Hello all! I hope everyone is doing well and enjoying some good down time. I, for one, am confused about all this free time talk when I seem to be busier with work than when at school. Maybe I should start walking up before noon...
As for the chapter, I reached out do volunteer to report but haven't heard back so I am just going to go ahead and give it a shot. Chapter seven is written by Susan Rabiner, a long time editor turned agent. While I found the content and differences touched on to be interesting, her writing style made this chapter a little more compelling than the other two assigned for this week, but maybe that was just me. The personal side of her essay is what kept me reading. It was interesting to hear less of a play by play of how something works, but instead have a dual sided piece where the intersection and differences can be explored and appreciated rather than a timeline of events. She opens the text by sayin, "There were important editorial questions that editing hadn't prepared me for but that agenting required I figure out." I think by beginning with this statement she really set the tone for much of her essay to come; time in the industry doesn't necessarily equate to knowledge on the whole and there is always another side and another piece to learn.
She writes on this idea of 'conceptualization;'the act of bringing together "facts, stories and commentary in search of a larger meaning" (77). I think we all have read texts that offer facts and data but bring no true 'compelling point' to their existence. I liked the fact that Rabiner is focused on the meaning of a work and the value which it might add to our ever already convoluted world. From this idea she was able to diverge into the difference editors and agents have in the creation or recognition of such artifacts. As an editor, had a project been proposed holding 'conceptual problems' she would drop it. I found this interesting, the places in which different positions hold power and how they choose to use it. As an editor it makes sense to be able to recognize when a book will be too much work to, well, re-work. But are there ever cases where, yes there are conceptual problems, but you're willing to work for the gratification of a final product that you believe will be truly great? Where does the distinction lie? I think this goes hand in hand with something she mentions later in the chapter about how personal of an industry publishing is; publishing is all about feelings and how we evoke thought and sentiment. Thus, communication in the realm is largely centered around those same themes as they pertain to the person they end up with (wether that be the editor or agent). Connections are personal and grow from that relationship and can similarly be harmed in the same way. Do you all feel the same? I think I am glad such a space exists as reading relies so much on how a text makes us feel and bringing out enough emotion or intrigue to bacon you to read something else.
Back to the comparison, as an agent, Rabiner gets to work out the kinks before hand in hopes of the editor finding no conceptual problems and, again, working to find that personal connection. The special part of this chapter is the knowledge of both sides being accessible in the same text. Seeing the work that goes into the agents work which may go unnoticed by the editor, but only when the agents role is removed is when the editor may notice the bulk of the work they do when pushing authors to refine and rewrite as to gain better chances. Speaking of chance, that is a big part of this. So much is reliant on those chance relationships that end up furthering beyond initial ideas.
I enjoyed her writing on genre, not as we usually see it, but as the recognition that an author truly understands their audience and material as made evident through things such a point of view or stylization of syntax. Again, she notes that these are all things the agent must be concerned with as they "can't be resolved through editing" (81). Once the text gets to the editor, these issues, if they are issues, should be resolved so the editor can do what it does best. The dual awareness of Rabiner brings, both to her and the reader, a new admiration for the coherence of the work between editor and agent; although ultimately different in what they do, one would not be as possible without the support of the other. Im interested in this idea as a whole for the publishing industry: how do others factor in? what is the division of labor amongst assistants and teams? how do specific roles support the larger whole?
Some of her tactics as an agent (such as writing the whole to-be book as a table of contents of 50 pages) seemed pretty intense to me, a non-writer. However the explanation of such assignments and the reasoning behind her pushing her authors and questioning their intentions prepares them to work with editors who will take them seriously and hopefully work with them to completion. Are there methods that work best to gain attention and praise? Surly there is no fit all formula, but ideas like Rabiners (and connections as well) seem to be a good place to start and push those stuck towards better chances as success. While the whole relationship bases of the industry can work toward your favor, it's pretty daunting as well. Getting an insight into many sides from the same vantage point is pretty helpful in gaining an understanding of the system, but will it really help you succeed? When it is so personally based, the game can be a hard one to win. Being left to the devices of others... kind of frightening but I guess that's part of the allure as well; to be liked and liked enough to be presented to others....seems like some mean metaphor, good think we have lots of time to think.
I’m glad you’ve emphasized the personal connections and relationships that drive the publishing industry. I think you can see this as outsiders with things like blurbs, and of course with the inside knowledge we’ve gotten from this class. For example, in Chapter 17 Siscoe writes, “Wendelin and I have now worked on thirty-four (and counting) books together. We are an awesome team. So when I think back on the terseness of my first letter to her, I feel the weight of all I would have missed out on had she responded differently” (186). Rabiner points out that it’s okay for editors to share how a book made them feel to an agent, and I think it’s the fact that publishing is such a personal industry that the communication between editor and agent is vital, as you might lose out on some great projects.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was really interesting that one of her main points was that she didn't know everything when she went from being an editor to an agent. It helped to explain the differences between an editor and agent and emphasized the importance of both roles, as you've explained a bit. To me, it also helped show exactly how many steps a piece of writing must go through before it's published. It must be thought of, conceptualized, planned (perhaps with a 50 page table of contents, written, rewritten, accepted by an agent, rewritten again probably, accepted by an editor, edited, and so on. We've talked a lot about gatekeeping in the publishing world and it seems like agents are pretty much the first gatekeepers in this long list of steps, which is probably the explanation for why the job differs from being an editor.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who writes, I found it uplifting that an agent seems more willing to take on a work that's perhaps not quite there, even it means doing elaborate things like a huge table of contents. Certainly it'd be a lot of work, but I trust that her work in both roles means that she knows it'd be helpful.
- Michaela
I was also struggling with Rabiner's idea of conceptualization a bit. I understand that conceptualization is about thinking and not writing, but how are you supposed to separate the two? As a reader, it's sometimes easy to predict what's going to happen next in a story, so it's really interesting to me how authors and editors get to a point where they can surprise readers. The phrase that most stuck out to me was "compelling ideas clothed in words," and I think that's a really neat way to think about books.
ReplyDelete