Simon Says....
Interview with Simon
Trewin
Simon Trewin. Mention the name to most 'want-to-be-published'-writers and their mouths water, most would want to wear his name like a literary designer label, for all that he has come to symbolise. The admiration adjectives read like a shopping list: innovative, daring, exciting, dynamic, generous, caring, dedicated, committed and perhaps the most attractive of the lot,( not that he doesn't strike an intriguing, tinged with darkish sort-of mystique, figure of a man) he is in the publishing context, highly desirable.
And highly desirable for one reason: he is an "author" man. His attraction to and interest in writing talent is deeply genuine. One need just glance through his list of recent deals to get an idea of the flavour and range of his literary palette and then there is his openly critical view of aspects of the publishing industry: especially the extremely devalued role of the editor, in what should be, an author and career -forging orientated business. In one of several recent articles he wrote...
When I joined the publishing world a decade ago, I got a strong sense that we worked in an editorially led business, where sharp minds and idiosyncratic individuals championed authors and forged careers. We are now working in an environment where the editor's role has been devalued to, at times, that of "product manager", and where collective acquisitioning results in bland trend-following rather than exciting trend-setting. This has to change or we are all going to hell in a handcart.
Assessing a book's financial potential is crucial. Yet, if we are not careful, publishing will become completely over-run by sales and marketing departments, and we may as well start sending our projects direct to them. One exasperated leading publisher told me the other day: "I don't know why we bother asking the sales department's opinion--they are either cautious or wrong." When I put this to a marketing director in New York, the reply was swift: "Leaving decision making to the editorial board would make the business even more unprofitable than it is already."
Our job as agent is to safeguard the author's interests in the middle of these clashing Titans and ensure that talented writers are not crushed by internal power plays.
The barriers to publication for an author have never been higher. The complexities which are supposed to ensure that acquisitions are driven by enthusiasm are now conspiring to stop projects getting out there at all. The overheads at most conglomerates are so crippling that sales projections have to be extremely high for a book to be deemed worthy of an offer. Eats, Shoots & Leaves would not, I imagine, have had a particularly healthy costing at a conglomerate, but the same figures at Profile made it happen.
As the publishing world continues to eat itself, the crucial diversity of publishers' lists will suffer, and the next generation of editors will lose interest and wander off to better paid jobs elsewhere.
L i t e r a t i: I cannot help but think of the song.... 'These Boots Are Made for Walking' sung by Nancy Sinatra and I still wonder who are the ones in this addictive and insanely provocative profession wearing them? At a time which finds publisher cautiousness so inextricably bound the momentum of marketing and sales, is it any wonder that writers of talent stand little chance of ever seeing true career daylight?
Trewin is open and daringly critical, going on, in this same article to say:
Agents do care about the long term. It is sad when talented authors are cut off in their prime, and it concerns me that there are many young authors starting out today who will never get the chance to write their great breakout novel. If their first two haven't set the world on fire then a third novel is unlikely to be commissioned at all. Moreover, in today's climate, unless your book is chosen for a promotion, the likelihood of failure is even greater.
Publishers will point out that they are running businesses, not creative-writing schools. But balance is crucial. The publishing world needs to get back to its roots and reinvest the role of editor with some of the power it used to have. Publishing by committee has its merits, but from an agent's point of view we understand the value of individual passion--the passion that burns in the creative mind of an author, the matching passion of their agent. All too often the passion we find in an individual editor is stamped on by a Kafkaesque conglomerate culture.
The publishing world has been built on the reputations of great editors supporting great authors represented by passionate agents. To remove the editor so completely from this equation could leave us with a crumbling empire devoid of the innovation and renewal crucial to the creative culture we live and work in.
I have wanted some more answers to some of my own questions his article on subject raised in my mind and Simon generously obliged.
L i t e r a t i: You have made mention of how these days, making up the numbers is devaluing the editor to the point where text in the future could be taken for granted; What impact in your opinion will this have on the nature of ''the writer'' who finds him/herself increasingly pressured to be their own editor?
Writers are their own worst editors. It is important to have distance from something you've written and an editor, or an agent masquerading as an editor is an essential part of the mix. If writers start to self edit as they write their first draft I suspect that fiction will on the whole be less adventurous and more mundane as a result. Question:
L i t e r a t i: Why is there so much focus on risk-aversion when it comes to the training of younger editors? What are they in fact being trained to do, considering there is so little room for working editorially, in the traditional sense, with a given manuscript?
There are gifted young editors but I think they are more likely to be on the literary than the commercial side. Young editors are being trained, and I use this term loosely to become product managers.
L i t e r a t i: Does this not forecast the possible demise of the editor altogether, considering as you have put it, if all the editor is or becomes, is a conduit and one without the final say-so, then it seems implicit that this role could, to all intents and purposes, be filled by that of the literary agent?
The argument about the devaluing of the role of the editor is a convenient one as it enables me to highlight what I feel are deficiencies in certain parts of the industry. Of course there are wonderful editors and there are wonderful editors who are coming up through the ranks but their role has certainly changed and their power has changed. Given the fact that the barriers to entry are now so much higher it is harder for a young editor to nurture a glowing talent and develop it into something approaching best seller status. Literary agents are certainly doing more editing and longer term career guidance (because we, unlike editors, are more likely to be in one place for the long term) but the crucial role that an editor does fulfil is that of an internal ambassador for the book and an internal champion for the author. As an outsider we can never replace that.
L i t e r a t i: Back for a moment to the relationship between content and cash: When you say it is less about prose than about the math, how do you, as an agent weigh up the balance between excellence and the income it can earn the literary agency, the publisher and eventually, the author? And this in a context where auction prices can range from a mere 20 000 to 150 000: How much is bound in the hype-marketing potential surrounding the image of the book?
Of course it is a brave author who turns down £150,000 as an advance for their first book to take £20,000 elsewhere. The income to the literary agency has nothing to do with the decision making process at the time of auction. We are acting on behalf of the authors and although our commission is a percentage of what the author takes away all we can do is lay the various offers in front of our client and let them make the decision. The occasions where I would advise an author not to take the top offer would be for a number of reasons. Firstly because I felt the under-bidder's logo on the jacket of the book would ensure more reviews. Secondly whether there has been a special bond between author and editor and thirdly where the author has had a gut feeling that the particular company was going to add some extra sparkle to the process. There is a danger that if you always take the money but if the book only does modestly well that the author will be perceived in house by the publisher as being a costly error. It's far better to take the right deal from the right company in the hope that they will stick with the author in the long term. I am well aware of the inherent contradictions in this answer and the catch 22 position of 'the more the publisher pays the harder they'll work to get a return on their investment'. But life is full of contradictions and as an agent and an author you just have to go with your gut feeling and that is not always with the money.
And where, in all of this strategic game-playing, do authors find themselves? I ask this because I am intrigued by the market influence defining success or failure, irrespective of the author's professional rank: take for example a newcomer such as Scarlet Thomas, described as UK's ''wunderkind" and British bad-boy favourite , Martin Amis, whose slack reviews and subsequent low sales of Yellow Dog, had him headed off to Brazil for this year, leaving his editor and partners at Miramax to deal with the fallout...
I think there is a danger that we can talk about there being a crisis. There isn't - we're just going through one of the periodic re-alignments of the twin opposing forces of creativity and commerce. Authors should find themselves where they have always been - writing brilliant work getting great representation and being brilliantly published.
L i t e r a t i: Considering your familial literary lineage of editorial and critical expertise and the love of fine writing this background has given you personally, what prognosis do you have for an industry which is, on one hand, deeply nepotistic by its very nature and highly driven by sales and on the other, one which has already conceded so much of its clout to retailers?
Let's tackle this one head on nepotism got me my first interview in the publishing world it didn't get me the job. Had it got me the job I suspect I would have to have worked even harder than if I'd got it without any connections at all. People always assume that my dad being who he is got me a leg up in the industry - I think on many levels it made my job a lot harder. If that's really right that the publishing world should be driven by sales - we are not between us running a creative writing school with a publishing option. Everybody is in this business to make money or the writers the publishers and yes the agents. What I hope we can do within this sales driven environment is ensure that the sales are being made from books of an increasing quality. One of the really positive things about the industry at the moment is that the margins between literary and commercial are blurring. Literary novels are being sold in commercial quantities and commercial novels are being written to a higher and higher standard. Quality will out and I hope that the retail trade will continue to recognise that if you give the general public a well written book that stays with them long after they have shut the cover that the word of mouth that this engenders will guarantee people coming back to the bookshops before too long.
L i t e r a t i: Do you think any kind of parity of power, which might return the scales in favour of the value of prose, is possible? If so, is it to be found in the burgeoning appearance of independent editors and the editorial dedication of such agencies such as Cornerstones? And lastly, will these disciples of the old fashioned art of editing ultimately step into the modern-day editor's shoes?
In the beginning was the word and the word was good. There has always been rubbish being published as there continues to be rubbish on television. The general being what the general public are suggests that rubbish is incredibly popular but one only has to look at the column inches and television minutes that are devoted to the likes of the Orange, the Whitbread, the Samuel Johnson and the Booker prize to see that there is a huge constituent market out there of literary fiction and high end non fiction. I think the value of prose has never been higher but it is the valuing of books that needs to concern us more. With excessive discounting in store and on the net the general public are being educated to believe that books shouldn't cost much more than a cinema ticket. And in outlets such as Asda and Tesco books are so cheap that it is almost an embarrassment. I am not convinced that these supermarkets are growing the market. My concern is that they are devaluing the book as an artefact. So let us continue to value prose and let us increase the value of the means of delivering. I think agencies such as Cornerstone and the Literary Consultancy are very much in the ascendancy as are literary agents with in-house editors. If we can stop discounting and keep more money in the industry to fund training and proper salaries for editors (thus stopping those wandering somewhere else and taking their skill set with them) then hopefully we will reverse the sad trend of editors being devalued. by wordsmith at large.
Weblink: http://www.pfd.co.uk/agents/simon_trewin