by Dr. Shireen Khuwaja, Consultant
Few have heard of Maxwell E. Perkins, the twentieth century editor responsible for discovering authors like Hemingway and Fitzgerald. The book Editor to Author: The Letters of Maxwell E. Perkins (Wheelock, 1950) is a compilation of letters written by Perkins to his writers. The following paragraphs outline how Perkins practiced appreciation, support, and humility in his communication as an editor.
First, Perkins’ honesty in expressing his appreciation to his authors is a lesson for modern editors. When Perkins had to decline the first manuscript by Fitzgerald with a note to make several modifications and rewrites, he was afraid about demotivating the author and losing him permanently. But when Fitzgerald made the necessary edits and submitted the second version of his manuscript, Perkins expressed his delight and appreciation unreservedly. In his letter of September 16th, 1919, Perkins wrote to Fitzgerald, “I was afraid that when we declined the first manuscript, you might be done with us conservatives. I am glad you are not” (Wheelock, 1950, p. 20). Perkins made the authors feel valued and was known to commit himself completely to guiding authors to the best of their abilities. He did this work wholeheartedly knowing that he would not get any credit for the publications’ success.
Second, Perkins did not allow his professional stature to cloud personal support for his authors. Perkins’ writers enjoyed a safe space with him, which made him an exemplary mentor. For example, in 1936, when Thomas Wolfe was at an impasse with Scribner’s, Perkins sent a hand-written letter to Wolfe stating, “I never knew a soul with whom I felt I was in such fundamentally complete agreement as you. What’s more… I know you would not ever do an insincere thing, or anything you did not think was right” (Wheelock, 1950, p. 115). This degree of confidence in his writers indicated that Perkins was invested in the professional, as well as personal well-being of his authors.
Third, Perkins exercised great humility even when humility was least expected from him. In 1943, a book was published on writing and publishing in which the author attacked all editors, specifically Perkins, accusing him of unjustly using his editorial power to adulterate Thomas Wolfe’s work. In representing Scribner’s and all the editors, Perkins wrote a spirited letter informing the accusing author of the legal action that would follow. One would expect a rightfully angry missive, but, even in this letter, Perkins’ humility was extraordinarily evident. Perkins wrote that apart from the sections with allegations and personal attacks, he plans to enjoy the book. He stated, “… from what I have read from the rest of your book… you have said many right and true things that have not been said before. Editors aren’t much, and can’t be. They can only help a writer realize himself…” (Wheelock, 1950, p. 229). In this letter, Perkins was mindful about separating his ego as an editor and addressing the wrongful accusation. Appreciation, support, and humility define Perkins’ authentic self. His letters indicate that he was an editor, not just by profession, but also by character—he ensured redacting his ego from his interactions with people.
This books highlights the importance of conflict resolution for professional development as a mentor. Editor to Author provides great insight in how to achieve this goal in a sophisticated manner. The first example showed that Perkins’ genuine appreciation allowed him to have an honest relationship with his authors. His authors were open to receiving his critique and their conversations were passionate but not confrontational. I have always believed in appreciating my teammates generously, but now I can be more intentional in my mentorship. In the second example, Perkins expresses his support for his writer wholeheartedly, even when the author was against the very institution Perkins represented. As mentors, we must always keep in mind the adage that a guide on the side is better than a sage on the stage, and empower mentees to own their decisions without feeling pressure or guilt from their editors. As an editor, I must be cognizant in supporting my authors to write about the topics they care about without discouraging them. Regarding the third example, I am forced to ask myself whether I would have the courage to compliment an author on a publication in which I was maligned. The answer currently is no! However, Perkins has set an example for me to rise above myself when managing conflict. Perkins letters will remain a source of inspiration and guidance for me in my mentoring circles and as an editor at my workplace.