"There is as Much Dignity in Writing a Poem as in Tilling a Field" by Jill Watts

I'm very pleased to welcome Professor Jill Watts to EditingGenius today. Jill and I met almost a decade ago when I was a very young editor making my way up the ranks and Jill was publishing her wonderful biography on Hattie McDaniel with my boss at the time. I assisted on the project and appreciated not only Jill's insight and intelligence, but also her warmth and generosity of spirit. She is also a masterful writer and when Jill sets out to tell you someone's story, you are immediately drawn in by her words and know pretty soon into the read that the read will be elegant, rich and memorable. I'm very glad to have her with us as today's Guest Blogger. Now, settle in. You're in for a real treat. 

Booker T. Washington

As a writer of African American history who teaches college courses on the topic, I often cover the debate between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois over their strategies for racial uplift. It usually makes for lively class discussions and students thrash about thinking about the ramifications of Washington’s accommodationist approach to segregation in comparison to Du Bois’s call for immediate social, political, and economic equality. Their papers often reflect a passionate engagement in the dispute.

Central to the debate that raged between the two iconic African American leaders at the turn of the twentieth century was their difference over the direction of education. Washington urged African Americans to focus on economic uplift and to embrace his educational philosophy that focused on vocational training: “No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem.” Du Bois stridently disagreed, arguing that an equal and classical education was essential to the fight for human rights. Mere industrial education was not enough, the mind needed to be challenged and trained. “Is life not more than meat, and the body more than raiment?” Du Bois posed in Souls of Black Folk (1903).

W.E.B. Du Bois

History shows that in the end, Du Bois’s position, at least figuratively, won out. The fight over school desegregation, a civil rights cornerstone, centered on equal and shared access to a comprehensive classical education. Tuskegee Institute became Tuskegee University offering a strong liberal arts and general education curriculum. In my classes, there are some students who praise Washington for what they regard as his practicality in facing overwhelming racism and limited opportunity. But most students will side with Du Bois and his demands for full rights without delay. The spirit of their remarks indicates the dispute over equal education, for them, is an old one and that time has proven Washington wrong.

But it seems to me that in many ways the Washington-Du Bois debate remains relevant. The nation continues to struggle publicly with how to address and act against racism. But there is another part of the debate--the division over the nature of education--that has crept almost unnoticed back into our culture. Specifically, we hear rumblings about the direction that university education should take. Some of this is because of the online revolution in learning. But that is only one change faced in higher education. Another equally important one is in the substance of what our students should or should not be learning. In the media, we hear about the death of the humanities, a field proclaimed by some as obsolete in the twenty-first century. Here and there, obituaries appear announcing the passing of the classical educational model that Du Bois so deeply valued.


The passing of the humanities has not been sudden. Enrollments in humanities majors have been declining over the last forty years. A recent New York Times article, “As Interest Fades in Humanities, Colleges Worry” discusses how students are choosing degrees in the sciences and other majors that universities promote as leading to financially secure jobs. In the push for a career-orientated education, students have been dissuaded from selecting philosophy, literature, languages, and history. At our campus, we also note a decrease in social sciences majors like political science and sociology. What is common among all of these degrees is that they are based on the writing intensive curriculum—their decline means that we produce fewer and fewer writers. STEM, nursing, kinesiology, and criminal justice majors are becoming more and more popular. As the Times points out, these degrees are seen as avenues for future jobs and a means to helping the country regain its competitive edge in the world.

This strikes me as being based on a Booker T. Washington style of accommodationist education—the strength of the nation is determined by an educational system producing vocational workers. Students in colleges (and their parents) become easy recruits to that ideology. The students of today are generally careful and conservative; they are not the “Beat Generation”—they are the “Beat Up Generation.” Most of our students work part-time if not full-time. They have repeatedly lost jobs, seen their parents lose jobs, and watched as their family, friends, and neighbors lose their homes. Here in southern California, many of them have been touched by war. The common advice is that their future rests in career training at the university in jobs will that help the nation and make them good consumers.

The flaw here is that the Great Recession that purportedly led to the United States’ decline in competitiveness was not the result of Americans who were improperly educated—forced by out-of-touch, and probably embarrassingly nerdy, humanities professors into a classical education that held the country back. A classical education served generation after generation well. It stressed baseline knowledge in science, math, the arts, humanities and social science. It produced individuals who could contribute a balance from various perspectives. Importantly, it required all students, regardless of major, to become writers and thinkers.

The decline in the nation’s economy had nothing to do with a classical education or the people who chose humanities as majors. The U.S.’s competitiveness was undermined by poor decisions made over the past forty years, (oops . . . that started about the time the humanities began to decline). Three forces weakened the economy and all were decisions made by those who govern the country not by a flood of humanities majors weakening the nation’s workforce with their knowledge of history or passion for interpretation of texts or ability to speak more than one language. Decline happened because of the deregulation of the economy, the reality that in the 1980s, the country crossed the line from being the biggest creditor to the biggest debtor nation, and the eager outsourcing of jobs. In the end, as far as I can tell, there is no correlation between the sun setting on the American economy and people majoring in the humanities.

Conversely, an argument could be made that the United States’ decline in global position could be derived from forty years of attrition in humanities degrees. And, as a corollary, the perpetuation of the idea that humanities are irrelevant, although apparently some think this makes eye-catching news, could be seen as a endangering the country even more. Rather than proclaiming the demise of the field, the next headline should read “Country Made Vulnerable by End of Humanities: National Economy Weakened by Decline in Citizens Who Can Read and Write.”

At the core, the humanities teach all students to write. Not all writers are produced by colleges but all colleges based in classical education produce writers. The essential tool to writing is thinking. In writing and thinking, students become critical—they learn to analyze, dialogue, and interpret. That ability, to create and question, is essential to the progress of peoples and nations. Du Bois, who wrote volumes and volumes, knew this well. This is why the humanities matter; it is because writing matters. Writing empowers the writer. It is both a personal empowerment through self-expression and a communal empowerment gained by the chance to communicate about the human experience through both fiction and non-fiction. To sustain a culture willing to advance and improve, the dignity of writing must survive. And the humanists who teach and study writing and language--the backbone of a classical education--are critical to a vigorous society.

“Education among all kinds of men always has had, and will always have, an element of danger and revolution, of dissatisfaction and discontent,” wrote Du Bois in 1903. “Nevertheless men strive to know.” It is through knowing, through restless thinking and writing, that we advance. Education must not become entrapped by a world where we consign our future generations to trudge daily back and forth to jobs, mostly in service sector, when, if given another choice, they could use their words to sing, celebrate, provoke, and bring change.





Jill Watts is the author of Hattie McDaniel: Black Ambition, White Hollywood (Amistad, 2005), Mae West: An Icon in Black and White (Oxford, 2001) and God, Harlem U.S.A.: The Father Divine Story (University of California Press, 1992). She is currently working on a book on African Americans serving in the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (known as the Black Cabinet) and is a Professor of History at California State University, San Marcos.
  

She received a B.A. in History (with a minor in Mathematics) from Revelle College at the University of California, San Diego and a M.A. and Ph.D. in History from the University of California, Los Angeles. She came to California State University, San Marcos after teaching at Weber State University, UCLA, and Santa Monica College. She has also taught at Cornell University where she received a fellowship from the Society for the Humanities. A recipient of the CSUSM President’s Award for Scholarship and Creative Activity, her research interests include United States social and cultural history, African-American history, film history, and biography.

On Copyediting--Professional Spotlight

For my money, Copy Editor is one of the most important jobs in the industry and excellent Copy Editors have saved my butt on more than one occasion, so I'm incredibly glad to have here today Chandra Wohleber, Copy Editor Extraordinaire, to tell us a bit about her job. It's a great interview, if I do say so myself, chocked full of good information for writers, and if you're looking to become a Copy Editor, you'll get a glimpse of the skill and talent needed for the job and find as Chandra does that it is a rewarding publishing career path. So...without further ado...



Would you give us an overview of what a copy editor does and your career path? How does one become a freelance copy editor?


A copy editor cleans up and makes consistent the nuts and bolts of a ms. (manuscript), as well as keeps an eye out for any substantive issues that the editor may have overlooked or had to let go (sometimes the same question coming to the author from a new source gets a new answer—you know: when a parent gives you advice you don’t want to take it, but maybe if an aunt or uncle gives you the same advice suddenly it’s a great idea). By “nuts and bolts” I mean spelling and grammar and style and word usage, but also consistency in the use of treatments such as caps and italics; formatting suggestions about extracts, headings, and lists; fact-checking (anything from dates to brand names to movie titles and release dates to song lyrics to details of historical figures and scientific principles, etc.); keeping a chronology; making a list of character names and descriptions and ensuring that the descriptions are consistent throughout the ms.; making a list of word/spelling choices and hyphenation; calling out any material that might need permission clearance; thinking about the overall logic and clarity of the prose.


There are a number of different ways to become a freelance copy editor but I started by working in-house, first as a personal assistant/production assistant/sort-of proofreader at Overlook Press in 1999. (Also, three years before that I was editorial assistant at McGill University’s alumni magazine for a year; maybe that set me on the publishing path…) Then it was my four years at FSG that helped me realize this was the direction I wanted to go in: I knew I liked editorial but I also knew I didn’t have the kind of drive and networking skills and ability to recognize what would sell, to be an acquiring editor. It was also at FSG that I was generously mentored in this work by several incredible people—I’m eternally grateful to them. I started my work in this area by reading blues (the proofs the printer sends for an absolutely last check before the presses start rolling) at FSG, and then by doing the occasional cold read for a couple of clients. Little by little I learned more (including from taking Elaine Chubb’s copyediting class) and clients began to give me more in-depth work. From 2002 onward I was always doing some freelancing on the side while working full-time in-house. Since leaving FSG in 2004, I’ve worked at five other companies in-house (including Putnam, where I had some more great mentoring), slowly gaining clients through those companies and through references. Finally, in September 2012 I went to full-time freelancing and so far I love it!


What are your favorite kinds of books to work on?


That’s really difficult to say because one of the things I love most about my work is the variety. Say I have a run of YA fantasy novels; just when I’m starting to feel a bit tired of them, along comes some adult nonfiction or a biography or a book of poetry or a mystery. I do have a soft spot for a certain kind of sweet but funny middle-grade novel, but honestly, I can’t identify a favorite. Each new project feels exciting because it’s different from the previous one! Mind you, sometimes the excitement doesn’t last very long, but that’s another a story. ;)


What are the books you've worked on that really stand out?


I hate to single out a few to the exclusion of so many wonderful others, but here goes (note: some of these were copyedits, some proofreads): Bringing It All Back Home, an oral history about the experiences New York City Vietnam vets had when they returned to the U.S.; Green Metropolis, about how city living can be more environmentally efficient than country life; The Food of a Younger Land, a fascinating work pulled out of the WPA archives, looking at regional dishes from across the U.S.; Between You and Me, a YA love/friendship/identity story; Unremembered, a YA novel about a girl who wakes up in the middle of the ocean with no memory of who she is; How They Croaked, hilarious but informative middle-grade nonfiction about how famous people in history really died; and High-Water Mark, funny, bold, and honest short stories about young women trying to figure out the boundaries of love and friendship.



Do you form relationships with authors and work with them again and again?


Sometimes—more so in my work for Canadian companies, where the copy editor and author are usually in direct contact, and where the copy editor often does the final clean-up after the author has reviewed the copyedit. With U.S. companies, I do work on multiple books by the same author but generally the relationship is more neutral because it’s filtered through the in-house editor or editorial assistant as well as the production editor and/or managing editor. Again, I like the variety: sometimes it’s nice to simply hand over the copyedit and no longer be involved; other times it’s really satisfying to see an author’s responses (even when he or she is annoyed!) and to “complete” the ms. Of course when I’m in direct contact with an author, there’s always a need to figure out—and given that the communication is almost exclusively by e-mail it can be tricky—who has a sense of humor (or not); who will enjoy getting into a lively debate over a point (and who will not); whose feathers mustn’t be ruffled, etc. Some authors prefer quick casual messages; others want formal in-depth correspondence. In fact, even when I’m not in direct contact, I try to pick up the author’s tone from the ms., and then to match that in my own tone when making suggestions and querying. If you can win over authors by adopting a tone that they like you’re going to go much further with getting them to consider your changes and suggestions. The nice thing about a new ms. by an author you “know” is that you have a sense of what kinds of questions to ask.


What is the most memorable copyediting error you've caught?

I can’t think of a specific one but I’d say some of the most important are straight-up errors in facts: incorrect dates, anachronisms, misspelled names of famous people. If a book has errors of that kind, its credibility is undermined, even if it’s fiction. Another problem that comes up a lot in fiction is wild amounts of activity crammed into what is technically, say, one evening between 8:00 and midnight. Timelines usually have to be very carefully kept track of.


Do you take on any and all projects that come your way or are you more selective? If the latter, how do you choose your projects?


I take absolutely everything unless I’m too booked up to manage it! Partly because I want to stay on clients’ radar and partly because you never know when suddenly the work will dry up and you’ll wish you’d taken that last project and partly because books can surprise you. A literary novel that I thought I’d love might turn out to be as dry as toast while an in-depth look at communications law in Canada might sound like a real slog but then be fascinating and charming and really well written. And after a while clients get a sense of where your strengths lie: no one sends me books on pro sports or hard economics. Then again, in trade nonfiction, sometimes it’s good for the CE to know nothing at all about the topic because gaps in clarity will jump out at him or her. (Sorry, I think I went a little off topic there…)


What should authors know about the copyediting process?


Probably the most important thing I always hope for is that they know not to take anything as a personal attack, and then I hope that they will go through the pages carefully enough to answer all queries clearly and to accept or reject all changes. Having also worked in-house as a PE, I know how frustrating it can be to get a ms. back and only half the queries have been addressed or yes and no answers have been given to questions that can’t be answered with yes or no.


What would surprise authors about the copyediting process?


Probably how long it takes, and that copy editors really, truly do not set out to annoy authors. When we seem finicky and obsessive, it’s not to make authors go insane but rather to try not to overlook anything that might be quite important, even in the tiniest way (if that isn’t a contradiction in terms). Better that the irritating CE points it out in the ms. than that a critic or a “heckler” notices it in the galley or final book!


Can you ever read for pleasure? Or when you read do you find yourself continually noting errors that no one caught?


Oh, yes, no problem there! I do notice typos and grammatical errors, but if the book is really amazing it doesn’t bother me too much—I know how the process works and that as careful as everyone may have been, a typo can still sneak in, especially given that a book may have been on a crash schedule. But factual errors or sloppy details or lack of authenticity in tone bug me and I usually give up on books with any of those issues.


How has technology affected the way you do your job?


Really, not that much. From the beginning for me, I’ve had the Internet for fact-checking so I can’t call that a change (but it’s great!). Then, on the one hand, I absolutely see more on paper than I do on-screen (and Scientific American, in a 2013 article called “Why the Brain Prefers Paper,” says I’m not making that up!) so now even when I’m sent an electronic ms. or pdf proofs, I always print out the material (a con: that’s at my own expense in terms of paper and toner) and do a first read or at least a skim on paper; then, transferring edits from paper to screen always takes longer than I expect so I lose some time there. On the other hand, it’s so quick and easy to e-mail back a ms. in Word or proofs in a pdf! No legging it to the UPS Store with only minutes to spare before the final pick-up of the day, no crossing fingers in hopes that UPS doesn’t lose or delay the package, no jiffy envelopes to buy. A huge disadvantage of Track Changes, though, is the fact that when a manuscript has been copyedited on-screen, proofreaders can’t see what the editor, copy editor, and author have “discussed” because those comments will have been accepted and cleared.


So (1) the proofreader doesn’t know which queries have already been addressed and what kind of responses the author makes, and (2) proofreaders who are just starting out lose what used to be a really valuable way of learning the ropes: seeing the queries and changes the copy editor (and editor) made. Even having been a copy editor for quite a few years now, I still love doing an old-fashioned proofread in which I get proofs with a hard-copy marked-up ms. because there’s always something to learn by seeing how another copy editor handled various situations in the ms.


Do you freelance for authors who intend to self-publish? If so, what percentage of your freelance work is for authors who will self-publish? Is the experience different from working for a house?


I’ve done work for only a couple of authors who are self-publishing, so the percentage is almost nil. The experience is different in that the author probably doesn’t know much at all about the publishing process so at times it can be tough to convince him or her that certain advice really is good advice; and you don’t have the backup of other experts (sales and marketing or publicity people, an editor, an agent) who might also encourage an author to add or cut x or y. Generally I’m not too interested in that field, though, because there’s always a risk you won’t get paid but at the same time you can’t ask to be paid up front because similarly the author could worry about paying you and then the work not being done. The only non-company authors I work for are either friends or friends of friends … so I know where they live! ;) Which leads me to mention that I do occasionally edit and copyedit for writers who are preparing a ms. to submit to agents and publishers, or to journals. The work itself is really the same, though, as when working for a house.

Reaching Teen Readers

In the last several years, bullying has been a real hot button issue in not only our collective social consciousness, but also in young adult literature. While bullying has always been a traditional young adult theme, a rash of recent suicides and the resulting media focus on bullying has brought us all to a crisis point and teen literature reflects that feeling of crisis when it comes to the treatment and mistreatment of our kids in a school setting and online. So books like Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher, Dear Bully, a collection of stories by bestselling and award-winning teen authors, Butter by Erin Jade Lange, and Yaqui Delgado Wants to Kick Your Ass by Meg Medina, just to name a few, have found a ready and abundant adult and teen market as we all struggle with how to deal with tough issues like bullying.

A couple weeks ago, another book on the subject of bullying grabbed my attention, not so much because of the subject matter, but because of a smart touring strategy employed by the author--one that put her in touch with the kids who, perhaps, needed to read her book the most. That book is Fat Angie by e. E. Charlton-Trujillo.

The books is described as follows on Amazon: 

Her sister was captured in Iraq, she’s the resident laughingstock at school, and her therapist tells her to count instead of eat. Can a daring new girl in her life really change anything?

Angie is broken — by her can’t-be-bothered mother, by her high-school tormenters, and by being the only one who thinks her varsity-athlete-turned-war-hero sister is still alive. Hiding under a mountain of junk food hasn’t kept the pain (or the shouts of "crazy mad cow!") away. Having failed to kill herself — in front of a gym full of kids — she’s back at high school just trying to make it through each day. That is, until the arrival of KC Romance, the kind of girl who doesn’t exist in Dryfalls, Ohio. A girl who is one hundred and ninety-nine percent wow! A girl who never sees her as Fat Angie, and who knows too well that the package doesn’t always match what’s inside. With an offbeat sensibility, mean girls to rival a horror classic, and characters both outrageous and touching, this darkly comic anti-romantic romance will appeal to anyone who likes entertaining and meaningful fiction.

Per the copy, Fat Angie deals with a number of issues, bullying being just one. With two starred reviews, one from PW and the other from SLJ, Fat Angie will definitely be on my list for holiday reading, but again, it is how the author reached readers that most captured my attention. As described in this interview on the MTV Act Blog, Charlton-Trujillo went on a different kind of a book tour, one coined an At-Risk Youth Tour, to reach "kids that others might have already given up on." So Charlton-Trujillo rented a car, drove 7500 miles all over the country and talked to hundreds of kids, giving them encouragement, a listening ear and an outlet to express themselves through her workshops. She's making a documentary about the experience, which will be out next year. She's also created an organization, Never Counted Out, that will match writing professionals with at-risk programs in their community to "bridge the gap between professional artists and at-risk youth."

It's a worthy and valuable endeavor and I imagine one that may pick up the slack in places where public school funding for the arts is being slashed and burned. But most importantly, it's an approach to books and the teen market that puts the focus back on the teen reader and affecting them, creating lifelong readers and reinforcing the idea that reading can save your life, literally and figuratively. Charlton-Trujillo didn't set out on her tour to sell books; she set out on this tour to reach kids. And this is certainly the reason any children's book professional is in the business--we want to reach kids. Unfortunately, this focus can be lost to the bottom line and the focus on the blockbuster or media ink given over to the old argument of teen lit being too dark. Here is a writer doing the work and taking it directly to her readers and making a difference in real time. In this way, Fat Angie and other books like it, become so much more than a book, they become a marker on a journey, much the way To Kill a Mockingbird or Flowers for Algernon or The Member of the Wedding were important markers on my journey. I never had the chance to meet Harper Lee or Daniel Keyes or Carson McCullers when I was a young reader, but man, if I could have, it would have meant the world to me. Here were writers, or rather people, who seemed to understand everything I was feeling as a kid, everything I was afraid of and wondering about and excited by. Somehow they were able to see inside the chaos of my brain and understand. Through their characters it felt like someone may have actually been listening to me, listening to the quiet ways in which I tried to reach out to the larger world.

I commend e.E. Charlton-Trujillo for reaching out and delivering this same message to her readers not only through her characters, but for delivering this message in person and in such a way that clearly says, "I am here for you". Not I am here on a book tour selling books, but specifically, "I am here for you." And it's that kind of involvement that we need to quell this apparent crisis with our youth. All of us need to get out there and deliver the message that "I am here for you." This is what children's books do. This is what the authors of children's books do. And it's quite amazing.

On Craft--Show Don't Tell Plus

So a basic rule of writing that most everyone on the planet has heard of even if they don't write or aren't the best at implementing it is "Show, Don't Tell". But what does that really mean, really? Every narrative does need a certain amount of tell--it's unavoidable. So showing vs. telling is really about when you have the opportunity to create an image or a feeling for a reader and that image or feeling can be transformative for the reader and really draw them into the narrative and make them care about the characters, then a writer must take the opportunity and describe a scene or a character or a feeling in the most original and compelling way possible.


Big job, right? It is. And it's particularly a big job because it's important to know when enough is enough. You don't want to show too much or the writing becomes overwrought and melodramatic and the reader's eyes begin rolling. It's a high-wire act.

But the facet of this big job that I want to discuss here is really word choice; the best adjective for the job. You want to choose the most descriptive combination of words possible to create the most compelling and powerful image. There are some words (technically adjectives, but not the best adjectives), though, that a writer may be tempted to use, but do not, in fact, actually describe a thing and definitely don't help paint a picture or conjure an emotion. The words writers choose to create a powerful image should engage all five (or six) of the senses. This is the place where a writer can have fun with language and challenge their own abilities. Words that do not help accomplish this are non-descriptors. Words like perfect, beautiful, or nice. What exactly does perfect, beautiful or nice look like? What does it feel like? What does it sound like? The reader has no idea, not without further description, so why use them at all? The best advice I have for a writer looking to expand their horizons in their use of language is to avoid non-descriptors like the plague. If a writer has to use other words to fully describe a scene or character or feeling summed up in the use of one of these non-descriptors, what was really the point of using the non-descriptor in the first place? Cut out the middle man and give the more dynamic and direct description the first time around. Don't put yourself in a situation where you have to define "nice". Because you're wasting time on the page you could be devoting to something else, something magical that will win and keep your reader for the entirety of the journey.

So this Tuesday's Craft tip? The non-descriptor, that adjective that looks and feels like a descriptor, but is actually not, is not your friend.

Tune in next Tuesday for a continuation of this craft point with a discussion of Synesthesia.

;-)

In the News--Booksellers Wary of Holiday Sales

Today the NYT ran another very typical publishing article, especially typical of this time of year. E-books flat. Consumer interest in the physical book possibly up? Publishers worried about the "health" of B&N aka publishers scared B&N, their largest account, may go the way of the Dodo bird or worse, Borders. No big blockbuster in the season for blockbusters. Independents up. Readers finicky and unpredictable. Nonfiction winning out over fiction? In other words, publishing like any other industries, is racing toward the end of the year, hoping for the best in terms of sales and trying their very best to understand consumer needs and how to meet them late in the fourth quarter.

An article like this, and this time of year in general, really reminds me of publishing's dirty little secret: publishing is a business. One with bottom lines, sales goals, and people who are holding on, hoping for a little something extra to make it a most merry holiday season.

Tis the season...for numbers. Some will fair better than others--as is generally the case in any business, but oh the speculation. The whys and why nots of what is working and not working is absolutely fascinating. At least I find so. But ultimately, no matter what industry observers decide what is happening in the marketplace and why, articles like this also remind me how pivotal the consumer is in this equation, how much power the consumer, the reader, really, truly has. And this is the time of year, more so than any other, that big publishing is really trying to understand what the consumer wants; this is the time of year big publishing is most aware and attentive. With their purchasing power, the consumer does tell the industry so much: what book media has resonated (or not), if the tried and true brand name authors still have the same allure (are Malcolm Gladwell's sales up or down?), did the bright orange cover really work or was it an overreach? (I'm looking at you Dave Eggers), was there a small, unknown, debut author that managed to break through in the toughest publishing season indicating big publishing is missing the mark on a market need?

This is the time of year publishing self-evaluates. While it may be too late for books slated to be published early in the new year, this is the time of year where publishers best learn the lessons the market (the consumer) has to teach. For consumers who say publishers are out of step and not listening, now's the time. I swear. But also, now's the time to do your part. Don't just buy that much ballyhooed book on Amazon, but find your local independent bookseller and talk to them, stake your claim. Tell us directly what will win your dollars. Break through all the noise and buy (tell us) what you really want. We're listening and the NYT wants to report on it (obviously). I know they wish they'd had your input to fill out this very typical end-of-year report. Because glaringly and fascinatingly missing in this latest publishing article in the NYT is the consumer voice, which is a shame, because like Frasier Crane, we're listening.
.