I'm curious about the age issue, which I've wondered about but haven't seen anyone acknowledge previously. Assistants vetting slush piles (your post which I just saw today!) are likely younger than the agents, and would gravitate towards their personal demographic and style match -- meaning that older authors would have an additional slush pile difficulty, because the vetting assistant would be less likely to forward a mss by an older author to the more senior agent. Would this be the right interpretation of the data?
This is such a great question! I think that may be a part of it-- but assistants aren't reading slush for what THEY would like or have an affinity for, but for what their BOSS would like an have an affinity for. So an assistant who's recommending YA to their boss who specializes on gritty thrillers is..... not a very good assistant. That said, a senior agent's slush pile is a great place for a younger agent to look for her own clients. In which case, the age-affinity issue would apply.
God, this was all so smart and helpful! As a trans editor, I worry a lot about being seen as “stuck in my niche” in regards to mostly pursuing projects by queer/trans authors, especially because my identity sets me apart from a majority of the editorial staff. When I pursue projects that reflect my identity or the identities of those I’m in community with, it feels like this very obvious and intentional choice to others, when in reality it is a lot of what I tend to gravitate towards. That said, when white women editors tend to only bring up white women authors or white male editors only bring up white male authors, somehow it doesn’t feel as obviously like a “trending towards their identity.” I would be so curious to know whether other queer/non-white editors feel this same, weird sort-of pressure: not necessarily to shy away from books that overlap with their identities, but rather this perception that they, as editors, are adhering to a particular lane? I think the example you pulled of a Black author getting passed on by Chris Jackson is very telling, and it exposes this almost pressure and responsibility that the few non-white editors in positions of power must unwillingly take on. Obviously a huge proponent of more diversity across all departments in publishing, but I do think that editorial in particular tends to lack diversity in particular, which has a huge impact not just on what books are publishing but also on what books are published *well.*
And yes to more data in publishing!! Would love to see more contemporary studies on the bias influencing what projects are and are not given support. Especially with the boomeranging support for DEI, which has obviously dried up with the current administration and crackdowns…. I’m always so curious about the soft censorship / shying away from the sorts of books that might have been “no brainers” just a few years ago. Obviously, the tough part is that we likely only have the data in regards to books that have sold—and barely anything on what is not (unless self-reported by the individual).
Anyways, clearly am *so* excited about what you’re doing here, and I can’t wait to read more!!
I'm curious about the age issue, which I've wondered about but haven't seen anyone acknowledge previously. Assistants vetting slush piles (your post which I just saw today!) are likely younger than the agents, and would gravitate towards their personal demographic and style match -- meaning that older authors would have an additional slush pile difficulty, because the vetting assistant would be less likely to forward a mss by an older author to the more senior agent. Would this be the right interpretation of the data?
This is such a great question! I think that may be a part of it-- but assistants aren't reading slush for what THEY would like or have an affinity for, but for what their BOSS would like an have an affinity for. So an assistant who's recommending YA to their boss who specializes on gritty thrillers is..... not a very good assistant. That said, a senior agent's slush pile is a great place for a younger agent to look for her own clients. In which case, the age-affinity issue would apply.
God, this was all so smart and helpful! As a trans editor, I worry a lot about being seen as “stuck in my niche” in regards to mostly pursuing projects by queer/trans authors, especially because my identity sets me apart from a majority of the editorial staff. When I pursue projects that reflect my identity or the identities of those I’m in community with, it feels like this very obvious and intentional choice to others, when in reality it is a lot of what I tend to gravitate towards. That said, when white women editors tend to only bring up white women authors or white male editors only bring up white male authors, somehow it doesn’t feel as obviously like a “trending towards their identity.” I would be so curious to know whether other queer/non-white editors feel this same, weird sort-of pressure: not necessarily to shy away from books that overlap with their identities, but rather this perception that they, as editors, are adhering to a particular lane? I think the example you pulled of a Black author getting passed on by Chris Jackson is very telling, and it exposes this almost pressure and responsibility that the few non-white editors in positions of power must unwillingly take on. Obviously a huge proponent of more diversity across all departments in publishing, but I do think that editorial in particular tends to lack diversity in particular, which has a huge impact not just on what books are publishing but also on what books are published *well.*
And yes to more data in publishing!! Would love to see more contemporary studies on the bias influencing what projects are and are not given support. Especially with the boomeranging support for DEI, which has obviously dried up with the current administration and crackdowns…. I’m always so curious about the soft censorship / shying away from the sorts of books that might have been “no brainers” just a few years ago. Obviously, the tough part is that we likely only have the data in regards to books that have sold—and barely anything on what is not (unless self-reported by the individual).
Anyways, clearly am *so* excited about what you’re doing here, and I can’t wait to read more!!