Oh dear.
Yesterday the Librarian and I had our conversation with Co-Author about her chapter. It did not go well.
Of course, how well could it have gone, realistically? I mean, we were telling her that her chapter is really bad, so there was no pleasant outcome that we could anticipate.
Fortunately, the Librarian and I were on the same page. The two of us had met on Monday to discuss the chapter and our goals, and we were in total agreement that collegiality and respect demanded that Co-author get another chance to write this chapter. But we also agreed that, based on this first draft, we didn't actually think that she would be able to write something acceptable; it was so poorly researched and so poorly written that success seemed impossible, but that we couldn't make that call until she'd had another shot at it after we gave her our feedback. And then we came up with our back-up plan, which is that if/when the second version is also bad, or if Co-author refused to accept our feedback, the Librarian, as project manager, would have to go to the Head of School, who is the only one who has authority to remove Co-author from the project. I was so glad to hear the Librarian raise the possibility of removing Co-author from the project, since at this point it's the only feasible option I see to make the book a good product. But I didn't want to be the first one to say it!
I went into yesterday's conversation determined to say as little as possible and let Librarian do all the talking, in part because Co-author and I have this other relationship as departmental colleagues that I don't want to entirely jeapardize. But also, as the two co-authors, we're in sort of competition with each other, at least at this point, and Librarian and I both thought that it would be best for the criticisms to come primarily from her as project manager. But I did chime in a few times, as when Co-author said to Librarian, "You're the only person who hasn't liked the introduction"; I felt it incumbant upon me to say, "No, I didn't like it either." And after that, I did say a few other things, but left most of the heavy lifting to Librarian.
The whole thing stayed pleasant on the surface, but wow, there was real defensiveness underneath from Co-author, eventually turning into mild hostility ... and the hostility was toward me, not Librarian! The defensiveness is not at all surprising; being a writer is clearly vital to Co-author's sense of identity, as it is to mine, and Librarian and I were very aware of and sad about the fact that we were going to be wounding someone whom we both like as a colleague. At the same time, we had to be firm, because Co-author just kept deflecting criticism right and left. We'd sent her written feedback ahead of time, and she came in armed with reasons that we were wrong. I'd suggested, for example, that we hear more student voices in the chapter -- and that emphasis on students is something that we'd all agreed ahead of time would be central to the project! -- and Co-author turned to me and said, "No, there are plenty of student voices here already." We suggested that there could be a greater sense of narrative, and she at first said we were wrong, but finally said, "Well, if two of you think this, maybe there's a third person out there who would also think so. I'll play around with it a little this weekend, but I really think it's fine as is." And it went like that for an hour. She also did a lot of misrepresenting our statements, trying to make it seem that Librarian and I were disagreeing with each other and so that it was really all about our idiosyncratic individual opinions; that we put the kibosh on, dclaring, "No, we're saying the same thing" whenever she tried to pull that move.
The Archivist, who was out of town this week, had already met with Co-author last week to talk about the research (or lack thereof) in the chapter, and she had warned us that this was what to expect of the conversation. When it was pointed out to Co-author that almost all of her citations (typed out on a separate piece of paper, because she apparently doesn't know how to use the footnote function) were from a single secondary source, the reliability of which is somewhat suspect, and that she needed to go look at that secondary source author's sources herself, she looked affronted, as though this was hardly her job, and suggested that the Archivist could do this tedious work for her.
And when Librarian took one last stab and said to her, "Obviously you and WN are different people with different voices, but we do want to create as unified voice as we can between chapters," Co-author flared up with, "Well, why don't we change WN's chapter instead?! I mean, it's very academic and not particularly engaging." I think by "academic" she meant that I had done primary research and embedded quotations rather than simply quoting for full paragraphs at a time. She had already told the Archivist that she thought her chapter was engaging narrative whereas mine was "mere history." (Archivist and Librarian and I don't know what to make of such a complete lack of self-awareness on this point.) I didn't say anything during this part of the conversation, since there seemed nothing polite or politic to say now that it is clearly about competition between us and our respective chapters.
And you know what? I always suspected that this was what might happen, which is one reason I pushed myself so hard back in the fall and early winter to get my chapter in first; I wanted mine to become the model against which other chapters were judged. I have a specific vision of this book, and I want that vision to prevail, so I tried to promote that vision by writing the first chapter and having it be really damned good. And I sort of feel like I should feel guilty about being so deliberate in angling to have my way be THE way ... but on the other hand, what I wrote was along the lines of what we had all agreed we were going to do; it's Co-author who abandoned the precepts we had agreed on last summer.
Anyway, Co-author's conclusion in the meeting yesterday was to talk about how she and her writing group, all "professional" writers, all like this chapter and think it's a great piece of work; there was very much an implication that Librarian and I (both published authors, thank you very much) were mere amateurs who couldn't recognize her greatness. She's willing to "play around" with the chapter for a weekend but then is going to send it to the Head of School, "and then we'll see." I think that means that then Librarian and I will be put in our place and have to eat crow. Librarian (who was amazing during this whole ordeal) had clearly given up on Co-author by this point and said, "well, why don't we just give her this version?," but Co-author said, no, we'd wait until she'd done her "playing around" and then send it to her. But we all agreed that she would send it on next week so that all of this could get resolved by the end of the school year.
What Librarian and I are thinking, of course, is that we want Co-author off the project by the end of the school year so that I can re-plan my summer of work in light of being the sole author, and so that Librarian, as project manager, can renegotiate who is getting paid what for the writing of the project.
My only fear is that the Head of School might not necessarily have a lot of literary sensibility. I mean, I think if she put the chapters together she would say that mine is much better (which I realize sounds insufferably conceited, but it's just true!), but will she recognize that Co-author's chapter is so horrifically bad that it will ruin the book project? Or rather, will she be willing to step up to the plate and do the obviously unpleasant task of firing Co-author from the project, or will she want to just let things go along as they are, convincing herself that maybe the chapter isn't so terrible?
And things going along as they are is just not going to work.
My one big comfort in all of this mess is that Librarian is one of the most powerful and politically savvy people at FGS, and whatever she wants, she pretty much gets. So I'm putting my faith not in the Head of School herself, but in Librarian to make the Head act decisively.
Today Co-author went to see Librarian to do two things: First, to tell her that she never liked my first chapter at all and that she should have said something at the time (although I pretty much knew because of her tepid responses), and second, to bring her a revised version of the first couple of pages, asking, "Is this more what you had in mind?" Librarian showed it to me after school today, and we agreed that it was indeed better ... but still not nearly as good as the introduction to Ch. 2 that I wrote over the weekend and sent to Librarian; I wrote it just because I wanted to prove to myself that I wasn't crazy, that this really was interesting material and that there was no reason for this chapter to be as flat and boring as it was. (Oh, and that reminds me of another thing: In yesterday's meeting, Co-author said, "Let's be honest. None of this is very interesting material anyway." Well, for heaven's sake, if you don't think the subject is interesting, why the heck are you insisting on writing about it? And no wonder it was a boring chapter!) Anyway, Co-author's introduction was better, but it still was not nearly as well written as my introduction, and Librarian told me that she just doesn't think that the co-authoring business is going to work.
So Librarian has made an appointment to talk with the Head on Monday, to explain what is going on and let her know that she is going to have to take decisive action.
Sigh. Stay tuned.