part 1 / part
I come back to this: the writing. Youve got to look at
In this third conversation with notable literary publishers, I talked with William
Strachan, director of Columbia University Press, formerly editor-in-chief at Henry Holt,
who had taken the rare step of crossing over from trade to academic publishing, and who
thought in an interesting way about those two not wholly compatible domains: about what
they had in common and what they did not. Furthermore, Columbia had taken up e-publishing,
producing several CD-ROMs and sponsoring the first of what it hopes will become a series
of scholarly journals published on the internet. Yet, while technology entered the
discussion of institutional changes in publishing which has been the theme of this series,
it did not dominate; as would be expected, the making of good books writerly
writing, editorial acuity, the publishers willingness to take a chance, and readers
wanting to read was the real subject.
It has been remarked that publishing, in the old sense, perhaps, of the
gentlemans occupation, began to change about the time the phrase publishing
industry came into use, around the mid-1970s. If true, it marks nicely the beginning
of changes Ive been interested in tracing. Substantially, however, what has changed?
Are there fewer good books, more bad, than ever? Is the art of editing no longer widely
practiced in the trade? How can we speak of publishing houses in this era of
conglomeration? What sorts of people became editors and publishers; why? Do the same sorts
run the business now? I had been inquiring of distinguished representatives of an older
generation what they thought; now, a fellow member of the baby boom, generation of the
Sixties, had something to say.
Generously, these persons have told how they entered the profession; spoken about
writers theyve published and declined to publish; described the (changing) class
structure of their domain; talked straight about money, commerce, and corporate
capitalism; preferred responsible publishing: the mid-sized company that may,
increasingly, be a refuge. Without exception, they are serious readers,
usually of more than one language. They recognize that times have changed. They speak with
wary-friendly observation of the generations coming up.
Excerpts of these conversations will continue to appear regularly in ARCHIPELAGO
and may serve as an opening into an institutional memory contrasting itself with the
current corporate structure, reflecting on glories of its own, revealing what remains
constant amid the present flux. Despite their surround of gentility, these publishers are
strong-minded characters engaged with their historical circumstances. Out of that
engagement have appeared a number of books that we can say, rightly, belong to literature.
A Conversation with Marion Boyars, Vol. 1 No. 3
A Conversation with Cornelia and Michael Bessie, Vol.
1 No. 4 and Vol. 2, No. 1
William Strachan, Director, Columbia University Press
William Strachan said of himself, with the self-effacement of a certain sort of editor,
that he had joined the accidental profession; an amateur in the good, old
sense? No, a generalist educated in the liberal arts, characteristic of a good part of a
generation for whom schooling was not job-training. He graduated from Carleton College, an
excellent small college in Minnesota, then took the Radcliffe Publishing Course, from
which he emerged, in 1970, as an editorial secretary at Anchor Books. Having discovered
what kind of books he wanted to publish, he moved on to various houses, was
editor-in-chief at Henry Holt, and joined Columbia in mid-1998. He is tall and looks fit,
though his once-lanky frame (you feel) is filling out with middle age, and dresses in
not-too-new, tweedy-casual clothes. The offices of Columbia University Press, where he is
director, are located in utilitarian rooms in a college building undergoing renovations,
on W. 113th Street in Morningside Heights. The receptionist reports a visitor and, when
she hears footsteps pounding lightly downstairs from the second floor, says, not wholly
approving, Thats Bill: never takes the formal way (i.e., the elevator)
when he can run. Seated behind his desk, his back to the distractions of
Broadway below the window, he is cordial, discreetly gossiping (has recently returned from
the Frankfurt Book Fair), very much the director (still testing his way) of a very
respectable publishing company. His speech evokes distant seminar rooms and is without
personal reference, respectful of its elders, perceptive, aware of what it now also knows,
sounding with a modesty that is never false.
Several themes recurred during our two conversations in New York, last October and
November: writerly non-fiction, its importance and nourishment; how one tried to make
sense of the great shifts in the culture; e-publishing (novelty for a former trade
publisher); and, unexpected pleasure, the tastes of generations, ours-in-common in
particular. Writerly non-fiction is Strachans admirable phrase, neatly
leaping over reams of self-involved creative genres; privately, I thought it
worth stealing. Aloud, I wondered how the transition from trade to university press
impressed him and asked if he would begin by describing the differences between those two
kinds of institutions.
For a certain kind of publishing, this may be
KATHERINE McNAMARA: What do you do as a publisher: what is the
job of a publisher, as you conceive it?
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Well, I think you run a publishing company.
First and foremost, we have to remember that we are publishers. Some of publishing is
printing, some of it is distribution and the like; but, by and large, it means finding the
books that you want to publish, then making sure that they are seen all the way through to
publication, and then giving them full service.
My role as chief executive is to make those decisions about the company. There are all
sorts of decisions you make, because there are a lot of ways to spend your money, and a
lot of priorities. Most of what, I guess, falls to me is to establish those priorities,
the hierarchy of those priorities: to make some decisions, not only about what comes
first, but how we go about doing something, what the strategy might be. Where youre
going to go with the press down the line. Are we going to go wholesale into electronic
publishing? or are we going to say, No, thats not what we want to do, we
dont have that sort of money, or go into those areas of publishing.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: So you came over here.
WILLIAM STRACHAN: So I came over here, and here we are.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Maybe the topic is culture shock.
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Yes, I went from seeing this as not so
different, to seeing this as a completely different world, to saying, No, this is
different and this isnt. Part of the confusion, if you will, in my mind, is the fact
that I am still living in New York City. The people I see at the cocktail parties, the
people I fraternize with, are those I used to see. And so one is tempted to think there
isnt a difference Oh, I just needed to change offices. That, of
course, is not true. The adjustment would have been greater had I left; as Peter Gazardi
left Crown, to go to Duke: he went to become the editor-in-chief at Duke, and was out of
the realm. But suddenly you are really in the world of a university press community.
Im not sure I would have gone to any other university press.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Ive been interested in the view, from
inside, of the institutional changes in publishing over the last decade: what they are;
how they affect the work you do; and, equally, how the work you do affects the
institution. That is, how do people act in and upon the institution of publishing? Would
you talk about your own experience, having gone from trade publishing, or what might be
called corporate publishing now, to the university press?
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Sure. For me, the switch from trade or
commercial publishing better put, from corporate publishing to a university
press was an idea I had, to somehow recreate what trade publishing was when I started in
1970. I am now working, at Columbia, for an independent publisher which is owned and
operated without conglomeration with any other publisher.
That used to be the case all around this town of New York. What are now different
imprints within houses, were, once, publishing houses, free-standing and, in most cases,
independent. Thats been a rather remarkable change in publishing, though maybe
necessary. Actually, I guess I should back up a little. That has been a change in New York
publishing; I dont think its been quite the case outside this city. But if, as
many people do, you define commercial publishing by what goes on in New York, then
thats the change in publishing.
People are fond of pointing to all the new independent publishers that have jumped up.
That being the case, I dont think for the most part they have had the effect on book
publishing that commercial publishing has had on the general trade. I dont think
theres the replication of what existed here. And thats interesting, because,
given the way business has changed, they should have had an effect. But the distribution
system is concentrated; its much easier now to get to all the different book outlets
than it ever was 20 years ago, when you had so many independent bookstores. You now have
Amazon.com. You have all these wide-angled changes in distribution, but I dont think
the small publishers have the penetration that they might have risen to have. What I hope
we have here is a sort of moderate or smallish independent publishing house. I like that
scale of operation; it works for me; and I like to see what we can effect with that. For a
certain kind of publishing, the kind Im interested in, this may be a refuge.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Will you say more about the kind of
publishing youre interested in?
WILLIAM STRACHAN: I was raised up in non-fiction, basically. I
started at Anchor books in 1970, which Jason Epstein had started, back in the 50s.
At that point, it was still one of the few trade paperback publishers, along with the
Vintage list; and it was fun, because that was the 70s, and it was the turn of the
paperback revolution. It was going to change the world; half of our list was academic
publishing, in a sense, and half of it was cutting edge. What was new went
into trade paperbacks.
I cut my teeth on non-fiction, and I stayed with that throughout my career, going from
Anchor books in 1980, to what was then The Viking Press. The desire there was to move into
hard-cover publishing, and what I looked at changed. At Anchor, you thought up ideas for
books, or people came to you with one-shot books, and you did them in paperbacks, and you
sort of went on to the next book.
But at Viking, what I hoped to do was to develop some of the writers who had been doing
non-fiction, book in and book out. Alan Williams, who was there at the time, said we
published authors, not books. That was the philosophy of The Viking Press, and it was a
nice change. It had recently been sold to Penguin what was then Penguin
although at that point it was a separate entity. Well, the twain met, a little, but they
were editorially independent even though they worked under the same roof. Penguin then was
owned by Pearson, and it still is. [The publishing conglomerate is larger and now called
Penguin Putnam Group.] But at that point, curiously, Penguin wasnt as renowned in
this country as it was in the U. K., and it was still growing up under Kathryn Court, who
was the editorial director then. So I stayed with non-fiction. I can count on maybe ten
fingers the number of novels Ive done over the history of my career. Thats
what interested me about Columbia, and about university presses, which, by and large, are
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Who are some of these authors you published
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Witold Rybczynski, whom I first published at
Anchor Books, in a paperback original, and then brought over to Viking, where I did his
next several books. I edited people like Marc Reisner (CADILLAC DESERT) and Gretel Ehrlich
(THE SOLACE OF OPEN SPACES). Writerly non-fiction.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: I like that: writerly
WILLIAM STRACHAN: So. I went on from Viking, to Houghton
Mifflin, in the new York office [corporate headquarters were in Boston], to what was then
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, before ending up at Holt, in 1990, where I was editor-in-chief.
And now this. The idea that university presses publish non-fiction is interesting; and I
think, you know, we can bring some of my trade there, although running the press leaves
much less time to be an editor, which is a change.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: But you do still edit?
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Yes, and probably once I settle into this job
a little bit more I came over to Columbia in June 1997 I might have some
more time to do it, rather than to figure out where everything lies in the hierarchy.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Holt was going through some changes as well,
when you left. [It was bought by the German publishing company Holtzbrink.]
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Holt has gone through some changes, and
continues to go through some changes, yes. That company is part of Holtzbrink, the German
publishing conglomerate, which here owns Farrar, Straus and St. Martins, Scientific
American, and a number of other outfits. I think they have to figure out where Holt fits
into that conglomeration.
We dont have those confusions here, which is very nice.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: A look of relief is on your face.
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Well, Ive seen this time and time again
with my colleagues in publishing, where you sign on to do a certain kind of publishing,
and the house is going in a certain direction, and over the years the changes havent
come at the bottom, theyve come at the top. A new administration, or a new
ownership, or whatever, comes in and, suddenly, what you were supposed to be doing, or
what you were doing, very happily, is no longer very desirable or wanted or rewarded. That
makes it very hard to make a long-term commitment to writers. I think its the
longer-term continuity that works best for writers, and for publishers, as well.
Obviously, there are exceptions; but I think that is how a publishing house gets its
character: how it builds a stable and works with writers: over a long period of time.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: If they still care about that.
WILLIAM STRACHAN: If they still care about that. I dont
know that they need to. I think they do. It works better, I think, if you push a house:
This is what we know to publish, and this is who we publish; and therefore, if
youre a kindred spirit, or you like that, then we know how to publish you
The business has changed, but so has the
KATHERINE McNAMARA: I was trying to place a book, a non-fiction
narrative, and asked a poet for advice, as I had had some difficulty with it. I carried on
for quite a while about this, until he said, very simply, Why dont you just
give it to a good publisher, and let it go? I stopped in my tracks. There was
nothing I could say. Books are turned down all the time for reasons that have nothing to
do with literature as I know it. He was from two generations before me and had no idea of
the kinds of difficulties serious writers face now from publishers.
WILLIAM STRACHAN: No, the business has changed a lot: but so has
the culture, and thats whats hard to figure out in publishing today. Im
not sure where you place yourself in the culture I was thinking about this
because the idea of reading and books, if you will, used to be kind of divorced from other
parts of the culture. You had movies, you had books or literature, you had drama, and
KATHERINE McNAMARA: And there was a hierarchy.
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Yes, and increasingly these things are
blurred. Theres plenty of book stuff on TV. There is plenty of book stuff on the
internet, god knows, and there are wonderful magazines. All this blurring, or mixing,
were still sorting out, but its had an enormous effect on what you publish,
and how you publish it. I think the books published by the larger commercial publishers
are seen now as entertainment. I mean that not just pejoratively, because the best, most
wonderful book in the world is supposed to be entertainment, you know, the highest
literature is wonderfully entertaining to a certain audience. I havent sorted it out
yet. I dont think anybody really has, and can say, This is why were
publishing this or that book. What is getting drowned out is the idea of quality
entertainment, if you will; but, again, I say that too quickly, because the flip side of
it is that, actually, whats succeeding in the trade is either a very high quality in
books, still, or a kind of mass-marketing entertainment.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: So once again the mid-list...
WILLIAM STRACHAN: The middle falls away. People dont know
quite what to make of it. Its not either literature or, quote, entertainment,
KATHERINE McNAMARA: And the difficulty abut the shrinking of the
mid-list is that was a standard of good writing.
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Yes, it was, and is, a standard of good
writing. Its also the kind of proving ground, or developing ground, for many
writers. You do one book; you do another; you keep writing, you keep publishing, you
suddenly have an oeuvre, somethings going on. People dont know what to do
about that right now.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: You mean, publishers dont.
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Publishers dont. They dont know
how to support it. You as a writer have to make it very quickly, in a book or two, so that
youre not consigned to the scrap-heap. In todays climate, its harder and
harder to get attention for that mid-list; it just goes unappreciated, its not
championed and its not recognized. Even if you get good reviews, the response is,
But thats conglomerate publishing, too. One of the changes in the book world is
that, when the houses were independent, you saw yourself saying: This is the list,
this is what were publishing; and well make some money off of these books, and
that will allow us to publish others. It sounds strange, now. But it was thought of
that way. When I started at Doubleday, which Anchor was part of, we had the same
publishing board. It was one of the first corporate publishing boards; you went to it
every week. But you still said about a book, This is part of the list.
I watched that change to P&L [profit and loss] statements. Suddenly, there was this
idea that every book had to be profitable! No longer was it that you balanced the list;
now you balanced the profitability of the company not on the back of a list, but on the
back of every book! If you look at it that way, it wont work: I mean, 90 percent of
books still lose money. Even if you were trying not to, that practice changed the way you
looked at books. Completely. You didnt say, Yes, but it fits in, we just have
to publish this writer because its part of our commitment to him, or
part of the list, or whatever. That affected the mid-list as well. You had
people kidding themselves, either knowingly or with rose-colored glasses, saying, Oh
this isnt a mid-list book, when everybody should have admitted that it was. I
think that changed things too. Very odd, but true.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: An English editor told me he showed the
conversation I had with Michael and Cornelia Bessie to several of his colleagues, and they
were all amazed: Michael talked about how they used to publish books with no P&Ls.You
dont have to have them here at Columbia?
WILLIAM STRACHAN: We do P&Ls at Columbia. But as a tool, a
sort of snapshot; thats how they started out, of course. The interesting thing about
a P&L is that it will reveal to me, sometimes, that, for all this sturm und drang, all
this effort, at the end of the day were going to make 35 cents. Well, maybe
its not worth all the effort. Or, at least, youre thinking: Just what we
are getting into? What we do here is, after youve done a P&L, if it
doesnt work, you still have the right to say, very nicely, Yes, we know it
doesnt work financially, but we wanted to publish this book, for whatever
reason. Commercial publishers do this as well, of course, sometimes. We have another
advantage, however, which is being a not-for-profit organization. Its easier for me
to say that here than at some other places.
Categories, product, and the
economics of independent publishing
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Now, I wonder if we can think in two
directions for a moment. Theyll have to be serial, not parallel directions. One is,
your very interesting statement about seeing a book differently once a P&L is attached
to it: what does that mean for reading and for readership; even, if you want, for the work
of the imagination? We wont touch the writers imagination here;
lets say, for the imagination as it makes it way through the trade editorial
The second is, What does it mean to be an independent, not-for-profit, but also
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Yes, which is a very different structure and
with different constraints. Well, in a trade situation, with a work of imagination,
youre trying to catch that handle that will allow everyone to catch the same magic,
the high concept that you see in it throughout. If you can get that, then there is no
barrier to what you can do. I dont think trade publishing is that tricky, and, in
fact, sometimes its easier to do. An editor can say, Oh boy, you just have to
read this, its wonderful, its totally unique. Or, Its just
like something else thats wonderful. Thats fairly easy to do.
When you work for a publishing corporation or a publishing company that does things
pretty much in lockstep, though, that is when you have to be able to categorize a book,
because we have to be able to sell it in a certain way, or: Where does
it go in the bookstore? This is not a bad question to ask yourself: Where am I
going to put this in a bookstore; how is the sales rep going to sell it? But most of
those arent surprises, youll have pigeonholed them very neatly. Again, a good
editor can pigeonhole a book very neatly and sell it that way; and that works, but
KATHERINE McNAMARA: In its way, its another kind of
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Yes; yes, it is. Very much. Because if
its not bought as a bestseller or a blockbuster because then you can do these
rote things for it but rather, its interesting, then it makes you concentrate
more, as an editor, on how youre going to publish the book; not simply saying,
Well, well just put em out there and see what happens.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Is that the old way they did it?
WILLIAM STRACHAN: I think there was enough of it that we just
didnt have to worry, because certain automatic mechanisms could take over. A certain
number of books would be bought by the public libraries, which would snap up three to five
thousand copies no matter what you did, if you had a good library sales force; and then
you got more on top of that, and it just rolled along. Those days are over, forever:
sadly, in a way, because the library system isnt capable of supporting the vast
output of the trade anymore; but it does leave you, then, to think more carefully about
what youre publishing, and how youre publishing it. And everybody still says
too many books are published. Thats probably still true; but whos ox are you
goring when you say, Cut this back?
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Do you, in your mind, distinguish between
what you think of as books and what you think of as...
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Product, if you will? No, yeah, I guess. Yeah.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Books, presumably, are what you want to
publish, whereas product is what there is too much of.
WILLIAM STRACHAN: But someones books are someone
elses product; and vice versa, I guess.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Thats not entirely true
WILLIAM STRACHAN: I dont think it is, but when you turn a
corner and you just say, Product is book-selling; I know how to sell this book
regardless of whats in it, or, you could sell it because its a genre, or
because its a brand name, that sounds like a product to me.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Were book salesmen, though, like that when
you knew them? Sales reps?
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Sure. When I started at Doubleday, the idea
was to have a bestseller every month. I mean, they did. They had Arthur Haley one month,
they had Irving Stone the next; they had Phyllis Whitney; they had Allen Drury. That was a
very profitable publishing company.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: And as those things went then, that was not
WILLIAM STRACHAN: No. It was the bestseller house. Betty
Prashker was then the editor-in-chief; Ken McCormick had just stepped down. The Doubleday
family still owned it. It was a publishing Behemoth, on one hand, and a very savvy
publisher, on the other. We used to joke then: if this company werent so busy making
money, it would go out of business.
I think its come back to that in a way: youve got a machine that drives
certain bestsellers, best-selling writers, and then everything else needs to catch on in
their wake, or distinguish itself from them. Maybe we have come full circle. But its
hard to distinguish the others from them, even though there are all theses new avenues in
which to do so. The sound of the larger books drowns out the voice of the smaller ones.
We were talking about the idea of agent and submissions. Yes, we do get submissions
from agents. I lost a book last week to Harvard, which Oxford, Columbia and Harvard were
all considering and bid on. Harvard won out.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: You started out at $5,000 and went up to
$20,000. What kind of advances are you able to pay?
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Not what I once paid in the trade, clearly;
but that removes a certain amount of pressure or expectation from the publication of the
book. What I was going to say was, certainly we want to sell every copy we can, for both
the authors and our sakes. But I think expectations about what is going to happen
when the book is published are kept within a certain frame. Scholarly people most
scholarly people have a day job. Publication is not everything, or that
everything that as a writer youre riding on, with the disappointments,
expectations, and the like; and that fact insulates everything a little bit. We pay
advances, and we pay royalties, which is very nice.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Which means the advances are earning out.
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Right, the advances are earning out, which is
another side of the world its nice to see. Royalty checks were few and far between
after a certain point in trade publishing, because the advance had been all.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: When did you notice the advances starting to
rise? And how did you stay in that game?
WILLIAM STRACHAN: I think the advances probably always rose. Look
back at legendary stories of old: you know, the million dollar advance, back when. When I
was at Doubleday, in the 70s, I think the change came more or less then. In the
early 70s, Betty Prashker [then editor-in-chief] was fond of saying that the change
came in when the Xerox machine came in, because that allowed multiple submissions.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Ah, of course; and, there were still plenty
WILLIAM STRACHAN: I remember talking to Cork Smith [Charles M.
Smith, a respected literary editor] about this at Viking in the early 80s, and he
said that old idea of actually earning out was being replaced by the phrase
Youre buying a book. Thats what youre doing now: youre
buying that book. Its no longer, Oh, well give you an advance.
That changed drastically, and that really happened in the early 80s. There was more
money. The chains had expanded, so that you could sell many, many more copies of a
hardcover book then you ever had before; this is still true. Doubleday was a house of
bestsellers: 60,000 copies was a big sale. Now youre looking at initial print runs
of two million copies.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: But often, huge returns follow.
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Yes, but youre capable of selling in
excess of a million copies. Charles Frazier [COLD MOUNTAIN] sold a million and a half
hardcover copies! Thats remarkable these days.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Or John Berendts MIDNIGHT IN THE
GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL whatever thats sold!
Do you have a problem with returns?
WILLIAM STRACHAN: No, we dont. We are affected by returns,
we have returns. The problem is ameliorated by the nature of what we publish. The good
news is we dont get returns; the bad news is that we dont get that many books
out, because bookstores buy in ones and twos, for representation, and then reorder; much
more so than for trade books. Because we publish reference works, and expensive reference
works, that keeps our rate of return down. Youre not going to order a $750 copy of
THE COLUMBIA GAZETTEER on spec. Youre going to say, We have a customer for it,
well order one. That affects the percentage of returns. Were running,
oh, 18 to 19 percent, which is about half of what trade or commercial publishers are
Youve got to look at the writing
KATHERINE McNAMARA: How is university publishing different than
you thought it would be?
WILLIAM STRACHAN: One of the big differences is, the writing;
and the fact that we dont publish fiction. But thats peculiar to Columbia,
because some other university presses do publish fiction. But the fact that you dont
have that writerly aspect around as part of the fabric of the house affects your
non-fiction as well.
Again, I come back to this: the writing. Youve got to look at the writing. That,
partly, is what people are looking for. Part of it, too, is just that scholarship can
carry the day, rather than, simply, the writing. So thats one aspect thats
very different. I think the other aspect is this notion of peer review. The publications
committee is a wonderful sounding board and helps us constantly, not so much as checks and
balances, but by saying: This is not, Im here to tell you, the cutting
edge! Thats a very helpful expertise. Or, If youre going to do
this, be aware of this, that, and the next thing.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Because you expect to publish the top of the
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Yes; and thats great. What I am not used
to, or in full adjustment to, is that is that we cant publish something that
doesnt have the stamp of approval of the publications committee. Im just not
used to operating that way as an editor. That was on your shoulders in commercial
publishing. But when people say, How do you get used to it? I answer,
Yes, but you have to go ask your sales and marketing department. Can you publish
something without having your sales and marketing department signing off on it?
Increasingly the answer to that is, No. I say, Well, I can; but I have
to go ask my publications committee. Thats a different side of the process.
Id rather ask a publications committee.
KATHERINE McNAMARA: Youre in the same arena.
WILLIAM STRACHAN: Yes, its an editorially-inclined
committee. I think thats one of the nice things about this university press: it is
still an editorially-driven publishing company. The genesis of what youre doing
springs from the editorial matter.