How to Professionally Deal with Editors

By -
New writers often make a botch of this, so I'd like to give them a continuing glimpse behind the scenes of how a veteran at the game makes it look smooth and easy. First exhibit, here is a letter I just sent to an editor who hasnd't responded to a recent -- hmmm -- maybe late last night -- query stating the next story I'd like to -- no, will publish in his fly-by-night vehicle:

Did you receive the brief query I sent about the use of eminent domain to boot XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX?
(Sorry, faithful readers, I can't reveal the gist of my pitch to any of you second-rate, derivative hacks. Now back to the letter:)

If your're still considering it, please just let me know. I realize it was just a sketch for a piece kind of a half-assed one at that -- so please tell me if you'd like it fleshed out. If you think the idea sucks the left mammary gland of a star-nosed mole, you may convey that thought by the prominent appearance of such a mole on the next XXXX Magazine cover. If you wish I'd
just bugger off and leave you alone, then you can signal that by streaking during the next XXXX event, for as long as it takes for security to get a positive ID, and then turning over the editorial "rings of power" -- 3.65 rings he granted to scribbling editors in their halls of flourescent light, wasn't it? -- to me.

Thanks,
Your faithful servant and catamite applicant,
Gene Callahan

The primary principles illustrated in the example above are to put yourself in the editor's shoes, imagine what types of situation he may perceive as facing him in making a decision on your piece, and to suggest creative ways around them

Good luck applying lesson one!

Comments

  1. TT Tom12:37 AM

    Fair advice from a pro I s'pose. Your're typo was unrelevant. You started losing me when you tore through the half assed draft comment. I think the editor would expect more detail as to which it is: half assed empty or half assed full. But the failure that could not be recovered from even with the catamite regards was not explaining which left teet of the star nosed mole and if it would be the moles left or the editors left. Good luck in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1:18 PM

    Your age might cause your application to be disqualified.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more