CCBC-Net Archives
Dear Genius
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Levine, Arthur <ALevine>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:30:11 -0400
It's so interesting to read the various responses to editors receiving credit for their work on a book. I have to say the controversy puzzles me, somewhat.
It's common (and appropriate, in my opinion), for instance, for designers to receive a credit line somewhere in the book that says, "Book design by X." And I believe very few of the designers themselves, or people who read the credit in the book confuse this with the credit due the illustrator for creating the artwork. Similarly, in films, the producer and director can receive prominent and full credit for their work without anyone suggesting that to do so somehow takes away from the STUDIO that finances the film, or the performances of the actors.
I believe that the work of editors and authors can be seen as deeply entwined yet clearly separate. The world manages to distinguish credit in other collaborative partnerships. For instance, no relationship could be more complex to me than the one between Jackie Joyner Kersee and her husband/Coach. They both talk movingly about the ways in which they work together in pracitce, manage training, eat, drink and sleep. Many say he has inspired her greatest performances. Yet none of this takes away from Jackie's reputation as one of the greatest athletes in the world.
So, I wonder, why is it that there is even a question about giving editors like Ursula Nordstrom (or even those less famous editors like the one Susan Kuklin anonymously praises) "credit". I think it has to do with the popularity of the romantic image of the author as a receptacle of divine inspiration rather than a hardworking person of talent. We picture a dark and stormy night: the lone writer, seized with a vision of a text, fully-formed and perfectly graceful, sits pounding out his or her masterpiece on a manual typewriter, in one long fluid, unbroken rush.
Nowhere in this popular image (which I see lurking in the shadows of many a writers' conference, and which I hear infiltrating countless conversations about writing and the publishing industry) is there anything of the glorious, difficult, agonzing process of revision, struggle, doubt and redoubt that an author goes through before that text is really done.
(The process so beautifully revealed in DEAR GENIUS). And so, of course, there's no room in the myth for anyone who might have participated in that process with the author.
I'm not sure why Mark Aaronson feels it's dishonorable for being given credit for doing his job. I think he's a wonderful editor, and deserves to be indentified for his part. And why should Brenda Bowen have to wait for one of her many excellent books to win the Newbery to receive some kind of public acknowledgment? I know Karen Hesse would have felt no compunction about including such a credit line in OUT OF THE DUST, and again, I don't think it would have taken one bit away from Karen or from the house that published the book (Scholastic Press).
Many people in this DEAR GENIUS discussion have commented on the intensity of UN's committment to her job -- how she took an almost maternal stance toward many of her authors. Does anyone think the traditional reluctance on the part of the publishing industry toward crediting editors has anthing to do with the "family" model on which so many houses were founded. I.e. is it maybe that it's not that editors shouldn't be given credit for doing their job, but that they shouldn't consider it a "job" really? That it should be more of a parental, familial position of privilege, rather than something for which one's professional contribution should be recognized?
In the case of Ursula Nordstrom, I think that not only would a credit line somewhere in the books she edited have been fair, it would have been a badge of honor for which many a hopeful author would vie. I certainly would have.
Arthur Levine Author and Editor
Received on Wed 12 Aug 1998 12:30:11 PM CDT
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:30:11 -0400
It's so interesting to read the various responses to editors receiving credit for their work on a book. I have to say the controversy puzzles me, somewhat.
It's common (and appropriate, in my opinion), for instance, for designers to receive a credit line somewhere in the book that says, "Book design by X." And I believe very few of the designers themselves, or people who read the credit in the book confuse this with the credit due the illustrator for creating the artwork. Similarly, in films, the producer and director can receive prominent and full credit for their work without anyone suggesting that to do so somehow takes away from the STUDIO that finances the film, or the performances of the actors.
I believe that the work of editors and authors can be seen as deeply entwined yet clearly separate. The world manages to distinguish credit in other collaborative partnerships. For instance, no relationship could be more complex to me than the one between Jackie Joyner Kersee and her husband/Coach. They both talk movingly about the ways in which they work together in pracitce, manage training, eat, drink and sleep. Many say he has inspired her greatest performances. Yet none of this takes away from Jackie's reputation as one of the greatest athletes in the world.
So, I wonder, why is it that there is even a question about giving editors like Ursula Nordstrom (or even those less famous editors like the one Susan Kuklin anonymously praises) "credit". I think it has to do with the popularity of the romantic image of the author as a receptacle of divine inspiration rather than a hardworking person of talent. We picture a dark and stormy night: the lone writer, seized with a vision of a text, fully-formed and perfectly graceful, sits pounding out his or her masterpiece on a manual typewriter, in one long fluid, unbroken rush.
Nowhere in this popular image (which I see lurking in the shadows of many a writers' conference, and which I hear infiltrating countless conversations about writing and the publishing industry) is there anything of the glorious, difficult, agonzing process of revision, struggle, doubt and redoubt that an author goes through before that text is really done.
(The process so beautifully revealed in DEAR GENIUS). And so, of course, there's no room in the myth for anyone who might have participated in that process with the author.
I'm not sure why Mark Aaronson feels it's dishonorable for being given credit for doing his job. I think he's a wonderful editor, and deserves to be indentified for his part. And why should Brenda Bowen have to wait for one of her many excellent books to win the Newbery to receive some kind of public acknowledgment? I know Karen Hesse would have felt no compunction about including such a credit line in OUT OF THE DUST, and again, I don't think it would have taken one bit away from Karen or from the house that published the book (Scholastic Press).
Many people in this DEAR GENIUS discussion have commented on the intensity of UN's committment to her job -- how she took an almost maternal stance toward many of her authors. Does anyone think the traditional reluctance on the part of the publishing industry toward crediting editors has anthing to do with the "family" model on which so many houses were founded. I.e. is it maybe that it's not that editors shouldn't be given credit for doing their job, but that they shouldn't consider it a "job" really? That it should be more of a parental, familial position of privilege, rather than something for which one's professional contribution should be recognized?
In the case of Ursula Nordstrom, I think that not only would a credit line somewhere in the books she edited have been fair, it would have been a badge of honor for which many a hopeful author would vie. I certainly would have.
Arthur Levine Author and Editor
Received on Wed 12 Aug 1998 12:30:11 PM CDT
