Tag-Archive for » editors «
I don’t remember where I read it but I do remember it was in the comments section of some blog. I think it had something to do with self publishing or something like that. It’s fuzzy in the brain right now. But what the commenter said was that the only reason published books were good was because of the editors on them, not the authors. Now, I’m not someone that gets offended easily but that felt like a punch below the belt.
Of course it shows the commenter’s total ignorance on the writing process and there’s really no use in explaining it but what the hell? Then why don’t we leave the writing to the editors, then? If they make the book, let them work it up from start to finish! What do we need authors for?
Just in case anyone reading this didn’t know (if you’re reading this and didn’t know, please come out from under that rock, the sun is nice and warm), editors fine tune an already heavily edited manuscript. It starts with the author who writes it, edits the shit out of it, rewrites it, edits more shit in and out of it, rewrites it again ad nauseum until they feel it’s finally ready for query. Agents will not take on manuscripts that need to be heavily edited. It’s too much work and, quite frankly, a waste of resources. If they feel there’s huge potential there, they’ll offer editing information and ask the author to resubmit AFTER the edits are made. With or without that step, an agent takes on a manuscript and may or may not make a few more tweaking edits prior to subbing it out to publishers. Once it’s taken up by the publisher, the editors give it one more once over, make whatever suggestions they deem necessary and hand it over to the author to correct. After all of that, a final, publishable copy is born.
Now, who did all the actual editing in that scenario? Most of it was self-edited by the author. Minor bits and pieces were RECOMMENDED by the agent and, eventually, editor. Editors do not make changes. They suggest them. The author then has to take his or her talent and transfer it to those recommendations. And they are minor suggestions. Changing a chapter is minor. Rewriting an ending is relatively minor. Doing a major overhaul on a manuscript at publisher level is unheard of.
So let’s get this straight, okay? Editors do not make the writers. They do not create the book you hold in your hand after purchasing it from the store. They sand the hard edges of a nearly finished product. They put that extra layer of laquer on it to make it shine that much more but they didn’t create the table. They didn’t bevel it. They didn’t inlay the wainscoting. They just put the cherry on the sundae.
Got that? Yes, editors make an author’s work look better (in theory, anyway) but an author has to create the work and build up the pyramid on their own before an editor can put that final pointed piece on top. So let’s not kid ourselves here and let’s never say that editors make the books. The book needs to exist first and that lies squarely with the author.
Over at The Bookshelf Muse, they have a guest blogger every once in a while called Grammbo, who just so happens to be a fiction editor. This time around she posted points on specific . . . “styles” (for a lack of a better word) that’ll pretty much guarantee an editor won’t take it (note the “pretty much” part). These points, I think, are pretty objective considering, from reading experience, none of them are going to be something an editor (or an agent for that initial step) are going to want to take on (usually, I need to cover myself there, nothing’s 100%). I think Grammbo hit it on the head with this one and let the other nitpicks, the much more subjective ones, fall by the wayside. Really, there’s no way to round up everything that every editor won’t take because none of them adhere to any strict rules of acquiring. They might not even adhere to these guidelines but I think it’s safe to say they will.
Make sure your manuscript is edited to perfection. Or, at least, your perfection. Don’t send out a first draft. That’s never a good thing. I know there are people that edit along the way as they write but even as you finish writing that first draft, I can almost guarantee it’s not submission-ready (not even for *coughannricecough*). You write your book. Edit it to the very point that you think you can’t edit it anymore. Then have someone else look at it. At least one other person.
A second set of fresh eyes distanced from your work is probably the best thing that can be done for it (just make sure it’s the right set of eyes, someone whom you trust and you know will provide valuable feedback on your work). You, as the writer, are too close to your own work to just edit it yourself. There are things in there you’ve missed even though you may think you got everything. Double up. Trade an edit for an edit with someone else. You’ll thank yourself later.
Make sure your manuscript isn’t sterilized, meaning that it doesn’t follow every single piece of “valid” writing advice to the T. Yes, the advice is valid but it must be taken in accordance with how your manuscript dictates it be written. If you follow every “rule” out there, you’ll end up stripping away the voice that makes your work yours and end up with a story that could have been written by anyone for how unaffiliated it reads.
Take all advice, even the good stuff, with a grain of salt. If you truly believe that a certain piece of advice doesn’t work with your writing, and others support that notion, then don’t tailor your writing just to appease some nagging inner or external editor that’s demanding this be done because it’s a “rule.” Rules are broken all the time in writing. Some frustratingly so. Go out and read more and you’ll see. Once you get comfortable with the notion that it’s ok to be imperfect in your style, you’ll be more comfortable and confident with your writing and less paranoid with the technicalities.
