Authors and Editors from Hell
Here is a story (I'm calling it a case study) about a textbook publishing disaster caused by a combination of poor authorship and poor decision making on the part of the pubisher and its agents. It's told from the point of view of someone in the middle--the development editor. I have seen similar tales from an author's perspective in online faculty forums that usually devolve into ignorant (about publishing) diatribes against publishers. By adding analysis to anecdote, however, I hope to show how the author-editor-publisher disconnect actually happens. While all the players share responsibility for such disasters, I believe that ultimately it is the publishing industry's province and power to restructure in ways that will prevent them. First the case study (all rights reserved); then, in my next posts, my exegesis.Case Study: Anatomy of a Monster
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.
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.
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 new business as possible with a new and different product.
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 a 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.
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 original 3rd edition text. In a heavy edit modeling the new book plan, the development editor proposes changes to the original coauthor’s chapter, which she ultimately accepts 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.
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, in progress, of the original soon-to-be-defunct 3rd edition text.
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 growing criticism of his output as well. The new co-author 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 new sponsoring 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.
It soon becomes apparent, however, that the new coauthor is also blocked through his anticipation of 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. The new co-author feels disrespected, humiliated. He also does not yet have a contract. In the following weeks, despite urging by the independent contractor, the new editor, overwhelmed and uncommitted to his predecessor's projects, 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 new plan or 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.
The new sponsoring editor at first seems concerned only that the manuscript be ready in time. The author also is concerned about finishing drafting by the original date to collect an advance, 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.
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.
Meanwhile, the author’s work increasingly reflects the great stress he is under. When the DE returns a revised draft asking him to update sources and 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 admits 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. After some verbal hand-wringing, he says, "All I know is, we have to have this book.“
What do you think happens next?
Labels: Publishing Disaster Case Study
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home