Thursday, July 10, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Editor's Note: The dread Scott decision

This column tends to reach strong conclusions. For better or worse, I usually have a pointed opinion--a definite solution to whatever the issue of the day is. The problem, sometimes, is there are no obvious, clearcut answers to questions we face in life. Sometimes things are a lot more complicated, and neither a well-forged political perspective nor a passionate social worldview is of much assistance. This column is about one of those situations.

My friend Scott Dickensheets, well known in local journalism circles, currently as managing editor of Las Vegas Weekly, recently was offered the chance of a lifetime. He didn't take it. The story behind that decision is, to me at least, fascinating.

Scott is one of the best writers in Las Vegas, if not the best. He combines natural ability with an intense work ethic to produce some of the finest prose in town. First and foremost, he's a clever and funny writer. Where most of us in this trade are satisfied with clarity and sound organization, Scott takes the craft a step further, turning workaday journalism into a highly creative process.

But Scott's focus of late has been on editing--improving the work of other writers. He's good at this, too. The best editors, by the way, do a lot more than fix typos and grammar. They are idea-generators and idea-molders--they play a significant role in the success or failure of a writing project. They identify fundamental weaknesses in stories and work with writers to correct them. Scott has a keen eye for how to make stories better.

All in all, I'd say Scott's work has been underappreciated in Southern Nevada. Not so much by his bosses, who seem to recognize his value, but by readers. Scott has local fans, but there should be a lot more of them. That says more about Las Vegas than it does about Scott.

But Scott's work has received considerable notice beyond Southern Nevada. He has been published by national magazines and websites manned by some of the sharpest people in this business, establishing a reputation among those folks as a rising star.

Still, it came as a big surprise to Scott recently when he expressed interest in a top editor opening at Esquire magazine and he got a call back from the editor, David Granger. It became even more heady when Granger invited Scott to come to New York City for an interview.

At that point, Scott knew he was a serious candidate for the job, but he still expected to be passed over for some Ivy League upstart already ensconced in the high-flying Manhattan mediaverse. Scott's passion for many years has been to study the work of the great magazine editors and writers, especially those at Esquire. So he could talk the talk. But surely, he figured, the managing editor of a free weekly newspaper in distant Las Vegas could not compete on such a high level.

Lo and behold, Granger offered Scott the job--a handsome salary starting in three weeks, the chance to help shape the work of writers he has admired for years. Shocked and elated, Scott was ready to say yes during that phone call. After all, this was the opportunity of a lifetime--an almost unimaginable dream come true. But Granger wisely urged Scott not to give his answer until he thought about it for a few days.

Scott agreed to think about it--which he did, with little sleep, for about two weeks. The decision became complicated as the realities of such a move started to sink in. First there was the cost. New York is much more expensive than Las Vegas, and that hefty salary quickly lost its luster. What's more, in what, to me, seems inconceivable, Esquire was not offering any moving expenses. Granger, who had mostly hired people living in New York, didn't have a budget for that.

More troubling to Scott was the fact that he would be separated from his wife and three boys for as long as a year. Oh, he could fly back home a few times to visit but that's about it. His wife is a teacher and she is completing her master's degree. She's almost done. And it's important to finish it here, as some of her credits might not transfer to schools back East. Also important is her need to stay here long enough for her pension to be vested.

There was more. Scott's eldest son is going to be a senior in high school this fall. He wants to finish out here. The kids are natives. They have lots of friends here. New York City and its environs are like a foreign country to them. Yanking the boys, especially the eldest, out of school and starting over 3,000 miles away could be painful. Plus he would miss his wife and kids in the interim.

These issues and others built to a crescendo that strongly suggested Scott should turn down the job. The timing was wrong. The math wasn't working. And yet this was his dream, the equivalent of a veteran minor leaguer getting a shot at the big leagues. All the feelgood movies suggest he had to take the chance.

On the morning of decision last week, Scott sent an e-mail to the Esquire editor, telling him he was accepting the job. Then he panicked and sent a second e-mail telling Granger to ignore the first missive and that he wasn't taking it. Apparently the vivid reality of actually accepting the job brought into sharp focus the fact that he couldn't make the leap.

Did Scott make the right decision? Who the hell knows? He gave up a great opportunity, but, as it turns out, not an ideal one for him. The certain financial hardships the move would create and the likely hardships for his family were deemed more important than his personal quest for career nirvana.

Scott fears he'll never get another chance like this. I think he's wrong.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER