In an earlier post on our philosophy I wrote:
… we take a very fallible approach to publishing. We like to minimize editing and heavy-handed changes. We don’t pretend that we understand what readers are looking for.
I really do believe that editors and publishers have no way of knowing beforehand whether a book is going to succeed or not (above a certain baseline). Many publishers and editors assume (or tell themselves) that they know what is good for their readers. That is a massively arrogant position. It becomes clear with a little introspection and understanding of the history of publishing that, generally speaking, editors have no clue on what readers enjoy. One only has to consider that massively successful books were initially rejected by many publisher (12 in the case of J. K. Rowling) with very “reasonable” sounding explanations.
Once a book goes on to become successful, editors and publishers go on to make up stories explaining the success (hindsight bias)
We believe our writers have their fingers on the pulse of their readership, so we minimize (strive to eliminate, in fact) any editing and heavy-handed changes other than those that are absolutely necessary. We focus on what we do well - design, marketing, and putting together a nice book.
Michael Allen and Nassim Taleb have written before about the publishing industry in general and the “faux expert” role of editors in particular. I really recommend their writings.
Post a Comment