Archive for February, 2011

CNN’s Piers Morgan and his guest Colin Firth were talking last night about how tough it is for Brits to make it big in the United States. Which got me to thinking that Canadians are doing just fine in that department, thank you.

Even ten years ago Canada boasted multiple comics (Martin Short, Eugene Levy and Jim Carrey), some singers (Shania Twain, Gordon Lightfoot and Anne Murray), broadcasters (Peter Jennings and Peter Kent) and a movie star or three (Donald and Kiefer Sutherland, Christopher Plummer.) As for business, however, there were more failures than successes in the U.S.market (Canadian Tire, Peoples Jewellers).

Now there’s a new generation who are not only successful in the U.S., but also have attained global stature. Think of Arcade Fire, Justin Bieber, Yann Martel and Malcolm Gladwell. In business there’s now a string of success stories including Cirque du Soleil, Lululemon with stores in more than 35 states and Tim Hortons with more than 600 locations in the U.S.

When I was bureau chief for The Financial Post in Washington, D.C., I shared offices with The Financial Times. One day, FT correspondent Lionel Barber (now editor) stuck his head in my door and said, “I’ve been looking at the awards hanging on your wall. For a while, I was intimidated. And then I thought, ‘Such a small country.’”

I didn’t tell him that some of the awards were from American organizations. But no matter. For a small country, I think Canadians are faring well in the U.S. and always have.

If that’s your measure of success.

The demise of Key Porter set off a brief flurry of anguish that another Canadian publisher had gone under. The more protracted debate has been about the general lack of good editors at publishing houses.

Indeed, Key Porter is a sad tale. They published my most recent book, BlackBerry: The Inside Story of Research In Motion. The Fenns, Harold and Jordan, deserved a better fate. So did Anna Porter, a co-founder, who sold them the business but left her name on the door. Anna ranks among the best in the business as do Doug Gibson and Phyllis Bruce, all three of whom I’ve worked with, but not for a while. Anne Collins, who regularly is mentioned in despatches, I knew at Maclean’s in the early 1980s, but have never been published by her house.

But here’s the thing. All this caterwauling about editors at publishing houses being replaced by freelance editors is a tad behind the times. Russell Smith wrote about this in The Globe today as if those talented gurus actually existed until just recently. There might be a few left somewhere, but I’ve published more than a dozen non-fiction books over nearly thirty years, and the last time I had either a substantive or a structural edit was at McClelland & Stewart fifteen years ago. My manuscript for Who Killed Confederation Life? went through not one, but two, in-house edits. Pat Kennedy did the structural edit and another woman did the copy edit. I regret to say I cannot remember her name.

But I do remember the two of them discussing at some length the proper placement of a semi-colon. I thought to myself, “If they care this much about these words, I’m happy to sit here forever.” They made many other far more thoughtful suggestions and the book went on to win the National Business Book Award.

I’ve always taken the view that every writer needs a good editor. When I wrote 5,000-word magazine pieces in the 1980s, I was again fortunate to be edited by the best: Barbara Moon, Barbara Czarnecki, and Gary Ross. I don’t write those articles any more, but I still write books. If I want a structural edit, I hire a freelancer out of my own pocket. Publishers will pay for a copy edit, but that’s it. As for ideas about how to improve a manuscript, you might get a brief email with a few thoughts.

For all the lamentations about e-books, freelance editors, and the lack of government support, the main point is being missed. With the exception of the aforementioned bright spots, the Canadian publishing industry has been in decline since the mid-1990s. The wails you hear are for a time long gone.

Let’s take another look at the Globe and Mail redesign, five months on. In October, when I blogged on this topic, I said I liked the redesign but I no longer do. Will there be enough to read, I wondered? Maybe not. Ads matter more, I suggested. Got that right.

A good place to begin is with what I like. Specific writers continue to appeal. They know what they’re doing and can turn a phrase. Gary Mason on British Columbia, Christie Blatchford most of the time, Adam Radwanski all the time, Roy MacGregor on hockey, Patrick Martin on the Middle East, Judith Timson, and Ian Brown.

Report on Business, one of the main reasons I read the paper, has fallen into the mire. Janet McFarland’s piece this week on troubles with shareholder voting was a rare bit of thoughtful reporting on a topic no one else has covered. Boyd Erman’s item last week on activists about to tackle Manulife was shameful squib of speculative nonsense not even backed up by unnamed sources. Regrettably, there is more of the latter than the former.

The Saturday Style section has wondrous production values but little content. With six ad pages in the 24-page section, I can’t see how it makes money. Unless every manufacturer and clothing line pays to be in the full-page fashion shoots. Katrina Onstad’s column is the size of a front door. What gives?

On some spreads in the front section, the photo is larger than the news story. I know Editor John Stackhouse thinks readers will tire after 800 words, but blowing up one photo to the size of a 42-inch TV screen isn’t the answer to your print prayers.

Here’s the bottom line. I used to spend up to an hour reading The Globe. Now I’m done in 20 minutes. I sometimes don’t even get to it until the evening. I know, I know, my demographic is not their chosen audience. Trouble is, nobody I know under 45 reads The Globe. Moreover, the online version doesn’t get updated often enough to pull in the e-generation. So who is the target market?

For my money, The Toronto Star is doing a far better job. I gave up on the Star three years ago, but I’ve been drawn back by their local coverage, sports section, and the number of news stories they break. The Star knows who it is; The Globe has lost its way.