Speechifying

OK, so here's the text of the speech I made accepting the Outstanding Achievement Award from the National Magazine Awards Foundation:

June 5, 2009, The Carlu, Toronto

Thanks, Maryam [Sanati, editor-in-chief of Chatelaine], for that kind introduction. I always said I’d be able to tell people one day, “I knew you when…”

When Patrick Walsh telephoned me to say I was being given the Outstanding Achievement Award, I rather gauchely accused him of messing with my head. It’s an enormous honour to be included in the list of past recipients, about 10 of whom I’ve worked for at some point over the years. People like Bob Fulford, John Macfarlane, Peter Newman and Barbara Moon, whom, sadly, we lost just a few weeks ago, taught me so much of what I know about magazines. The other day I was reading Diana Athill’s book Stet about her 50 years in book publishing, in which she said that as a copy editor she was one of the “humbler but still essential people who tidy texts.” For much of my career I have been proud to be simply a text tidier for those illustrious bosses of mine.

Then I recalled the first time this award was given, in 1990. The Foundation chose at that time to honour Prue Hemelrijk, a legendary fact-checker. At the time I was thrilled that we were recognizing the contribution of one of those “behind-the-scenes” magazine folks, someone whose career was devoted to research, accuracy, and the kind of attention to detail that elevates magazine writing, in my opinion, above other genres. And although I’m also a writer and an educator, in giving me this award, the Foundation has chosen again to send the message that fact-checking and copy-editing, which have comprised a large part of my career, are vital to magazines, are indeed a large part of our currency, what we offer the people who buy what we have to sell. In other words, magazine readers love magazines because their texts are tidy and what they say is true.

Fact-checking and copy-editing are often referred to as junior editorial skills. Prue Hemelrijk and I are just two people who belie that definition. I am junior neither by age nor by years on the job. It’s true that copy-editing and fact-checking are excellent training grounds for interns and new staff. But magazines with high standards also call upon wisdom and experience for this important task. By giving me this award, you are honouring a host of other checkers and copy editors who uphold these standards. I’m talking about people like – and I’m going to miss some here – Veronica Maddocks, Eileen Whitfield, Geri Savits-Fine, Charles Rowland, Dawn Promislow, Catherine Dowling, Brenda Thompson, Ruth Hanley, Barbara Czarnecki, Pam Capraru and so many others, many of whom are also excellent writers and creators and editors. I’m talking about people who are earlier on in their careers, like Megan Giffith-Greene, who are also doing a great job of helping writers in their task of getting everything right.

Apparently Prue shared with the world her most embarrassing moments as a text tidier, and perhaps I should do the same. Typos on my watch have mostly made people laugh, and I like doing that almost as much as I like getting it right, so I confess I’m not kept up at night by mutual funds defined as a professionally managed pool of asses. I did lose some sleep when Bob Fulford wrote a profile for Toronto Life of Holy Blossom Temple and I let a pullquote slip that called it Holly Blossom.

But I lose even more sleep over the future of magazine copy-editing and fact-checking. I don’t know whether people who decry apparently sliding standards are just Chicken Littles. Maybe that’s just what we do. But I know the pay rates for fact-checking are sliding. And as the editorial staffs of print magazines inevitably merge with the online sides of those magazines, I wonder which side’s standards will prevail. I urge those of you who have something to say about this to pay attention to the care and time and effort that has, after all, distinguished magazines in the first place in the minds and hearts of our audience.

I tried to leave the magazine business. Several times. I could never quite make my escape. In the end I kept coming back to it for one reason. My writing has often focused on the idea of community, and what I found in the magazine business, even on those days when I wondered why the hell I was sticking around, was a community. Tonight is the best evidence of that. I’ve been coming to this shindig for nearly 30 years, missing very few, and I’ve always been amused by the uneasy mixture of cynicism that magaziners fall prey to and pride in our accomplishments – the mixture of competitiveness and camaraderie -- that the Mag Awards typically mark. Today we are undergoing profound change intertwined with economic struggle, and what our industry will look like in a couple of years is a troubling mystery. I believe it is all the more important – not less important -- at this time to celebrate ourselves and to gather for a night like this – to reaffirm our sense of community in the face of obstacles – and I commend people like Kim Pittaway and Brian Stendel and D.B. Scott and all of the individuals they mobilized to contribute financially so that tonight could happen.

I want to thank the Foundation, its board members and the people who wrote letters supporting my nomination. I want to thank the many students and interns I’ve had the privilege to work with over 21 years of teaching. You’ve taught me all about learning, which is the most satisfying thing any of us can ever do. Finally, I’d like to tip my hat to my cheering section here tonight, a group of amazing people who have been helping me through my cancer treatment.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.