Re: Editors: threat or menace?
- From: "Christopher B. Wright" <ubersoft@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:42:32 -0000
On Jul 31, 9:43 am, "Patricia C. Wrede" <PWrede6...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<*sigh*> If all editors ever did was provide obstructive opinions, then
logically a lack of editing should improve the quality of the output. This
is pretty demonstrably not the case.
Nobody really *likes* being told their masterpiece is deeply flawed. Some
people have a harder time accepting critical comment than others. When I'm
in the process of making revisions, I can complain as bitterly as the next
writer about the stupid things my editors want me to do, but if you actually
pin me down, I have to say that my editor was absolutely right to object to
my use of seventeen semi-colons on a single manuscript page, not to mention
the books that needed more tension at the climax, the insertion or expansion
of assorted missing or inadequate explanations for plot development, etc.
I've had my share of arguments with my editors, but when we argue it's
generally because *I* screwed up -- I didn't get the story I wanted to tell
down on the page in a sufficiently clear manner. So the editor, going by
what's on paper, hares off in a completely different direction from the way
the plot/characters were meant to go, and asks for all sorts of changes to
make the ms. fit the book in *his* head, which is not the same as the one in
*my* head. I've seen cases in which such disagreements were irreconcilable,
leading to a book being pulled, but that's extremely rare; normally, after
much, er, enthusiastic discussion, the editor and writer come to an
agreement about what the book is supposed to be like, and then the writer
fixes the ms. so that the book is clearly like that (instead of "that" being
just one of several possible readings).
Follow-ups set to rec.arts.sf.composition.
Patricia C. Wrede
One of the things I think I really need is that kind of back-and-forth
from someone who has no vested interest in re-enforcing my ego. :)
It's sad to hear that this kind of editorial involvement is fading
from the business, because I always imagined that if I ever got a book
accepted by a publisher that process would probably be the single most
invaluable thing I got out of it, and would make any subsequent
attempts to sell books that much more likely to succeed.
The feedback I get from the friends and family who critique what I do
is very valuable -- it's not like I only hang around with sycophants
or anything -- but they're really close to my wavelength when it comes
to what we like and dislike, and I don't know how well those tastes
translate.
Every once and a while I go over to Lulu.com, not to consider self-
publishing (I don't think I could ever do that properly), but to
peruse the other pre-publishing services they provide access to
(http://www.lulu.com/category/106) -- specifically, there are editors-
for-hire who provide different levels of editing expertise. The
highest level of editing includes examining character/timeline
inconsistencies... it's a little pricey, but I think I'd probably
benefit from having someone I don't know do that kind of stuff...
assuming it was a good editor, of course. It's not knowing that
combined with not being able to afford it that has kept me from doing
it at the moment.
Christopher B. Wright (ubersoft -at- gmail -dot- com)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Editors: threat or menace?
- From: Patricia C. Wrede
- Re: Editors: threat or menace?
- From: David Friedman
- Re: Editors: threat or menace?
- Prev by Date: word-processor auto-correct tantalization
- Next by Date: Re: word-processor auto-correct tantalization
- Previous by thread: Re: Editors: threat or menace?
- Next by thread: Re: Editors: threat or menace?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
