Remembering

A few days ago, Gillian Polack sent an e-mail to Nicki and me with the ominous subject line: “Bad news.” Something like that always makes my heart shrivel up a bit with terror; what am I going to know?

Do you remember that one of the first things I did for BiblioBuffet was interview a writer called Paul Haines? How we talked at great length about his use of bad language and how it should be handled? How he was fighting cancer? Well, he fought beyond anything I’ve ever seen. He lasted long enough so that he got to see his child have her first day at school. The doctors kept saying “You won’t see Christmas,” “You won’t see New year” and he did. Today, however, he died.

I thought you ought to know.

Thank you both for letting me do that interview, and thank you especially for letting his language shine there on the page, without any cuts or alternates.

The interview to which she referred was her second column for BiblioBuffet. I didn’t remember it until I re-read it and reached the end where an excerpt from Wives, his novella was.

Now I remembered. I remembered the discomfort with which I read it. I remember the struggle within myself as editor and reader, the former arguing that my personal boundaries should not transcend my responsibilities as editor, the latter cringing at the scene depicted and the language used. And I remembered the discussion with Nicki over that discomfort. She had no problem with it, but it wasn’t her personal take on it that mattered. Nor, as we talked it out, was it mine. Ultimately, it came down to editorial accountability. Was BiblioBuffet willing to stand behind its motto of “writing worth reading”? If so, I had to face the fact that this might mean, as it did then, printing material that I personally found offensive.

Nicki and I both eventually won myself over. I didn’t have to like what went up all the time, nor did I need to print everything that came our way, but I did need to be true to the mission statement that I originally wrote for BiblioBuffet. For the first time I had to face, squarely, the fact that running a publication that possessed integrity meant going beyond personal boundaries. I couldn’t control what the contributors chose to write, nor did I want to. I don’t believe in hiring the best and then trying to stifle that excellence. Prior to opening BiblioBuffet I learned a lot of lessons as a writer. This was the beginning of my lessons as an editor.

To Paul and Gillian I owe a great deal of thanks for their contributions to my life—as a person, a writer, a reader, and as an editor.

When Less is More

BiblioBuffet has changed its Write for Us page. The reason? We are now closed to those who seek to be regular contributors, that is, writers who want to have a column. However, we are still open to guest contributors who want to submit pieces to BibliOpinions.

As you may know, Nicki Leone and I have full-time day jobs. BiblioBuffet must be produced in our free time, and there is only so much of that to go around. Especially in Nicki’s case, as she works more than one job. Nicki is the content editor behind what you read on BiblioBuffet, and she works hard at it. She works hand-in-hand with the contributors to ensure that their writing, already top-notch, is flawless.

I focus primarily on copy editing, proofreading, and posting. I also pay the bills. Since we do not accept advertising (yet), the money comes out of my pocket; there is only so much to go around.

These are both important reasons for closing our application process at this point in them, but there is one more reason. And it may be even more important. We don’t want to get too big. We want to keep the spotlight on the writers we have now because we believe we have some of the best. The larger a site grows and the more writers it has, the less opportunity each writer has to shine. And we think that would be a shame.

We hope you enjoy reading the wide variety we do offer: Carl Rollyson on biography, Pete Croatto on sports, Lindsay Champion on modern memoirs, Laine Farley on bookmarks, Lev Raphael on anything that catches his literary eye, Gillian Polack on science fiction, fantasy, science, and Australia-iana, and Nicki Leone on, well, on anything except self-help.

We believe that by having less we actually have more. We give you a good look at some damn good books through some damn good writers and we don’t worry that we cannot cover everything. 

Still, we are open to many things we do not cover regularly through our BibliOpinions page. That’s where you’ll find things you won’t find elsewhere on our site, and where writers who are looking to share their work can still come to be part of our team. And when we do open up again to new regular contributors we will look to our guest contributors first.

More Contributor Birthings

Last week I talked about an e-mail fluke that resulted in our newest contributor, Carl Rollyson. More commonly, though, we hear from writers who find our website through various means. Some are referred by current writers. Others appear to stumble across it. These are mostly single applicants. But when it is listed on a writers’ blog or website as a paying market we tend to get a slew of applicants all at once. That happened about three weeks ago.

It must have been posted in the evening because I received two interested queries that night. The next day brought about a dozen  more. And the day after that another dozen or so.

When we receive a number of applicants at once, the winnowing down is a multi-step process. In this case, I sent responses to almost everyone requesting more time though I did quickly review the submissions. The level of writing from five applicants was not even close to what we require; they received a form rejection immediately.

This still left me with more than twenty queries for one or at most two openings for regular columnists. About a week later, I read the remaining queries more carefully, separating the applicants into three folders: Yes, Maybe, and No. I then let myself think about my decisions for a couple of days. The rejected applicants in the No category received semi-personalized rejections.  Another seven eliminated.

The third step was breaking apart the maybe category into Yes and No folders. This is where the real difficulty began. “With sufficient editing . . .” I’d hear in my head as I read a piece, so  I had to repeatedly remind myself that I already had more than enough strong applicants, and that we didn’t want to take on applicants who would need a lot of editing. Out of necessity most of them received rejections. End result: one Yes folder, five semi-finalists.

So last night Nicki and I had a phone meeting to discuss the candidates. It was a long conversation but not because we disagreed. We rarely do. But we had reasons and expectations—not just of the candidates but of ourselves and of BiblioBuffet—to discuss.

Even though we pay relatively little, we offer our writers some things they have difficulty finding elsewhere. A “writer’s playground,” as Pete Croatto once phrased it, is one because the columnists have the right, indeed, the obligation, to write what they want, how they want, and when they want. As long as they say it well, we will run it. It’s a heady freedom for most of them, but for us, it’s simple common sense. Hire the best and then get out of their way. And at BiblioBuffet we do get out of their way.

Of course, that doesn’t mean a lack of editing. On the contrary, we are committed to excellent editing, which means that we, Nicki in particular, help the writers find their best writing while keeping our voices (and opinions) out of their work.

Our newest potential contributors haven’t experienced that yet. They are going to be providing individual pieces to BibliOpinions, our guest section for a while. This gives us a chance to see how they write, how much editing they need, and how they meet deadlines. It also gives them an opportunity to learn what it is to work with us and to see if they like it.

While I am always honored to hear from writers who wish to write for BiblioBuffet, it has its difficult moments. I hate sending rejections, especially to those who might make it with more experience. But because it is the readers who come to BiblioBuffet with high expectations—we do promise “writing worth reading, reading worth writing about”—we must adhere to our own standards much as we expect the writers to meet them.

Seeking Writers

BiblioBuffet has openings for regular columnists coming up in 2011.

If you are an experienced writer who enjoys writing about books, reading, or related issues please let us know. We are definitely interested in book reviewers with personality especially if you want to specialize in a given subject (cookbooks, young adult, history, etc.), but we also want to hear from generalists. And we are open to your ideas if you have a specific subject that interests you.

What do I mean by personality? We like reviewers who go outside standardized book reviews, adding themselves to the mix. Your opinions, feelings, relationship, memories and more are important when writing for us. We like you to be you!

One column I would love to add would be about libraries. Whether they are public or private, large or small, unusual or common I believe that there are stories there. Are you a writer who can talk to people about their bookshelves—regardless of what is on them—and then share the experience? Could you make any library, even one composed solely of John Grisham novels, and its owner interesting to BiblioBuffet’s readers? Would you be interested in being part of a widely-scattered team doing that in your own part of the country? Would you like to do the same for bookstores? Or maybe follow literary censorship wherever it may rear its head?

These are not the only ideas we want to see. Tell us what turns you on and why. Because if you have a love of words, a strong command of English, a desire to work with an excellent editorial team, and a passion for writing about literary subjects we want to hear from you. Managing Editor Nicki Leone can be reached at nicki . leone {@} bibliobuffet.com. Editor in Chief Lauren Roberts can be reached at lauren . roberts {@} bibliobuffet.com. (Be sure to put the addresses into the proper format before sending that e-mail.)

While the pay is not high—we offer $20 per column—we do have several excellent benefits: the opportunity to work with a brilliant content editor, maximum editorial freedom, and regular appreciation. For more details, please see our Write for Us page here. And if you want to contact our current contributors for their experiences with BiblioBuffet, feel free. We pride ourselves on keeping them happy. And our readers as well.

The Writer’s Toolbox or Grammer It Ain’t

Of course I know how to spell the word “grammar.” I know the word “ain’t” isn’t a word in the world of proper English. I also know the difference between “its” and “it’s,” and when you use “who” rather than “what.”

All writers should. Possessing proper English skills is a writer’s foundation, similar to knowing how to properly wield a hammer would be to a master carpenter, or understanding the nature of fractions would be to a mathematician. Those are pieces of basic knowledge that must be mastered before you can go on to anything else in the field.

Serious writers use this basic tool in all their communications. Yet, surprisingly, what some of us editors are seeing are writers who feel that they can save their tools for their formal submissions and go “casual” elsewhere—in their blog posts and comments, in online forums, and even in e-mail inquires. This is mistaken thinking.

I would no more “go casual” in any written communication than I would add Red Mountain wine the high school boys I knew used to drink at parties—a gallon for $1.49 if I remember correctly— to my Boeuf Bourguignon. You know why? The impression is not good. Fortunately, the idea of sending out a written communication that does not reflect well upon the writer is anathema to most. But not everyone.

Two queries from two different writers showed up just a few days ago.  But they had a lot in common: both arrived on the same day; both were from women; both used lowercase letters all the way through.

Did you hear me screaming?

Misspelling words or using textspeak or all lowercase or uppercase letters when querying an editor is like walking into an interview for a Wall Street firm with a purple Mohawk, a t-shirt that advocates impolite actions, and neon-orange pants that would burn the eyelids off an alligator. No one is going to say you can’t do that, but then no one is going to hire you either. If you are okay with that, then wear what you want. If your goal is to get a serious job at a serious firm, you need to follow their style.

That’s no less true for writers seeking to join a publication that takes itself seriously.  I don’t know if the proliferation of “content” sites is responsible for writers thinking they can “go casual” in their queries. But at BiblioBuffet writers who choose that route are dead in the water. If you want to write for us, it’s good to keep these rules in mind:

• Be sure you have read and absorbed the guidelines we have on our “Write for Us” page. Then follow them. We are not out to torture applicants; what we ask for is exactly what we want—and we have reasons for it.
• Begin with a formal style of address. My name is on the e-mail form so opening your query with “Dear Ms. Roberts” is an excellent start.
• Always, always, always use correct spelling and punctuation. I can overlook a typo, but when I see “i” at the beginning of  a sentence I will kick your little “i” out on its serif.
• Do not—ever!—use any version of textspeak. I hate that more than words have the power to convey.
• It is not in your best interest to question me over the course of several e-mails about our payment rates (especially when the information is clearly posted on our website) and only after I have answered to your satisfaction to say, “when do we get started?” That is not a proper query. Adding a smiley face does not reverse the bad karma you accumulated in my eyes.
• Closely related to the above is telling me you have a good article for me on “Bulgarian business.” Do I look like I’d be interested in Bulgarian business?
• Ask yourself if you are you sure you understand what we do. And what we don’t do. Show me you read our site with a comment or two on a particular article that excited or angered you. Make me want you by making yourself so good I will immediately forward your e-mail onto Managing Editor Nicki Leone and say, “We need this writer!”

But regardless of who you query, be sure your toolbox is in the best shape possible. If grammar, punctuation, or spelling is not your forte, learn it. Take an English class. Buy a seventh-grade English textbook. Read Strunk & White until your eyes fall out. Own at least two dictionaries and use them regularly. Subscribe to some of the sites below and follow them.

A Way With Words: National Public Radio’s language show

A Word A Day: Be sure to subscribe to the newsletter and learn a new word every week day along with its history and usage.

Fun With Words: Games, games, and more games all centered on words.

Luciferous Logolepsy: You may not use these obscure words (though you never know) but you will certainly enjoy learning about them.

Oxford English Dictionary: Word of the Day: The king of dictionaries offers a daily e-mail with a word and its definition. 

The Vocabula Review: This publication strives to “combat the degradation of our language” as well as celebrates “its opulence and its elegance.”

The Word Detective: Language with a dose of humor is found on this site, which is the online version of the newspaper column.  

In addition to the above, and absolutely essential to any writer: read. Read books and  serious newspapers and magazines. Keep your online reading to less than fifty percent—one-third is even better—of your overall reading because studies have repeatedly shown that reading online affects our brains and our concentration levels much differently than reading books.

And if all that’s too much trouble, then you really don’t want to be a writer.

When It Works!

Last week I talked about submissions that don’t meet our standard of “writing worth reading.” This week, I get to talk about those that do. This also has a continuum that is not quite as extensive but is more detailed.

How’s that?

Submissions that are in the running range from “definitely!” to “let’s see if we can get this to work.” The problem with those who fit closer to the bottom part of the range is that we may simply not have the time to work with the writer on improving the piece, however interesting we find it. I dislike rejecting those more than any other because the possibility is there. That “almost” sense feels as if it has a physical grasp on me. I have to pry it off to send it, regretfully, on its way. Sometimes those are rejections without a rewrite request; at other times, they are a revision that didn’t quite make it either. And I can’t take the time to go yet another round because I am not sure that a second revision will be publishable either.

Moving up the ladder are the ones that have potential but need some work. Sometimes I can tell it will work out. But not always. I will offer editorial suggestions and see how the writer does. In one case not long ago, I made those suggestions. The piece would have been publishable if the writer had been able to put himself into the piece and taken it from a bland report (built on an intriguing idea) to an intimate essay. Alas, he could not.

Compare that to a submission I received last week that started out the same way—a largely unoriginal take on subject that has been covered numerous times. There was, however, a spark, a tiny, unique thought that caught my attention. I wrote back pointing out that most of what he said had been said before but that this one idea was worth focusing on. I suggested he use that one point and build his essay aound it. Four days later the essay was returned. And I am pleased to say that we will be publishing it in our BibliOpinions section in the next issue.

What was important about these two essays and writers was that one could not understand what I needed and the other could. It’s not that one was bad and the other good. Rather, I believe there’s a certain level of experience that allows writers who have reached it to grasp editorial direction and incorporate it into their own voice. And that’s important. After all, it’s not the editors’ work that BiblioBuffet’s readers want to read. It’s the writers. Our job is simply to help them make the best of what they do. I’ve said several times here that “keep your fingers to yourself” is a good motto. Usually I am referring to online comments, but I often say it to myself when working with the writers. Make editorial suggestions, Lauren, but keep your voice and your fingers on your own column.

Works for me. I think it works for our writers too.

Not Yes Yet

Though BiblioBuffet is temporarily closed to potential columnists, we are still accepting queries for our guest column, BibliOpinions. And we continue to receive a number of queries for it. I like that. I enjoy hearing from writers who are interested in contributing to our publication. Unfortunately, not all writers are up to our standard—“Writing Worth Reading”—and this is where it gets tough. The easy rejections are no problem. The easy acceptances are a joy. It’s the “almost” ones that are the most difficult.

The latter are submissions that have potential but need work. They are not all the same, but rather run along a continuum that looks basically like this:

1. Well . . .  no, thanks.
2. Probably not .          
3. Maybe.                      
4. Probably, with editing.
5. Worth working with, at least to start.

Then there’s the fact that each of these five has sub-categories, but most are too subtle for me to elucidate even in my own mind. (That’s when I go on my gut feeling.) However, in number four—the “probably, with editing” category—there are five sub-levels that are sufficiently distinctive to warrant their own continuum:

1. Do I even want to take this on?
2. There’s a lot of work here.
3. There is certainly something here, but is it worth my time?
4. If I am willing to spend some serious time, I can probably make this work.
5. I think I am willing to work with the writer on this.

It’s these that also sometimes cause me to break my promises to writers about a timely response. Often, because I see something that is there I want to help nurture it at least until it moves closer to the “yes” or “no” end of the continuum. And that takes time. Time I sometimes don’t have so I hold it beyond our preferred limit for answering. But I do that because I know what rejection feels like and because if there is something there I don’t want to miss it. I know that some writers need just that extra “oomph” to become publishable and that if I put in the time now we are going to get a fabulous columnist when we are ready to add more. But neither Nicki nor I want to use of increasingly scare editing time to work with someone who is likely to continue needing intensive editorial input. We just can’t do it. Regardless of how I feel I need to keep my eye on the bottom line both editorially and financially. I can’t spend what I don’t have. Neither can I make a mediocre writer an excellent one. I suspect as time goes on my editorial continuum may tighten up. Fewer categories will mean quicker decisions.

I tend to think that’s good. BiblioBuffet’s standard is just that. It means that readers will find what we think is “writing worth reading” here. It won’t change. It means that the increasingly common standard of Internet writing (“good enough”) will never be good enough for us—or for you, our readers. Right now I am working with two potential guest columnists. One tackled a common subject rather commonly but with one intriguing idea that might, depending on his writing ability, take this piece from lackluster to exciting. The second is already in the “worth working with” category at least for now. The latest edit will determine if hightails it to the “yes” or “no” end because either the writer has the ability to produce writing worth reading or she doesn’t.

Writers’ Guidelines

All good writers are readers. So why, I sometimes ask myself, don’t those who send us queries read our writers’ guidelines. Many do, but a surprising number of applicants don’t. Or at least their submissions give no such indication. Real life examples of writers who waste their time and ours:

• Writers who assume we are a content site. BiblioBuffet does not publish “content,” defined by me as anything designed to attract website hits for advertisers. Content does fill up otherwise empty space, but provides very little in the way of good literary nutrition.
• Closely related to “content” producers are writers who propose articles on topics unrelated to what BiblioBuffet does publish: beauty, cars, finance, travel, etc. Their modus operandi is to create generic e-mails that they send out to websites without having any idea what the site is about. To their credit, they are generally polite when sent form rejections. 
• Writers who possess less than excellent English skills. Having these doesn’t assure good writing, but it is the starting point for every good writer. If a writer’s first language isn’t English but the writing is powerful and close to what we want we will definitely work with that writer on small grammatical errors. But when a writer tells me she has a Ph.D. in English yet her query letter is no better than a fourth-grade American student would put out, not only are we not going to respond but we are going to put her on our spam list. Along that same line: if a writer claims that Ph.D. and has a website that appears to back that up (excellent English, good writing) but his query is riddled with errors all we can deduce is that he is in the habit of attempting to scam editors into giving him a chance. It won’t work. The writer just made *the* list. And we will never have to worry about either writer clogging our in-boxes again.
• Writers who don’t understand that there is writing and then there is writing. “Writing worth reading” is writing that is worthy of a time commitment from readers. Today, there is so much competition for readers’ attention that the value of that attention has risen. Our writing must give readers such a good return on their “investment” that they choose to spend it with us every week.
• Writers who haven’t read BiblioBuffet but are just looking for outlets are not usually writers who impress us. By reading BiblioBuffet writers learn what types and level of writing we seek. And writers should be honest with themselves: do they want to write what we write about, and if so are they able to write to our standards?
• Writers who don’t read the our guidelines before they query. Anyone who has knows that we do not accept book reviews from guest contributors, that our word count requirement runs between 600 and 6,000 words, that our guest column area carries no deadline, and that we accept darn near any type of writing except poetry as long as it relates to books, reading, or related subjects.  

So there it is. Not quite in a nutshell, but well laid out, I think. Treat us right. Don’t try to overstate your credentials. If you don’t fit our requirements now, write more. Get into a critique group that isn’t hesitant to be brutally honest. Make yourself work harder to become better. Don’t think that publication should be easy just because the Internet allows it to be easy. Push! Trust me, the reward will be worth it regardless of where you dream of seeing your writing published. 

How to Win Editors’ Hearts

I’ve mentioned before that one of my most important jobs here at BiblioBuffet is to hire the best writers and then get out of their way. It’s a clichéd phrase, but it’s also a truth that Nicki and I live by. All the writers choose their own topics, subjects, books to review; they offer their own opinions and they do it in their own way. All we require is that whatever they say they say it well.

We are proud of our contributors who do say it well. And one of the reasons for that—aside from their honed and practiced talent—is that freedom we offer them because we firmly believe that if a writer writes about her or his passion then the writing is going to be passionate. It can’t be anything less.

That point was driven home to me yesterday when I received an e-mail from Pete Croatto who writes “The Athletic Supporter,” a column centered on sports. In his introductory essay, Pete described himself as “someone who loves sports books and collects them.” But Pete is more than someone who parks himself in a sports book; he is the type of person who while breathing it in analyzes it, debates it, draws ideas from it, revels in it. And if I didn’t know that before, I knew it when I read his e-mail in which he declined to review an offered sports book that dealt with steroid use by athletes. “Thanks for understanding,” he wrote. “I want to review stuff that excites me, and the whole PED/baseball nonsense leaves me sad. There’s so much lying and hypocrisy involved that I’ve become exhausted plowing through it all.”

What sent my heart soaring, however, was his high compliment to the editorial team (Managing Editor Nicki Leone and me):

The one thing I love about writing for you and Nicki is that I have complete and absolute freedom to write on anything relevant to sports literature, no matter how far afield it might be. There’s more to being a book lover than just reviewing the latest titles—it seeps into my everyday life, and I relish the chance to get into that with readers. You and Nicki understand that the site is built on passion, and that goes beyond a standard review template. Don’t get me wrong: I love reviewing books, but at BiblioBuffet I feel like a kid in a candy store.

Again, Lauren, I can’t thank you enough for giving me the freedom and the vehicle to publish my zealotry.

With writers like that, how can I not be in love with them?

To Publish Them Is To Love Them

I love professional writers, I do. Regardless of how busy they are, they never fail to meet their deadlines. They never whine. If they are up until 2:30 am finishing a piece you (meaning me, the editor) never hears about it. They take suggestions well, and turn in their revised copy quickly. And . . . they often come up with the most astonishing ideas.

One of most important things I do as the editor-in-chief is hire the best and then get out of their way. BiblioBuffet’s writers can write about anything they like (as long as it relates in some way to books, reading, or related subjects).

Lauren Baratz-Logsted, a successful author now focusing on YA (Young Adult) books, sent my managing editor and me an email last week. In it, she proposed something absolutely unique. Nicki and I immediately approved it, and today the first of its kind appeared in our e-mailboxes. And it’s just as she suggested, perhaps better. It will likely make its first appearance in about a month and every month thereafter. I think our readers will enjoy it as much as Nicki and I do.

Love ya, Lauren. And thank you!