Editor-Writer Relationships

[Birol]

In the most recent Dan Brown thread, which has turned into a discussion of many things, I said

A couple months ago, I had an author who refused to make suggested changes, who had no interest in compromising, who threatened me over some of the edits, and who issued an ultimatum should he not get his way. I chose not to continue with the project. The publisher, and the contract, supported my decision.

To which LuckyH responded

Succinctly, perhaps a bit chillingly, but truthfully told. Publishers need editors, if only to edit the first sentence of this post. I don’t know a single author who doesn’t suffer from the Golden Words syndrome, but most of them see sense when a qualified editor comes along and provides it.

I still consider myself a writer, among other things, but this past year, I've been doing freelance editing for a small e-publisher. Throughout my career, for one reason or another, in one capacity or another, I've periodically slipped to the other side of the editorial desk. It's provided me with a different perspective on the publishing business than I would otherwise have. It's been good for me.

One reason I don't talk much about the current experience here is at least two of the writers assigned to me hang out on AW. The others may or may not. I don't know. Regardless, this is a public forum and they are entitled to have their conversations and interactions with me kept off the open internet. It's a trust thing.

It struck me that, perhaps, we need a thread in which to explore the editor-writer relationship in more detail. Perhaps I could encourage some of those who have had manuscripts accepted to step forward and talk about what they learned through the editorial process? Perhaps, too, some of you who have worked in the editorial capacity might take part in the discussion? Perhaps those of you still looking to break-in might ask any questions you have about the process or the relationship in order to get the ball rolling?

[CaroGirl]

Great topic.

Having worked as an editor myself, I think this relationship is tremendously important. Writers trust editors to do several things: maintain the "voice" of their work, find all the typos and grammar and spelling errors, and tidy the work into a logical and seamless whole. Editors, for their part, depend on writers to listen to their advice calmly and with an open mind. I never, ever mind when writers ask questions about my edits, but I HATE when one of my edits is completely ignored, particularly when it was clearly NOT merely a suggestion but an absolute.

[maestrowork]

I have had great relationships with editors. (And I've been an editor -- so I've sat on both sides of the fence.) The only problem I had was when our personalities didn't match or we were not on the same page when it came to the work -- there was a rare occasion when the editor did not understand it was my vision, not hers, and she was doing the "if I were the writer, I would have written it this way" thing which, to me, is a no no -- that the editor has crossed the line and assumed the identity of the writer instead.

Other than that, what I learned from my editors is that a) everyone has a different style, but the best editors understand and respect the writer's style -- when doing edits, they make sure they keep the writer's style and vision and voice in mind, and b) an editor's perspective can be extremely valuable, even when the writer doesn't see it at first.

Like LuckyH said, every writer has a bit of that ego and Golden Word Syndrome. And not all editors are right all the time. The trick is to have respect and trust with each other, and have a common goal. Writers most certainly can question and veto edits, but it should be done with respect and also work it through, and not reject and ignore the editor wholesale. Editors, also, should respect the writer's work and not come to the project thinking "this is crap, so it's my job to make it good/to rewrite this crap" -- once the editor loses respect for the writer as the writer, or when the writer believes the editor is out to get him, to ruin his life (or completely butcher his work), the relationship has already got off the wrong foot -- and it's probably a good idea for the editor and writer to part ways. Either find another editor or abandon the project all together (if the writer is not cooperating at all).

At the end, it is a professional situation and both the writer and editor must understand that. They don't have to be friends or have lunch, but they must maintain this business/professional relationship. Abrasive and abusive behaviors should not be tolerated from either side. However, a personality match goes a long way to smooth out this potentially contentious working relationship. Just like any good manager, a publisher could do everyone a favor by pairing the right editor with the writer.

[Libbie]

You were threatened for suggesting changes? Uh -- isn't that your job?

Wow.

[Gillhoughly]

I can speak from the editorial as well as the writer side of things.

I have gotten poor advice from a seasoned editor. In one case a first draft was accepted as a final and went to copy-edit, the last stage before galleys.

I was horrified that the editor could not tell the difference between it and a final polished final and rewrote that one--fast. The editor was NOT pleased, but he could have asked a year earlier, "Is this your final draft, it reads a bit rough."

That was about 20 years back, but the experience taught me that they are not infallible gods of wordage, and it is okay to speak up and disagree with them.

Just have a good reason for it.

In other cases, I found my editors made a good point for changes, supported by logic and experience, so I took their advice seriously and things worked out great.



Working as an editor, I find my experience as a writer helps me to get across ideas better, should changes be needed.

But it doesn't always work.

One "diva" I dealt with had been on the Times bestseller list for two whole weeks with her first book, so that meant she knew all there was to know about the craft. She was an expert now!

Yeah. Riiiiiight.

When I let her know her story was twice as long as it should be and that cuts were needed, she had a meltdown. I might as well have been feeding her cat to a wood chipper with that shrill reaction. She was literally screaming at me.

But the story was too long, and she wasn't getting paid for the extra words. Nor was it fair to the other writers in the collection who might have to chop their stories down so hers could fit.

I pointed out two scenes that could be cut. They were total deadwood and did not push the plot forward, besides, she had two other nearly identical scenes elsewhere in the story.

She came back with statistics--I kid you not--statistics of her readership, citing the age/sex of the groups that would be pissed off if she did not keep those scenes in the story.

How they could be PO'd by something they never knew was there in the first place, she was unable to explain. She was too busy freaking out.

I chatted with the other editor on the project who wearily said, "Just let it go, she's not worth the hypertension. Anyway, her numbers slipped on her second book, so we won't be doing another contract with her. She's just too much trouble."

Yikes.

I had to agree, though. She refused to listen further and moaned all the way, and only grudgingly cut a tenth of the words that needed to go. After that, she went on my unofficial "Do NOT ask back, EVER" list, so her unprofessional attitude deprived her of future earnings, at least with me.

I don't think I was being unreasonable. From the very first her contract stated X number of words. She did ask if she could go over by a little bit, and I said yes, but no more than a couple thousand words. How she took that to mean "double it!" I do not know.

So, here's a good rule to follow: When your editor asks for 10K words do NOT deliver 21K. Neither of you will be happy.

On that same project and others I got to work with half a dozen other NYT bestselling writers.

I asked for changes and tweaks. One did a head slap and said, "Why didn't I think of that!" The others said, "no problem," fixed things, and turned their work in on time.

They are on my "always invite first A-list", BTW. I love working with them.

I have also invited back writers whose work I don't particularly like simply because they turn in a good product, are on time, and have a pro attitude.

There are other diva stories in my cautionary tales collection, but this post is already too long! http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

.

[wannawrite]

Great topic. I recently sold my first to an e-pub and am going through the editorial process for the first time. Very humbling. Very interesting. Generally, she suggests a few changes...and I emotionally fly off the handle. I get up from the computer, walk around the room, go lay down and pout for awhile....

...then kick myself in the ass, go back to the computer, reread her suggestions and get to work. I remind myself that I specifically solicited this publisher because I like their work. She is the pro and I am still learning the ropes...period. What she wants, she gets, even if the process is painful for me. Truth of the matter is, she has already worked with me on POV, dialogue tags and other newbie crap like that, and objectively, the book is getting better with every revise. It's just hard, sometimes, to remain objective when its your 'baby' that is being slashed to pieces.

I do know one thing for certain, coming out the other side of the editing process is going to make me a much, much better writer in the long run. So long as I don't bleed to death, first, LOL!

[maestrowork]

I do know one thing for certain, coming out the other side of the editing process is going to make me a much, much better writer in the long run. So long as I don't bleed to death, first, LOL!

Amen. I learned so much from my first editor. She was simply great, respectful, and knew what she was doing, and she was honest to a fault. She also understood what I was trying to do and that was a HUGE plus -- she wasn't trying to make my clay into her gold; she believed she was polishing a rough diamond to a brilliant shine. I never thought I could learn so much about writing through editing, but I did. I would work with her again and again if I could...

[thothguard51]

Not sure this is in the same mode, but I once thought about using an independent editor to cleans things up for submission purposes. I researched all the topics and understood paying and independent editor would not gaurantee a sale with a publisher. Still, I progressed on and sent five editors in the Scifi/fantasy genre examples of my writing. They sent back examples of their editing, and while all five caught the simple typo's and grammar mistakes, all five had very different styles of what they would edit in the sample chapter submitted.

Only one noted that the example was just that, an example because they would need to read the whole manuscript to do the editing justice on what to offer.

Another one wanted to go into flowery prose and when I explained she was bordering on purple she took offense. I later found out she edited for some magazine about Elf fiction.

My first agent turned out to be a better judge of what I needed to work on than all the editors I went searching for. And it was my agent that told me, when I finally get published to listen to the editor, think on what they are suggesting and then just do it...

She warned me I do not want to get a reputation as a difficult author to work with because it really is a very small business and word gets around.

I know that if I disagree with an editor, I will have to explain why, but for the most part, my experience in working with editors is that they understand what needs to be fixed, reworked, cut, added, etc because they are detached from the work compared to the author, or most authors...

Nick Anthony

[ORION]

So many editors...so little time...lol!
Some just focus on grammar and spelling. Others look at characterization and story arc. I find my critical author readers are excellent editors because they've worked through the process. In reality I don't think it's a bad thing for an unpublished writer to work with an editor...

[maestrowork]

I also think communication is very important -- the writer and editor must be on the same page, understand the end goal, and maintain a respectful relationship with clear communication. The last thing a writer wants to hear is, implied or not, "You suck, this is a piece of crap, and here's what is WRONG with it. And yeah, listen to me because I'm a better writer than you are." True or not, I think that's why writers are so sensitive about the process, because they all have that nagging feeling that they're frauds, and the last thing they want to know is that the editor agrees with them.

Instead, the best editors I ever worked with were all very sensitive about this, because they were also writers and they had been on the other side of the table before. So instead of coming across as "you suck, and there are all shades of wrong with this ms." -- what they're able to convey and communicate with the writer is "it's good and that's why we want to publish this, but TOGETHER we can make this even better, even great. How about that?" Not that the editor has to feed the writer's ego all the time and sugarcoat everything, but communication is important.

As Mary Poppins sang, "Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down." That really is the truth.

[Wayne K]

Great thread, however I'm pressed for time. I can't wait to read it because this is my next relationship.

[motormind]

I thought nowadays manuscripts received little to no editing. Publishers simply won't invest that kind of time and money in authors anymore, especially unknown ones.

[Ken]

I thought nowadays manuscripts received little to no editing. Publishers simply won't invest that kind of time and money in authors anymore, especially unknown ones.

... couldn't say, myself, but I suspect that even if this is so to some extent the large houses like Random House still do lots of editing on all their books as they have a reputation to live up to and wouldn't think of putting out a book unless it was totally up to par.

[Amarie]

I thought nowadays manuscripts received little to no editing. Publishers simply won't invest that kind of time and money in authors anymore, especially unknown ones.

They won't invest time in editing poorly written manuscripts even if those contain great ideas, but they do spend quite a bit of time on editing for pacing and clarity, for example. I went through three edits with my manuscript, and for the first edit in particular, almost every page had comments on it.

[Jess Haines]

Wow. I'm sorry to hear about that bad experience!

As a writer, I can and have gotten defensive about my work at times. However, it isn't professional to blow off what someone who has more experience and an outsider's view of your work has to say.

I've been very fortunate. Both my agent and editor had nothing but completely sane, logical advices on what to change in my work. Particularly in my first book -- my agent pointed out some grammatic pitfalls, and my editor recommended a few added things here and there, mostly clarifications of an existing relationship. That, to me, was completely brilliant, and totally welcome.

[James D. Macdonald]

I thought nowadays manuscripts received little to no editing. Publishers simply won't invest that kind of time and money in authors anymore, especially unknown ones.

This is untrue; the slur was originally put out by people who do not mean you well.

It is repeated by people who don't know the difference.

[IdiotsRUs]

Amen. I learned so much from my first editor. She was simply great, respectful, and knew what she was doing, and she was honest to a fault. She also understood what I was trying to do and that was a HUGE plus -- she wasn't trying to make my clay into her gold; she believed she was polishing a rough diamond to a brilliant shine. I never thought I could learn so much about writing through editing, but I did. I would work with her again and again if I could...

This is how I feel about my editor exactly. She has taught me soooo much about publishing in general and what a particular audience likes it's untrue, and she's been patient and kind, with a sense of humor throughout.

All her suggestions have been ones to make the book better. ( even the ones I wasn't sure how to do at first!) She rarely says how to change something, but she does tell me the effect she's after - it's up to me mostly how I implement it ( apart from the grammar stuff :D) I've done almost everything she asked - cos she's the pro, and I can see why it neeeds to change, because she's told me - though once or twice I've said 'How about this instead?'. She then either says 'Well have you thought of it like this' or she likes the alternative, and off we go.

She always makes it feel like it's a group effort, something we're all in together to make the best thing we can.

My editor rocks.

[LuckyH]

Where do you start to respond to a thread that embraces the entire writing experience? Experience is not even the right word.

I can’t, so I’m going to keep it simple, very simple.

And personal.

My last editor was a highly qualified writer, author; if you prefer that term. We corresponded from a distance while the editing process took it’s course. The process took around four months, without too many problems, but I gritted my teeth many times, and I’m sure he did too.

Unusually, we met up afterwards and discussed our differences. I’ve got nothing profound to report, we spoke for hours and got pissed as parrots.

[James D. Macdonald]

For me, editorial suggestions fall into three categories:

1) ZOMG! (Slaps forehead.) Thank you thank you thank you for catching that! I don't want to look like an idiot to the fans!

2) Not all that important, but hey, if it makes you happy, I could change that. I don't have a lot of emotion invested in that detail anyway.

3) NFW! What are you smoking?

I find that by changing categories (1) and (2) that all the problems with category (3) magically vanish, so I don't have to make those changes after all.

I've had editorial letters that ranged from Editorial Paragraphs ("Chapter Four didn't work for me" was my shortest ever editorial letter) up through Editorial Novellas, with multiple suggestions on every page.

Recognize that you and the editor have the same goal: To make the story the best it can be, to sell tons to the readers, so the publisher can buy your next book and sell tons more.

[IdiotsRUs]

*is glad she's never had a three*

[mscelina]

I get to see the publishing world through the hats I wear on both sides of the desk too. My editor has been encouraging, tough when she needed to be and unfailingly interested in the quality of my work and how I feel about it. These are traits I try to emulate when I'm editing. With both my editor and the writers in my 'stable' communication is the most important facet of the relationship.

For example, when I get a new writer, I send them an introductory letter in which I tell them a little bit about me and some fairly important warnings about my editorial style. I warn them that I'm notoriously hard on plot lines, continuity and character arcs but that I am also open-minded about any suggested change. I don't believe edits are ultimatums, but suggestions. If I make a technical edit, however, that's not open for debate. As the arbiter for the publisher's house style, my grammar/punctuation/spelling edits are absolute and non-negotiable. (Before anyone gets their panties in a twist, I'm referring to things like their/there/they're and verb tense and number agreement) But when it comes to style all of those edits are suggestions, more like signposts of some device that's being overused--like sentence fragments or adverbs. Usually, my writers don't have a problem with my edits because I took the time to inform them upfront of what I intended to do.

However...and there's always a however...I did have one author who probably had "Golden Word" tattooed on his forehead so he could see it everytime he looked in the mirror. This author started a conversation thread on the public group of our publisher talking about how I'd "dumbed down" his manuscript by telling him to change a specific word. (He was using it in the wrong context) As a result, the writer lost his contract with the company and eventually got the manuscript published by another company--with my edits intact and basically done for free. This writer didn't understand the confidential nature of the editorial process, the moment that a writer has to step back and realize that it's not all about their "art" but the successful employment of a "craft" as well. Some writers go into the editorial process in a confrontational manner, assuming that any correction of their manuscript is a personal slight. They don't realize that any editor worth his/her salt is working to improve the manuscript, not looking for ways to insult the writer's work.

The first few stories I had published, every single editorial comment earned either a "What? Are you crazy? That's PERFECT!" or a "How in the hell did I miss that? God, I'm awful--" response from me. Now it's different. Now, as a writer I look upon my editor as a partner--the one person in the world who understands me and my work on a level that no one else can. And as an editor, I look upon my writers as people whose hard work and talent will benefit from my impartial eye and who need to be encouraged to write more, write bigger, write better--write beyond what they've written already. There's a huge trust factor involved on both sides of the relationship, and it's a trust that I cherish no matter what hat I'm wearing.

[eqb]

I thought nowadays manuscripts received little to no editing. Publishers simply won't invest that kind of time and money in authors anymore, especially unknown ones.

Not true. I am an unknown writer. I have four novels under contract at two different publishing houses. (Viking and Tor.) All four are going through detailed editing.

[eqb]

Recognize that you and the editor have the same goal: To make the story the best it can be, to sell tons to the readers, so the publisher can buy your next book and sell tons more.

QFT.

[mscelina]

Not true. I am an unknown writer. I have four novels under contract at two different publishing houses. (Viking and Tor.) All four are going through detailed editing.

The first story I ever had published received little or no editing. It wasn't until I read a few more stories published by this house that I realized why. Any publisher who wants to create a good reputation and produce quality books is going to invest in extensive editing and proofreading. At the small house I work for, each manuscript goes through a minimum of two edits AND the proofreaders AND the formatter.

[cwfgal]

I've been pretty lucky and happy with the two editors I've had. I did three books with the first one and her suggestions were all ones I could easily live with and felt had merit. I've now done two books with the second and his suggestions have been generally minimal and excellent. I've never had golden word syndrome, though I have had the occasional "oh, crap!" moments when I got a suggestion along the lines of, "if you could just change this one little thing," that I quickly realized meant I would have to change a whole lot of other things later in the work. Sometimes what appears to be a small change isn't and those suggestions have often not been absolutes, which has made me think, "Screw it, I'm not going to do it. It's too much work." But then I get over it, buckle down, and do them anyway. And I think the works have been much stronger as a result.

I've loved both of my editors. And much of the time, their suggestions for change are things I had niggling little doubts about, or had considered on my own anyway.

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan)

[Ken]

For me, editorial suggestions fall into three categories:

1) ZOMG! (Slaps forehead.) Thank you thank you thank you for catching that! I don't want to look like an idiot to the fans!

2) Not all that important, but hey, if it makes you happy, I could change that. I don't have a lot of emotion invested in that detail anyway.

3) NFW! What are you smoking?

I find that by changing categories (1) and (2) that all the problems with category (3) magically vanish, so I don't have to make those changes after all.

... insightful thread, including the above!
To be clear, though, if an editor sends back suggested revisions should you just do numbers 1 and 2 and skip doing 3 and then send back the edited ms and see if that's acceptable, with or without mentioning you haven't undertaken 3?

[Cliff Face]

... insightful thread, including the above!
To be clear, though, if an editor sends back suggested revisions should you just do numbers 1 and 2 and skip doing 3 and then send back the edited ms and see if that's acceptable, with or without mentioning you haven't undertaken 3?

I'm not speaking from experience here, but I'd say discussing #3 in as calm a manner as possible is probably the way to go. Peraps a compromise can be granted, if not swaying the editor to see the merit in what you want to keep.

Just a thought.

Oh, and I've never been or dealt with an editor, so I have very little to say right now. Sigh.

[Judg]

Fantastic idea for a thread. Thanks, Birol.

I personally am looking forward to having an editor go through my MS. (Still at the dream stage.) Having a professional comment on my work, it seems to me, would be like sitting beside your piano teacher and listening to his suggestions. But I'm sure that my initial reaction to a lot of those suggestions will be: "Are you out of your mind? It's wonderful the way it is!" Which is why I plan on keeping my mouth shut and mulling it over first. That's the way I react to many suggestions from critters (which I never tell them) but I get over it, and many times I see their point.

[maestrowork]

I thought nowadays manuscripts received little to no editing. Publishers simply won't invest that kind of time and money in authors anymore, especially unknown ones.

You've heard wrong, even small presses worth their salt would invest in editing.

[Maxinquaye]

Recognize that you and the editor have the same goal: To make the story the best it can be, to sell tons to the readers, so the publisher can buy your next book and sell tons more.

So true.

Now, I'm an amateur at fiction, but I edit magazine non-fiction and the simple truth is that I have three goals when I do that:

1) I have a responsibility toward the magazines I edit to make that magazine shine with quality by putting in the best damn writing I can get my grubby little hands on. I guess this can be transferred to novel editing as well; a novel editor at a publishing house has a responsibility to protect the brand and get top prose out.

2) I have a responsibility to not ruin the sources of good writing, and that means I have to take care of the regulars and try to keep a stock of new writers that can replace regulars should they move on. It would be seriously counterproductive to my aims if I behaved unprofessionally. I may not understand fully what the writer wants to do, and it would be unprofessional not to get that understanding.

3) In order to do two and three I'm pretty ruthless too - because if I have to argue for hours with a writer about necessary changes, they go into my bad writer-file. They never get a commission from me again.

This is magazine editing, of course, and it is very different from working as a publisher editor, but I think we have some goals in common.

[James D. Macdonald]

... insightful thread, including the above!
To be clear, though, if an editor sends back suggested revisions should you just do numbers 1 and 2 and skip doing 3 and then send back the edited ms and see if that's acceptable, with or without mentioning you haven't undertaken 3?

What we do is do the revisions that we feel like doing, and send the manuscript back telling how we fixed all of the category ones and twos, and not even mentioning the category threes.

That's worked every time so far....

[thethinker42]

I've worked with editors on two books now, and the experience was great both times. In both cases, I accepted about 95% of their suggestions, but dug my heels in on the other 5%. Each time, I explained why I didn't accept the changes (i.e., the revised dialogue was out of character, it just didn't sound right to me, etc). Sometimes they'd agree with me and drop the change, sometimes they'd offer another suggestion and meet me in the middle.

It really amazes me that people forget that while writing is an art, publishing is a business, and as such, writers should behave professionally. I've heard enough horror stories about writers flipping out at editors, I really don't know if I could be an editor. My hat is off to those of you who have done it and NOT strangled someone.

[Judg]

What we do is do the revisions that we feel like doing, and send the manuscript back telling how we fixed all of the category ones and twos, and not even mentioning the category threes.

That's worked every time so far....
I do love it when you teach us how to be devious.

:evil

So what do you do, say something like, "Here is the MS with requested edits" or "Here is the MS with a large number of the requested edits" or "I followed the majority of your suggestions" or ?

[Birol]

I wouldn't think of it as deviousness. That's the wrong way to approach the relationship. This is not something you're trying to get by with, which is what deviousness suggests. Make no mistake, your editor will know what they requested and what they didn't. In my case, I have two monitors and when I'm reviewing the edits returned to me, I put up the copy I sent to the author on one and the copy they sent back on the other.

[Judg]

What I really needed was a smiley with waggly eyebrows...

It just stands to reason that an author, even the most reasonable one, is not going to agree with 100% of editorial suggestions. And I imagine that any reasonable editor is not going to be too disturbed if a few stets show their faces.

My former agent (who was an editor in a previous life) made a suggestion to me that I thought would cause many more problems than it would solve. I understood why he made the suggestion, but I really didn't see how it could be implemented. We never had to hash that one out, because we parted ways for totally different reasons, but I was kind of wondering how I was going to handle that. I was really hoping he'd change his mind or come up with a better suggestion.

[maestrowork]

It's a professional relationship built on a mutual goal, and I don't ever want to approach it like some kind of hierarchy -- teacher/student, father/son, boss/staff, whatever. That means, it's a collaboration. Whenever you start to have some kind of power struggle, like when the editor expects the writer to accept every edit as gospel ("because I'm the editor and you're not") or when the writer refuses any changes ("because I'm the writer and you're not"), you're going to have problems.

When editor and writer don't agree on too many things or are not on the same page, I do think sometimes it's best to part ways: either the publisher assign a different editor or withdraw from the project (in case the writer has a severe case of Golden Word Syndrome). To me, a good writer-editor relationship is kind of like marriage, even though it's business -- you really do have to establish common goals and avoid personality conflicts, not to mention handle the communication with care. Otherwise, a divorce is highly recommended (in my experience).

[Ken]

What we do is do the revisions that we feel like doing, and send the manuscript back telling how we fixed all of the category ones and twos, and not even mentioning the category threes.

That's worked every time so far....

... thanks James, and Cliff too.
Will store this insight away for future reference, when/if the time to employ it ever arises. It's always good to be prepared in advance.

[CaroGirl]

Ignoring edits that aren't mere suggestions is the kind of thing that's bound to piss off an editor. Some edits that might seem minor to an author are, in fact, based on house style. Authors don't know all the minute details of house style and when they ignore a detail it can make an editor crazy. I used to edit to the house style guide (which I wrote, so was pretty intimate with) and get the thing back without the essential changes made because the writer didn't agree that, say, "group" is a collective noun.

[maestrowork]

Ignoring edits that aren't mere suggestions is the kind of thing that's bound to piss off an editor. Some edits that might seem minor to an author are, in fact, based on house style. Authors don't know all the minute details of house style and when they ignore a detail it can make an editor crazy. I used to edit to the house style guide (which I wrote, so was pretty intimate with) and get the thing back without the essential changes made because the writer didn't agree that, say, "group" is a collective noun.

There are times, though, that the edits are not really house styles but how the editor misinterprets the house style (or the house style is wrong)... why do I know that? Because it's grammatically incorrect. Once an editor suggested that I change these "minor" things but I refused because they were grammatically incorrect. When I told her she freaked out and told me it was the house style. It wasn't -- she misunderstood her style book. Eventually we smoothed that out but it made me question her qualification. I mean, if she couldn't see how grammatically incorrect that was, how could she be an editor? (FYI, it was over the use of semicolons)

Otherwise, I don't sweat the small stuff. There's a saying: "Choose the right battles." It may sound like the writer-editor relationship is a battle. It shouldn't be, but the reality is that a lot of times it feels like it. I really do think it comes down to a problem with attitude and communication.

[CaroGirl]

There are times, though, that the edits are not really house styles but how the editor misinterprets the house style (or the house style is wrong)... why do I know that? Because it's grammatically incorrect. Once an editor suggested that I change these "minor" things but I refused because they were grammatically incorrect. When I told her she freaked out and told me it was the house style. It wasn't -- she misunderstood her style book. Eventually we smoothed that out but it made me question her qualification. I mean, if she couldn't see how grammatically incorrect that was, how could she be an editor? (FYI, it was over the use of semicolons)

Otherwise, I don't sweat the small stuff. There's a saying: "Choose the right battles." It may sound like the writer-editor relationship is a battle. It shouldn't be, but the reality is that a lot of times it feels like it. I really do think it comes down to a problem with attitude and communication.
Ah, well, my post assumed the basic competence of an editor. Questioning something that's legimately edited incorrectly is an author protecting his work and no editor should have a problem with that.

Back when I was very green I remember I hyphenated some construction like "well-intentioned". I got called on it and learned something, so I thank that author for not simply letting it go. However, challenging and questioning an edit is different from ignoring it.

[maestrowork]

However, challenging and questioning an edit is different from ignoring it.

That is true. I never ignore an edit or suggestion. I either accept the change or I'll send it back explaining why I'm not changing (or we have a mini discussion on what should be done).

[ChaosTitan]

Thanks for this thread, Lori. :)

I almost responded to the "all writers have Golden Word Syndrome" statement in the other thread, but now I have to say something.

No, we don't. Some of us, sold or not, still don't have enough confidence in our abilities to be so egotistical as to develop GWS. We accept that there's no such thing as perfection, and that we certainly aren't perfect.

Anyway...

For me, editorial suggestions fall into three categories:

1) ZOMG! (Slaps forehead.) Thank you thank you thank you for catching that! I don't want to look like an idiot to the fans!

2) Not all that important, but hey, if it makes you happy, I could change that. I don't have a lot of emotion invested in that detail anyway.

3) NFW! What are you smoking?


Most of the suggestions I received from my editor for my two novels fell into category #1. My forehead was bright red from all of the slapping. We fit really, really well, and she loves the fact that I write dark, gritty books.

In the my first editorial letter for Three Days to Dead, she pointed out a huge logic flaw in the climax that had made it past quite a few people. But the instant she pointed it out, I slapped my forehead. It was obvious now! I can't think of any changes I've ever outright disagreed with my editor over. She's brilliant and has vastly improved both books.

[Ken]

I almost responded to the "all writers have Golden Word Syndrome" statement in the other thread, but now I have to say something.

No, we don't. Some of us, sold or not, still don't have enough confidence in our abilities to be so egotistical as to develop GWS. We accept that there's no such thing as perfection, and that we certainly aren't perfect.


... lacking confidence in one's ability is a pitfall, too, leading a writer to make compromises they really shouldn't in regards to their writing and contracts as well. One has to have a healthy (but not inflated) ego in this industry, backed by good, solid writing, of course, begot by years of hard work.

[Judg]

Heh, I think that's why writers so often seem bipolar. We're swinging between the Golden Word Syndrome, and the Everything I Write is Crap Syndrome.

I figure there is a difference between knowing you're good, and thinking you're perfect. There is always room to improve.

[Ken]

Heh, I think that's why writers so often seem bipolar. We're swinging between the Golden Word Syndrome, and the Everything I Write is Crap Syndrome.
:roll:
I figure there is a difference between knowing you're good, and thinking you're perfect. There is always room to improve.

... the ideal, to be sure, and one that's hard to obtain. It is so important to be able to correctly evaluate one's writing, objectively. There isn't any room for egoitism or lack of confidence, especially when 2nd parties are involved like editors.

[dawinsor]

I used to edit a scholarly journal, which varies in important ways from editing fiction, but I did learn a couple of things that apply. One is that sometimes editor's comments are meant to fix some issue the editor sees but hasn't articulated. If the writers can articulate that issue to themselve, they can often fix it some other way and the editor is just as happy.

Also, if you insist on doing something the editor knows is going to make a problem, the editor will remember that you're hard to work with. This is not a good thing.

[ChaosTitan]

... lacking confidence in one's ability is a pitfall, too, leading a writer to make compromises they really shouldn't in regards to their writing and contracts as well. One has to have a healthy (but not inflated) ego in this industry, backed by good, solid writing, of course, begot by years of hard work.

Of course. :) If I didn't have some measure of confidence, I never would have submitted in the first place. But a healthy dose versus the overabundance that leads to GWS are wildly different.

There is always room to improve.

Exactly. :D

[The Lonely One]

Are there instances where a timid writer gets stepped all over and the book they wrote sucks as a result and doesn't sell well?

The reason I ask is because as an amateur in the book biz I'd probably tend to favor the editor's edits (because they're a big-shot editor and I'm far from the expert novelist). If they said "this character detracts from the pacing, isn't needed," I'd probably give the editor the benefit of the doubt.

But even if there are major changes, I'd like to believe most editors want to sell good fiction to keep their name out of the dirt, to keep selling, etc. I wouldn't think editors would even accept a work if they had problems with the overall themes and the basic plot arc. Am I wrong?

[Ken]

... if I lived to be 10,000 years old and wrote every one of those days there'd still be much more I could improve on. So I agree with the agreement, above ;-)
Such a trying craft, and one of the reasons I love it so much!
Not to say there aren't days I don't cuss it, too ;-)

[cwfgal]

One other thing about this relationship...I include a thank you to my editor in my acknowledgments. Though I always thank them in person, it doesn't hurt to let the rest of the world know how much they rock. My first editor commented on it and let me know she appreciated it. She said agents almost always get a nod in the acknowledgments but editors are many times left out.

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan)

[LuckyH]

Having read through the entire thread carefully, I need to choose my words carefully, because I’m going to disagree on a small matter in distinguished company. Perhaps it’s not even such a small matter either.

Some years ago, I came across an editor I couldn’t get along with, and I’m not an argumentative or pedantic person, and would quite happily bastardise my work if it meant earning more money from it.

The lady in question was so highly qualified that it made my head spin, and I unquestioningly went along with all, yes, all of her suggestions, and there were many. The manuscript that emerged at the end of it bore no resemblance to the one I had submitted 18 months earlier.

Then she got promoted and another editor took ever. She asked me for my original manuscript and it was edited from scratch in something like three to four months, before publication.

I later discovered that my original editor, who has since been promoted several more times, had a personal outlook on life that made us completely incompatible. My story must have caused her a great deal of anguish, and she changed it, completely; and I didn’t know why at the time. She was employed by a major publisher at the time and could easily have withdrawn from editing my story by passing it to someone else.

She’s unlikely to read this post, her job has now taken her to great heights in this industry, and we live a few thousand miles apart. But she was wrong all those years ago, and if I hadn’t been such an unprincipled writer, I would have told her so.

[maestrowork]

One other thing about this relationship...I include a thank you to my editor in my acknowledgments.

I thank them in my acknowledgment, too.

[ChaosTitan]

Having read through the entire thread carefully, I need to choose my words carefully, because I’m going to disagree on a small matter in distinguished company. Perhaps it’s not even such a small matter either.

I don't think you're disagreeing, so much as providing an alternate perspective from someone who's seen the bad side of an author/editor relationship. Not all authors will get along with all editors. I'm sure there are instances of the editor wanting changes that ultimately do more harm than good. Editors aren't infallible. :)

But you bring up a valid point, and it, sadly, happens. Authors don't always know what an editor will expect in revisions before the contract is signed.

[maestrowork]

It can be intimidating for a new authors, especially when it's their first big contract. They've heard that "arguing with the editor's decisions is the #1 cause for getting their contract canceled." That statement alone gives the editor tremendous "power" even if the publisher does not mean to; new authors could come to believe that if they even disagree with one suggestion, they would be dropped. Also, some big time editors do play the power thing -- it has been known to happen. It comes back to the whole respect thing: Does the editor respect the writer and vice versa? Sometimes the editors, unfortunately, do have that "I'm the editor and you're not" attitude going into the process (as opposed to the writer's golden word syndrome), and that's very intimidating to a new writer.

[Libbie]

Yeah, I get annoyed with the suggestion that everybody has GWS. I am both confident and egotistical (know thyself), and when I received the suggestion that I axe 20,000 - 40,000 words from my manuscript, I did it immediately, without regrets or pouting. And the person who suggested it isn't even my agent (yet?). And certainly not an editor. I just heard from a professional who has an interest in making sure my book is the best it can be that I should make these changes, and I said, "YOU GOT IT."

I've never felt a lack of confidence about my writing. That is to say, since my early twenties, I've never thought I'm bad at writing. Some days I write better than others, of course, but I've always felt confident about my abilities. I have frequently received suggestions that because I don't think I suck, I must have GWS, and I'd better watch out for my career when I get to the editing phase, because man am I gonna be an unbearable diva!

Boy, could nothing be further (farther? I need an editor!) from the truth. I didn't even hesitate for one minute to hack 26,000 words out of my book for somebody who wasn't even an editor.

I really wish people would stop assuming that everybody who has an overall positive attitude about their writing must be an editor's worst nightmare. I don't know what makes people so overprotective of their work, but I assume it's actually insecurity, not security.

[Birol]

Heh, I think that's why writers so often seem bipolar. We're swinging between the Golden Word Syndrome, and the Everything I Write is Crap Syndrome.

:roll:

But even if there are major changes, I'd like to believe most editors want to sell good fiction to keep their name out of the dirt, to keep selling, etc. I wouldn't think editors would even accept a work if they had problems with the overall themes and the basic plot arc. Am I wrong?

The editor editing your work is probably not the same individual who accepted it. Different editors have different roles within an organization.

[maestrowork]

The editor editing your work is probably not the same individual who accepted it. Different editors have different roles within an organization.

However, shouldn't these editors collaborate or coordinate to see where they want to go with the project? To be on the same page? It would be discouraging when the acquisition editors give the project a go, saying, "This is a great book -- I really like her writing" and then have the developmental editor saying, "This is crap and needs a complete rewrite."

However, it is a reality that editors do move around. We've all heard stories about authors and projects getting dropped because the original editor who wanted it has just get sacked or moved to another publisher (without taking the authors with her)....

[LuckyH]

Having posted a somewhat negative comment earlier, I would like to add that most editors like nothing better than a new, raw writer, with bags of courage, bursting on to the scene. That’s what keeps the dreams, and the writing industry going.

It negates the cynical, staid, establishment-ruled attitudes of some editors, they’re not up to speed when confronted with something so different that it affronts their staidness.

When the new author is matched with an appreciative editor, magic can happen. And it frequently does.

[Cliff Face]

Very informative thread. Thanks all you experienced people. :)

[Amarie]

The editor editing your work is probably not the same individual who accepted it. Different editors have different roles within an organization.


Again, it depends. In my case the acquiring editor has also been the one doing the actual editing.

[dempsey]

Just want to chime in saying thanks for a really useful thread.

I'm really curious to hear about people's first encounters with editors, and what they now take to be the signs of a good/bad relationship. The sort of "I should have realized when s/he did X that this was going to be horrible" or "s/he said Y and it was like we had the same brain and I knew it was going to be awesome" moments.

:)

[mscelina]

That's kind of hard for me.

The first editor I had that I knew was going to be good took the time to read my entire manuscript before she started edits. She sent me an introductory letter with some of the things she'd noticed from the book--some things that she loved story wise, some things she noticed that were not so great (I believe in that book it was adverbs and commas). She explained how she liked to do edits, encouraged me to speak up if I felt I should and emphasized that editing was a collaboration.

And I stole all her tricks and use them as an editor today. :)

[Jamesaritchie]

Over the years, I've found that most editors have the annoying habit of being right about 98% of the time, and I follow what they say just about this often. Good editors only enforce their suggestions when the matter is really important.

Ultimately, the writer's name is the one on the book, so you have to know when to say yes, when to say maybe, and when to say no.

[Jamesaritchie]

Ignoring edits that aren't mere suggestions is the kind of thing that's bound to piss off an editor. Some edits that might seem minor to an author are, in fact, based on house style. Authors don't know all the minute details of house style and when they ignore a detail it can make an editor crazy. I used to edit to the house style guide (which I wrote, so was pretty intimate with) and get the thing back without the essential changes made because the writer didn't agree that, say, "group" is a collective noun.

Fortunately, it's nearly always the editor who changes things to match inhouse style, and many writers don't even notice.

Since the editor makes these changes himself, and since they never harm the manuscript, there should be no need for the writer to argue with such changes.

But some do, don't they?

[job]

Fortunately, it's nearly always the editor who changes things to match inhouse style, and many writers don't even notice.
Since the editor makes these changes himself, and since they never harm the manuscript, there should be no need for the writer to argue with such changes.

But some do, don't they?

I think it's useful to draw a distinction here between the editor who makes substantive edits and the copyeditor who brings the writing into conformance with -- for instance -- the Chicago Manual of Style.

Though they may be the same person, of course.

In matters of substantive content . . . yes. One should think and think and think yet again and go with a good editor 98% of the time.
Because an excellent editor has both skill and objectivity and the writer generally only has one of those.

But,
when it comes to copyedits and the dictates of CMoS -- which I loathe and detest and abominate ...
No.

I'm thinking here of CMoS's truly weird dislike of
Capitalization,
though I have some comma issues as well.
If you have to choose between house style and being clear to the reader, chuck the house style.

One particular case -- the title of a major character was 'Head of Section'. I stetted like mad and he gets called 'Head' throughout. It's hard enough for American readers to recognize 'Head' as a title without doing it uncapped.

"The head is just so stuffy," he complained.
"Talk to the head," he advised.
Let's not go there.

And then there's the treatment of colour
-- They looked out over a blue green sea.
or
-- They looked out over a turquoise-blue sea.

But not,
-- They looked out over a blue-green sea.
which CMoS doesn't like, even though it's obvious and easy and altogether more clear.

But when we come to 'blood red'.
They didn't want 'blood red'.
Didn't want 'blood-red'.
No. They wanted bloodred.
Which looks like the past tense of 'to blodder'.

Grrr ...
I hate Chicago Manual of Style.

[job]

I'm really curious to hear about people's first encounters with editors, and what they now take to be the signs of a good/bad relationship.

Almost the first thing my editor said was . . .
"You know we're going to have to change Anneka's [the character's] name."

Which was so very correct and put so very very well -- making it clear this was a partnership in which she trusted my judgement -- that I knew everything was going to work out.

[maestrowork]

For me, it was the fact that my editor highlighted a sentence, something like "he enjoyed the delicious pasta with tomato sauce" and said, "Give me the sensory details. Make me salivate." That's when I knew she and I were on the same page.

[CaroGirl]

I think it's useful to draw a distinction here between the editor who makes substantive edits and the copyeditor who brings the writing into conformance with -- for instance -- the Chicago Manual of Style.
Fiction editors edit to the Chicago Manual of Style?! This is news to me, and not very happy news. The CMoS is for scholarly work, not fiction. Gah, that's like editing fiction according to the Microsoft Manual of Style. Just...sorta silly. That's the point of creating a house style, so you don't have to follow the regimented rules of a guide like CMoS.

[Richard White]

Only problem I ever had with an editor was when I was working on one of my Star Trek short stories. The copy editor had uncapitalized a number of words that I KNEW had to be capitalized. I made my changes, stet'ed the rest and sent them back only to get an e-mail from the actual editor asking me to make the changes to those capitalized words.

"Marco, look, I've been in the military long enough to know those words have to be capitalized."

"Rich, maybe they are . . . IN THE ARMY. They're not in Starfleet. Make the changes."

Oops.

I made the changes.

[Jamesaritchie]

Fiction editors edit to the Chicago Manual of Style?! This is news to me, and not very happy news. The CMoS is for scholarly work, not fiction. Gah, that's like editing fiction according to the Microsoft Manual of Style. Just...sorta silly. That's the point of creating a house style, so you don't have to follow the regimented rules of a guide like CMoS.

Well, CMoS is more about how to publish a book than it is about how to write one. There's a big difference. I know a fair number of editors, and a LOT of writers, who insist on Strunk & White for the writing side.

But house style does not negate the rules of good grammar, good punctuation, or a readable style. The stylebook generally comes first, and most house style is actually based on the look of the book, rather than the style, at least for fiction.

What a good editor will never, ever change is intentionally poor grammar in dialogue, or any effective breaking of grammar, punctuation, or style. Good fiction editors always allow the writer to maintain his own style, assuming that style is good enough to buy in teh first place.

[Jamesaritchie]

I think it's useful to draw a distinction here between the editor who makes substantive edits and the copyeditor who brings the writing into conformance with -- for instance -- the Chicago Manual of Style.

Though they may be the same person, of course.

In matters of substantive content . . . yes. One should think and think and think yet again and go with a good editor 98% of the time.
Because an excellent editor has both skill and objectivity and the writer generally only has one of those.

But,
when it comes to copyedits and the dictates of CMoS -- which I loathe and detest and abominate ...
No.

I'm thinking here of CMoS's truly weird dislike of
Capitalization,
though I have some comma issues as well.
If you have to choose between house style and being clear to the reader, chuck the house style.

One particular case -- the title of a major character was 'Head of Section'. I stetted like mad and he gets called 'Head' throughout. It's hard enough for American readers to recognize 'Head' as a title without doing it uncapped.

"The head is just so stuffy," he complained.
"Talk to the head," he advised.
Let's not go there.

And then there's the treatment of colour
-- They looked out over a blue green sea.
or
-- They looked out over a turquoise-blue sea.

But not,
-- They looked out over a blue-green sea.
which CMoS doesn't like, even though it's obvious and easy and altogether more clear.

But when we come to 'blood red'.
They didn't want 'blood red'.
Didn't want 'blood-red'.
No. They wanted bloodred.
Which looks like the past tense of 'to blodder'.

Grrr ...
I hate Chicago Manual of Style.


I tend to agree. I'ma Strunk & White fan, and when there's a difference between CMoS and Strunk & White, I stick to strunk & White, and insist that editors do teh same. I've never had an editor say no.

And in things like blood red/blood-red/bloodred, no editor could ever, in any way, make me let bloodred stand.

[James D. Macdonald]

"You'll never make me change my style!" he bloodred.

They've heard that "arguing with the editor's decisions is the #1 cause for getting their contract canceled."

Only if "arguing with the editor" is in the contract as a cause for cancellation.


If you make a sufficient horse's ass of yourself, however, you can talk yourself out of a subsequent sale.

[Wordwrestler]

I recently saw "bloodred" in a novel and it struck me as so odd it actually interrupted my reading experience and I sat there trying to figure out when this became a word. I decided it was a typo. Guess I was wrong. Is carrotorange a word? Or sapphireblue? Or grassgreen?

[James D. Macdonald]

Don't worry about it. Taken as a whole, editors are easy to get along with.

And you will love the finished version even more. Because it will be better, and closer to the glory you'd originally imagined.

[job]

And in things like blood red/blood-red/bloodred, no editor could ever, in any way, make me let bloodred stand.

Nobody has ever made the faintest objection to any of my stets.
I mean ... bloodred?
Really.

<g> grousing aside,
my copyeditor is careful and knowledgeable and sees details that utterly escape me and has saved my bacon a dozen times.
I love my copyeditor.

The Chicago Manual of Style, on the other hand, is pure evil.

[JeanneTGC]

My editor makes my books better, by pointing out things I missed, showing me how I can do something more effectively, and so on. I don't have Golden Word Syndrome, nor do I have My Writing is Crap Syndrome. Like Libbie, I know I write well and I'm very confident, but if a professional editor wants some changes made, I'll make them.

Mind, I'll talk about them, first. I don't make any change I don't understand -- as in, "why don't you like this, what is missing, how about this for a fix, what about if I bump this character up", and so on.

So far, I've only had one requested edit I've disagreed with. Not to the point of not making changes, though. I talked it through with my editor, found out what bothered her with the scene, and made changes that could please both of us.

It's a partnership, a collaboration. My feeling is that if the editor has BOUGHT my book, surely she wants it to be the best it can be. So far, that's been the case.

As an editor, I want to make the submissions I receive that I also accept the best they can be. That doesn't mean re-writing them to sound like they're mine (I'd quit, in a heartbeat, if that was expected), but to make the stories themselves shine. Honestly, when my editorial hat is on, I love two kinds of submissions -- the ones that come in that are perfect as is, and the ones where the author is willing to work with me to make their story shine.