[KatG]

Oh Gary, there is no way I can answer that question in a post. Here are some good non-fiction books to read that might help:

From Printout to Published by Michael Seidman
Book Business: Publishing Past, Present & Future by Jason Epstein (though I don't agree with his predictions on the future of publishing)
Another Life by Michael Korda (this memoir is probably the most important of the three)

The short form is in the 1970's publishing went from a gentleman's trade for a tiny market that was slowly transitioning into something bigger to a hot stock option where companies were gobbled up by big multinationals and some authors were marketed like rockstars. Then the economy collapsed for them.

A lot of the problems in publishing come from that rapid transition. A lot come from the fact that very few people buy books of any kind. They're working on that. The complaints of editors and agents are due to the fact that they work constantly and most are paid squat, though some at the top do all right. Plus, outside of the high risk professions -- doctor, soldier, cop, etc. -- they are two of the most stressful professions around. The grumblings that publishing is illogical are shared by everyone outside of it and quite a few in it, especially the corporate telecommunications parents of the publishing houses, who don't get that books are not like other products and make demands that it is near impossible for book publishing to meet. Although it has a lot of the glamour of film, magazines and other related industries, it simply doesn't have the money, resources, size or customer base to operate like they do. And if they did operate in the same way, it wouldn't work because people don't necessarily buy books the way they buy movies, magazines, computer games or clothes.

An influx of business folk might improve things, but when they come, they tend to not really care about fixing problems. Instead, what they do is slash staff, slash salaries, liquidate imprints, insist on unsustainable rates of growth for stockholders, buy adjunct companies that publishers don't need and which lose the publisher money, merge houses together into unwieldy mega houses that shrink the market further, cut publicity budgets for authors, insist that the publisher concentrate on bestselling fiction writers even though those often lose the publisher money, ignore independent and speciality booksellers, and implement business systems from other industries that don't work in the book publishing market. The complaint of editors that they have less and less time to edit is due to the business people who decreed that editors would work the jobs of three people on staff and assign them more and more administrative and overseeing duties, while then promoting people from marketing to the top posts. So there aren't that many easy solutions. :) Essentially, publishing is sort of stuck until it gets rid of the return system, most agree, but booksellers will see returns disappear over their cold dead bodies.

As someone with financial resources and a keen interest, I'd suggest you get a subscription to Publishers Weekly, if you haven't already. It might help things seem to make more sense, or not.

[Rob B]

As someone with financial resources and a keen interest, I'd suggest you get a subscription to Publishers Weekly, if you haven't already. It might help things seem to make more sense, or not.
Free PW is probably the only thing I miss about working in the publishing industry. Sure I looked for the FSF reviews first, but there was always some good stuff in there.

There is such a relatively high turnover rate (and if I'm repeating anything, I apologize) in publishing in recent years that maintaining a singular vision is often very tough.

Just in the past couple of years reviewing books here I've seen some of the PR people and higher ups move around at a the FSF publishers. People like the former Editor-in-Chief of Del Rey (kyo liang?) left a couple of years ago to pursue a career in distribution and aside from a couple of things here and there, I've not been as overwhelmed with their output. There's still *some* good stuff coming out, but nothing overwhelming and a good deal of reprint/repackaged stuff.

Hi Kat!

[Gary Wassner]

I was talking to the publisher of my children's series the other day about this subject. His company, Mondo, only publishes childrens's books and they sell primarily to the library system and the schools. There are no returns in that market. It helps them to deal with the 60 day return policy at B & N etc. Targeted markets certainly help. Yet his editors also are strained and stressed.

Since most people don't care at all whose imprint they purchase at the bookstore, and since there are so many titles on the market, the big stores are in control. There is no brand identification sadly. If a publisher could establish a reputation for putting out excellent books and any particular genre and if the public went to the stores asking and looking for that imprint, then they could establish some leverage. But that doesn't happen anymore. A publisher is just a commodity, generic in quality like so much else today. Their identities are lost in the shuffle. That's why independent presses do have a real chance today if they can handle the cash flow issues and the return policies while they create that mystique that they need to survive.

[KatG]

Just in the past couple of years reviewing books here I've seen some of the PR people and higher ups move around at a the FSF publishers. People like the former Editor-in-Chief of Del Rey (kyo liang?) left a couple of years ago to pursue a career in distribution and aside from a couple of things here and there, I've not been as overwhelmed with their output. There's still *some* good stuff coming out, but nothing overwhelming and a good deal of reprint/repackaged stuff.

The average job length for an editor used to be 2 years, then they'd move to another house. And this was back when publishing a title usually took about a year to nine months past the ms. delivery date. It may be a bit better now. SF/F imprints particularly used to hold on to their editors and a lot of them have stayed put. I think they like the community and the attitudes there, which are less cutthroat, more team oriented than in other areas of publishing. But they do have dust-ups everywhere. Betsy Mitchell apparently left in quite a whirl from Warner Aspect to Del Rey, so perhaps Del Rey will perk up.

[Rob B]

The average job length for an editor used to be 2 years, then they'd move to another house. And this was back when publishing a title usually took about a year to nine months past the ms. delivery date. It may be a bit better now. SF/F imprints particularly used to hold on to their editors and a lot of them have stayed put. I think they like the community and the attitudes there, which are less cutthroat, more team oriented than in other areas of publishing. But they do have dust-ups everywhere. Betsy Mitchell apparently left in quite a whirl from Warner Aspect to Del Rey, so perhaps Del Rey will perk up.
I also realize it takes time for an editor to really see the results of their hard work pay off. Contract to MS delivery to publication isn't always the fastest thing in the world. From everything I've been reading in the forums the past few days, I think Ms. Mitchell made the right move.

Now that I think about it, Del Rey is actually doing some interesting things, with the Howard reprints, the Manga they are publishing, bringing in new authors like Hamilton and Moon.

[Gary Wassner]

New senior editors mean new life for an imprint. It's the same with the magazines. The perspective has to change. I wonder though if it is still possible for an editor to really leave a mark any more. How risk-tolerant can they be? And what does that even mean today?

I sincerely would love to hear from some anonymous editors in regard to what goes into their purchases. What do they tell their subordinates when they are wading through the piles of manuscripts sent to them by the agents? Does a new editor mean a new direction? In some ways, it must. I know that when I have had editors switch in midstream on a manuscript, some things inevitably change.

[KatG]

They look for stuff they like. I know that sounds insane and no one ever believes me, but that's how it works. They tell the subordinates to look for stuff they like, and then the juniors write a reader's report telling why they liked or didn't like it. And if the subordinate does thumb down, the sen. editor will read the beginning, skim through and see if he agrees with the subordinate, since a personal response to the agent is needed and read more deeply if he disagrees with the junior assessment. And if the subordinate gives a thumbs up or partial thumb, the editor will read it and decide. And if the editor likes it too, then they'll try to get other editors to read and hopefully like it to build support, and they'll present it in editorial meeting or speak privately with the person who holds the wallet strings, and the top people will read the work or part of it, depending on the set-up at the house. And then they might make an offer.

Now, a house may have constraints from the nature of their list, what they're doing in their publishing program, but if they really like something, they'll try to find a way around any such constraints if they have to. Schedules can be juggled. It's pretty much a matter of what they feel in their gut. Which is what drives people crazy, I guess, but it also offers writers best odds.

The mark an editor leaves is mostly in assembling a killer list by finding really good writers and supporting them as much as possible. Which is indeed more difficult to do, especially as they have much less chance to actually work with the authors than they used to. But that influence is chiefly behind the scenes.