A Note From the Organizers
presented by
MARCH 24, 2017
A note from the organizers
How we run the Rooster, and how you’re a vital part of that
This past Wednesday was a rough day in the Tournament of Books. We should have done several things better, and we’d like to talk about that.
The three of us do a lot of editing behind the scenes. Each judgment in the ToB goes through at least one round of line editing and another of copy editing, plus a proofing session or two in production. Some pieces need more work, some need less. It’s a lot of chaos but we’re not complaining; the game is the game, and after all, we designed it this way.
As editors, we work with a few distinct goals in mind. We want our judges to sound their best. We want our readers to have the best possible experience with a judge’s decision. We strive for precision and clarity. We encourage judges to use their most authentic voice, share their personal experiences, and sharpen their ideas. We look to bring out the entertainment value, intellectual value, and emotional value.
Sometimes, though, we get it wrong. And as a result, we let you down.
For example, when we were editing the original drafts of the judgment and commentary, we removed a more involved discussion of abortion that we felt would take us down a path that would end in a lot of anger and hurt feelings. From our email thread during the editing process:
I do think the ToB can be an appropriate platform for a discussion of abortion, but I don’t believe we’re doing it the best way we could here. We have two people (men) with two (possibly) opposing views of fetuses. If the ToB is about anything—and I’m starting to think it is!—it’s about excellence in book discussion. I don’t think we’re putting anyone in the best position here to do that...
It isn’t that we didn’t anticipate an emotional response. But we thought we’d curtailed it somewhat with our edits. In retrospect, this left too much open to interpretation.
Our job as editors—as interpreters between judge and reader—is to provide clarity. In this, we failed. We also failed both Judge Rinehart and our readers in not taking due diligence on Curtis Yarvin’s background in order to recommend cutting the reference—which, frankly, did little to strengthen his point about the books in play. The final edit was our mistake; we failed to show the proper amount of empathy, and we apologize for that.*
We work hard at this, and most of the time we’re pretty good at it. But we want to improve.
What we’ve learned over so many years of doing this is that the publisher-audience relationship is anything but constant. Some days we’re ahead of the reader, able to inspire you in new ways. Those are good days. Some days we’re behind the reader—as we were on Wednesday—and that’s when you inspire us in new ways. Those are good days, too, because it means we are faced with an opportunity to change and grow and become better at what we do—and hopefully leap ahead once again.
We want the Rooster to live forever. The only way we can do that is by evolving. What can we do better in the future? What do you want to see the ToB become? Let’s discuss it in the the comments below, or if you’d prefer, you can email us.
You are an essential part of the Tournament of Books. Thank you for your time and your participation, and we hope you enjoy the rest of this year’s tournament.
All yours,
Rosecrans Baldwin & Andrew Womack, Organizers
Nozlee Samadzadeh, Producer
*Edited after publication
Reader comments