Who Needs Editors?

I often give presentations about the level of "clutter" out there in terms of written content -- both print and digital. Yep, there were nearly 500,000 books published last year in the US alone. Indeed, there are hundreds or thousands of new blogs started every day (including this one). And now Twitter gives folks a whole new way to express their thoughts in writing, often dozens of times a day.

Two key questions arise from the proliferation of written clutter: one, as a reader, how do I determine what is worth reading? And two, for a writer, how do I make mine worth reading?

The first question I'll save for a later post, perhaps I'll even a host a roundtable on the topic.

On the second, my usual answer to writers is to make sure you are writing from a place of expertise, of authenticity, and of relevance to your target audience. But recently a couple of colleagues -- one a writer, another an editor -- have needled me about leaving out the role of an editor in helping a writer to hone their writing.

It's funny that I needed to be reminded of this; after all, I've spent most of my career as a book and magazine editor. I think for a time it seemed like the role of the editor was in permanent decline; that the democratization of the publishing process would make us obsolete except in the most specialized circumstances, or simply as proofreaders (and even then only sporadically if you judge by most writing out there).

But I am being reminded that quality writing often is a product of a collaboration between the the writer and an editor, and how my own writing was improved by working with great editors over the years.

Nowadays, though, most writing is produced outside of the context of publication or publishing house that has qualified editors on staff. So how does as self-published writer -- blogger, book author, newsletter producer, Twitterer -- find an editor to help them become the next digital Hemingway? Here's a few tips:

1. Determine your needs. You need to be honest with yourself about the quality of your own writing, and the relevance of the ideas you have. Hopefully you have friends, family or colleagues who will tell you honestly about the strengths and weaknesses of your writing. Then, you need to be aware of the difference between an editor, a copy editor, and a proofreader.

An editor focuses on the quality of your ideas and how they are expressed, as well as on the lucidity of your writing. If you find a good editor, she can become a true partner to you in helping to express your thoughts and in reaching your target audience.

A copy editor is a wordsmith; they look at each line and figure out the best way to express it according to the rules of grammar and guides to excellent style. If you have good ideas but difficulty expressing them, a copy editor can be invaluable.

A proofreader is a technician -- an expert in spelling, grammar, and sometimes word choice, who can help you avoid pitfalls that make writers seem unprofessional or unpolished. If you hated grammar in school, are a lousy typist (like me) or simply can't spell...you need a proofreader.

2. Finding the Right Partner. Once you've figured out what you need, it's time to find him. Fortunately, there are no shortage of freelancers out there in all three editorial categories. Craigslist, Media Bistro, and eLance are all sources for experienced editorial talent. When deciding on who to hire, you should lean toward someone who understands the topic you're writing on, usually through previous experience editing similar materials. But as important as topical knowledge is temperament, especially if it's an editor you will be working with closely and frequently.

The relationship between an editor and writer is similar to the relationship between the patient and therapist...one person is extremely vulnerable and paying the other for their expertise to ease the vulnerability. Most people take their writing very personally, and you need an editor who is sensitive to your personal and professional style, otherwise you will continually butt heads and the work will ultimately suffer.

Spend time in person or on the phone with your editor. See if he gives you the warm fuzzies. And it doesn't hurt to go with your gut. And remember, just because some was referred to you as a good editor, doesn't mean that he will be appropriate for your particular project.

Dear readers: Leave comments about your experiences with editors, both good and bad...I'd love to hear your success stories, or about problems that still need to be solved. Oh, and any smartass comments about how I need an editor can be left out!

Is the Google Books Settlement a Scam?

For those not in the know, Google Books is a massive effort to digitize every book in the English language; a clever idea that got caught up in the complexities of copyright law and caused a several year dispute between Google and the big publishers. Unfortunately, now it looks like Google and the publishers are colluding to make sure that the profits go to them, and not to authors or small publishers. As the settlement agreement itself says in soothingly prosaic language:

1. What is the lawsuit about?
   This lawsuit involves the Google Library Project. In 2004, Google announced that it had entered into agreements with several libraries to digitize books, including books protected by U.S. copyright law, in those libraries’ collections. Several authors and publishers brought this lawsuit against Google, claiming that its digitization without permission infringed their copyrights. In response to the authors’ and publishers’ claims of copyright infringement, Google argued that its digitization of the books and display of snippets, or a few lines, of the books is permitted under the U.S. copyright law’s doctrine of "fair use." Instead of resolving the legal dispute over whether Google’s digitization and display of the books is permissible under U.S. law as a "fair use," the parties negotiated a settlement.

2. Why are the parties settling?
   After lengthy investigations by Plaintiffs and Google and after more than two years of settlement negotiations, the parties agreed to this Settlement. Settlements conclude litigation without the court or a jury ruling in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant. A settlement allows the parties to avoid the cost and risk of a trial.

First, see generic info about the settlement here, including the entire 385 page agreement.

Then check out this dynamite deconstruction by Lynn Chu, one of the top literary agents in New York (and an author herself).

Part 1: http://www.writersreps.com/feature.aspx?FeatureID=156
Part 2: http://www.writersreps.com/feature.aspx?FeatureID=157

Thanks to my friend and colleague Andrew Hazlett for the heads up on this.

Project Runway Miscellany

If you, like me, are missing the best reality show ever, I have no good news for you. Check out this solid reporting from ABC News from earlier this month for a rundown of the bleak situation that has left the show in limbo.

It seems to me that old Harvey is really being a greedy schmuck in this particular case. Yes, it's hard to pick sides between the Weinstein's and NBC (I mean, please!) but it appears from the outside that Bravo/NBC has done a terrific job of promoting the show, and has been at least 50% responsible for its success. The judge in the case seems to feel the same way, based on the injunction that's keeping the show from moving to Lifetime.

I happen to love Project Runway--because, aside from all the obligatory (and yes, fun) reality show nuttiness, it consistently showcases people with real talent. Many of these designers are, for want of a better term, fabulous--and there is too little true artistic skill on display in American pop culture these days.

Meanwhile, last season's badgirl designer, Kenley Collins, makes big news here in NYC. Ouch.

And finally, you can always play at home. My 7-year old daughter gives this a big thumbs up. I kinda like it, too.

Quick Thoughts on the New Facebook Redesign

Yes, everyone seems to hate it -- although, my very informal research indicates that most Twitter enthusiasts (I will resist using the term Twits) love it. But what's really going on with the new Facebook--why such a radical change for the company, so soon after the last redesign? I've been reading some intelligent thoughts on this (see here for example) and wanted to weigh in my 2 cents.

At this juncture in it's history, Facebook is facing a very stark choice between two radically different business models; and yes, it's the same choice facing every other media company, Old or New in this environment: subscription or advertising?

Regular readers of this blog -- Oh wait, this is the first post--that is, everyone who has ever heard me pontificate over an Irish whiskey, knows that I think the traditional advertising model is in its death throes. But that, on the other hand, consumers aren't yet ready to move on to a pure pay-for-content model. So we're stuck here in a transitional phase where you can't make money on either subscriptions or paid content, which explains why nearly every media company is losing money.

With the redesign, our FB friends are clearly making a bet on the advertising side, despite the crappy environment for ad sales. What does the new news feed do? It provides tons more links to all those application pages, where they sell those big, top of the page banners that in theory should provide higher ad rates than the little boxes on the side. The new functionality is geared toward the needs of advertisers, rather than those of users.

We can debate the wisdom of this plan in the long-term, but I think it's pretty clear that despite all the fear you hear out there, FB is not about to become a paid service any time soon.

UPDATE: Check out Peter Feld's take on how bad the redesign is. Peter makes some excellent points...but I would add this: as long as people aren't willing to pay for Facebook, the company will choose to please advertisers over users. It's a nasty Catch 22.