Recently I was listening to the Reading Glasses podcast and learned that one of the Big Five publishing houses is doing away with book blurbs. Earlier this year, Sean Manning of Simon & Schuster (S&S) announced his imprint would no longer require authors to obtain blurbs — those little endorsements from other writers that show up on book jackets and in industry reviews. The reaction was swift and polarized: some called it revolutionary; others predicted that this change signaled the end of the literary community.
But here's what caught my attention: Manning discovered that many of S&S's biggest successes, like Lonesome Dove, Catch-22, All the President's Men, and Steve Jobs, did not have any blurbs in their initial printing. Which made me wonder: what other "essential" requirements in our industries are just elaborate gatekeeping disguised as standards?
Does that last sentence make me sound like Carrie Bradshaw? Yikes.
Let’s turn it upside down, give it a good shake, and see what we find.
What if the "requirements" that define professionalism in your industry are actually just elaborate hazing rituals designed to keep outsiders out?
Nancy Martira
Clew Strategy
When Manning announced S&S would stop requiring blurbs, he wasn't just changing a publishing practice, he was exposing one of the many ways that a legacy industry keeps new voices out. As he put it: "This kind of favor trading creates an incestuous and unmeritocratic literary ecosystem that often rewards connections over talent."
Bye, Bye Blurbie!
Let’s break that down. Someone asks you to “blub” (it’s a verb, too) a book that, in your opinion, isn’t very good. But this person is a close friend. Or, this person is an industry darling, majorly influential, or some executive’s nephew. What do you do? Perhaps you’d like to blurb the book, but you just have too many other obligations on your plate. If you turn down the request, when it’s time to collect blubs for your next book, will you get the cold shoulder? It’s said that authors and elephants have long memories …
Rebecca Makkai, the Pulitzer finalist who announced her own "blurb hiatus" at the end of 2024, had written over 150 blurbs in her career. She hit her breaking point with blurbs after 12 hours of unpaid work reading and crafting a blurb for a friend's book, only to discover it didn't even make it onto the cover. The publisher had "over-asked" and relegated her quote to Amazon.
Here's the thing: blurbs aren't really about books. They're about proving you belong to the club. They're about demonstrating you have the right connections, went to the right MFA programs, know the right people. As one industry observer noted, looking at debut novel blurbs often reveals exactly where the author got their degree: "Ahh, so she went to Columbia."
This is, of course, bullshit. But publishing isn't unique. Every industry has its version of blurbs: those obligations that seemingly uphold professional standards, but really function to exclude people who don't have the right networks, resources, or cultural capital.
"This kind of favor trading creates an incestuous and unmeritocratic literary ecosystem that often rewards connections over talent." - Sean Manning, Simon & Schuster
Rules to Examine
1. Industry traditions don't have to be industry requirements.
The first rule to break is the assumption that "the way we've always done things" equals "the way things must be done." Manning's research revealed something startling: the tradition of blurbs, while dating back over a century, do not correlate with successful book sales. Some of literature's most celebrated works succeeded without them.
Photo by Jason Mavrommatis via Unsplash
What are the blurbs of your industry? Maybe it's:
The unpaid internships that favor those who can afford to work for free
Conferences that require a four-figure fee to attend
The expectation that you maintain active subscriptions to trade publications, software, and licenses at your own expense
Policies that require employees to be physically present in the office, although their salaries cannot support housing in high-cost of living cities
Team Happy Hours that require additional childcare arrangements
The informal mentorship that’s only available to people who already have the “right” connections
These practices often masquerade as “community building”, but research shows they frequently function as "class ceilings" — barriers that prevent upwardly mobile individuals from achieving the same success as those from privileged backgrounds, even when they gain access to elite institutions or professions.
2. "Professional standards" often protect insiders, not quality.
Here's where gatekeeping gets insidious: it disguises exclusion as excellence. The peer review system in academia, while designed to maintain quality, can become a mechanism for enforcing conformity to dominant paradigms. Scholars report being asked to conform to hegemonic structures that add little value or to incorporate criticisms they don't believe in to satisfy gatekeeping requirements.
In popular media, the concentration of editorial power in the hands of predominantly white, male, upper-class gatekeepers meant perspectives from marginalized communities are systematically filtered out. This consolidation of power creates what researchers term "constructed social reality." Gatekeepers' decisions don’t just influence what shows up on the home screen when you open Netflix; they shape public understanding of the world around us.
Even when gatekeepers don't harbor conscious bias, they may still make discriminatory decisions to accommodate the prejudices of other powerful stakeholders. The "I’d love to publish this, but my boss will never go for it” effect shows how gatekeeping can perpetuate discrimination even when individual gatekeepers profess liberal values.
The question we rarely ask: Does this *thing* - chore, hurdle, prerequisite - improve outcomes, or does it just test endurance, connections, and cultural fit?
“
Here's where gatekeeping gets insidious: it disguises exclusion as excellence.
Did someone forward you this email? Congratulations! You've got excellent taste in friends. Use the button below to subscribe to Wonder Work. You'll receive the next edition directly in your inbox.
Sometimes the most radical act is simply stopping. Sean Manning calculated that the time authors spend securing blurbs could be spent writing their next book. Agents could be finding new talent. Editors could be improving manuscripts through revision. The entire ecosystem could focus on what it claims to value: bringing great books to hungry audiences.
Remember Wonder Work 07: Two Ways of Thinking About …? This idea about rule-breaking mirrors Jesse Cole's approach with the Savannah Bananas. When he looked at baseball and saw fans leaving early, players going through the motions, and families choosing other entertainment, he didn't try to perfect baseball, he reimagined it entirely. Banana Ball's rules prioritize fan experience over tradition, and the result is sold-out stadiums and a waitlist of 2 million fans.
The revolutionary question isn't "How do we do this better?" It's "What are we trying to accomplish here?”
Curiosity
The term "blurb" was coined in 1907 by humorist Gelett Burgess as satire. He put it on the dust jacket of his book, "Are You a Bromide?" and explained onstage: "To 'blurb' is to make a sound like a publisher... A blurb is a check drawn on Fame, and it is seldom honored." His satirical cover included what might be the first and last word on blurbing: "All the Other Publishers commit them. Why Shouldn't We?" Zing!
I still didn't get it, so I did more research. From Project Gutenberg, "The book examines the intricate distinctions between two types of people, described as Bromides and Sulphites, drawing upon psychological analysis to discuss perceptions of boredom and originality in society."
As far as I can tell, Gelett Burgess was the Jeff Foxworthy of his day. You might be a Bromide if ...
Here are two small experiments to try:
The Gatekeeping Audit: Spend some time listing every rule/ requirement/ expectation in your industry that isn't directly related to performing the work itself. Then ask three questions: (1) Is this a demonstrable predictor of success or does it just test resources/connections? (2) Who does this exclude? (3) What would happen if we eliminated it entirely? Notice which requirements feel most "sacred"—those are often the most revealing.
The Abolition Test: Choose one gatekeeping practice you have control over and eliminate it for your next project. If you're hiring, drop the degree requirement and focus on demonstrated ability. If you're organizing an event, develop the guest list without worrying about the influence, reach, and resources of the people you invite. If you're reviewing submissions, ignore credentials and focus solely on the work. Document what happens — you might be surprised by the quality of people and ideas that emerge.
The Wonder of Dismantling Barriers
There's something exciting and enraging about recognizing that many professional standards are just inherited assumptions. When we stop requiring blurbs — literal or metaphorical — we create space for voices that might never have had access to the traditional networks of endorsement.
Manning's decision isn't anti-community. As he noted, if a writer reads a book because they want to and comes away so moved they can't resist offering an endorsement, that authentic enthusiasm will still find its way to readers. What disappears is the obligation, the favor-trading, the systematic exclusion of those without the right connections.
Photo by Ozzie Kirkby via Unsplash
The research on gatekeeping reveals a consistent pattern: those with gatekeeping power tend to preserve existing social, cultural, and political hierarchies while systematically excluding marginalized communities from accessing resources, opportunities, and platforms for participation. But that same research shows something hopeful: when we consciously dismantle these barriers, remarkable things happen.
As gatekeeping theory teaches us, the most powerful gates are often invisible to those they benefit. By standing gatekeeping on its head, we can see these systems clearly and begin the work of developing systems that set more people up for success.
The Question
What's one expectation or assumption you hold that keeps people out? What voices might emerge if you stopped requiring people to prove they belong to the club before they can contribute to the work?
And now for the Mystery Link!
You did it! You've made it all the way to the end of this essay. Step right up for some curious treats. This week's links highlight some unusual literary awards.
(or buy me a coffee.) Meet Nancy Martira. I'm a brand strategist and communications consultant who brings endless curiosity to every project. If you've got a challenge that needs a fresh, unexpected perspective, let's talk!
Communications consultant, brand strategist, & Wonder Work creator. Curious about everything from terrible orchestras to happiness algorithms. Feed your curiosity; starve the doom — one small idea at a time. Let's wonder!