etc., are subject to the same downside. There is no perfect system.
Personally, I’m thankful for the editor and agent gatekeepers in my writing life. When I first starting submitting for publication in 2003, I received good feedback – and rejection letters. For the next five years I received more feedback – and more rejection letters. So I used that feedback to improve. I used those rejection-letter years to learn and write and edit and rewrite and edit again.
If I had self-pubbed back in 2003, when I honestly thought my novels were ready, I would have missed the chance to improve the writing and deepen the stories. Not to mention all the personal and spiritual lessons I learned during those years! I wouldn’t trade those painful lessons for ANYTHING!
Yes, I’m on the other side of the gate now, but I’m thankful that savvy professionals knew when to say, “You shall not pass,” and when to say, “Now you’re ready.”
Thanks for this perspective, Sarah. Being published by a traditional publisher pretty much is a trial by fire for almost all authors. As one of my clients, who has been writing for several decades said, “If an author hasn’t suffered at the hands of publishing, all he or she has to do is wait.” But it is a refiner’s fire.
Well I think there’s two things there. One is the “editing” which is actually working on the content and the other is “curating” which is accepting only the best content. Both with the goal of improving the quality of individual books.
The unwashed masses aren’t very excited about either of these processes. Most of the time reading the best book ever means nothing if it’s not a social experience. People want to read the SAME book as everyone else. So they have something to talk about.
So, the real benefit of publishers and editors and marketing and all that (to most people) is just to produce fewer books so we can all be reading the same books.
The source of those few books is determined by a few sort of “leaders” in the market and to attract those leaders and be their “preferred source” does require a publisher to maintain a certain level of quality or readers will go elsewhere.
I think the book industry has done a pretty good job of indicating to people what those “few” books are by using the bestseller lists and premium placement in bookstores.
However, these same signals can be made available for self-published books because Amazon knows what the best-selling books are (self-published or not).
Some people do have time to read a LOT of books and then only refer the best ones – so the content that really stands out for those voracious readers will be referred around and “go viral” and hit the bestseller list.
This is how things are going on other marketplaces like YouTube videos, iPhone Applications, and so on.
We have enough volunteers out there doing a decent job of curating content that we eventually won’t need to hire anyone to do that. These volunteers don’t have to control what is published but they control what is read simply by referring only the best stuff.
Those same volunteers can start to charge for the service via affiliate links on their site so they get a cut of sales (assuming any particular curator gets very popular).
This displaces the editors working for the publisher because these curators are publisher agnostic and so they can give even better recommendations.
Would a publisher still be a publisher if they switched to just being a list of the best books? Maybe not …
As more people follow their dream of writing, more space is taken up in the queue for publishing. Stuff that lights up one person’s sky will bore the freckles off a red head.(waves hello). As much as I LOVE Christian fiction, I want to read something that has an edge and will make people sit up and think.I wonder if the agents and editors who will encounter my work will think it is too much for persons of delicate sensibility. Having lived in the fishbowl of prejudice and racism, I can honestly say that plenty of Christians turned a blind eye to the suffering they themselves dealt to me and my family. I have determined that I want to address the issues in and around varying degrees of injustice. One woman’s Mississippi is another man’s Bosque Redondo. I would have to say my hero in the literary world right now is Kathryn Stockett.How many gatekeepers turned her down? How many agents looked at her work and walked away from the discomfort? How many people stopped her on the street and told her to leave things alone? But who turned things upside down and made people deal with their own history? Reading is learning. I pray someday to find an editor who will take what I wrote and refine it and jump into the fire with me. Until then, I’ll keep writing, and looking for the edge on the bookshelves. Of course, maybe that bookshelf, that editor and the reader are still waiting. For me.
I couldn’t agree with you more. As a reader, I don’t want to waste time on books that aren’t any good. As a writer, I’m looking forward to great editors making my work shine. Like just about everything else in life, publishing is not a go-it-alone business. We need each other to produce the best work possible. As Christians, it is even more important than our work stand out not just in the message, but in the literary quality. That is impossible without great editors.