Re: Editors: threat or menace?
- From: David Friedman <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:08:18 -0500
In article <1185900152.427695.156600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Christopher B. Wright" <ubersoft@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
For my non-fiction books I've gotten along reasonably well with my
editors, with the exception of the first. Two I would count as friends.
But the only editing I can remember ever contributing a substantial
amount to the quality of the book was by my (non-fiction) agent. She
went over the first chapter of _Hidden Order_ in detail and made a bunch
of very good suggestions.
For _Harald_ the editing was pretty light. Mostly I asked the editor to
look for particular sorts of problems and flag them for me to deal
with--and she did. Which I was happy with.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
.
- References:
- Re: Editors: threat or menace?
- From: Christopher B. Wright
- Re: Editors: threat or menace?
- Prev by Date: Re: Editors: threat or menace?
- Next by Date: Screen writing SF
- Previous by thread: Re: Editors: threat or menace?
- Next by thread: Re: Editors: threat or menace?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
