My Prospective Editor Really Messed Me Up: What Do I Do?

[Count Orlock]

My missing editor reappeared! And the three reader reviews of my new book manuscript are in: one moderately negative, one slightly positive, and one moderately positive. The editor told me to write a memo on how I would address the reviewers' issues, and he would take the reviews and my memo to the editorial board for a decision. Well, it was he who messed up the whole thing! Here is the backstory: I had written an earlier version of the book for a different press that was a more strongly "academic" version, with some theory, strong scholarly theses, etc. After a few years back and forth, it fell through with that press. But now, at the current press, the editor was very excited about my book (in January), but told me to rewrite the manuscript for a more general readership, and specifically with less blatantly presented theses and theoretical elements. So I did so. He then sent the manuscript out to the readers, who gave the above critiques. One of the reviewers had read all the books I have written, and not only offered a general review of them, but contextualized the new book within them. Thus, the person seems to know my work exceptionally well, and has a well-defined view of my overall quality as a scholar. This was the reviewer who had the moderately negative view, and who now thinks that I consistently write with too little theory and overt theses, not sufficiently academic. So I am pissed off.  Obviously, if the reviewers had gotten the more "academic" version of the manuscript, which is what I sent this editor, their reviews would have been much more positive. But I did what the editor told me to do, "dumbed down" the manuscript, and now the reviews are worse, and my chances of the editorial board accepting the book are reduced. Not only that, but my professional reputation is now lower with the scholar who knows my work to boot. I am inclined the write the editor and say all of this in a more polite manner, and ask him to not only inform the reviewers of the situation, but send to them the "correct," academic version of the book, and ask them to revise their reviews if they wish. I don't know what he will say to that. Maybe he will be really irritated. Maybe he will drop me. But I will get only one chance to have the book considered by the editorial board. Is my proposed solution a wise route to take? One of my colleagues suggests that she went through the same thing, and she just wrote the memo specifying the changes she would make, rolled the dice with the editorial board, and got the contract. If I do that, then I simply ignore this "mistreatment"? And what if the editorial board finds the letters not sufficiently positive? It will be the editor's fault, not mine, but I will have no chance to correct the situation. Please, I need some advice--I have got to get this book published with a prestigious press, and it has been floating around for several years.

[Parasaurolophus]

It seems to me that the first step is to decide which audience you're pitching your book to. Is it other researchers? Then yes, it may be better to err on the side of rigour. (Although it's worth noting that rigour is not at all incompatible with accessibility.) Is it a lay, general, or undergraduate audience? In that case, they need to be able to read it without being scared off by abstruse theory or too many formulas.

It sounds to me like the idea, with this press, was for the latter. That's what they wanted, and you agreed to deliver it. That being so, I would stick to that plan, since that's the book they're interested in. It's normal for the reviewers to express worries about the book and to suggest different directions. That will not sink the proposal. But it's up to you to address them, and one way to reassure the editorial board is to emphasize the book's audience: while you appreciate R1's desire for a more rigorous presentation, the book is not really pitched at the right audience for that, etc. Emphasize your target audience, what you're doing to reel them in, and (if possible), try to incorporate some of the reviewer's suggestions. You're trying to reassure the editorial board, no one else.

As for R1's comments... look: it sounds to me like they already thought your work was kind of half-assed (although I may have misunderstood your presentation of things, and perhaps it's just this book they think is half-assed). Regardless, don't worry about them. Focus on making it clear to everyone (R1 included) both in your response, and in the book going forward, who your target audience is, and why they need exactly what you've written.

Forget about your "professional reputation" with individual scholars. Not only can't you win everyone over, but not everything you produce will always wow everyone--and even if it does, that doesn't mean it's proof against criticism. Think of your professional reputation in holistic terms: you want people to be impressed by your body of work, you want lots of people to know who you are and what you do, you want your work to be assigned in classes, etc. Hell, in my field, having your work assigned in class is a great achievement--but it also means that it will be absolutely savaged. That's just par for the course.

Pick your battles, and make sure you choose the ones that (1) you can win, and (2) you actually want and need to win. To my ears, what you're proposing sounds Pyrrhic and self-destructive at best.

[Cheerful]

And the three reader reviews of my new book manuscript are in: one moderately negative, one slightly positive, and one moderately positive. The editor told me to write a memo on how I would address the reviewers' issues, and he would take the reviews and my memo to the editorial board for a decision.

I read your wall of text and wish you the best. Maybe you've acted by now.  In case not, a few bits of advice to add to Parasaurolophus' wisdom:

1.  You already tried the more academic version and it floundered at another press for years.
2.  Two positives and a negative review sound like a net positive, made all the more so with an enthusiastic editor and you doing a fine job with the memo responding to reviewers' concerns.
3.  Your post is strong on anger toward the editor.  The editor doesn't sound bad.  Perhaps you're just understandably stressed from all you have been through with the project at two presses, over a period of years, and the editor is a convenient target for your angst/anger.  I would not chastise the editor if you want your book published there.  The editor sounds like your ally.
4.  Do your best on the memo, think positive, this can work out.  Good luck and keep us posted.

[mamselle]

Just don't come into the editor's office waving guns filled with silver bullets about.

(Like the moniker)

M.