What would you guys do?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Nickolas Cook |
Question for fellow editors out there |
Lead | |
|
What if you found a writer who is just awesome, writes some compelling articles on the genre, but has a tendacy to sort of be a bit too honest with his
opinion? Would you give him a go, even if there's a chance his reportage might piss off some of well known names in the industry and/or their fans? I
mean, I don't necssarily agree with this guy's opinions, but he has style and I think he might be a hit with some readers.
What would you guys do? |
|||
iamacanadian |
|||
|
Run a disclaimer that basically says 'this guy's snap judgements are his own' if you feel you have to, but isn't that already understood? Just
because the New York Times printed the review/feature doesn't mean I'm gonna set fire to the publisher's office for giving him layout
space. Everyone's got the right to their views.
The other thing that surprises me is that "some of [the] well known names in the industry and/or their fans" might not care for what this guy might say. That's a lot of potential events there. If the guy writes stuff that's his view, fine. Either the "well known names" are either going to have to learn to be adults, or they can continue to feel unfettered by human frailty. Who are you trying to protect here? You? The celebrities? One cannot be loved by all and live a real life. |
|||
LeatherZebra |
|||
|
Do you want publish Good work, or safe work? I'm not saying they have to be exclusive of each other, but which is the more important quality? I agree with
the disclaimer and think if the author is awesome and compelling it's worth potentially pissing people off. IF they are awesome.
|
|||
Nickolas Cook |
|||
|
No noble altruism here. I'm just trying to protect me. HA!
I don't want to get backlash from anything he might say to piss off someone...say an editor or two. I do intend to have a writing career that advances. I just don't want people holding it against me if he happens to insult or chastise someone who might hold my professional fate in their hands at some later date. I know he's ultimately responsible for his own words, but sometimes people tend to blame the guy who puts inflammatory stuff out there, you know what I mean? The guy is funny as hell. But he does tend to say some things that might not be too popular with others. He names names and such. Honestly, I don't even think this guy is real. I think he's probably someone who doesn't want his real name to be known. But I laugh every time he sends me something. I just think he'd be a hit with horror fans because he tells it like it is--or at least as he sees it. Personally, I think he's doing a little Hunter S. Thompson schtick, but, hey, I loved Thompson's work. We even decided to pay homage to Thompson by calling his regular reports (diatribes) Fear and Loathing in Horror. Any other opinions are welcome. |
|||
Nickolas Cook |
|||
|
Agreed, Michele. I've shared his first report with a couple of the staff members and they thought he was a riot, so I'm really leaning towards taking a
chance.
|
|||
raingod65 |
|||
|
Is there merit in what he's saying, or is it just some snark in critical drag? If it's the former, you be doing readers a disservice by not publishing
it; if it's the latter, you'd probably be doing them a favor.
"Forgotten Son" in DEATH IN COMMON
www.scottcolbert.wordpress.com |
|||
Nickolas Cook |
|||
|
There's snark, but he also makes some valid points is his weird rants. And where the hell he finds some of the pics and urls he attaches to them is beyond
me. Some of them are just plain disturbing. But funny too. The first article is lowkey, nothing that most sci-fi fans wouldn't agree with. It's the
other stuff that has me a little worried.
|
|||
Bookhoard |
|||
What if you found a writer who is just awesome, writes some compelling articles on the genre, but has a tendacy to sort of be a bit too honest with his opinion? Would you give him a go, even if there's a chance his reportage might piss off some of well known names in the industry and/or their fans?I like him already. |
|||
raingod65 |
|||
Nickolas Cook wrote: Well, you've got me sold on it, Nick. Besides, a little controversy can be a good thing.
"Forgotten Son" in DEATH IN COMMON
www.scottcolbert.wordpress.com |
|||
John R Little |
|||
|
Nick, if nothing else, you've got me awfully curious to read his work...
John Little |
|||
james beach |
|||
|
As a couple people mentioned here, a little controversy never hurts - and especially never hurts sales. I usually don't censor writers I've had in
Dark Discoveries. I've had writers take to task the smallest self-published author on up to tossing the gauntlet down about whether or not Rod Serling
stole from Scifi writers for TZ. As long as somebody backs it up with facts, then it's good to make people question and think.
|
|||
Nickolas Cook |
|||
|
I hope I haven't over hyped this guy now. Well, we'll see what happens in the next issue of The Black Glove. Just to whet your appetite, the working
title for his first rant/article/fiction/reportage is Fear and Loathing In Horror #1: The Uqbar Horror Film and Glass Blowing Festival (or These Tentacles Were
Meant For Loving You)
Let's hope you guys think it's as funny and pointed as I did. So look for it November 4th. |
|||
Bookhoard |
|||
|
Nick: if I were you I would publish him, but shaking things up is a very risky strategy around these parts. You can ask Ron Horsley all about that.
Maybe you should publish him (it is a him, right?) and then pull a plastic sheet over your head, like front row at a Gallagher show or a GWAR concert. |
|||
John Skipp |
|||
|
Dear Nick --
Sounds like you got yourself a pistol. Or more precisely, a loose cannon. The only question is whether you want it registered in your name. If he's a genuine loose cannon, THERE WILL BE BLOWBACK. That's just the emotional physics of the situation. Your job as an editor is to only publish material you can stand behind. That means it has be a) worthy of publication and b) worth the trouble. If it's worthy, but not quite worth the trouble, you might wanna give your blessings and let him blow up somewhere else. If it's worth the trouble, but not quite there yet, you might wanna work with him: not to tame him, but to help him focus his aim, so he only hits the targets he's really intending, while minimizing the collateral damage. If it's both, of course, it just might be gold. My point, I guess, is to take it on a case-by-case. Urge him to write his ass off, with the clear understanding that -- if you CAN'T stand behind it -- he's free to publish it somewhere else. That way, you're not forced to indulge his every whim, and he's not forced to kowtow to whatever lines you might care to draw. If he's the Real Deal -- and frankly, even if he isn't -- he will probably find places to publish. You're not responsible for his career. You're only responsible for whatever you choose to publish, and hopefully feel good about publishing. Sometimes, the lines get tricky. And as the editor, it's your call. That is, in fact, the essence of your job. Saying yes to the things that you feel need to be shared. And freeing the rest to fend for themselves, as best they can. Hope that was helpful. CAN'T WAIT TO READ THIS GUY! And hope he doesn't shit down my neck. Yer pal, Skipp |
|||
Rolnikov |
|||
Nickolas Cook wrote:Well, your instincts told you that publishing some of these articles might not be a good idea - that's why you came to ask about it here - so I'd be careful... He's responsible for his own words, but you're responsible for choosing to publish them. If all he says is that X is a rubbish magazine, or Y is a terrible book, I don't think anyone will hold it against you. But if it's more personal than that, if he's talking about personalities rather than books, that should send up a red flag - that he's anonymous is another red flag. You don't want to unwittingly publish the next salvo in a long-running feud. |
|||
Allyson Bird |
|||
|
'.... that he's anonymous is another red flag. You don't want to unwittingly publish the next salvo in a long-running feud.'
I wouldn't publish something from an anonymous source. Always strikes me as odd that a person wouldn't/couldn't put a name to an article. |
|||
Frank Menser |
|||
|
Not an editor, but as a reader it strikes me that I would find such articles interesting. Frankly, if any "powers that be" have feather's so
easily ruffled, then it sounds like a healthy thing to publish it.
Four fingers are never quite enough...
|
|||
David Wilbanks |
|||
|
Yeah, fuck Anonymous.
David T. Wilbanks -my blog
|
|||
Vince Liaguno |
|||
Rolnikov wrote:Major red flag. If he/she is that good, let him or her stand behind their words with a name. Why put yourself out there when the author you're potentially publishing won't? Even if they're going to use a pseudonym, as the publisher, you should know the real person and do your own homework on that person's credentials and reputation. Once you publish him/her, their reputation becomes associated with yours. ~ Vince |
|||
grey |
|||
|
So the upside is some of your readers would love to see some feathers ruffled.
But the downside is you yourself might need some of those er big birds in the future, so you don't want to see their feathers ruffled in your name. Even further downside: he's anonymous! So you'll be the only name they've got! I'm not editor, but I wouldn't publish feather ruffling unless I was prepared to get right in there and ruffle those feathers myself. |
|||
John Skipp |
|||
|
Or, of course, you could start publishing anonymously, too!
|
|||

Logo design and background image by Caniglia