Don't Annoy The Story Editors (or whoever is in charge of the readers)

Whether it's because reading is an isolating job and my social skills have diminished since I began this work or whether I just didn't have great social skills to begin with, every once in a while I speak without thinking. In general discourse with friends, such is understood and everyone moves on. However, when I do it in conversation with a Story Editor or Creative Executive, I get the feeling the comment isn't so easily dismissed.

There have been a number of instances in my past where, I believe, a simple comment led either to a dismissal of my services or a negative impression on a Story Editor that has kept me from future employment.

The first was the simplest. I had been reading for this company for about a month when the Assistant Story Editor bluntly told me to "proofread your coverage." I told him I did proofread my coverage and asked what the problem was. The "problem" turned out to be that the Story Editor hated typos and had found a few in my coverages. I tried to explain the difficulty in proofreading one's own work. It's always best to get a different set of eyes when it comes to proofreading, as the writer will...that's about as far as I got before the ASE interrupted with "just do it." I shot back "I do" and left. About a week later, I was told they had "too many readers" and didn't require my services any longer. I truly believe I'd still be working there if I'd just said, "I'll strive to do better" rather than return the ASE's dismissive attitude.

So, rule #1. Be nice to them, they have the power.

In another instance, I had finally, after many years, landed a gig at a studio (well-paying, benefits, consistent work). Two other Readers were there with me at the orientation meeting. At one point, the Story Editor made a mention of how he had "heard a lot about all of us." I snorted. You know, a short semi-laugh that is usually interpreted as being derisive. Why did I do this? I just couldn't imagine that Story Editors spend a lot of time talking amongst themselves about Readers. Of course, if I had just thought about it for a second, I would have realized that I had submitted a resume and he might of actually have called a few places I worked for references. End result, I worked one week and then was let go. Could the two events be unrelated? Possibly, but why take the chance?

Rule #2. Control yourself. Derisive attitudes don't make the best first impression.

Finally, I was present in a discussion of a new contract the Reader's union had signed that included a provision for employers to work a Reader "any 8 of 24." I.e., awork day could be any eight hours, not just daytime hours. It's a way of getting rid of overtime, as you just assign a reader or two to work a 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. shift and they read overnight scripts without getting extra for them. The Story Editor in the conversation was extolling this as a wonderful idea. I pointed out that a it was likely that a Reader was likely to just want to get done with the work and get to bed, leading to hastily-written coverage that could have used more time for thoughtful analysis. During the day, you know you're there for eight hours and can possibly put the script aside after reading it or synopsizing it to ponder it. At night, most (night owls being an exception) just want to get to bed. You hardly consider "Great, I have until 4 in the morning to finish this." (Actually, you would have until seven or eight, since no one is sitting up at 4 waiting for the coverage, but that's another discussion.) The Story Editor's response was that you're being paid for eight hours, so you have an obligation to use the entire eight hours to work. I argued that this thinking went against human nature. When she went back to her argument, I knew further argument was futile and dropped it. For whatever reason, I've never been hired by this Story Editor, but I've always assumed it had to do with this discussion, which might make it seem, in her eyes, that I would be argumentative and not want to do my work.

Rule #3. Don't make it seem like you don't like to work.

Now, I might just be paranoid and nothing I said had anything to do with my losing or not getting a job in these instances. On the other hand, they just might be out to get me.

Before I Was So Rudely Interrupted

No, it wasn't a misprint in my last entry. I fully intended to post on 8/13, not wait until 9/13. However, when I tried to log on after my vacation (a wonderful time, BTW), the great gods of the blogworld wouldn't allow me.

I got a variety of reasons, from "e-mail address doesn't exist" to "wrong password" (even though my e-mail address certainly does exist and I keep a list of my passwords, so that was not likely to be wrong since it worked 20 times before) and then got lazy about trying to figure out the problem. Finally, I found a "back door" entry and now it all works again.

Let's see if I still have anything to say.