Self-Publishing and Editing Careers

I read your recent entry about self-publishing (and the links therein) with some interest. I currently work as an editor at a vanity publishing company. As far as I can tell, it's a relatively honest and professional one, but it's still a vanity publishing company. Will having this on my resume hurt my chances of eventually getting a job in the real publishing industry? It's frustrating to work with books that are accepted regardless of quality, but hey, the job market's tough right now, and this is a better use of my English degree than waitressing.

It might... I suppose it depends how you spin it. It's certainly understandable that you want to do something of the editing sort while you look for a job in trade publishing. Most people in editorial won't consider vanity publishing as actual publishing experience, though. If you stay caught up with what's on the market now and can prove that to a publisher, it may not count against you. It might be smart to come with a couple jokes about self-publishing, just to set the tone.

How many self-publishers does it take to change a lightbulb?
Answer: The lightbulb doesn't need to change; it's just the wrong-headed publishing industry that expects lightbulbs to shed light.

Manuscripts Roasting on an Open Fire, Jack Daniels Nipping at My Nose...

I'm just getting ready to buckle down and send out a bunch of queries for my middle grade manuscript, but it suddenly occurred to me that this time of year might be the worst time to try to get agents and editors' attention. As the holidays approach, do agents and editors tend to push stuff off their desks to clear the decks for their time off, and therefore reject more than usual?

Yes!

Or do they store up queries and manuscripts, knowing they might have more spare time to read over the holidays?

Yes!

Or does it just not matter?

Yes!
Look, you have to try to remember that there are tons of different editors, and they're not all using the same brain. There are about as many different workstyles as there are editors. So some of them will do one of the things you've mentioned above, and some will do other things you haven't even thought of. I plan to burn all my outstanding reading in a bonfire while cackling / singing christmas carols.

In Which I Am Proud of My Bruises

Do you know why some really, really prominent children's books - like the last volume of a certain boy wizard series - are edited so badly? I'm certainly I'm not the only person who read through the last few installments of Harry Potter thinking OH MY GOD CUT CUT CUT!!!!
The obvious explanation is that a bigshot author can demand their immortal prose be left untampered with, on threat of decamping to a different publisher.

Yes, in large part.

Another still more depressing possibility is that the publishers just don't care and skip the editing process in order to get the big-name book out there bringing in all that lovely money as soon as possible.

Yes again.

But if the latter, that seems short-sighted, as a well-edited book is surely more likely to stand the test of time and keep making money for the publisher in future (if, of course, that publisher retains the rights - if not, maybe they don't care.).
It's certainly difficult to imagine that Bloomsbury couldn't find someone competent and willing to work on HP. Was there some poor editor weeping in her office over being prevented, by authorial ego or sales department supremacy, from doing her job properly?

Yes, that's possible. There are also a few editors who, unfortunately, just don't really give a crap.

I agree with you that there are further books in certain series that could have done with a sh**load of editing beyond the editing I know they received. (Never assume they weren't edited at all--they were.)

But I'd like to say a couple things about the short-sightedness of publishing, to provide some context, without actually defending it.

For one thing, for 99.99% of books, publishing is about the now. Being able to sell 500,000 copies now is the very best most books can ever hope for. Trying to create a book 'for the ages'--a book that will last past the author's own lifetime, nevermind just making it to two years from now-- is playing with such long odds it's ridiculous. That's a fact of the industry, and something to bear in mind.

It's also worth remembering that as long as the first book in a series is in good enough shape to keep hooking readers, it doesn't matter so much how badly plotted, excessively adverbialized, and padded with filler the last books are. Readers will still want them. That's a fact of the reading public.

So yes, sometimes authors prevent editors from doing their jobs. Sometimes publishers prevent editors from doing their jobs. Sometimes editors just don't do their jobs. And sometimes it's a combination of all three.

It takes a lot of fight to be a good editor. And it also takes knowing what fights are worth fighting.

Editors Down Under?

I'm a nearly brand new graduate planning to take a publishing course next year. I'm very excited about this, and have been idly day-dreaming future plans (and not-so-idly thinking of a way to get my relations to stop asking me what I want to be when I grow up.) The trick is, I'm from New Zealand. I'm happy where I am right now, but I'd like to travel eventually. My question is, what kind of experience would I need in publishing in New Zealand in order to get a job somewhere like, oh, let's just choose a city at random, New York? I hope to work in YA on the editorial side (but who knows what I will enjoy) and ideally would leave the country with three or four years' experience, always providing I hustle my way into a job soon enough. I know I'd need to be caught up on what's popular and so forth - books from the USA tend to get here anyway - but would there be any particular barriers to shifting locations dramatically like this?

Because there's so much crossover between publishing in the US and Australia/New Zealand these days, I wouldn't expect it to be a problem. As long as you get 3-4 years of editorial experience and are well-read in the US market, then you should stand as good a chance as anyone. Of course, "as good a chance" is not as good as it was a couple years ago. Lots of good people are on the streets since December, so competition for editorial jobs is steep.

Oh, I Am Newly In Love

With this blog. Seriously. Go read.

And it makes me think perhaps there should be a touch of balance after the post The Intern Thinks She's Found Something below.

It's true that as authors, you shouldn't count on interns having any power.

Let us be sure to remember, though, that interns are not worthless. (Indeed, my office would quickly be awash in a backlog of work none of the editors have time to do without the (forever blessed) intervention of interns.)

And while some interns will not go on in publishing, I would need my fingers and toes to count the number of fully-grown publishing professionals who I happen to know worked their way up from internships. Me included. (No doubt there are many more among the people I know; I just don't know it.)

And as authors, you should always, always be nice to interns and editorial assistants. They're low on the totem pole now, but give them a few years and they will be in a position to kick your butt for being a jerk to the interns and assistants beneath them. Fyi.

How can I become a children's book editor?

I've been getting this question a lot recently.

1. You'd better be seriously interested in children's books. Not "I could be interested if I got a job in children's books". Interested NOW.

2. And that would mean that you're reading a lot of children's books --brand new ones-- NOW.

Wait, wait, you say. Isn't there on-the-job training? Why do I have to familiarize myself with children's books before I even know if I can have a career in them?

Because in spite of the low pay and long hours, we still have a lot of highly qualified people interested in being editors. And the highest qualification is the kind of book-industry knowledge that takes reading hundreds of books to acquire. Good sense about books is not something we can teach. Either you have it or you don't, and it will be much more apparent that you have it if you can speak intelligently about the books that are our current competition.

The times I have hired people, it's been pretty easy to cherry-pick the good ones. After tossing the badly-written cover letters, I ask the rest of them what they've been reading. People who are a good fit for the job have been reading a lot of children's books (and a lot of different kinds of children's books), and have a lot to say about them.

3. You'd better not have any fantasies about office work.

If you can't stand a lot of tedious paperwork, you don't want to work in publishing. We give our interns plenty of mind-numbing paper shuffling and form filling out to do, because if they make it to Editorial Assistant, it's only going to get worse. Eventually, it will get better... a little... and years later. In the meantime, you'd better be able to cope. I still have plenty of that sort of thing to do, and I do it as cheerfully and efficiently as I can so that I can get to editing and reviewing new manuscripts sooner.

4. Internships are a good way to get your foot in the door.

So have a look in your area for a publisher you could intern with. No, you can't be an editor remotely. If there are no publishers in your area, you'll have to move to where they are. Consider moving to New York. We're almost entirely here.

5. So is the Columbia Publishing course or other similar courses.


Good luck.

The Joy of Layoffs

Know how editors have too much work and too little time?

Well, if your editor is at a house that laid off some of her colleagues, that house might have canceled some projects.

But more likely, the house just gave the remaining editors even more titles to look after.

So if you're not hearing from your editor even more than usual, it's because she's paralyzed by workload panic and hiding under her desk.

FYI.

Living Is Optimism

Hi! I have a question, and I'm not trying to be funny, I swear. I've noticed that editors often use words like "tomorrow" and "by Friday" and "next week" (in reference to when I should expect an offer, or a production schedule, or a set of proofs, or whatever). It virtually never does come tomorrow or Friday or next week, and generally, these promises are followed by months of radio silence.
I know editors are insanely busy, but what puzzles me is, if things always take a great deal longer than expected, why do they keep on specifying "tomorrow" or "by Friday" or "next week"? Why don't they say "sometime in the next three months" if that's what's most likely?

I know all about this, having been guilty of it myself. And I look at my coworkers, and see a lot of myself in them. So in the spirit of self-awareness, I'm going to share something really true about editors:

1. Editors are almost always smart people who know how they want the world to be.
2. There's a little OCD running around in the make-up of many editors, and plenty of over-achiever-ship.
3. Editors are constantly saved and undermined by their optimistic natures.

So we know clearly what we think we ought to be able to promise people (point 1), and we very much want to promise it to them (point 2), and we will promise it to them (point 3).

And to be fair, we come through on a lot of our promises-- but we come through most on the promises to the projects that are not only signed up but whose late schedules/emergencies are screaming like hungry children.

The promises we do not come through on nag at us and make us feel guilty. I understand your plea for realism in projected dates, but realistically? If I told someone I would get back to them in three months, my brain/workstyle would categorize that task as too far in the future to keep track of, and forget about it entirely. If I told someone I would do something in three months, it would not happen.

And I suppose that when I think hard about how long everything takes--and how fast it all goes by for me (it's February?! Where did January go? Where, for that matter, did November and December go?! It still feels like fricking October to me!), the truth is that I'm a little terrified that if I started being honestly realistic with myself, I would realise that this is an impossible job; a treadmill that will always go a bit faster than I can run; a black hole in my life that is sucking everything-- including eating and sleep, not just hobbies and any kind of outside life-- into itself.

So I'm not going to. I'm at work this morning, and I'm glad to be. I have a challenging, creative job in children's books--doing something that matters to me. I'm going to follow through on at least one promise today. And deal with at least three emergencies. And try like hell to get back to several agents.

And if my best is never, not once in my whole career, quite enough, I will at least know that I did my best, all the time, and that is enough.

Good Writer = Like. Good Writer + Chocolate = Love.

My second book has been accepted, the contract's signed, the check's in the mail, and I'm in the midst of tidying up the manuscript for the first round of editing.
However, I've just found out my editor has accepted a position at another house, effective more or less immediately, which means my WIP will be assigned to someone new. *gulp*
Instead of freaking out, I'll attempt to ask an intelligent question:
What can I do to help ensure this new partnership comes off as a successful adoption as opposed to, say, a reluctant stepchild/stepparent relationship?

The first and most important step is to send good chocolates. This will get her attention, even on a hellishly busy day. With the chocolates send a very friendly letter that conveys
1. your enthusiasm at working with her
2. your interest in developing a good working relationship with her
3. the development history of the book with the other editor
4. all of your contact information

Points 1 and 2 can be more the tone of the letter than actual words.

But point 3 should let the new editor know exactly what has happened so far with the manuscript (including what the original editor--and you--felt was the grand vision for the book) so she can feel she knows just where she stands.

I think it's this more than any other thing that gives me a headache about adoptive projects. It's like being forced to start reading a novel in the center of the book, and if you want to read the first half you have to read it backwards, which is just so much damn work. But if you don't read it, the second half isn't going to be nearly as good. So you're feeling damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't, and maybe the best answer right now would be to ignore the adoptive project until the pounding in your head subsides.

The author sending me a informative welcome-to-the-project letter that makes her sound friendly and sane (and with chocolates!) goes a long way toward making me think, "This could work! Hey, this might even be fun!"

Good luck!

My Job: For Children, and Now By Children!

Dear Editor,
I am the author/ illustrator of several picture books. I often speak and read to children in schools and libraries. I would like to try something new. My idea is to present an unpublished dummy of one of my books and ask the children to be the "editors". This would be an interesting way to get them to think critically. Can you suggest a list of criteria for them to use as a guide?

That's a fun idea. You'll be inserting some "mistakes" for them to fix, I assume? It'll depend on the age of the kids, but you might try some show-not-tell on them, ask them for ways to "show" something you've "told". You could ask them to look for the things that are pictured in the illustrations and can thus be cut from the text. You could ask them what image would be best for the cover, and talk about what the cover should convey. If you want to talk about spelling and punctuation, you could include some examples of how the wrong punctuation will make the sense of a sentence change.

Just leave out the crushing paperwork part.
Good luck!

The Internal Critique, the External Critique, and the Vast Chasm Therebetween

I've heard of this happening a LOT, and far too often: writers who got really positive comments from editors in critiques get a scant form rejection after many months and usually a status check. What gives? Are editors overly optimistic because it's hard to reject face to face? Are they encouraging a writer as a whole who they see has talent, even if that particular project isn't there yet? Or do they just want to get these people out of their hair, no matter what they end up saying?

It is certainly true that we're always more positive face-to-face than we are in our own heads. As has been recently highlighted on this blog, we're often very critical—even of the things we honestly think have promise.

If normal people could witness the weighing of positives and negatives, the calculations and arguments with ourselves that happen in an editor's head, many of you would start to wonder if we were, in fact, schizophrenic.

We aren't. But we are aware that what goes on in our heads is hardly material for social interaction. It has to be filtered.

And that's hard. How do we offer you enough of that mix of impressions and thoughts to be useful to you, without giving you so much that you're confused, or offended? It's also hard to be sure we're communicating what we think we're communicating when dealing with the wide variety of people we meet at conferences. I once answered a question that I could swear was "do you think my manuscript is publishable?" but that subsequent events proved the author had thought was "do you want to acquire my manuscript?" These are awfully different questions, obviously. Not everything that I think is salable is something I personally (or even my publishing company particularly) wants to produce.

All of that said, I still don't understand people who agree ahead of time to do something they (knowing the state of their desks and workloads) realistically cannot promise. (Though it should be noted that more than once I've arrived at a conference to discover I'd been committed to things I had not agreed to beforehand. Grr. I have a whole rant about pitch sessions that I'll save for some other time.)

So the answer to your questions are:
1. Some editors are fantastic editors, but are terrible at keeping their desks organized or getting back to people in a timely fashion.
2. Yes, sometimes.
3. Yes, sometimes.
4. Unusual. This reaction is saved for the rare absolute nutball who makes us uncomfortable / afraid they may be concealing weapons.

So You Want to Be an Editor

I am currently an English Major and beginning my sophomore year of college. I’m very interested in children’s literature, specifically books written for 10 to 14 year olds, and I was wondering what you could tell me about being a children’s book editor. What are the pros and cons of being an editor?

Pros:

• You work in books.
• People in children's books are really nice people, with very few exceptions.
• You are in charge (this ought to appeal to you if you want to be an editor—editors have to be in charge)
• By the power of your "no," you get to stem some of the tide of bad books getting published.
• It is a truly challenging job. Editors need several different skill sets.

Cons:

• Editors manage relationships with lots and lots of people: authors, illustrators, agents, other editors, designers, people from production, sales, marketing, publicity... and most editors are introverts, so this takes work.
• You're underpaid. You have to be doing this for love, because the people multi-talented enough to be good editors could be doing lots of things that pay a hell of a lot better.
• You're overworked. There's always more work than people to do it, and editors take work home all the time.
• Much of it is not glamorous or fun work. The amount of time we spend reading and editing is absolutely dwarfed by the time we spend filling in forms, reporting and sharing information, attending meetings, juggling p&ls, building marketing material, etc.
• It can be high-stress. There's a lot of work, there's a lot of responsibility, and there isn't much time.
• Everywhere you go, when people ask you what you do, you can either lie or get drawn into another conversation that starts "Really? I've written a children's book!" Honestly, it's eerie how much this happens.

Are there specific qualities you think an editor should have?

An editor should be:

• Friendly
• Decisive
• Cooperative
• Discerning
• Efficient
• Hard-working
• Well-read
• Knowledgeable about the market
• A smart reader
• A talented writer
• Good at identifying problems
• Good at coming up with creative solutions
• Good at predicting reader and market response
• Good at identifying hook and at positioning books

Is this the kind of job that consumes your life, or can you have a family?

Yes, and yes. You just can't spend a lot of time with them.

Are there other jobs that, in your opinion, are better in the children’s publishing industry?

The only better job I can think of is Bestselling Author. But there are even fewer openings. Though, as you should be realizing, that's my take. Editing is not for everyone. Some people would hate it.

I’ve heard that the way people get their foot in the door is by interning.
Are there different types of intern positions available? If so, which ones would
you recommend?

You can intern in marketing, editorial, even design... it depends on the publisher. But an editorial internship is most likely to turn into a job in editorial, if that's what you want. And of course even then it's not that likely.

Are there any other tips, pieces of wisdom, or warnings you feel compelled to dish out?

There are many different ways to love books, and many different ways to work in books. An internship is a good idea simply for the chance to see whether editorial work is for you. If it isn't, try something else in books.

Beyond the Valley of Good and Managing Editors

If nothing happens in certain months because editors are busy, and nothing happens in certain other months (e.g. August and December) because everyone's on vacation, when the heck does anything ever happen?

Please don't confuse "nothing" with "nothing that affects you". I simply cannot tell you how much there is to do in every one of my days (and weekends) that is not (1) editing, (2) replying to authors and agents, or (3) reading new submissions.

Remember the kitchen full of slush that you kindly imagined for me a while back? This time, imagine that same kitchen, but where all the slush is, imagine paperwork that needs filling out, internal emails that need sending, sales materials that need building, flapcopy that needs writing, schedules, p&ls, etc, etc, etc. And now imagine a black-leather-and-stud-clad Managing Editor standing on top of those piles with a fiery whip.

We're getting stuff done, I swear. During those times of year when there are pressing distractions and time out of the office, we're getting a bit less done, and that means that projects that are not yet officially ours and thus have no schedule get shorter shrift. And you'd offer them shorter shrift too, if the person managing the schedules was going to flay you alive if you missed one more deadline.

And In the Crater They Found... Dora the Explorer 8x8s

Here's a quickie:

"I enjoy your blog. Have you ever written a children's book or any other sort of book yourself?"

I remember sitting next to a pleasant lady at a conference who asked me this question. She seemed honestly surprised to hear that editors are writers. "How could we critique writing if we didn't do it ourselves?" I asked her.

Writing is a part of editors' jobs, and sometimes that does mean writing a whole book for the publisher you work for. So, yes, I have. You won't see editors' names on most of those books, of course.

The next time you see a book with no author name on it, consider that you may be looking at the work of an editor. But not if you're shopping at Target. Those books are written by aliens.