Aw, crud! Margaret Clark is gone now, too.

[thumbtack]

Writers usually have day jobs. Do Editors have day jobs? Something to fall back on? Anyway, this sucks. I wish more Americans knew how to read.

 

[Greg Cox]

Editing usually is the day job . . . .

Margaret was a full-time employee at Pocket Books. That was her day job.

 

[Captain59]

I hate to see anyone lose their job, as I know the feeling three fold in the past few years. But I'm even more dissapointed about this because I feel Margaret was doing such a great job with her direction.

As an Enterprise fan, I was excited to see her so jazzed about the relaunch leading up to the Romulan War adventures. She seemed genuinely excited about putting into these books the creators of the series failed to do...and of course correct the finale.

How will this affect the direction of the Enterprise books? I hope the remaining editors put as much into them as Margaret did.

Thanks for your hard work, Margaret. You will be missed.

 

[Jbarney]

I know a couple of people have commented on this already, but I guess I would like to discuss what this means for the volume of trek literature being produced.

Obviously my thoughts go out to Margaret as this is just not a situation you want to see anyone in. I felt really bad about Marco as when I attended Shore Leave last year he seemed really nice and I got the feeling he really liked interacting with the writers and the fans. So my thoughts go out to both of them.

What does this mean for the trek line though? I agree with Christopher that it makes little sense for any sort of speculation about the book line being moved to another company. What about volume though? Are we about to see the number of new stories and books decrease? Or can the two remaining editors keep the same level of production? I know the answer is that we just don't know, but I'm curious how others feel.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I would say that as long as the writers keep writing, Ed and Jen can keep it going. We may stop getting anthologies as they take far more time to edit/manage, but I'm hopeful that there's no decrease in volume. That said, if it's necessary to cut it down, I would rather have quality over quantity any day of the week, and it would give me more time to catch up on my non-Trek reading.

 

[Cuhl]

What about volume though? Are we about to see the number of new stories and books decrease? Or can the two remaining editors keep the same level of production? I know the answer is that we just don't know, but I'm curious how others feel.

That's what I'm wondering about, too. If you've got two people doing the workload of four, you'd think that something's got to give. Either they'd have less time to spend on each book, or they'd have to limit the number of books. Or would some of the work be delegated to lower-paid editors in the company?

Like you said, probably nobody knows yet, but you can't help but wonder.

 

[Scout101]

Kinda creates a downward spiral if they cut the number of books, though.

Losing money, so they fire people. Fewer people can't maintain the same volume of work, so they reduce the books. Which reduces the profits, and fire people...

So yeah, hope the solution isn't to try and shrink the product line any further...

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Sad news. I would have thought the tie-in line would be ramping up, what with the success of the movie.

Best of luck to you, Margaret. I really liked the perspective you brought to Trek fiction, and the way you picked up dangling loose ends from the shows and took them in a more satisfying direction.

 

[Marie1]

I've never heard of them. Have they done much Trek editing?

Ed was the editor on A Time to... and inherited several other of John Ordover's projects, and he has continued to edit New Frontier since John O. left.

Jen Heddle edited the Spirit Walk books due to having edited Christie Golden in the past when she was with Penguin Putnam, but that's her only Trek editing experience.

I've worked with them both (Ed on A Time for War, a Time for Peace as well as Spider-Man: Down These Mean Streets, Jen on CSI: NY: Four Walls), and they are both excellent editors. The line would be in magnificent hands either way.

That's reassuring to hear, KRAD.

I'm very sorry for Margaret, though. This is a bit of a shock. I hope she finds new work soon.

Thanks for that KRAD, quoted D_N cuz that's what I'm thinking too...

 

[Allyn Gibson]

That's what I'm wondering about, too. If you've got two people doing the workload of four, you'd think that something's got to give. Either they'd have less time to spend on each book, or they'd have to limit the number of books. Or would some of the work be delegated to lower-paid editors in the company?

Or it could be farmed out to a freelance editor, such as Keith.

While, yes, it's possible to scale back to six or nine books a year, at that point there would have to be some hard decisions about what, exactly, Star Trek publishing is for. I think that, at that point, we'd see an end to the novels-only and post-finale series, as they are the ones that have the least connection to the series that that the studio has sunk millions of dollars into to create over the past four decades.

If there is another alteration to the line due to S&S's bottom line, I expect that it will be a move toward the trade format.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's probably worth noting that Pocket's media tie-in division encompasses more than just STAR TREK. Margaret and Marco and Ed and Jen also handled the CSI books, the 4400 books, assorted movie novelizations and tie-ins, and no doubt several other franchises that are escaping my mind right now.

So while I definitely feel for Ed and Jen, whose workload no doubt just increased dramatically, it's probably way premature to predict which lines will be affected how. It's entirely possible that Pocket will keep the Trek line the same, and cut back on another franchise. Or the other way around . . . .

 

[Lonemagpie]

So while I definitely feel for Ed and Jen, whose workload no doubt just increased dramatically, it's probably way premature to predict which lines will be affected how. It's entirely possible that Pocket will keep the Trek line the same, and cut back on another franchise. Or the other way around . . . .

I'd say, with the new movies and all, they're more likely to keep Trek and cut the other stuff - I mean, look how many Buffy and Angel books they're doing now... (i.e. none, which is annoying cos I really liked them)

A lot of their other lines seem very limited too, with just a few books while the series is current.

Then again, I'm about the most-distant author from where it's all at, out here in the wilds of Yorkshire, so I've probably got it all arse-about-face

 

[Greg Cox]

Or, and this is just wild speculation on my part, they might just think twice about acquiring any new franchises while they're short-handed.

I know that, if I was in their shoes, I'd think long and hard before I'd add another line of books to my workload . . . .

 

[Csalem]

Sorry to hear this.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

In the words of Eddie Chase (from Andy McDermott's books): Buggeration and F***ery!!!

Margaret, I wish you all the best and hope you get something else quickly.

People (excepting the authors of course) here are (seemingly) forgetting that Marco, Margaret, Jen and Ed are the Pocket Books TV-tin-in editorial team. With Marco gone and now Margaret, it would seem that Pocket perhaps no longer sees these lines as overly profitable.

It might soon be time for CBS/Paramount to look for another publishing house to take the license. I know S&S are tightening their belts, and it could be another few years before anything comes of it, but I seriously think that their long term plan is to tighten the tie-in division out of existence. Better they sell it off than just shut it down. Forgive the negativity, but it looks to be heading that way, though of course I will be more than happy to see myself corrected.

That's what I'm thinking too...their sales are down 11% but PROFITS are down 70% (according to the article). S&S must have been carrying "less profitable" titles and lines with the profits from a relatively few "earners" (big profit lines/titles).

Trek (and tie ins generally) obviously isn't one of them.

Good luck, Margaret, and God Speed...

 

[BrotherBenny]

Or, and this is just wild speculation on my part, they might just think twice about acquiring any new franchises while they're short-handed.

I know that, if I was in their shoes, I'd think long and hard before I'd add another line of books to my workload . . . .

Well, they didn't pick up new licenses for CSI:Miami (8 books) and CSI:NY (4 books) and there are still 3 more CSI books to come (making it 17, I believe--so there are possibly 3 more after that), and those are CBS shows. It is, as you say, entirely possible that they'll cut the less-profitable lines (though I would think more people watch CSI than Star Trek) so they can keep Trek going. It'll be interesting to see.

It would be sad to see the novel-only series going, Titan, Vanguard and New Frontier are among the best.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Star Trek has been through many staff editors at Pocket over the past 30 years, including David G. Hartwell, Dave Stern, Kevin Ryan, and John Ordover as well as Margaret Clark, Marco Palmieri, Ed Schlesinger, and Jennifer Heddle. As unfortunate as it is to lose any editor under these circumstances, the business of producing Star Trek prose fiction continues.

Christopher, why are they targeting the senior editors? The most experienced and knowledgeable ones? Why not let the "lesser" editors go instead? (This is by no means a slight on the two remaining editors...they are doubtlessly good editors, but their knowledge and experience in dealing with Trek is not as great as Margaret and Marco's...)

 

[LightningStorm]

Christopher, why are they targeting the senior editors? The most experienced and knowledgeable ones? Why not let the "lesser" editors go instead? (This is by no means a slight on the two remaining editors...they are doubtlessly good editors, but their knowledge and experience in dealing with Trek is not as great as Margaret and Marco's...)

I'm not Christopher, but I can probably answer that. The most experienced and senior editors, while most knowledgeable, are also the highest paid. Therefore removing them cuts a good chunk out of the budget while only losing one person instead of removing a lot of "lessers" to add up to the, uh, "non-lessers".

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Well, fuck. This is terrible news.

I hope the best for you, Margaret, and don't be a stranger around these parts. Let us know what you're up to.

 

[William Leisner]

It might soon be time for CBS/Paramount to look for another publishing house to take the license. I know S&S are tightening their belts, and it could be another few years before anything comes of it, but I seriously think that their long term plan is to tighten the tie-in division out of existence. Better they sell it off than just shut it down. Forgive the negativity, but it looks to be heading that way, though of course I will be more than happy to see myself corrected.

That's what I'm thinking too...their sales are down 11% but PROFITS are down 70% (according to the article). S&S must have been carrying "less profitable" titles and lines with the profits from a relatively few "earners" (big profit lines/titles).

Trek (and tie ins generally) obviously isn't one of them.

Nothing of the sort is "obvious." S&S is more than tie-in books, and their balance sheets are based on far more than the one or two Trek titles that are released in a given month. Even if a given Trek title completely stiffs, its such a small piece of the S&S pie it would probably never be noticed, and the most successful Trek novel ever isn't going to help the bottom line if Stephen King or Mary Higgins Clark dropped a bomb.