stories of authors' lives. It eventually makes the reader feel as if the book is not about the "editor of genius" at all but about the artists' genius and instability. Of course these stories perhaps explain why authors are seen as unstable, but the reader is veered off course with these details; they have nothing to do with Maxwell Perkins and his editing. However, some of the descriptions do give us a clear look at what Perkins tolerated, from constantly drawing against the house's finances in order to support Fitzgerald's uncontrollable spending habits while he never got around to writing, to continuing to nurture Wolfe's artistry while at the same time, silently accepting Wolfe's many insults and, sometimes violent, threats. This clarity of Perkins's humility is certainly a testimony to Perkins's reverence of books. Berg does do a nice job with describing Perkins's style of editing. The reader gets to know Perkins as Max and begins to see him as the devoted best-friend or parental figure and the behind-the-scenes mentor of some of the greatest American writers. He spoke the "language of writers," and he never gave up on any of them nor would he let them give up on themselves. When Max found the "real thing" as he called it, he went to great lengths to support it; "he treated literature as a matter of life and death" (4). He believed in being behind-the-scenes, that the "book belonged to the author," though he was sometimes greatly involved with a book's revision of structure and content, spending large amounts of time, including his free time, poring over one book. This was considered a "bold new kind of editorial work"(136). And Max became known as a "creative" editor. But Max discussed with an author each change or cut he thought was necessary in a manuscript, making the changes dependent upon mutual agreement, with the author always being the final judge. He adhered to his own conviction that "a book must be done according to th...
