Blogger: Janet Kobobel Grant
What’s it really like to work as an editor at a publishing house? As is true for every job that’s complex and layered, until you experience it, you can’t really know.
But one aspect of being an editor that those looking at the position from the outside don’t tend to “get” is that an editor has considerable pressure to acquire only projects that make a profit. The higher the profit, the more secure the editor’s job–for that is what is at stake, the job.
Of course it’s silly to place the responsibility 
for the success or failure of a project solely on an editor. So many hands are set to the task to produce a book, its accompanying marketing and publicity plans, and its buy-in with retailers of all sorts, that no one person makes or breaks the book. Not to mention that publishing is an exceedingly subjective business and–barring the assurance of publishing an author whose status is so established that one would have to work to create a dud–forecasting which book will turn a profit resembles dropping coins in slot machines.
Yet an acquisitions editor is tasked with finding the right manuscripts. Therefore, the decisions the editor makes regarding what the publishing committee sees determine, in many ways, the fate of the publishing house.
The questions an editor must weigh before taking a project to the committee are:
- Does this match the “personality” of the publishing house? One of the odd things about publishing is that two houses can take the same manuscript, and it can succeed beautifully for one house and fail miserably for the other. It’s not that one publisher is more competent than the other, but rather each publisher can generally succeed with a book that has a certain “feel,” but the other publisher just can’t pull a profit with that kind of book. An editor needs to innately grasp what sort of book will work for this house. (I’m not, by the way, talking about genre or category when I say it takes a certain kind of book. This is a more ephemeral quality that goes beyond the neat boundaries of categories.)
- What subjects work well for this publishing house? What writing styles? And what approaches to a topic? One publisher does well with more in-depth looks at a subject while another publisher creates lighter fare. One publisher just can’t get memoirs to work while another creates best-seller after best-seller. A publisher that doesn’t stay true to its identity in what it acquires has lost its focus. While that sounds easy to identify, an editor has to have good instincts to get it right.
- Is the writing and structure of the book strong? If an editor can’t judge these core issues, he or she will acquire projects that either will end up as lesser offerings or require so much time to get them in shape that they are deemed wrong choices.
- Does the book’s content provide readers some benefit, be that insight into life or just a good laugh? If the manuscript circles all around a subject, even if it’s charmingly written, but never lands on a reason to exist…well, the editor shouldn’t be wooed by writing alone.
- Does the project appeal to an audience the publisher knows how to reach? The editor must select material that the marketing and sales staff can successfully deliver to the audience that wants it. It does no good to decide to publish a book that targets a homeschooling audience if the publisher has no idea where to find those book buyers or how to convince them to buy your book.
- What marketing strategies and sensibilities does the author bring? In today’s publishing climate, it’s a rare manuscript that a publisher will even seriously look at if the author can’t show his or her ability to connect directly with a significant number of potential readers. Editors know a simple truth: If the answer to this question–out of all those the editor asks–isn’t impressive, the project won’t move forward.
- Do I like this project? Do I have a vision for what it can be? This is the most elemental question for an editor, the reason the person took up the profession to begin with: For the love of a good book. And a good editor can recognize a good book when he or she sees it.
So there you have it. A quick survey of why an editor’s job is hard.
Which of the questions had you never considered before? What question do you wish an editor would ask that isn’t on the list?
TWEETABLES
What makes an editor’s job hard? #publishing Click to tweet.
What questions does an editor ask before taking a project to the pub committee? Click to tweet.
Image courtesy of shirophoto at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
This is a great list, and I can’t think of anything I’d add.
One thing I have noticed in reading military history (and military fiction) is that editorial expertise can be distinctly lacking. I’ve seen mistakes that really should have been caught in otherwise splendid books…and that called into some question the accuracy of the rest of the narrative.
The excuse seems to be, well, only an expert will know the difference, but if a book’s supposed to be authoritative, then it’s SUPPOSED to impress the experts, right?
Or am I being overly critical? (I’m not referring to details that were or are classified or privileged in any way…this is run-of-the mill technical and organizational stuff.)
I do have one question – to what degree is an editor supposed to be aware of the evolution of the house ‘personality’ over time, to ensure that a selection both fits the current needs and readership, and has the scope to provide some growth?
Or is this even an issue? Is, perhaps, this sort of development treated organically, and (aside from intentional forays into new areas) left to follow genre and style development under the house’s existing aegis?
As a point of interest, here’s a review, quoted in part from Amazon, of a recently-published history of The Battle of The Bulge (1944-5), written by an outstanding and well-regarded author. (Janet, I hope it’s acceptable to quote this here…these paragraphs to make some eloquent points.)
The criticisms point out just how hard the editor’s job can be; the level of expertise needed to properly vet a book like this goes far beyond a ‘working knowledge’.
“For a book about World War Two, this volume certainly contains a lot of modern jargon. We read about ‘strike packages’, ‘grunts’, ’81mm mortar systems’, and a number of other things that weren’t found on battlefields until much later.
“A close relative of mine served two and a half years overseas in WW II as a member of Troop B of the 91st Cavalry Reconaissance Squadron. Not once in over thirty years of discussion with me did he ever refer to his unit as the 91st Cavalry Squadron or himself as a member of Baker Troop. I’m inclined to take his word on these unit designations so it’s a bit jarring to read the book’s repeated references to Baker Troop of the 25th Cavalry Squadron. This sounds like another misplaced modern reference to me.
“The author has a good eye for vivid personal anecdotes. I think an editor with excellent background knowledge about the subject matter could have improved the book significantly.
To the inevitable protests that details like this don’t matter, I must argue that they do. Getting the basics right increases confidence in the book as a whole. With the reference materials available today there really isn’t much excuse for incorrectly identifying U.S.-flown C-47s as Dakotas throughout the book.”
Andrew, the editor should be a participant in conversations in which the publishing house’s sense of self is shifting. These changes almost always are intentional, and everyone in-house is told (multiple times) about the change.
Sometimes, though, the change is an untended consequence of a change in leadership personnel, and that would be a shift everyone would need to figure out.
Andrew, in response to the inaccurate details you’ve found in military books, the publishing house failed to hire an editor with the necessary expertise. Especially when producing a book with readership well acquainted with the topic, it’s important to select an editor that’s up to the job.
Publishing houses have been declining in the quality of their editing over the last several years. This is due to cutting staff down to the bare minimum (and sometimes beyond “minimum”); relying more on free-lance editors, who aren’t always the most talented editors; and book production being driven by the schedule rather than moving the book forward when its been adequately worked over. I seldom read a book in which I found no editing errors (even for basic work like grammar). But I hasten to add that a book published by a traditional publisher will be edited far better than one self-published because a minimum of two editors will work on it, many times multiple editors will.
Janet, I have to admit that I’d never considered the factors an acquisitions editor has to think about. The list is a good one, and now I wonder if writers should work on their novels with these things in mind. In one sense, it might stifle creativity. In another, it might lead to acceptance and publication. What’s your take?
As always, thanks for sharing.
Richard, unless you have a multi-book contract with a publishing house, I don’t think trying to figure out these answers would be all that helpful to an author. You don’t want to target just one publishing house with your work. But your agent has a pretty good feel for the answers, and that’s what enables her to select which publishers to submit your work to. And sometimes we know which editor is inclined to especially appreciate what your writing while another editor might yawn at the concept. (Politely, of course.)
That is SO true. I have a numerical goal for the number of books I contract in a year. My house is paying my travel to Mount Hermon–for the first time–so is expecting me to bring back some great proposals. If I don’t, I probably won’t be going back on the house’s dime. Then I’ll be limited to through the mail proposals or conferences that will pay my transportation. So, yes, editors are under pressure!
The ephemeral quality of the publishing house “personality” took me by surprise. I wonder if a reader can define what this is. Perhaps if they looked at the logo on the spines of their books they might find they’ve come to rely on, and buy from a few specific publishers more than others. These houses deliver what the reader is looking for.
The premise of “reach” also stood out to me. I think we try and define this from the author side of the business via our social media outlets. Similarly, a publishing house needs to hone in on their reader base so they can better serve them, and in so doing, stay in business.
Janet, the new look of the website is snazzy. Although, I do miss the scrolling sidebar that bragged on B&S client releases. 🙂
I’m with Jenni on publishing house personality. As a writer, I’m more attuned to publishing details than most of my friends, but I pay no attention to the publisher when selecting a book. From out in my world, the differences among Christian publishers are subtle.
Kudos to you agents who see what I miss. Thank God for the agent eyes that see from a different viewpoint–and that applies to more than just your view of publishing houses. Bless you!
Shirlee, one of the ways publishers have failed to distinguish themselves is in readers’ eyes. If you knew which publishing house produced the books you generally want to read, you could start your decision-making by going to that publisher’s website.
But publishers haven’t fully grasped that building brand awareness would be a beneficial investment. They’ve busy helping authors to build theirs, but it hasn’t occurred to the house to broadcast what its brand is.
My thought on publishing house personality is that it may be something like an agency’s personality; looking at Books and Such’s client list would probably be akin to looking at a mosaic made of of small jewels, each contributing to a subtle yet distinctive whole.
Also, I’d also hazard that personality is like an iceberg, in that the readers see only a small part; the rest is visible from within the organization, as something like “corporate culture”. It’s also something that, like the old Marine Smokey The Bear covers (hats), makes the wearer conform to its shape rather than vice versa.
An analogy might be found in naval ship personalities. The US Navy’s first two ‘real’ aircraft carriers, the Lexington and Saratoga, were commissioned in the 20s, and the personalities attributed to them were quite different, even though the ships were nearly identical.
Lexington was a happy ship, efficient, and functioned well. Saratoga was a bit of a Jonah, always working under a cloud, never happy, neger quite up to her sister’s sunny disposition.
This would seem to have transcended things like change in command and equipment, and even experience. Personality boarded with the plankowners, and the ships made them the men they became.
But to an outsider, none of this would have been apparent, except through a concerted attempt to divine it from otherwise unrelated details in dry reports.
Those are excellent analogies, Andrew. Each literary agency has its own personality, its on take on what’s most important, and how they perceive their function in the publishing industry. Agents can describe the distinctions, but an author would have a much harder time figuring them out.
Also the iceberg analogy is good because, when you live in that company’s culture, its pretty apparent. But for someone outside the company, only the tip is visible, and therefore it’s much harder to discern.
The tale of two ships adds another layer to the idea and fits my description of how one publisher can succeed with a book that another publisher would fail at.
Jenni, thanks for noticing our new look. The scrolling announcements can be slipped back in. As is true for every website redo, this is a work in progress.
You might well have a favorite publishing house without realizing it since we don’t make our reading selections based on publisher but instead on subject or author. But there’s a house out there whose “personality” matches yours.
I’ve had projects rejected by publishers because, even though the committee liked them, the house recognized it didn’t know how to find the readers. The houses have learned from experience that it’s not enough to like a book; they have to sell it.
An attractive new look to the site, Janet. The bookmark is perfect, and I enjoy seeing all those beautiful faces at the top of the post.
Most of your points I’d picked up through blogs such as this one and conferences. My big eye-opener came in a conversation with a published friend about a particular editor. My friend said simply, “Her books sell.” I used to think of editors as sitting with coffee and muffins, just reading good books all day long (my dream job!), but they have a difficult job to do as well. Thank you for the insights.
Yes, some editors have amazing gut instincts about what readers want. And some editors have the ability to convey to everyone on the publishing team what the final product should look like–copy, cover design, marketing, sales pitch. Those editors are able to cast a vision everyone in the house “gets,” and the resulting book is a thing of beauty.
Appreciate the details in this list, Janet. Many things for an editor to think about and consider–and by necessity, we writers as well. Your last point strikes a cord with me: “for the love of a good book.” Maybe, to some extent, the mystery that is the beauty in the eye of the beholder?
Love the new look of the web site! 🙂
Micky, thanks for the compliment about the website. You all know how much work it is to do a site makeover!
Yes, for the editor and the writer, it almost always comes back to the core love of books. And, like all love, we are drawn to one yet not another. It’s a beautiful yet mysterious thing.
I like the website updates! It looks great, and the website is easier to navigate.
Great article, Janet. Thanks for giving us an inside look at what goes through an editor’s head. It’s helpful to know that when you’re drafting proposals.
I didn’t realize that editors consciously ask themselves “Does this book bring a benefit to readers?”, but I think it’s great. Books have influenced cultures for thousands of years. It’s important to monitor the books that influence us.
Amber, I appreciate your feedback about navigating the website. That’s good to hear.
Publishers don’t often articulate it, but they are aware they are influential in readers’ lives. Publishing is part of our society’s collective voice. Houses have varying degrees of a sense of responsibility about what their books are contributing to the culture, but most houses think about why a reader will want to buy a book–and that’s directly linked to the book’s benefit.
Ohhhh, NICE new look!!
I guess because I grew up knowing a tonne of business people who always talked about work, and proposals, and clients, and board meetings…I kind of had an idea in my head of the mulitple hoops people had to jump through on a corporate level, to get things done.
I also know about the subjectivity factor. My husband is fascinated with pollen. I am NOT. See? Two opinions in one house.
I will right hook anyone who talks during Downton. He talks during Downton. On purpose. And there we have two different ways of dealing with a problem. And NO, I do not really right hook him. But bummer for him if someone has spontaneous coughing fits during a hockey game.
One question I’d have is what books did an editor LOVE that went to a different house, and did the editor’s instinct get taken more seriously after that certain book hit #1?
Oh, I love your last questions, Jennifer! That’d be fascinating to know, but I doubt we could get an answer to that.
Jennifer, thanks for the Monday morning giggles.
Jennifer, entire publishing houses live with the regret of the ones that get away. I can recall, when I worked at Zondervan, during the publishing committee meetings, at some point a person would mention they had passed on the first book by a pastor who went on to write best-sellers, one after the other. Everyone sat up straighter and looked at the manuscript currently being discussed and asked, “Could this be another big mistake if we pass up this project?” I don’t think anyone remembered which editor had brought the pastor’s proposal to committee, but everyone owned the mistake. Every publishing house has those stories, as do individual editors who never took certain best-selling projects to committee.
The coughing fit, Jennifer … that is hilarious! I can so see that!! 🙂
Thanks for the list Janet. It really gave me a new appreciation for what my editor does.
Wow, this is great info to have. Really makes us take a second look at our books to see if they are not just attractive to us, but to an editor as well. Thanks Janet.
Kristen, and when you’ve worked on something so hard for so long, it’s really hard to be even vaguely objective.
I couldn’t help but think about how the process the editor goes through also makes the agent’s job hard. Because the editor is so careful with their selection, the agent has a harder time finding an editor for each project. An insightful list and a good thing to remember as I head to Mount Hermon with a book proposal! Hope to meet you there!
Gayla, because editors have to carefully select which projects go to the publishing committee, making it to committee is a very big deal. Agents rejoice when we hear that the committee will be discussing a project. But the publishing committee is just as picky as editors, and since it’s made up of sales, marketing and the leadership team, each person judges the project based on whether he can be successful in accomplishing his job with the title. There are no slam dunks in obtaining a contract.
Thank you, Janet, for this information and for your answer to Richard Mabry, that this is information that it’s good for us to know and understand (maybe as to why certain publishers might pass on a great manuscript) but not something we writers have to add to the list of things to stress over. It presents yet another reason to have an agent–and one who knows the business and the people in it.
I hadn’t thought about an acquisition editor’s job depending upon the success of the books acquired but, now that you say it, it makes perfect sense. It is similar to an admissions counselor at a university. If enrollment is going down, admissions will be the first department blamed (even though the economy may be the real reason for the drop in enrollment).
I’m not that familiar with CBA publishers, but I am somewhat aware of the difference between mainstream publishing houses. For example, i think of Simon and Schuster, Dover, and Penguin as quite different. Even within a publishing company, imprints can be considerably different. For example, in Penguin, Random House versus Ballantine versus Del Ray. I use Penguin because the majority of non academic books I buy are from one of its imprints. If I were to submit my YA fantasy novel to one of them, it would be to Del Ray because it has published many Sci-Fi / fantasy novels I have read. The “ephemeral” feel of a house, though, I am not as aware of. I would say that Tor Books (McMillian’s Fantasy / Sci-Fi imprint) versus Del Ray? The only thing I could say is that I’ve read books from Tor as well, but many more from Del Ray–and I have no idea why that is. So that, I’m assuming is what you mean by this intangible difference between houses that outwardly seem to publish the same types of books.
Blessings on your day!
Christine, yes, Tor vs. Del Ray is a perfect example of two imprints that publish the same genre yet each has its own idea of what it likes and what it doesn’t. What it thinks will work and what it doesn’t confidence in. Some books would work for either house, but others would work only for one of them.
It’s great that you are aware of publishers and have already settled on Del Ray being your first choice because you’re more likely to have written a manuscript they would appreciate.
And, yes, this info is for your understanding of the industry and (thankfully) isn’t a list of additional things a writer needs to do!
Janet, from a writer’s standpoint, this list is both fascinating and sobering! So many things have to line up just right, it’s amazing that anything gets published by people who aren’t extremely well known. And yet, new authors continue to get contracts, so there’s always hope! I’m wondering, though … Have you ever known of a case when the last item trumped the second-to-last? Where the editor loved the book so much that he or she convinced the committee to publish it even though the author had little or no platform yet?
Lois, I know, that next to last point is sobering. I’d like to just skip over it myself! But, yes, books can be published even though the author has little or no platform. I sold a book a few years ago in which that was the case BUT every other question lined up with a solid yes. (I’ve sold others sans platform since then,but the one I have in mind was to a publisher who tends to demand significant platform.)
This is a great list, as others have already said, Janet. One thing I learned in my short time with a small epress is to consider the amount of time edits will take, and the willingness of an author to make important changes that will make a book more readable, in that planned time span.
Calisa, you’re so right about considering the author’s ability and willingness to make changes–not just within certain time constraints but in general. Some authors can’t or won’t make adjustments. Yea, that publishing relationship doesn’t work so well. It can be tough to judge that without asking for changes before taking it to committee. And then, if the committee turns it down, the writer can feel as though the work was for naught. (Even though it most likely ended in a better manuscript.) All in all…it’s complicated.
Books have gonr the same way as music – all glitz and self promotion that many talented writers cannot do. Luckily it has not become so bad as to plumb the depths. When Louis Walsh was asked what the most important factor was for the success of a boy band, he admitted it was…..to look great.