I was followings links from the "don't answer critiques" thread and cam across this from Anne Rice which I had forgotten about:
And they wonder why they don't sell.
And they wonder why they don't sell.
Last edited:
Some best-selling authors no longer sell
- Thread starter Albannach
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,497
- Reaction score
- 235
Yes, putting up with those malicious editors is such a pain. They only exist to terd on golden words and ruin her genius because they themselves couldn't cut it as writers. Yep, she's got it all figured out. Poor her. Poor her.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 409
- Reaction score
- 25
Which explains why most of her novels since she achieved that status are practically unreadable.
I don't care if you're Chaucer, a second pair of eyes are invaluable.
I don't care if you're Chaucer, a second pair of eyes are invaluable.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 4,827
- Reaction score
- 336
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Website
- home.comcast.net
Editors are not always right. I always appreciate when someone takes the time to make suggestions on one of my stories, but sometimes the suggestions are just wrong, and it would be horrible to not have the right to reject bad changes. The publishing history of the last 50 years is full of editors who have chopped the hell out of stories and published the cut version without showing to the author, or in some cases editors have imposed a pen-name without asking.
It's hard to see how chopping the hell out of them could have made that mess worse.
No one said anything about an author not having the right to turn down suggestions. I once had one heck of an argument with an editor over a change I refused to make. It would have hurt the story badly. But I also accepted 90% of the copy editor suggestions.
There are one heck of a lot of authors out there who think that their precious words are just too golden to be touched by an editor. Ms. Rice isn't the only one and with most of them they're doing themselves no favor.
No one said anything about an author not having the right to turn down suggestions. I once had one heck of an argument with an editor over a change I refused to make. It would have hurt the story badly. But I also accepted 90% of the copy editor suggestions.
There are one heck of a lot of authors out there who think that their precious words are just too golden to be touched by an editor. Ms. Rice isn't the only one and with most of them they're doing themselves no favor.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 11,732
- Reaction score
- 4,650
Honestly, the attitude alone is enough to make me not want to read anything by her anymore. I have always been really frustrated when people have an attitude of knowing what's right and never being wrong, and to outright say that is enough to put a bad taste in my mouth. I can understand wanting some more creative freedom. Heck, Stephen King wrote himself into a book! How many people could have gotten away with that, you know? But to imply that you're so perfect as is that you can't benefit from an outsider's perspective just strikes me as a bit on the ego-maniacal side.
Do have one thing to say thing--thank God I'm not her editor.
Do have one thing to say thing--thank God I'm not her editor.
The editor-author relationship is one of a team effort formed to improve the quality of the manuscript. The editor brings experience and a "cold eye" that doesn't inadvertently skip over passages that may be a "stale read" for the author. The author brings a much deeper feel for the overt and subtle aspects of the story, as well as a great deal more "intent" in its construction. Together, they likely will not agree on all suggested changes, but neither party should claim absolute veto power without at least first analyzing the suggestions. Emotion should never rule the interaction.
I’m sorry but that can’t possibly happen. An editor can’t even change a single comma without the express consent of the author.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,484
- Reaction score
- 437
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Website
- donnetowntoday.blogspot.com
I don't have any firsthand experience with professional editors (yet). But I know I've benefited from having other people look at my stuff, and have often made revisions based on their suggestions. No matter how good the writer is, once she's deep into the work, she can't see it the way a second pair of eyes can.
So, is Anne Rice self-publishing these days, or does she have a publisher who'll put out her work without an editor touching it? (I've sometimes wondered if Stephen King has that arrangement; there's a good example of a writer with some great natural gifts, but who needs an editor.)
So, is Anne Rice self-publishing these days, or does she have a publisher who'll put out her work without an editor touching it? (I've sometimes wondered if Stephen King has that arrangement; there's a good example of a writer with some great natural gifts, but who needs an editor.)
I think even the best authors need editors from time to time. You need other people to hold you to a high standard, so that when you don't put out your best work, someone else is there to say, "Come on, you know you can do better than that."
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,037
- Reaction score
- 593
No, she still publishes commercially. With no interference from evil editors.
I haven't bothered trying to read her latest series about Jesus. Haven't read her since the infamous Amazon tirade and the self-trashing of her vampire chronicles (at some point she stated that she regretted ever having wrote those "horrible books" - not her exact words, but an author dissing and discounting her own work that you used to love does not make one want to continue reading her).
Somebody came into the book store the other day and asked why we had her latest book on our shelves already (it's a used book store.) It was so hard to bite my tongue and not say, "Because her last several books have been insane and nobody wants to read them."
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,472
- Reaction score
- 435
Blood and Gold wasn't bad. Neither was The Vampire Armand. But from the bits of Memnoch the Devil that were mentioned in The Vampire Armand, I have a very, very bad feeling. >>" And neither TVA nor BaG could compare to the first few.
The Vampire Lestat was the best, IMO. Followed by Interview With the Vampire.
Her writing style is wordy but nice, though. *envy*
She says this and gets criticized, yet editors can get away with similar attitudes of their own righteousness, and no one blinks an eye. Interesting, eh?
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 11,732
- Reaction score
- 4,650
I'd have exactly the same problem if an editor refused to listen to anything the writer had to say. It should be a partnership. I don't think I've seen anyone here say that the editors should get away with it, either. Maybe I missed something.
Both sides of the author-editor relationship need to be reasonable and open-minded. If not, it's a waste of everyone's time. The author should get the final say, realizing that with that awesome power comes awesome responsibility: If something's wrong with the book, guess whose fault it is.
In most situations where I see grave errors (not just typos), I wonder whether the editors were incompetent or whether the author overruled their suggestions. Now, if the author publically eschews editing, I don't have to wonder. I know who sucked.
In most situations where I see grave errors (not just typos), I wonder whether the editors were incompetent or whether the author overruled their suggestions. Now, if the author publically eschews editing, I don't have to wonder. I know who sucked.
She didn't "acheive" that status. It's been her attitude and practice right from the start. If her books were good at the beginning, they should be good now.
I don't allow editors to change my sentences, either. I'm the writer, and my job is to write good sentences. I do greatly appreciate when an editor tightens my work, removes unnecesary paragraphs or scenes (Though editors can be wrong as often as they're right, and if I think the editor is wrong, the paragrapgh or scene goes back in.), but darned few editors are any good at all with individual sentences, and even an editor who is good generaly wants to change something to suit his style, rather than actually making a sentence better.
Good editors never, ever mess with a writer's style, and the way you write sentences is your style.
You haven't dealt with many editors. Unfortunately, editors can and do change all sorts of things without the writer's permission. There are some true horror stories out there, including having an editor go through and remove every last contraction in an entire novel, and doing so just before galley proofs were sent back to the writer.
In this case, the writer had no time at all to go through and correct the idiotic editing.
Not all editors are good at the job, and not all editors think they need permission to not only edit, but to essentially rewrite the entire blasted book.
A good editor tightens, suggests cuts, a good editor and looks for things such as plot changes that he thinks can make a book better. But a good editor should not ever change the writing, othe rthan correcting minor grammar mistakes and the like.
There are many great editors out there, but there are also a lot of editors who think they're the writers, and they can and do make all sorts of changes in the writing itself during the editing stage. With luck, the writer has enough power to say, "STET the whole damned thing", but many writers don't have this power, and many others are afraid to use the power, even if they do have it.
Editors can be just as wrong, every bit as pigheaded, and just as arrogant, as any writer out there.
I've had proofreaders, for God's sake, who are not supposed to change content at all, remove everything from single sentences to entire scenes that the editor loved, that I loved, and that we both thought added to the book. If I weren't a very careful and meticulous galley reader, I would have missed several of the cuts. As it was, with less than a week to get everything back to the publisher, I had to work like a slave to get everything back the way it belonged on time.
A godo editor is a wonder to behold, but there are many bad ones, and they can screw up anything.
The position needs clarifying. By the time a manuscript reaches the editor appointed by the publisher, the author will have received a payment by way of an advance, and the publisher is ready to invest even more money to produce that author.
The editor will be just as interested in advancing his publisher’s earnings, as the author in maximising his profit from his writing, probably at least a hard year’s work, or two.
There should be little conflict between author and editor, they are both on the same side; they both have one object in mind, to make money.
I have considerable experience of different editors, and have gritted my teeth on occasions, and have sometimes allowed my work to be bastardised purely in the pursuit of the cheque paid into my bank account. But, whether by galley proof or otherwise, the final decision has been mine and mine alone; although I must admit I’ve never been under the time pressure described.
Apart from anything else, any unauthorised interference with a manuscript is contrary to copyright law, and no publisher will risk breaking it.
I’ve only once capitulated completely to an editor who was plainly wrong, but she was of such a high stature within her powerful publishing house that I felt I had no choice, and the cheque was too big to balance against any thoughts of righteousness on my part.
It still needed my consent to every change that was suggested and made (by me).
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 10,361
- Reaction score
- 1,032
- Location
- In your mind
- Website
- maxoneverything.wordpress.com
Isn't this what agents are for? Obviously, I've never been in this situation, but I can imagine that one could consult with an agent to get an objective view of the matter. Maybe the instincts are wrong? And if you aren't wrong, isn't it better to bring in the agent to fight the battle?
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 25,582
- Reaction score
- 3,787
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Website
- madhousemanor.wordpress.com
Sell poorly? Indeed they do. Many who were once best-selling authors no longer sell. And many who were once unpublished are now best-selling.
The readers determine all. As always.
The readers determine all. As always.
That has also been my (rather limited) experience. By contract, no changes were made without my consent. I would be very loathe to sign any contract without that control of my work because at the end of the day it's the writer's name on the cover.
None the less, saying that one thinks they should be completely free of all editorial input is a prescription for disaster and I believe Ms. Rice's and Ms. Cornwall's (among others) sales are proof of that.
I'm not a vampire fan but thought that Interview with the Vampire was a fairly enjoyable novel. Her later novels? I'll be kind and not give an opinion, they're that bad.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,802
- Reaction score
- 465
- Location
- Canada
- Website
- www.linneaheinrichs.com
Yeah, you have to pick your battles. To make a blanket statement that everything you write is untouchable doesn't seem to be realistic. Even the stars have times when their work is less than stellar.
- Status