Textbook Authorship

Analysis of Authors and Editors from Hell Case Study

Anatomy of a Monster: Exegesis

1. "A new coauthor has been brought in to revise—essentially to repurpose—an undergraduate introductory textbook that is being discontinued under its present title after its 3rd edition. The substantively revised work will be reintroduced as a first edition under a new title with altered authorship."

Poor practice, though common. Publishers, even educational publishers, squeeze every bit of value out of comparatively cheap content—content that already exists and is already bought and paid for or that comes from their out-of-print backlists. They routinely cannibalize existing products in “slice and dice, mix and match” efforts to invent new ones. Editors--comparatively cheaper than authors as hired hands—can be brought in to make the Frankensteins appear normal and contemporary and to assure that they won’t actually kill anybody. Publishers with customization programs offer instructors the same opportunities to create their own monsters. In either case, some repurposed texts are outstanding or otherwise satisfy customers’ previously unmet needs. Often, however, repurposing is ill advised at best, at worst, unethical—even fraudulent.

Repurposing can destroy the unity, integrity, and value of an original work. The identity of actual authorship can become lost, putative, fictive, or altogether unattributable. Like cosmetics customers buying the same lipstick in different packaging at different prices, most adopters of repurposed texts do not know that they are not getting anything different, new, or improved. Textbooks with a new array of authors on a new cover may nevertheless be insufficiently revised, redesigned, or re-illustrated to warrant treatment legitimately as a first edition. In any case, the decision to scrap the parent text after investing in three editions of it should not have been made without first discovering the cause of its lack of profitability.

2. "The reason for this move is that the book has fallen far short of its projection of sales, although the source of this shortfall is not immediately apparent. Postproduction reviews of the 3rd edition show that the text is very highly rated across the board, contains no deficiencies that would affect sales, and has a high potential for new adoptions, especially in competition against high-end market leaders. Upon further investigation, the new editor finds out that the sales figures were skewed by the fact that the book came out late and missed its first semester business."

Ah, the book failed because it did not come out in time! But this is not a fault of the product and certainly no reason to kill it. If the scheduling problem lay with the author, the editor could have 1) added hired help to make it happen (deducting royalties or charging plant); 2) postponed the bound book date as soon as it became apparent that the author could not deliver (hard as that is on one’s list quota and fiscal year report); and/or 3) published a sampler (hard as that is on one’s budget) to keep production, marketing, and sales (not to mention customers) actively involved in what was proving to be a problem title.

If the scheduling problem lay instead within one or more publishing units, and is not a fluke, the editor must take stock of where he or she is in his or her career and decide whether or not to seek out a more competent or more professional (or less venal) venue. Perhaps the editorial or production or manufacturing department fell down, the marketers did not market, or the sales reps did not sell the book. Or perhaps the blame can be laid at the feet of corporate political economy with its culture of unsustainable growth. There has been another acquisition or merger, say, and a pretext is needed to eliminate internal competition. These things are not pretty. To me, the intentional libracide of excellent works is the worst.

3. "Despite clear indication that a 4th edition, fielded in time, would more than make its numbers, the decision is made to stick with the plan to scrap the product. The editor and his manager want a book that will appeal to low end users in that market instead. Market research shows a surge in community college enrollments and they want to capture as much of that business as possible with a new and different product."

Another common tactic in these times of shrinking margins and unstable stock prices: favoring blockbusters with the largest possible market base—the biggest products in the biggest schools with the biggest enrollments. These markets demand mass market-type textbooks, which actually do appeal to what many academics regard as the lowest common denominator—and what publishers call the low-end market. This user is not majoring in the subject and is not especially literate. He or she is in higher education to prepare for entering the work force at a level that confers some material advantage.

However, these users, too, are equally entitled to excellent textbooks that address their interests and needs. Why should they receive a Frankenstein while at the same time their more intellectually able or invested peers are deprived of another choice in an ever-shrinking pool of excellent textbooks? Perhaps the decision should have been to revise the 3rd edition for the higher-level portion of the market, especially in light of the unreservedly positive reviews, and to acquire a new author or author team to draft another book for the new market—the nonmajors in community colleges and career preparation programs. The company then could have two successful products rather than one dubious one.

4. "The original principal author has become inactive and will receive a reduced share of royalties per the contract. The original coauthor will share the remaining royalties 50-50 with the new coauthor. An independent contractor is brought in to handle development and meets with the new editor and new coauthor at corporate headquarters to plan the proposal and outline for the new book. This meeting takes place despite the fact that the original coauthor declines to attend, even via conference call. The original coauthor does not agree that the original book should be discontinued. She sees the new book as blatant case of dumbing down. Nevertheless, the new coauthor and development editor are asked to craft a proposal for the new text, with a mission statement, pedagogy plan, and chapter outlines. Except to clarify language, the original coauthor does not respond to the proposal."

This meeting should not have taken place without the participation of all the active authors. The editor could have met first with the original coauthor, now principal author, to go over the laudatory postproduction reviews and plan the revision and/or the new product. As it was, the new coauthor and the hired hand determined everything--the vision, mission, content, organization, apparatus, and pedagogy.

What if the original coauthor never buys into the plan? The editor needs a cogent and convincing response to the dumbing down argument, a clear and sensitive explanation of the new market and the market-driven nature of publishing decisions, and a ready acknowledgment of what the loss of the author’s contributions would mean for product quality. The editor needs to care about quality and content sincerely. The editor also needs a plan B in case the author doesn’t come around, especially if the remaining author team is not strong. New coauthors often are added to author teams in successive revisions merely because they can cover a new hot topic or represent a new emphasis. However, every author in an author team should be high-profile enough to drive sales if he or she should become the lead author.

An experienced author is an asset. Yet acquisitions editors tend to treat authors as expendable. Evidence of this may be seen in an editor’s inaccessibility, lack of interest in the author’s field or professional development, mysterious long-term lapses of communication, and casual disregard of both direct questions and red flag remarks. Perhaps editors are encouraged in this by their managers, who answer to higher mandates and may see authors principally as profit drains. Authors and their egos certainly can be a pain. In academic publishing, however, this view is naive. Authorship counts for much in academe, where each field boasts a spectrum of theoretical approaches with known genealogies and preferred institutions with acknowledged luminaries. Not anyone will do. Junior faculty, freelance writers, displaced professors, unknown novice or crossover authors, and extreme specialists do not inspire textbook adoptions. Getting and keeping good high-profile authors should be an editor’s primary goal.

5. "The proposal for the new book receives positive reviews from newly targeted potential adopters, so the project moves ahead. The development editor confirms chapter assignments, proposes a drafting schedule, and asks the authors to submit two sample chapters each for review that will reflect the new mission, pedagogy, and scope and sequence. The new coauthor quickly finishes his two chapters on time, the original coauthor submits one, late. She has revised the chapters mainly per reviewers’ comments about the 3rd edition text. In a heavy line edit modeling the new book plan, the development editor proposes changes to the original coauthor’s chapter, which she accepts ultimately and implements. While the three chapters are out for review, however, the new coauthor calls for further changes and makes inappropriately critical remarks about the original coauthor’s writing and about the integrity and value of the now doomed 3rd edition text. Five months before the date for completed first draft, the original coauthor withdraws from the project."

So, the experienced author drops out. Why? Not because she couldn’t buy into the plan. She did, swallowing her disappointment, deferring to others, acting in good faith. Not because she couldn’t respond to editorial input and provide satisfactory manuscript—she tried to do that—and not because of scheduling pressure. She quit because of 1) abuse from the new coauthor, of whom she has never heard and never met; 2) possibly the development editor’s necessarily heavy line edit, requiring unanticipated extra work; and 3) no doubt, the painful memory of what was and what might have been.

Publishing world gossip is full of stories of author foibles and fallouts, trysts too. Collegiality tends to break down easily and calamitously, some cases leading to suits. Successful textbooks seldom rise from the ashes. Thus, forging strong and enduring author teams is among an editor’s highest challenge. Editors seldom have or take the time to work with author teams, however, leaving them to slug it out. In this case the editor could have intervened at the first sign of trouble, shielded the abused party by asking the abuser to refrain temporarily from further communication with her, and then coached him in deportment. Academic publishers frequently believe they have to cater to academic egos and propose changes to manuscript only at their peril. Abusive or inconsiderate authors (and editors) need to be confronted rather than appeased, however, and academic authors usually need to be taught how to write.

The editor also needed to position the hired-hand development editor to manage or mitigate the conflict on a day-to-day basis while maintaining productivity. Mitigating activities might include more frequent communication; channeling of author to author communication; interim meetings, where feasible; lighter edits, where possible; ready explanations for the purposes or goals of line edits or the reasons for them; and outsourcing of selected elements.

6. "Reviews for the three sample chapters come in—all positive. The editors scramble to find another coauthor to serve coequally on the new product. Leads from the surviving coauthor do not pan out. Leads researched by the independent contractor include excellent prospects but are taking too long to develop. The editor is in a hurry. He is moving to take responsibility for a different list and wants to leave his present projects in good order. He quickly signs the author of a European edition of the original 3rd edition text, in progress. The new coauthor is also asked to sign up for some of the box features, many of which are to be outsourced at the other coauthor’s request. The new coauthor creates a sample chapter per the new development plan, revises it per the development editor’s suggestions, and communicates collegially with the surviving coauthor despite his criticism of his output. He is unable to produce a second chapter according to schedule, however, because of his schedule for the European edition of the text that the new project will replace. He finds it confusing and difficult to revise the high-end text and simultaneously repurpose it for a low-end audience. The editor’s attempt to negotiate with his European counterpart is unsuccessful, so the schedule is pushed back to accommodate the new coauthor’s other commitments to the company."

In this case the editor probably should have let his successor acquire the new coauthor, rather than sacrifice the freelancer’s research on excellent leads, which the company has already paid for, and rather than hastily sign an author who is in another country and is already working to deadline for the company on another related product. The new coauthor is immediately faced with a conflict of interest! And what about the other coauthor’s continuing negative criticism of his colleagues’ work? This problem has not been addressed.

Letting schedule slide at this juncture also probably was not a good idea, as momentum was already lost following the decampment of the original coauthor. The editor possibly could have referred the scheduling problem to his manager for a higher-level negotiation between the U.S. and European units.

The editor also needed to explain sooner rather than later that drafting is exclusively the authors’ responsibility. Every dollar otherwise spent on obtaining manuscript comes out of their advances and royalties. Outsourcing boxes adds to the cost too because of the time it takes the independent contractor to secure contributors and copy. Lack of clarity on this point almost guarantees author meltdown following the first royalty report, assuming the product comes to pass.

7. "It soon becomes apparent, however, that the new coauthor is also blocked through his anticipation of negative criticism, despite the development editor’s efforts to protect him from abuse. He complains that his coauthor has assumed the role of principal author, tells him what to do, treats him as an inferior, and clearly expects him to toe his mark. He feels disrespected, humiliated. He also does not yet have a contract. In the following weeks, despite urging by the independent contractor, the new editor does not contact these authors or respond to their situation. Three months before the date for completed first draft, the new coauthor withdraws from the project. At this time, only 6 of 17 chapters exist in draft form. The new editor and surviving coauthor decide that he will now become the sole principal author of the new text. There will be no coauthor. To try to maintain schedule, he will write and revise 6 more chapters and will find students or colleagues to supply the additional 5 chapters on a work-for-hire basis at a rate of $2000 per chapter. The 20 outstanding boxes will be farmed out for $200 per box. The new editor does not respond to the independent contractor’s questions about the amount of payment, how and when participants will be paid, and when and to whom they should submit invoices. Over the next month, four junior faculty are randomly enlisted to draft chapters within the following six weeks."

Ah, so the abuse and alienation of coauthors is a pattern. What is wrong with the person who started as the junior coauthor and is now the senior principal author? The new European coauthor is also responsible. Although the development editor was working behind the scenes to protect him, he should have expressed his discontent far earlier in the process. Is it possible that the sponsoring editor could have anticipated this situation and tested the waters or paved the way?

And now there will be no coauthors, only graduate students and junior faculty to draft a third of the book. The main qualification is simply that they are available to do it for the price and will commit to the deadline. The product now will have a total of 8 voices and styles, old and new, to integrate seamlessly into an introductory textbook for community college students. A neat trick, even for the most accomplished content editor! Meanwhile, this kind of authorship does not lend credibility, authority, or respectability to a work and does not seed adoptions—not exactly a formula for success.

What is wrong with the sponsoring editor that he cannot respond to queries? He may not know the answers, may not have time to find out, or may not feel comfortable enough within the inhouse power structure to consult with people in the know. He also may be procrastinating, a common response when one essentially is overwhelmed with responsibilities or fed up. Many houses offer little professional supervision or professional development support to editors, allowing them to sink or swim unnoticed until the bottom lines come in. This attitude is evident, for example, in a popular corporate model that requires editors to write their own status reports, saving their supervisors the trouble.

8. "The new editor at first seems to be concerned only that the manuscript is ready in time. The author also is concerned about finishing drafting by the original date, after which he says he will not be available. In an explosion of extraordinarily poor judgment, he has quit his mid-career university post without promise of a faculty appointment elsewhere. He has been complaining about his posting for some time. After botching two prospects, he has been forced to live with relatives temporarily and to take a visiting lectureship at a foreign university. Feeling duress, he tells the development editor that he will no longer execute the chapter apparatus, as he must now prepare for travel to the foreign university and does not have time for these menial tasks. This includes the chapter openers, closers, and interim reviews."

This author is acting like a loser. What can be done? Perhaps the editors should have attempted to intervene when they first learned there was a problem. Some networking maybe? Traditionally, good editors are open to opportunities to get involved in or promote the careers of their authors, as well as the development of their academic disciplines. Successful authors are long-term assets for a company and may provide a stream of successful products.

In the old days I saw many well-placed and effective investments in author well-being. Remedies could be as simple as greeting cards, flowers, calendars with due dates helpfully inserted, interesting relevant articles sent, or special discounts or invitations. People in publishing don’t have time for these things any more, it seems. In the past, a situation might warrant a paid trip to the home office or a visit from the content editor for face-to-face working sessions. I sometimes traveled to work with authors in their homes or offices, for example—or at an academic meeting, at a resort, on a pig farm once, and once in a hot tub—to help them get the job done. I once gave a crashing author team a one-day workshop and rally in an airport cafe. To my knowledge all but one of those textbooks are still in print and still making money for the companies who invested in their authors as human beings. Those companies more than made back the cost of sending someone out to try to secure their product.

9. "The independent contractor does development work, including line editing, at a rate of $40 an hour and agrees to write the chapter apparatus for $50 an hour. She also is managing the outsourcing of boxes. Working in these different capacities simultaneously causes scheduling conflicts, especially as her contract calls for a maximum time investment of 10 hours per week. So far, around $10,000 has been invested in development and project management, and the work is not even half done. Furthermore, the DE does not have extra time to give to the project. Thus, the original final-draft-complete date cannot be met. In addition, with the author out of the country and with chapters with multiple authorship to unify and smooth, it is highly doubtful that the project can go to production by the end of the year."

These high expenditures for development and project management, coupled with inadequate budget for the actual time needed, not only cut into the author’s take; over both the short and the long run, they also cut into the profitability of the product. Another late book with revenue shortfall could easily result, renewing the cycle of failure. If the contract permitted, all things considered this would be the last feasible opportunity to cancel the project, before more investment is made, throwing good money after bad. The only other alternative is to delay the bound book date by up to a year. If permitted at all (sometimes editors are not allowed to make these decisions), I actually would have pulled the plug on this project much earlier, when authorship integrity broke and proved unfixable.

10. "Meanwhile, the author’s work increasingly reflects the great stress he is under. He is skipping the research, leaving source citations more than 5 years out of date. When the DE returns a revised draft asking him to update sources and to reconsider pedagogically sound editorial suggestions for headings, he declares angrily that if the company doesn’t like his writing, it can go find itself another principal author! The new sponsoring editor does not respond to the independent contractor’s requests for guidance. Instead he talks with the author, who complains about the DE behind her back. These complaints concern perceived slights rather than the DE’s work, which the author claims is high quality. When the editor finally contacts the DE, he is surprised to learn there is another side to the story and is at a loss as to how to proceed. All he knows is, 'We have to have this book'."

The project certainly is doomed if the new principal author now balks. The editor has made a mistake in not consulting with the independent contractor first. The DE cum project manager is his outside professional counterpart and knows much more about what is happening than the author does. He also should have insisted that the author communicate his discontents directly to the DE so that the self-correcting dialogue that naturally occurs between authors and editors could begin. His confidence in the author’s judgment rather than the DE’s in this case was certainly misplaced.

Many hired hands would justifiably have quit in this situation, orphaning the project once again, no doubt for the last time. Without a DE, the project could not fulfill its stated mission, and a new DE would want to redevelop the product from scratch.

As it happens, this textbook was rescheduled and successfully brought out, at significant cost, within three months of its original due date and was sold adequately in time for the first semester of its copyright year. Against all odds, the hired hand, unusually experienced and persistent, and the author (also stubborn) had pulled the rabbit out of the hat. The book made its baseline numbers and subsequently did well enough to revise. The author recovered his life and career and worked amicably with a new coauthor to put out a new edition, which, however, is no longer in print.

Labels: Publishing Disaster Case Study

posted by Mary Ellen Lepionka @ 9:52 AM