Some best-selling authors no longer sell

[Albannach]

I was followings links from the "don't answer critiques" thread and cam across this from Anne Rice which I had forgotten about:

I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself," she wrote. "I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me.

And they wonder why they don't sell.

[Slushie]

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.

[AryaT92]

How charming..

[SarahMacManus]

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.

[sunandshadow]

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.

[Albannach]

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.

[kaitie]

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.

[NeuroFizz]

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.

[LuckyH]

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.

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.

[Manuel Royal]

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.)

[Katrina S. Forest]

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."

[swvaughn]

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.)

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).

[Libbie]

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."

[half.jaded]

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."

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*

[C.M.C.]

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?

[kaitie]

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.

[Phaeal]

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. ;)

[Jamesaritchie]

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.

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.

[Jamesaritchie]

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.

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.

[Jamesaritchie]

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.

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.

[LuckyH]

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).

[Maxinquaye]

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.



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?

[James D. Macdonald]

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.

[Albannach]

It still needed my consent to every change that was suggested and made (by me).
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.

[ishtar'sgate]

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.

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.

[Jamesaritchie]

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).

When you allow a pubisher to take a book, you've already given permission for the editor to edit it. There's no copyright violation at all. I've seen and received a LOT of copy edited manuscripts, and every editor out there typically makes a ton of changes during his editing process. They cut, tighten, delete, etc., and they do not call and ask for permission before doing so. That's just how it is.

Now, the writer has every right to not allow the changes, but the editor then has the right to say, "Fine, then we don't want the book." At this point, many writers cave in and allow the changes, even if teh writer thinks they're horrible.

Editors simply do not call the writer and ask for permission to make changes during this process. The writer does receive the copyedited manuscript and then has the chance to change things back, but as I said, many writers are afraid to do so.

Nor is it a copyright violation for changes to be made after the writer sends the copyedited manuscript back to the editor. This, in fact, is when bad editors can ruin a manuscript, and the horror stories of ths happening, even to famous writers, are incredibly common.

The wirter does then receive a galley, but other than errors, very, very little of the content can be changed at this point, often as few as ten lines, unless the writer is willing to pay for the changes.

[Brindle Chase]

I'm confused... An author with a book currently on the NY times best sellers list, is identified as one that is not selling?????? Define selling and not selling? I was under the impression that the NY times best seller list, was based on sales ranking compared to other books and listed in order of sales... am I wrong here?????

[LuckyH]

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?

You’ve complicated matters completely, and nicely. When the agent sells your soul to the publisher, he normally sits back and collects his 15% with little further input on his part. Which isn’t really true, and I had forgotten about him.

The agent will represent you, irrespective of the publisher, for life, the publisher is only interested in the books you’ve signed for, usually just the one.

I don’t know if this is an appropriate example, and I’ll keep it short.

Some years ago, our publisher got two of us to appear on a TV show to publicise our books. She was a friend of mine who had just published an extremely sensitive romance, and I had published a hard-hitting tale of sex and violence. Where she wrote of love against the odds, I wrote of blood-splattered walls and flapping suspender belts.

The TV show lasted for a sweating half-hour. Our friendship wavered along the way, until we started shouting at each other. We’ve not spoken since.

[Sevvy]

When you allow a pubisher to take a book, you've already given permission for the editor to edit it. There's no copyright violation at all. I've seen and received a LOT of copy edited manuscripts, and every editor out there typically makes a ton of changes during his editing process. They cut, tighten, delete, etc., and they do not call and ask for permission before doing so. That's just how it is.

Now, the writer has every right to not allow the changes, but the editor then has the right to say, "Fine, then we don't want the book." At this point, many writers cave in and allow the changes, even if teh writer thinks they're horrible.

Editors simply do not call the writer and ask for permission to make changes during this process. The writer does receive the copyedited manuscript and then has the chance to change things back, but as I said, many writers are afraid to do so.

Nor is it a copyright violation for changes to be made after the writer sends the copyedited manuscript back to the editor. This, in fact, is when bad editors can ruin a manuscript, and the horror stories of ths happening, even to famous writers, are incredibly common.

The wirter does then receive a galley, but other than errors, very, very little of the content can be changed at this point, often as few as ten lines, unless the writer is willing to pay for the changes.

Which editors and publishing houses are you submitting to, so I know not to go to any of them, because that's not how it's supposed to be done. At all. If that is happening, it's very unprofessional conduct.

From what I've seen of the publishing process, the copyeditor makes changes in the margins, using the same marks a proofreader does for the most part, and then submits the manuscript with these marked changes in it to the writer, who then either leaves the changes or writes in some "stets." Anything that they really don't agree on gets hashed out in a professional manner. Then it goes to the printer for the changes to actually be made.

And if the writer has to pay for changes to be made to their own manuscript (or anything other than postage and the like), I think we've left the realm of professional publishing and gotten into vanity publishing.

[Maxinquaye]

You’ve complicated matters completely, and nicely. When the agent sells your soul to the publisher, he normally sits back and collects his 15% with little further input on his part. Which isn’t really true, and I had forgotten about him.

The agent will represent you, irrespective of the publisher, for life, the publisher is only interested in the books you’ve signed for, usually just the one.

I don’t know if this is an appropriate example, and I’ll keep it short.

Some years ago, our publisher got two of us to appear on a TV show to publicise our books. She was a friend of mine who had just published an extremely sensitive romance, and I had published a hard-hitting tale of sex and violence. Where she wrote of love against the odds, I wrote of blood-splattered walls and flapping suspender belts.

The TV show lasted for a sweating half-hour. Our friendship wavered along the way, until we started shouting at each other. We’ve not spoken since.

Well, if I ever get into the position of having an editor work on a book of mine, and risked getting into an argument about something, then my instinct would be to call the agent.

Again, this is speculation. I'm not sure how i would REALLY react, of course. But if an editor suggested something that would wreck MY story, I would want to argue - and to preserve the working relationship I'd try to get the agent to argue for me.

If there wasn't a working relationship, then I'd be curious as to how my book would fare in any case since that would suggest that the editor wasn't really passionate about it.

[willietheshakes]

Which editors and publishing houses are you submitting to, so I know not to go to any of them, because that's not how it's supposed to be done. At all. If that is happening, it's very unprofessional conduct.

From what I've seen of the publishing process, the copyeditor makes changes in the margins, using the same marks a proofreader does for the most part, and then submits the manuscript with these marked changes in it to the writer, who then either leaves the changes or writes in some "stets." Anything that they really don't agree on gets hashed out in a professional manner. Then it goes to the printer for the changes to actually be made.

And if the writer has to pay for changes to be made to their own manuscript (or anything other than postage and the like), I think we've left the realm of professional publishing and gotten into vanity publishing.

All due respect, Sevvy, you are completely, gobsmackingly wrong.

What James has described IS the editorial process. You're talking about copyediting (which you say yourself) which is as different from the editorial process as a housecat is from a puma (ie, they're related, but one is CERTAINLY not the other).

[Sevvy]

All due respect, Sevvy, you are completely, gobsmackingly wrong.

What James has described IS the editorial process. You're talking about copyediting (which you say yourself) which is as different from the editorial process as a housecat is from a puma (ie, they're related, but one is CERTAINLY not the other).

I said copyedited because he used the word, so I assumed that's what he was talking about in his post.

[dawinsor]

Charging the author for excessive changes to a galley has nothing in common with vanity publishing. You do it because the once the galley has been created, changes are expensive and the author had plenty of chances to make them before this point. Generally speaking, a publisher can't let an author continue to create work and costs.

[willietheshakes]

I said copyedited because he used the word, so I assumed that's what he was talking about in his post.

Ah - so you understand the difference between copyediting and the editorial process that Rice -- and this thread -- is talking about, then?

[Albannach]

I'm confused... An author with a book currently on the NY times best sellers list, is identified as one that is not selling?????? Define selling and not selling? I was under the impression that the NY times best seller list, was based on sales ranking compared to other books and listed in order of sales... am I wrong here?????

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/hard-times-for-the-hardback-industry-1845100.html

Many "best selling authors" including some who are still clinging the the best-selling lists are selling a fraction of what they once did. Both Rice and Cornwall are such authors and my own opinion, not provable but I'll still say it, is that at least part of the problem is a DIRE lack of decent editing. (Dick Francis is mentioned, but there is substantial doubt that he had any real input into his most recent novel)

As for the NYT list, they don't choose to say exactly how they make up their list. I have heard that a lot of novels outsell their list that they don't choose to include because they are category or in some way not "suitable" to be included.

[IceCreamEmpress]

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.

Oh, nonsense, Unca Jim. Everyone's reading Ouida and Rafael Sabatini and Edgar Wallace and Harold Bell Wright and Maria Edgeworth and Mrs. Humphry Ward now, aren't they?


so lonely

[Brindle Chase]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/hard-times-for-the-hardback-industry-1845100.html

Many "best selling authors" including some who are still clinging the the best-selling lists are selling a fraction of what they once did. Both Rice and Cornwall are such authors and my own opinion, not provable but I'll still say it, is that at least part of the problem is a DIRE lack of decent editing. (Dick Francis is mentioned, but there is substantial doubt that he had any real input into his most recent novel)

As for the NYT list, they don't choose to say exactly how they make up their list. I have heard that a lot of novels outsell their list that they don't choose to include because they are category or in some way not "suitable" to be included.


Hmmm... I would agree that poor/no/little editing is a contributer... but I doubt its even a double digit percent of the cause. Rice's fall I think has more to do with her abandoning her vampires series, going all religious, then back peddling when her new tangent of books didnt do as well as her previous. Cornwall I would submit is more to burnout than anything else... Patterson has always been hit or miss...

But this article points out that Brown and Meyers are improving in sales... which to me... deflates the theory that editing is a significant factor in the grand scheme.

And I tend to agree with the articles conclusion about writers running the course of their 15 minutes of fame and in recent years, big names sell less hardbacks because of the economy, more so than poor editing.

[Albannach]

Hmmm... I would agree that poor/no/little editing is a contributer... but I doubt its even a double digit percent of the cause. Rice's fall I think has more to do with her abandoning her vampires series, going all religious, then back peddling when her new tangent of books didnt do as well as her previous. Cornwall I would submit is more to burnout than anything else... Patterson has always been hit or miss...

But this article points out that Brown and Meyers are improving in sales... which to me... deflates the theory that editing is a significant factor in the grand scheme.

And I tend to agree with the articles conclusion about writers running the course of their 15 minutes of fame and in recent years, big names sell less hardbacks because of the economy, more so than poor editing.

I think both apply in Rice's case because he last few vampire novels were not very well received, even by her fans--hence the rant that I originally quoted that appeared on Amazon if I remember correctly. That was about her (I think next to the last) VAMPIRE novel which was pretty poorly received by a lot of her own fans.

And I'm not sure about that it's totally true that you can put the reduction in the hardcover sales of some of these authors to the economy. Even a hardcover is still cheaper than going to the movies and as you point out both Brown and Meyer sold a heck of a lot of hardcover novels last year.

I'm not sure how much you can say their novels are poorly edited. While I loathe the writing style of both authors, the point of editing isn't to CHANGE a writer's style. At least, that is not my view of it.

[Brindle Chase]

were not very well received...

I think you and I define well received differently. Personally, I liked them as much as the earlier ones, but I do remember two things... the internet griping and there was some... but I also recall they were all on the best sellers list. *shrugs*


And I'm not sure about that it's totally true that you can put the reduction in the hardcover sales of some of these authors to the economy. Even a hardcover is still cheaper than going to the movies and as you point out both Brown and Meyer sold a heck of a lot of hardcover novels last year.


True... not totally, but industry leaders seem to attribute it that way, not just the article you provided. I see it as the fad books still doing well, but all the others previous best sellers are getting passed over until they release in paperback.


I'm not sure how much you can say their novels are poorly edited. While I loathe the writing style of both authors, the point of editing isn't to CHANGE a writer's style. At least, that is not my view of it.

Well, I only read the first of each of their (Brown and Meyers) series and compared to the last Rice book.. all three were equal in poor editing if you ask me. None of them were edited with great efficiency. Not talking style here, but things their editors should have fixed.... IMHO.

[gothicangel]

The day I'm given an editor I fully expect them to kick the s*** out of me.

My Uni tutors do it on a daily basis, and if they hadn't I wouldn't be as good as I am. This is what I want/expect. How can I learn and improve otherwise?

[Albannach]

I think you and I define well received differently. Personally, I liked them as much as the earlier ones, but I do remember two things... the internet griping and there was some... but I also recall they were all on the best sellers list. *shrugs*

There was more than "internet griping" which is why she was so foolish as to go onto Amazon and pen a rant. It got three stars on Amazon--for a RICE novel? I definitely class that as poorly received.


True... not totally, but industry leaders seem to attribute it that way, not just the article you provided. I see it as the fad books still doing well, but all the others previous best sellers are getting passed over until they release in paperback.

I think that is a pretty long standing industry trend that has been accelerated by the recession. It's one that is affecting and will continue to affect how novels come out. I really am not arguing that sales aren't down but it's not just a recession thing.


Well, I only read the first of each of their (Brown and Meyers) series and compared to the last Rice book.. all three were equal in poor editing if you ask me. None of them were edited with great efficiency. Not talking style here, but things their editors should have fixed.... IMHO.
Possibly, but a lot of what people complain about was stylistic--such as an overuse of adjectives and adverbs. If someone has a purple style, I don't think you can expect an editor to "fix" it. Or having a *sparkly* vampire (throws up)

[Brindle Chase]

Possibly, but a lot of what people complain about was stylistic--such as an overuse of adjectives and adverbs. If someone has a purple style, I don't think you can expect an editor to "fix" it. Or having a *sparkly* vampire (throws up)

Style hurting her sales I would agree with, moreso than poor editing. My dislike of her non-vampire stuff was both the storyline and the style... the editing errors I didn't find any worse than anything else I'd seen out there.

[Albannach]

Style hurting her sales I would agree with, moreso than poor editing. My dislike of her non-vampire stuff was both the storyline and the style... the editing errors I didn't find any worse than anything else I'd seen out there.
I was talking about story level editing rather than copy editing. While you can't change a writer's style, a good editor can rein them in from spending chapters going on and on about nothing. I was never a Rice fan, except for her first to novels, I must admit. I just never liked her style much, but the first two stories I could get past it. Her stories just kept getting longer and longer with less and less story--and that I think is a problem. But then maybe when I've sold a fraction of the novels she has I'll be in a better position to criticise. ;)

[LuckyH]

There is a lot of confusion on this thread about the editorial process, including a suggestion at one stage that authors should pay for corrections, which isn’t true.

I think we are confusing the process for book editing with the completely different editing of newspaper and magazine articles, where different rules apply.

Unless you sign away your entire rights to your manuscript, it remains yours in its unaltered entirety, the editing process at the publishers is completely straight forward, and once you agree, whether by galley or PDF, you sign it off. No one else can do that.

As for the copyright issue, I’ve just checked my bookshelves. Within the first few pages the author’s copyright is imprinted, his or hers and no one else’s.

[Jamesaritchie]

There is a lot of confusion on this thread about the editorial process, including a suggestion at one stage that authors should pay for corrections, which isn’t true.

I think we are confusing the process for book editing with the completely different editing of newspaper and magazine articles, where different rules apply.

Unless you sign away your entire rights to your manuscript, it remains yours in its unaltered entirety, the editing process at the publishers is completely straight forward, and once you agree, whether by galley or PDF, you sign it off. No one else can do that.

As for the copyright issue, I’ve just checked my bookshelves. Within the first few pages the author’s copyright is imprinted, his or hers and no one else’s.

The copyright is usually in the writer's name, but the writer has sold certain rights to the publisher. Having the copyright in your name doesn't mean much. What matters is what the contract you signed has to say.

You do have to pay for content changes at the galley stage. I've had a bunch of novel contracts, and read I don't know how many bazilllion. You usually are allowed ten lines of content change for free, and then you pay for changes beyond this. I've yet to see a case where this wasn't true.

The process of preparing a novel for publication is give and take between the editor/publisher and the writer. The contract you sign is there for a reason, and while the copyright is still in your name, the publisher has the right to publish a book only if the way it's written and edited pleases them. Writers simply do not invent the horror stories out there, and there are lots and lots of them.

[Jamesaritchie]

I was talking about story level editing rather than copy editing. While you can't change a writer's style, a good editor can rein them in from spending chapters going on and on about nothing. I was never a Rice fan, except for her first to novels, I must admit. I just never liked her style much, but the first two stories I could get past it. Her stories just kept getting longer and longer with less and less story--and that I think is a problem. But then maybe when I've sold a fraction of the novels she has I'll be in a better position to criticise. ;)

Well, story level editing and copyediting both happen at the same time for me. The copyedit is always the very first editing done on every novel I've had published, and it deals with story editing. That's what the deletions, moved chapters, etc., are all about. Why go trhough two stages when one does the trick?

[cwfgal]

Well, story level editing and copyediting both happen at the same time for me. The copyedit is always the very first editing done on every novel I've had published, and it deals with story editing. That's what the deletions, moved chapters, etc., are all about. Why go trhough two stages when one does the trick?

I've only had two publishers but with both places and five books the copyediting has always been a separate process from the main story editing and done later in the process.

Beth

[ChaosTitan]

I've only had two publishers but with both places and five books the copyediting has always been a separate process from the main story editing and done later in the process.

Beth

Ditto this (except with two books). My acquiring editor does the story editing, and some line editing. Then it's sent to a copy editor, who works with a style sheet, and she does the line-by-line copy editing.

[Jamesaritchie]

I've only had two publishers but with both places and five books the copyediting has always been a separate process from the main story editing and done later in the process.

Beth

That's often the process, but so far, knock on wood, toss salt over my shoulder, kiss a horseshoe, I've always written books that didn't need the initial editor.

So far, with the exception of a couple of chort stories, I haven't been asked for a revision or any rewriting, no plot changes, or extra character development.

I learned early on that if you give a publisher a manuscript that is the exact length they prefer to publish, there may be a little tightening, but there won't be any cuts, and if you chase down every last grammar error and typo, you leave an editor very little to do. I'm anal about delivering a manuscript that is the perfect length, that has zero grammar errors and typos, and that has already been tightened at the sentence level to the ebst of my ability.

My goal is to leave an editor with nothing to do but pass the manuscript along to the typesetter. I haven't qute managed this, but I've been very, very close.

The big thing I get are requests for fact checks. One novel had almost fifty things the editor wanted checked, ranging from whether a bit of dialogue was accurate for the particular time and place, to whether a car could actually do what I had a car doing.

I hate doing fact checking research, but I love an editor who questions everything possible.

[Use Her Name]

Editors are usually very good at salesmanship and also at technical lauguage problems. I know people who became editors. They do editing because they cannot write, for the most part. I can't see turning over the work of a person who can write to a person who can't write. When they say editor, I assume an Acquisition editor who is a sales manager of sorts.

[job]

Ditto this (except with two books). My acquiring editor does the story editing, and some line editing. Then it's sent to a copy editor, who works with a style sheet, and she does the line-by-line copy editing.

This has been my experience.

The only possible charge associated with any of this would have been for excessive changes to the galleys.

[IceCreamEmpress]

Ditto this (except with two books). My acquiring editor does the story editing, and some line editing. Then it's sent to a copy editor, who works with a style sheet, and she does the line-by-line copy editing.

Yes to this, from my own experience as writer, freelance line editor, and freelance copyeditor.

I've never encountered anything else in the past 20+ years.

[blacbird]

Man, I'm a lot more advanced than these best-seller guys. I've achieved lack of sales right from the start.

caw

[Medievalist]

Editors are usually very good at salesmanship and also at technical lauguage problems. I know people who became editors. They do editing because they cannot write, for the most part. I can't see turning over the work of a person who can write to a person who can't write. When they say editor, I assume an Acquisition editor who is a sales manager of sorts.

This is one of the more . . . unrealistic statements I've seen in this thread.

Do you have any idea at all of the number of authors who started out as editors? It's quite common.

And if you "can't write," you sure as hell can't edit.

And "salesmanship?"

Please! Who are they selling to? No. Really, sorry, but no.

[job]

What Medievalist said.
The ability to edit and the abilty to write frequently overlap.

I would add that very frequently they do not.
Many editors have no wish to be writers of fiction. But they can sure as hell edit it.

The notion that every editor is a 'failed writer' and therefore incapable of assessing and improving your writing
is one you should probably not share with your editor.

The belief that acquiring editors at New York print houses are 'sales managers' is kinda bizarre. I cannot imagine what you mean.

[Jamesaritchie]

I'd also say that if you can't edit, you darned sure can't write.

[Slushie]

Writing and editing are from the same cloth. I enjoy editing my stuff just as much as doing the first draft. Outside of that, my only editing experience came from the term papers written by others on my dorm floor (usually involving a nominal fee paid in the form of beer). Still, I liked doing it even though it wasn't my work. A good editor is a selfless one; that says something about the type of person who makes a career out of helping to improve a story that isn't their own.

It's one thing to reject proposed changes after thinking them through, but fuck this Anne Rice mindset of a blanket dismissal to any editorial suggestions; that's what her quoted quote--and others I've read on Innerwebz--implies to me, anyway.

[Namatu]

Editors are usually very good at salesmanship and also at technical lauguage problems. I know people who became editors. They do editing because they cannot write, for the most part. I can't see turning over the work of a person who can write to a person who can't write. When they say editor, I assume an Acquisition editor who is a sales manager of sorts.I'm with Medievalist, job, et al here. You can't edit if you can't write. Editing requires a certain facility with language that doesn't develop independently of writing.

An acquisitions editor is not a sales manager; that's what the sales and marketing departments are for. An acquisitions editor acquires new product.

[willietheshakes]

An acquisitions editor is not a sales manager; that's what the sales and marketing departments are for. An acquisitions editor acquires new product.

I agree with this, but with one caveat - an acquisitions editor HAS to be a good salesperson internally, first with the pub board, then at launch meetings, then at sales conferences. At each point, they are selling the book to their company. If they fail to "sell" it to the pub board, you won't be made an offer. If they fail to "sell" it to the sales force, it'll fade to the background...

[Namatu]

I agree with this, but with one caveat - an acquisitions editor HAS to be a good salesperson internally, first with the pub board, then at launch meetings, then at sales conferences. At each point, they are selling the book to their company. If they fail to "sell" it to the pub board, you won't be made an offer. If they fail to "sell" it to the sales force, it'll fade to the background...True. Good points. I focused on external sales. Marketing and sales departments promote product to the consumer, and their effectiveness isn't always a reflection on the internal persuasiveness of the acquisitions editor.

[Jamesaritchie]

I agree with this, but with one caveat - an acquisitions editor HAS to be a good salesperson internally, first with the pub board, then at launch meetings, then at sales conferences. At each point, they are selling the book to their company. If they fail to "sell" it to the pub board, you won't be made an offer. If they fail to "sell" it to the sales force, it'll fade to the background...

True, though "salesmanship" for an editor comes from consistently delivering manuscripts that sell well. It's something the editor earns by finding novels that always turn a good profit.

The pub board and sales force tends to go on the editor's past record of success.