Ahh, the reader's report. Any writer of even modest accomplishment (that would be me, with the emphasis on "modest") has received them. Sometimes they are glowing. Sometimes they are eviscerating. Usually they lean toward the "this is good, but this is what I'd like to see the author do differently," which is usually followed by a strinbg of suggestions that would radically change the book that the author has written into the book the writer of the report wishes he had written. These reports can also be problematic -- almost always they are anonymous; almost always they are given far too much priviledge inasmuch as the author of the book is almost always more of an authority at least on the specific topic of the project; and when there are multiple reports, publishers will always ignore the most favorable in order to make the author engage the most critical irrespective of the merits of these reports.
In this week's New York Times Sunday Book Review the Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Oshinsky has a wonderful essay based on his poring through the reports in the massive collection from publishing powerhouse Knopf that is located at the University of Texas' Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center. That hostile letter you just received via your editor? After reading this essay you can take some solace in the fact that you are not alone. In fact you join a rather long and distinguished list. Congratulations!
No comments:
Post a Comment