So here we are on deadline again for the 107th time in 18 years. Drop dead day, which is when we must Fed-Ex the issue to the printer, is July 19. From now til then will be hectic.

Lisa has done a lot of the layout prep work on the articles, and both she and I have talked to various writers as they prepared their articles. I spent all day yesterday going over them, deciding which one will lead the issue, and whether or not the “mix” of articles is okay. I make a lot of important decisions at this point on how to play stuff in the issue, which articles still need art by Don Childers, what needs beefing up or cutting back. I often make a quick scan of suggested headlines and change some of them, or change their font size. I edit the articles that need a tweak, but leave most of the proofing and grammar correction to others. I look for the important stuff; a minor error in grammar is not as important as omitting a necessary ingredient to an article.

I’m very good at all this and fit into a day what a run-of-the-mill editor would take a week to accomplish. Experience and knowing what I want gives me the speed. When an article does need a good edit, I’m careful to leave the writer’s voice intact. This is important so the whole magazine doesn’t read like it was written by one person. Too many editors have a heavy hand when it comes to editing writers. They think their personal view of writing and grammar is everything. This is a weakness in an editor’s ego, I believe, or they are simply not skilled. If you have a good writer who knows his or her subject, let that writer alone to the greatest extent possible. If you have a writer who is strong on knowledge but a bit weak with his words, still edit him or her with care. People have their own voice, and that voice does not have to reflect your college professor’s English.

If you have a writer who is weak on knowledge, then we made a mistake buying the article. I generally kill a weak article, even if I had previously requested it from a writer and have already paid for it. You never know until you actually have the article in hand whether or not is is good enough. There are times, however, I have had to cancel a good article simply because it was off target for BHM’s audience. I’ve done this with my best writers. Very often it is my mistake by failing to give the writer the direction I wanted taken. Other times the writer makes an erroneous assumption about what the readers need to hear. In the end, I use my best judgment and I don’t let a writer’s sometimes sensitive ego influence my decisions. Some people think I am stubborn, or downright dictatorial. But that’s okay. When it comes to editorial content, BHM is not a democracy. Committee decisions don’t exist in my editorial office.

That said, I have a strong cadre of writers, many of whom run their own successful businesses. They are as determined and as qualified in their businesses as I am in mine. And I have a very good staff. Lisa Nourse is my right hand gal. She coordinates nearly everything in the office, including the entire staff, writers, and articles. By the time I get to the articles, she has organized them, set (layed out) many of them, and made critical suggestions about whether or not they are strong enough. We are on the phone several times a day, and emailing back and forth. She also works closely with the writers and with my daughter, Annie, our editor-at-large who has the artistic skill to lay out the key articles. Every successful magazine needs a Lisa.

I have yet to go into the office since our Midwest trip. I like working out of my home. When I’m tired of doing magazine work, I go out on the deck and hit golf balls into the woods. Lenie goes into the office every day, thank goodness. That’s another story for a future blog. She’s gold for BHM. Good thing I took that walk on the pier.

Share or Bookmark