3 ms·

This is a great article for those unfamiliar with publishing, but rather sparse on any interesting material for anyone with a basic knowledge as to how it works

This is a great article for those unfamiliar with publishing, but rather sparse on any interesting material for anyone with a basic knowledge as to how it works. To be honest the most surprising thing in this piece is the fact that the author didn't have this experience until his sixth book--you mean to tell me this guy wrote five books without ever having to do a major revamp--without ever running into the knowledge that each book often brings mental collapse, incredible stress, and emotive highs and lows with it? I'm not sure whether I should be impressed or disillusioned.

Amygaz 9y ago
My impression is that this is mostly a publicity feature for the book and the author than anything else...
- Angostura 9y ago
  More like an extended public thank you to his editor. Not that that's a bad thing.
mcguire 9y ago
I was looking for "Hijinks". I found an editor doing his job.
matt_morgan 9y ago
I know some authors and some agents. No editors. But the authors and agents tell me that it's rare for editors actually to do what we usually call "editing." It's more about selection and promotion, a lot of the time. So I read this and was actually pleasantly surprised to see that an author got that kind of attention from a professional. An unpublished author would have gotten, most likely, a two-sentence rejection note.
jawns 9y ago
Nonfiction author here. It seems like the fact that he didn't encounter this sort of thing until his sixth book ended up making this a lot more stressful than it needed to be, and a lot more work for both him and his editor. Because he had such a strong relationship with the editor, he likely did not have to write a detailed book proposal, in which some of the structural issues might have come up. The editor seems to have heard a general pitch -- "dual biography of Churchill and Orwell, with a focus on how they each, in their own way, fought against totalitarianism" -- and agreed to get on board on the strength and quality of their previous collaborations. And then Ricks had the liberty of working on the book for _three years_ before dumping the completed manuscript on the editor. Both the writer and the editor share some blame for the fallout from that. As Ricks says, this was not a rushed job. You would think that over the course of those three years, there would have been communication between writer and editor on how the book was shaping up. With journalism and nonfiction writing in general, you sometimes don't have the ability to predict at the start how things will come together structurally until you've done all your research and reporting. Sometimes you have to change directions. But it seems like those profound structural issues could nevertheless have been caught at an earlier point in the process.

Amygaz 9y ago

My impression is that this is mostly a publicity feature for the book and the author than anything else...

Angostura 9y ago
More like an extended public thank you to his editor. Not that that's a bad thing.

mcguire 9y ago

I was looking for "Hijinks". I found an editor doing his job.

matt_morgan 9y ago

I know some authors and some agents. No editors. But the authors and agents tell me that it's rare for editors actually to do what we usually call "editing." It's more about selection and promotion, a lot of the time. So I read this and was actually pleasantly surprised to see that an author got that kind of attention from a professional. An unpublished author would have gotten, most likely, a two-sentence rejection note.

jawns 9y ago

Nonfiction author here. It seems like the fact that he didn't encounter this sort of thing until his sixth book ended up making this a lot more stressful than it needed to be, and a lot more work for both him and his editor. Because he had such a strong relationship with the editor, he likely did not have to write a detailed book proposal, in which some of the structural issues might have come up. The editor seems to have heard a general pitch -- "dual biography of Churchill and Orwell, with a focus on how they each, in their own way, fought against totalitarianism" -- and agreed to get on board on the strength and quality of their previous collaborations. And then Ricks had the liberty of working on the book for _three years_ before dumping the completed manuscript on the editor. Both the writer and the editor share some blame for the fallout from that. As Ricks says, this was not a rushed job. You would think that over the course of those three years, there would have been communication between writer and editor on how the book was shaping up. With journalism and nonfiction writing in general, you sometimes don't have the ability to predict at the start how things will come together structurally until you've done all your research and reporting. Sometimes you have to change directions. But it seems like those profound structural issues could nevertheless have been caught at an earlier point in the process.