DELETE UGH
Oh look – Milo Yiannopoulos sued Simon & Schuster for dropping his book, so S&S submitted the editor’s comments on the manuscript, so we get to read them.
The editor did not think it was a good book.
In July, Yiannopoulos set out to sue Simon & Schuster for $10m for breach of contract. As part of the case, Simon & Schuster have submitted documents that reveal the problems they had with the book. Among other criticisms, the publisher’s notes say Yiannopoulos needed a “stronger argument against feminism than saying that they are ugly and sexless and have cats” and that another chapter needs “a better central thesis than the notion that gay people should go back in the closet”.
In addition to the documents, a full copy of an early manuscript of the book, complete with the Simon & Schuster editor Mitchell Ivers’s notes, is available to download from the New York state courts’ website.
The tone is set in notes on the prologue to the manuscript. Ivers writes to Yiannopoulos: “Throughout the book, your best points seem to be lost in a sea of self-aggrandizement and scattershot thinking,” and adds: “Careful that the egotistical boasting … doesn’t make you seem juvenile.”
If only someone could convince Trump of that.
You have to wonder what Simon & Schuster was expecting, though. Boasting and scattershot thinking are all there is to Milo Yiannopoulos. Did they think he would write a well-argued book free of narcissism?
Ivers frequently calls on Yiannopoulos to back up his assertions in the text. In the first nine pages of chapter one, notes include: “Citations needed”, “Do you have proof of this?”, “Unsupportable charge” and “Cite examples”.
…The editor makes several notes asking the author to tone down racism in the text. “Delete irrelevant and superfluous ethnic joke,” Ivers writes of a passage about taxi drivers. “Let’s not call South Africa ‘white’” is another request, while elsewhere Yiannopoulos is reprimanded for using the phrase “dark continent” about Africa.
In a way it seems unfair to young Mr Y. The only reason he was invited to write a book was because of his notoriety as a Twitter asshole. (How do I know that? Because there is no other possible reason. That notoriety is all there is to him.) Since that’s why he was invited to write a book, it’s not surprising that that’s the kind of book he wrote; it would not have been unreasonable of him to have assumed that that’s what they wanted and expected. If they didn’t want and expect that, why invite him to write a book, when that’s the only thing he’s known for?
But that’s not to say I feel at all sorry for him.
Yiannopoulos is repeatedly warned his choice of words is undermining any argument he is attempting to make. “The use of phrases like ‘two-faced backstabbing bitches’ diminishes your overall point,” reads one comment. “Too important a point to end in a crude quip” is another. “Unclear, unfunny, delete,” reads another.
The early sections of a chapter on feminism prompt the note: “Don’t start chapter with accusation that feminists = fat. It destroys any seriousness of purpose.” Yiannopoulos goes on to criticise contemporary feminism as “merely a capitalist con-job – a money-grab designed to sell T-shirts to Taylor Swift and Beyoncé fans with asinine slogans”. “Um … like your MILO SWAG?” the editor responds.
Oh, burn.
Ivers’s evident exasperation becomes clear by page 84, where Yiannopoulos’s call for lesbians to be thrown out of academia altogether simply elicits the all-upper-case comment: “DELETE UGH.”
Ok well I’ll be saying that to everything from now on.
And why they feel that there is a strong enough case to be made against feminism that they need yet another book against it? There have been reams of arguments published against feminism, most of which boil down to the same arguments as those Milo is making, but which are argued in high-enough sounding language that people don’t notice as easily.
S&S clearly wanted to tap into what it sees as a lucrative audience for misogynistic work, so I don’t feel too sorry for them, either. They chose to step into the gutter, but then decided they didn’t like the smell of the sewage they were packaging to sell.
@iknlast – yes – it’s like booking a punk band ca 1976 then complaining they were loud and gobbed over the audience. Then telling them to stop swearing and get a tidy executive haircut. MY’s book as it stood would probably have had good sales among his fanbase. What’s the point of him otherwise?
The more I think about it the more absurd it is. Did they have him confused with someone else?
Maybe the Milo book idea was suggested by some bean-counter who only saw potential sales, not ability or talent. Then it got passed along to someone who actually knows (and cares) about making real books. It looks like they gave it to a real editor who wanted to really edit.Otherwise, yeah, what were they thinking? I’d think Regnery Publishing ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Regnery_Publishing ) would be a better fit for Milo.
Yeah, that – it is to be hoped – is going to haunt him for some time.
“Citations needed”, “Do you have proof of this?”…and “Cite examples”.
I’m currently working on what I hope will be the penultimate rewrite of my PhD thesis, and going through my advisor’s comments…alas, some of these sound very familiar.
“Delete irrelevant and superfluous ethnic joke”–OK, maybe not that one.
@Guest:
At least the comments (probably) don’t include “Careful that the egotistical boasting doesn’t make you seem juvenile.”
I know how picked-apart you feel at this moment. Stay strong, you’ll be grand.
:) thanks latsot–I sincerely hope not! I’m good–all of my advisor’s comments are either justified (I have to say, the training does seem to have worked by osmosis; I’m rereading stuff and thinking ‘wow, that was terrible, what was I thinking?’ and rewriting a HOPEFULLY improved version) or outside the proposed scope of my work (I just need to shelve these and hope she’s forgotten she made them…).
The greatest danger is wanting to rewrite every part of it, sentence by sentence.
I’m more or less leaving the parts she’s said are good alone….
Heh, yeah, that’s a whole different thing. The criteria are different, the reasons for doing it are different, the etiquette is different, the end goal is different…it’s all different.
It took me a few minutes to grasp what kind of register we were supposed to write Why Truth Matters in. I started out rawther too casual, to the alarm of co-author. But once I knew what was expected it wasn’t difficult.
This was apparently going to be published under an imprint of S&S, one that specializes in, ahem, *conservative* (read: wackaloon) politics. The editor Ivers had worked with Rush L, Glen B, and even Donald T, yet this screed could not pass muster for their, one might rightfully assume, rather loose standards.
A very good friend of mine was an editor at S&S, where her first assignment was Miles: The Autobiography (written with (or “as-told-to”) Quincy Troupe, 1989). More than one book review counted the word “motherfucker” appeared 333 times in 434 pages, as one review remarked: “That’s a lot of moms.” My friend told me I should have seen the original draft — it would have had 3 motherfuckers per page, but she told them the word loses impact if used too frequently.
Heh. What an excellent bit of insider info.
My friend also said her job was to help the author say what they were trying to say, so the notes on Dangerous show the editor working to help Yiannopoulos make coherent points. For example, the editor inserted a preamble:
And the editor inserted this paragraph to help the overall form of the book:
If I have time, I’ll read all the notes as a dialectic between two people working out some ideas, to see where there may be coherent points.