“I work as an agent for Jane Dystel and thanks for cutting off the pipeline to what editors think,” runs an unsigned response to this morning’s declared moratorium on unsigned complaints from editors about how miserable they are about publishing stupid books. “A number of us here have gleaned important info from the posts that you now want to ban.” I had no idea that “some editors think agents are venal parasites” and “some editors think bookbuyers are mindless sheep” was “important info,” because that’s pretty much what has come out of the anonymous complaints we get here. The best information I’ve gotten, and shared, about what editors think comes from editors who have been willing to identify themselves and engage in actual conversations about their passion for publishing and, more fundamentally, for books, not the ones who simply treat the anonymous tip box as a cheaper place to unload than a therapist’s office.
So when another unsigned email this morning says, “Editors are not whiney and I do not appreciate you saying that at all,” my only response is the obvious one, the point that was no doubt understood by the hundreds of editors who haven’t seen any need to write in: I didn’t say that. I said I wasn’t going to run any more whiny anonymous emails from editors. Thoughtful anonymous emails? Bring ’em on. Anonymous emails that actually contain the kernel of a story, rather than consisting wholly of opinion? Even better. But if all you want to do is talk in generalities about how chasing the bottom line has caused publishers to forget literature, and how consumers will cram their eyes full of any stupid words you throw in front of them, you can peddle that line someplace else. It’s not news to anybody here, and it doesn’t tell us anything we need to know to actually make things better.