Skip to main content

Do editors read?

The title of this post might at first glance seem monumentally stupid. Of course editors read - it's a major part of their job, but that's not what I mean.

Let's draw a parallel for a moment. There's a show on the TV that every now and then asks movie actors what was the best film they've seen that year. And quite often, actor after actor admits they, erm, haven't really seen many movies.

What I'm wondering is, do editors curl up with a good book in the evening? Not one of their own - they've read their titles to death - but books in general, just like a 'normal' person.

The reason I ask is that I can imagine that editors might have had enough reading in their day job... and yet, surely editors need to have their fingers on the pulse of the book market, and to have read the competition and know what they're up against? It's an interesting conundrum. (Nice word, conundrum.)

Comments

  1. My answer is - not nearly as much as I should like (BTW, Amazon FINALLY delivered 'Upgrade Me', many weeks after I'd ordered it. Actually, they delivered 2 copies so I gave one to our book review editor. One lives in hope).

    In addition to Nature manuscripts and SF submissions for Nature's Futures column, I've read three (3) books for the purposes of reviewing them, but only one purely for pleasure, and that was 'The Ode Less Travelled' by Stephen Fry, which is nonfiction. The last actual novel I read was Jennifer Rohn's Experimental Heart - which I'd have read anyway, but that was also for a review. These days I only get to read books on the train, a precious time when I could be more profitably (a) working (b) sleeping.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So that's one editor who doesn't - though to be fair, for those who don't know him, Henry is a journal editor, not a book editor.

    What I was particularly wondering is if those who edit books get time to read books. If they don't because they haven't time/get read-out at work, will they gradually drift out of synch with the market? Should all editors have a month's reading break each year to read up what their competitors have been publishing?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your comments need not apply only to those editors that don't read. What about professional chefs who don't cook at home, accountants who dont manage their home finances, bankers who go bankrupt, cobblers who have holes in their shoes,and so on. It's simply that a professional doesn't always take the time to practice their art at home.

    Maybe there'a a bigger theme here about the meaning of employment in the context of leisure time - rather than the other way round.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're right Ian - though it's more a case of chefs who don't eat at other people's restaurants. The point I was trying to make is if the only books an editor reads are his/her books, how do they keep up with the market?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense