In praise (mostly) of multi-authored books

Anthologies and essay collections can connect with readers

Some of the most successful titles I’ve worked on as a publisher would fall somewhere under the heading of edited collections or anthologies. These are books with a volume editor or editors, and then lots of contributions (generally although not always chapter-length essays) by different authors. Appalachian Reckoning: A Region Responds to Hillbilly Elegy was at one point the all-time bestseller at the press I previously directed; it got a New York Times review, among other bits of prominent exposure. Susan D. Blum’s edited collection Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead) came along a couple of years later and sold at least as well, with recognition on NPR, in Slate, etc. In the run of big books that my colleagues and I published in the late 2010s and early 2020s, projects that I’d classify as multi-authored played an outsized role.¹

That may surprise some readers of this newsletter. Among publishing professionals, at least, multi-authored volumes often have a mixed-to-negative reputation. The rise of the digital course pack and other varieties of online mixing-and-matching has undermined some of the value of conventional anthologies dedicated to highlighting previously published work. (When I started out, at Routledge, those books—often with the subtitle “A Reader”—were huge. Less so now, 25 or 30 years later, when everyone is digitally empowered to act as a curator.) Even collections that prioritize original writing generally struggle for review attention, it’s believed, compared with single-authored books. And connecting back to this newsletter’s primary focus, multi-authored volumes can be a lot of work.

In my experience they can be worth it, though. I’ll make a few quick points:

—The scope or topic of a successful edited collection is generally something that multiple authors can address more effectively than a single author. At the independent, community-oriented publishers where I’ve worked, the advantages of having multi-vocal perspective can be especially meaningful. There’s no one authoritative Voice of God with a collection, and for certain sorts of subject matter (like, say, queer studies, as in this book from PM Press), that’s a big selling point.

—Successful edited collections often take up an area where there’s emerging interest, but where single-authored work hasn’t yet been published. In my experience these collections can serve as a catalyst and help generate conventional, single-authored books that arrive later.

—At the small houses where I’ve spent time, it’s sometimes been possible to commission (as opposed to the more passive acquire) edited collections, whipping up a volume to meet what publishing professionals perceive as a need. That's tougher with single-authored work. Few writers will put aside their own manuscript-in-progress to write a whole different book at the request of a publisher (at least for the kinds of advances that small presses can offer). But writers can sometimes be tempted to edit a collection alongside work they’re already doing. The result, then, is that multi-authored books can empower scrappier publishing houses that may be attuned to innovation, open to risk, and aware of readers’ unmet needs.

—And keep in mind, an engaged roster of contributing essayists can become a powerful network for helping market a finished book.

For any of this to be effective, there are a couple of prompts worth keeping in mind:

—Since part of the advantage of edited collections is getting the book out faster than a single-authored book written from scratch, speed really does have a role. With a large cast of characters it can be easy for things to become unwieldy, so efficient management is key.

—On a related note, I’ve seen an uptick in open calls for chapters to be included in edited collections. The appeal makes sense (and I suppose there’s a social-justice component to openness, as an antidote to what may seem like clubbiness around selecting contributing writers from established networks). But having a good sense of who and what will be in a collection before it’s pitched to publishers generally means a smoother ride and a more coherent whole.

I like to think this newsletter hasn’t avoided sensitive subject matter, but of all the topics I’ve covered this one feels among the riskiest! Many of my publishing colleagues have good reasons for being skeptical of multi-authored work (and indeed, the higher ed series that I coordinate generally doesn’t consider anything but single-authored books). I should be clear that I don’t think it’s wrong to prioritize books written by one person.

Like any of publishing’s conventional wisdom, though, the critique of multi-authored volumes deserves to be scrutinized against real-world experience. And based on what I’ve seen, conversations about these books might benefit from a measure of cautious optimism.

1. A word on definitions: I’ve generally been told that “anthology” refers to previously published essays, and “edited collection” to original pieces. That distinction seems to be blurring, and many of the multi-authored books that I’ve helped publish include a mix of new and previously published work. It may also be worth noting that I am, in my focus on essay collections, putting aside other kinds of multi-authored books. Even something like the well-received recent edition of The Book of the Dead that colleagues and I worked on—half poetry by Muriel Rukeyser, half narrative nonfiction by Catherine Venable Moore—might count as multi-authored.