Is the Editor Dead?
 |
| From left: Jerome de Groot (chair), Michael Schmidt, John Mitchinson, Peter Hartley and Lee Brackstone |
Faber and Carcanet, both established publishers, the former larger and London-based, the latter Manchester-based and mainly a publisher of poetry, represented the more ‘classical’ model of publishing in which the editor is a key component. Unbound and Poetic Republic represented new ventures, based on the innovations and opportunities of the internet and digital publishing.
Unbound is the UK’s first crowd-funded publishing house. This means that it uses a familiar practise of subscription, popular in the 19th century, but with a modern-day twist, inspired by the internet. Authors propose ideas for books they hope to write, uploading a pitch to the Unbound website. If readers think this is a good idea for a book they show support by pledging. If the target for a certain number of pledges is met, then Unbound will publish the book in physical form.
Poetic Republic also tries to connect literary activity to the internet age: poems are selected for publication via anonymous peer review. Poets read each other’s work in an anonymous, neutral space. The winner of the competition is published in a physical book and the best poems published in a digital ebook. Altogether, the combinations of interests in both poetry and prose, online and offline, physical and digital publications were all represented by these four men.
As might be expected, both Michael Schmidt and Lee Brackstone staunchly defended the necessity of the editor. Lee Brackstone, Creative Director at Faber, particularly expressed the rejuvenation that the role of the editor must go through in order to continue to be relevant. Although his official job title no longer contains the word ‘editor’ (demonstrating the mounting pressure against the role prevalent in the industry), he insisted that the editorial position that he holds only serves to add value to a writer’s work. He stressed that editors need to think more creatively about how to add this value and reach new audiences.
John Mitchinson of Unbound discussed the nature of the publishing market as whole. He described his impression of the reading public from his work in bookselling: everyone is following their own specific little pathways of interest, led by their passions. However, the pressure from retailers and the constant drive for prioritising profit over all else has limited the crop and in turn the reader’s choice. Unbound is the reaction to this ‘wasteful’ culture, turning the system on its head, and hoping to put the power back into the reader’s hands. He admits that, of course, there is an editorial filter for Unbound; each idea on the site has been promoted by an editor saying ‘this is a great idea’ so that an editor becomes more of a curator rather than a gatekeeper.
The interesting propositions of what will benefit the reader and what will benefit the writer, were a continually revisited theme throughout the discussion. Peter Hartley from Poetic Republic described the ‘great sea’ of writing that overwhelms the editor and the potential reader. He said it’s a problem of discovery: the massive slush piles are not read, editors operate through contacts rather than merit, and publishers hold complete control over distribution. Instead, he urged, discovery of books should be taken to the digital world where a true democracy of choice can be established. Peter stood very much in the camp that the editor is dead: after all, he reasoned, do great painters and sculptors have people to ‘touch up’ their art?
Lastly, Michael Schmidt contributed to the conversation, directly addressing the alleged ‘great sea’ of writing, suggesting that perhaps the reality was more like thousands of ‘puddles’, some containing a tadpole or two. There has been a change of scale in the past 40 years. He elucidated that in the late 1960s there existed around 70 publishers of current writing and 20 of backlist publications. It was obvious to the reader and the writer which publisher represented which particular, specific taste. But this has gradually been shifting into a culture of homogeneity with the rise of large multinational publishing houses, reducing opportunities for both the reader and the writer. He stressed that the role of the editor was crucial to retain distinctive character and choice. In answer to Peter’s analogy of the painter or sculptor, Michael suggested that possibly one of the best experiences involved in writing is the joy of collaboration. As Michael pointed out, the panel was noticeably male-dominated - overwhelmingly so, in fact, due to the unfortunate absence of Erica Wagner, Literary Editor at The Times, who was unwell. I feel, and Schmidt felt, that a female perspective would have further enriched the conversation, as it has enriched the world of publishing.
The questions that followed from the audience pried deeper into the ideas that could only be skimmed over in the short time that was available for such a massive subject; the nature of so-called 'anonymous peers', the possibilities of algorithms acting as editors, and the real-life success of self-publishing. Evocative words such as ‘elitism’, ‘admiration’, ‘fear’, ‘hostility’ and ‘responsibility’ were all used, signalling clearly to me that, far from being a hollowly academic debate, it is clear that this issue is widely emotional, moral, and social, as well as economic. As is often the case with debates such as this, there were more new questions brought to light than answers available. But that seems to me a great reason to continue to consider and debate these issues.
Ella Chappell, Carcanet Intern
Ella Chappell is a London-based poet with a Mancunian soul. Born in 1990, she studied English Literature and Creative Writing at the University of East Anglia, and completed her Masters in Poetry there in 2012. Find more of her writing at http://keepitsugarless.tumblr.com