More prestigious bylines have usually meant worse stories, at least in my case
-
Show this thread
-
For one, there's often way too much editing, as opposed to the meaningful assistance I get from the Ringer and MEL and the hands-off treatment I receive from ST. Then there's a load of "layperson service" that occupies half the word count leading to a very modest finish
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
Looks nice on the e-shelf, I guess, but it takes a miracle to get something good (something I think is good) vs. the more compromised content that lands in the prestige format (or advertising copy, but staffers and publicists usually team up on that)
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
The thing I did for CJR was solid, but they're hardly mainstream, and my last three Paris Review essays were good but not nearly as popular as the first two (I'd significantly revise the first one now, if given it to do all over again)
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
My AJAM op-eds were on interesting and less covered topics, at least for the time, but op-eds are more like fan service than anything else (those dumbed down 1000 word things in NYT are often bragged about by acquaintances, but they're insulting to the intelligence of experts)
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likesShow this thread
Maybe it will be a different story now that prestige places are pitching me instead of vice versa. That's my hope, anyway. What I bring to the table isn't useful if editorial keeps clearing off that table.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
