I am a regular member of AW, but want to post this anonymously for reasons which should become clear as you read on (mods, if there's a problem with that, do let me know). Until this issue is sorted I am reluctant to be more specific with any of these points and ask that no one tries to guess who I am or who the publisher is, because it could get me into all sorts of trouble. But I would appreciate some hard advice, because at the moment I feel like I must be living in a publishing's Twilight Zone.
Last year I agreed to write a small book (12,000-15,000 words) for an independent publisher of small-format gift books with a very distinctive and desirable style. My title is on quite a serious, non-fiction subject.
I delivered the text in December, ahead of schedule, and the publisher told me he was very pleased with my work. In mid-February he took me out to lunch and we discussed it further: he told me that it would have to be edited to fit his standard template layout (which required that each double page spread focused on a separate topic, and which he had not explained to me before), which was potentially going to be a difficult job as my text took the form of one long essay; but he commented that while it was desirable for the book to conform to his standard layout it wasn't essential, and that the integrity of the text had to come first.
We agreed that he would carry out this edit-to-fit, as he has the better knowledge of the layout and I struggle to do much editing on screen, due to RSI: but I did make it clear that I would help with this if asked, or even do it myself if he found it impossible. I asked if he was pleased with the work I had done, and if there were any parts he intended to cut, as I had exceeded his normal word-count a little, and was concerned that it would be difficult to edit to fit his template. He responded by saying that he "didn't want to change a single word". Since then I've emailed him a few times, about other things, and he's responded positively about my text each time it's been mentioned.
Last Monday morning (20 April--about four months after I delivered the text, and two months after we lunched) he phoned me and told me that there was a crisis wtih the book. With the assistance of a friend (who is neither a writer nor an editor), the publisher had tried to edit my text to fit the template but couldn't; and he had then sent it out to experts, who had told him the book was full of errors.
The publisher told me that the text would have to be rewritten completely, in order to accommodate the experts' comments and to fit it to his standard template. The book was due to go to print at the end of this month; he has delayed that until mid-May, and could perhaps delay further to the end of May. It seems to me to be wholly unrealistic to expect us to be able to perform a full line-edit on this book in three or four weeks (even though the text is relatively brief); there wouldn't be any time for design (a big part of the appeal of these little books), copyediting or proofs.
He has now emailed me his edited version and while I am not usually precious about my own text (I've published several books, love a good, hard edit and have edited professionally too) I wonder if I am being so now, because I'm really unhappy with it: great chunks have been cut and a couple of extra paragraphs have been inserted, which seem very clumsily-written to me. Several errors have been introduced, and much information which is essential to that which follows has been removed, which renders a lot of the text incomprehensible. What remains has no flow or integrity, and is comprised of lots of lists and flat statements of fact.
The publisher has since sent me comments from two apparent experts in their field.
One expert provided only copyediting points and stylistic changes (which I consider indadvisable). Most of the copyedits concern errors introduced by the publisher's own editing of my text. As this text isn't even line-edited yet, it seems bizarre to me to copyedit it; and as this expert appears to have published only through various vanity publishers, I wonder just how sound his academic background is.
The other expert raised concerns about the gaps in the information the book provides--which correspond to the chunks of text the publisher cut, and to information which he told me to leave out of the book when he briefed me on it last summer. She also pointed out the difficulty involved in editing the text to fit the standard layout, which I have already discussed.
The publisher has still not delayed publication, and is still pushing me to get all this done in just two weeks.
I have offered him three alternatives: he can press ahead with my manuscript and aim for his current deadline, but I will not help with the edit and would demand that he publish it under a pseudonym, as I don't want my name on the cover; we delay publication by a decent amount, and I will work with him to get this book right; or I will withdraw my manuscript so he can find an author he has more faith in to write this title for him. He has still not told me which one he favours.
He wanted me to write further books for him, and had warned me that he was having to restructure the contract because he had reworked his costings and they didn't work. I assumed that this new contract would come into effect on any new books he signed, but this morning I received in the post a new contract for the book that is in editing turmoil, in which my royalty is cut from 8% to 5%, and new rights are granted to the publisher: the rationale given is that while he is still in profit (albeit by a smallish amount) he's not making enough money out of the books that he publishes. I wonder what he'd say if I wrote back and presented him with the same argument, only this time in my favour rather than in his?
So, what do you think? Am I being unreasonable in asking for a decent delay for the publication of this book, so that we can get it right? Is a couple of weeks enough time to rewrite the book, edit it to the layout, design, copyedit and proofread it? And what do you think of that new contract?
Last year I agreed to write a small book (12,000-15,000 words) for an independent publisher of small-format gift books with a very distinctive and desirable style. My title is on quite a serious, non-fiction subject.
I delivered the text in December, ahead of schedule, and the publisher told me he was very pleased with my work. In mid-February he took me out to lunch and we discussed it further: he told me that it would have to be edited to fit his standard template layout (which required that each double page spread focused on a separate topic, and which he had not explained to me before), which was potentially going to be a difficult job as my text took the form of one long essay; but he commented that while it was desirable for the book to conform to his standard layout it wasn't essential, and that the integrity of the text had to come first.
We agreed that he would carry out this edit-to-fit, as he has the better knowledge of the layout and I struggle to do much editing on screen, due to RSI: but I did make it clear that I would help with this if asked, or even do it myself if he found it impossible. I asked if he was pleased with the work I had done, and if there were any parts he intended to cut, as I had exceeded his normal word-count a little, and was concerned that it would be difficult to edit to fit his template. He responded by saying that he "didn't want to change a single word". Since then I've emailed him a few times, about other things, and he's responded positively about my text each time it's been mentioned.
Last Monday morning (20 April--about four months after I delivered the text, and two months after we lunched) he phoned me and told me that there was a crisis wtih the book. With the assistance of a friend (who is neither a writer nor an editor), the publisher had tried to edit my text to fit the template but couldn't; and he had then sent it out to experts, who had told him the book was full of errors.
The publisher told me that the text would have to be rewritten completely, in order to accommodate the experts' comments and to fit it to his standard template. The book was due to go to print at the end of this month; he has delayed that until mid-May, and could perhaps delay further to the end of May. It seems to me to be wholly unrealistic to expect us to be able to perform a full line-edit on this book in three or four weeks (even though the text is relatively brief); there wouldn't be any time for design (a big part of the appeal of these little books), copyediting or proofs.
He has now emailed me his edited version and while I am not usually precious about my own text (I've published several books, love a good, hard edit and have edited professionally too) I wonder if I am being so now, because I'm really unhappy with it: great chunks have been cut and a couple of extra paragraphs have been inserted, which seem very clumsily-written to me. Several errors have been introduced, and much information which is essential to that which follows has been removed, which renders a lot of the text incomprehensible. What remains has no flow or integrity, and is comprised of lots of lists and flat statements of fact.
The publisher has since sent me comments from two apparent experts in their field.
One expert provided only copyediting points and stylistic changes (which I consider indadvisable). Most of the copyedits concern errors introduced by the publisher's own editing of my text. As this text isn't even line-edited yet, it seems bizarre to me to copyedit it; and as this expert appears to have published only through various vanity publishers, I wonder just how sound his academic background is.
The other expert raised concerns about the gaps in the information the book provides--which correspond to the chunks of text the publisher cut, and to information which he told me to leave out of the book when he briefed me on it last summer. She also pointed out the difficulty involved in editing the text to fit the standard layout, which I have already discussed.
The publisher has still not delayed publication, and is still pushing me to get all this done in just two weeks.
I have offered him three alternatives: he can press ahead with my manuscript and aim for his current deadline, but I will not help with the edit and would demand that he publish it under a pseudonym, as I don't want my name on the cover; we delay publication by a decent amount, and I will work with him to get this book right; or I will withdraw my manuscript so he can find an author he has more faith in to write this title for him. He has still not told me which one he favours.
He wanted me to write further books for him, and had warned me that he was having to restructure the contract because he had reworked his costings and they didn't work. I assumed that this new contract would come into effect on any new books he signed, but this morning I received in the post a new contract for the book that is in editing turmoil, in which my royalty is cut from 8% to 5%, and new rights are granted to the publisher: the rationale given is that while he is still in profit (albeit by a smallish amount) he's not making enough money out of the books that he publishes. I wonder what he'd say if I wrote back and presented him with the same argument, only this time in my favour rather than in his?
So, what do you think? Am I being unreasonable in asking for a decent delay for the publication of this book, so that we can get it right? Is a couple of weeks enough time to rewrite the book, edit it to the layout, design, copyedit and proofread it? And what do you think of that new contract?
