A harsh reality of newspaper editing is that the deadlines don't allow for the polish that you expect in books or even magazines.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I've never been good with deadlines. My early novels, I wrote by myself. No one knew I was writing a novel; I didn't have a contract.
The deadlines are much, much longer with books. When I was a reporter, a lot of times I'd come in at 8:30 a.m., get an assignment right away, interview somebody, turn the story in by 9:30, and have the finished story in the paper that landed on my desk by noon.
Another thing that's quite different in writing a book as a practicing newspaperman is that if you look at what you've written the next morning and you think you didn't get it quite right, you can fix it.
Publishers give you deadlines for those last phases of production that are perfectly comfortable for them. So, to whatever extent I can, I like to push those to give me a little more time, and make it so that they're as uncomfortable as I am.
But if I worried too much about publishers' expectations, I'd probably paralyze myself and not be able to write anything.
Most editors are just worried about their jobs. They're overwhelmed. They're underpaid. They do the best they can.
Writing doesn't come real easy to me. I couldn't write a novel in a year. It wouldn't be readable. I don't let an editor even look at it until the second year, because it would just scare them. I just have to trust that all these scraps and dead-ends will find a way.
I'm guessing the stress of having to write for a deadline can be inspiring. Sometimes, pressure is good.
I've been a freelancer my entire career, and, at any given time, I have several deadlines for all sorts of things, whether it's some magazine piece or ad copywriting or anything.
Publishing is, by its nature, about deadlines, and deadlines are toxic.