Have Editors had their day?

[aruna]

An interesting article in yesterday's Guardian, with some nice anecdotes on famous writers:
black day for the blue pencil (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1542959,00.html)

[Garpy]

I read it....it was a good and detailed article. It certainly does seem that the pile-em-high-sell-em-cheap attitude to book releases means much less time for editing. That said though, I've seen several articles that suggest the publishing industry is looking to reign in the numbers of books they release each year....as it's gotten out of hand now, and too many books are being released without any marketing and sinking without a trace because the booksellers can't find shelf space for them. So....if the numbers of books being released does come down, then presumably there'll be more time for editors to edit.

My first book has been through a couple of revisions....I was reluctant to make the changes my editor asked for, but now, I can see it's a much better book. So I think on reflection I'm quite glad that I have a proactive editor. That said....a tiny part of me is always suspicious that an editor, under pressure from the marketing dept, is massaging the book to fit their requirements. I recall an anecdote of a writer who writes Roman military novels, but who was asked to make his debut of the military series...a Roman crime thriller, because the publisher didn't have a Roman-crime-thriller in the works when it was the latest bandwagon a few years back. The writer stuck to his guns and is doing very well. Good on him.

[Jamesaritchie]

An interesting article in yesterday's Guardian, with some nice anecdotes on famous writers:
black day for the blue pencil (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1542959,00.html)

No. Some article writers just have too much time on their hands.

[Vomaxx]

I hope for more information on this topic. It is certain that some fantasy novels are being released with little or no editing.

[Jamesaritchie]

I hope for more information on this topic. It is certain that some fantasy novels are being released with little or no editing.

Wanna bet? Unless you've seen the first draft, you have no idea how much editing went into a novel.

[brinkett]

I've read two novels in the past year (not fantasy) that were horrible no matter what angle you come from (story, plot, characterization, quality of writing). If they were edited, then either the manuscripts were so lousy to begin with that they should never have been acquired (both books were written by previously published authors), or the editors should be fired.

[Dawno]

An interesting article in yesterday's Guardian, with some nice anecdotes on famous writers:
black day for the blue pencil (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1542959,00.html)

I agree. I wonder if the "crankyeditors" community on Live Journal has read it yet...I'd love to read their reactions.

[JennaGlatzer]

I've had two opposing experiences lately:

First, I worked with an agent (not my agent-- my client's agent) who was intensely involved in the proposal. It was heartwarming. He's a former editor and it shows... the proposal went through several incarnations, and he offered suggestions and edits every step of the way until we were all happy with it. It was more editing than I get from most editors, and very collaborative in spirit and in practice.

Second, an editor (at a very big house) wrote to suggest that the manuscript I turned in could go straight to mechanicals (proofs) and we'd edit from there. I'd love to puff myself up and think that's because the ms was in such great shape that it needs nothing more than a tiny bit of clean-up work, but in truth, I know it's that she's behind in her own work. It feels like cutting corners.

It's a funny dance. Of course I turn in my work with the fantasy that the editor will say, "Perfect! Don't change a thing!" But then I'm highly suspicious when it happens. ;) It's such a gift when you find an editor who understands your work and merely wants to help you make it shiny. You learn so much from the good ones, whereas the bad ones just leave you feeling violated... or neglected.

[popmuze]

I first got suspicious about my last book (a collection of celebrity interviews) when I was about half way done and I asked my editor what he thought of it so far. He said it was just great and recited from the table of contents. I really should have asked him which interviews he liked best and why, but I didn't want to put him on the spot.
Later, when the book came out, virtually untouched, I was pretty sure only the assistant really read any of it.
Sure enough, the first--and most major--review said "this book could have used some editing."
(Let alone the fact that I usually average about three or four editors per book, losing them not only to other houses, but to other professions, grad school, pregnancy, etc.)
What I miss most is feedback. In some senses the editor should be your ideal reader. If not, you can go through book after book never finding one.

[Jamesaritchie]

I've read two novels in the past year (not fantasy) that were horrible no matter what angle you come from (story, plot, characterization, quality of writing). If they were edited, then either the manuscripts were so lousy to begin with that they should never have been acquired (both books were written by previously published authors), or the editors should be fired.

Well, I'd ask who published them, and what you, as editor, would have changed. Good editors never, ever mess with a writer's style, and never have. And the writer should be the one who knows what a good story and a good plot and good characterization are.

All an editor does, all a good editor does, is try to put the final bit of editing on a novel that makes it as good as it can get, and without changing a writer's style or voice. No editor can turn a bad novel into a good one, or a bad writer into a good one.

I'd also want to know which books those were, and whether or not the majority of readers felt the same way you did about them?

Were these things bad, or is it just that you didn't like them? If they are bad, those novels will stop selling, and that writer will be out of a job. The editor might well be out of a job, as well. Editors who do not consistently buy books the public likes generally get fired very quickly.

Now, there are certainly some bad editors out there, but most often they're the ones who edit too much instead of too little. There are more publishers now than ever, and there are more editors now than ever. Far more. Some few just aren't going to be any good at what they do. These few will get replaced, but there will always be bad editors. Always have been. It makes no sense to think all those in any profession are all going to be great at their job.

Likelwise, it also makes no sense to think editors today don;t do a great job because you read two novels that you think weren't any good. You may be right. Maybe those two novels could have stood a great deal more editing. And you may be completely wrong, and the editor did exactly the job she was supposed to do, which is to publish novels the majority of her readers will enjoy. Once writers reach teh gettign published stage, good and bad are largely subjective. I've heard the same comments about the novels of darned near every published writer out there. Bad writing, bad plotting, bad characterization, etc. Sometimes these comments are accurate, but far more often than not they mean nothing except that reader did not like that writer.

But people, particularly wannabe writers, seem to have a really odd notion of what an editor's job really is, and this iis often brought about by mythical tales of a never did exist time when all editors were wonderful, and would turn the work of any writer into deathless prose.

It si essentially teh writer's job to write a good novel. It is the writer's job to come up with a good story, with good characters, and with prose that's the best that writer can do. It's the editor's job to find writers who can do these things. Always has been.

But anyone who thinks novels do not get edited these days, often more than they should, has purely and simply never been through the editing process, or simply doesn't understand an editor's job. That job is not to be a writer, and that job is not to turn bad into good.

An editor's job is to find good writers, which means writers who can please the majority of teh reading public, and then to help those writers put a finishing touch on the novel that makes it as good as it can be, which may be very good, or may be mediocre. But editors can only work with the material that's submitted to them, and there are, unfortunately, more good editors than there are good writers.

This said, editors routinely work mioracles. They cut, polish, edit, tighten, suggest and implore. But they do not and cannot turn bad writing into good writing, or bad novels into good novels. When the writing really is bad, when the stories and characters really are bad, the editor should not buy that novel, but it's the writer's lack of talent that makes these things bad, not the editor's lack of editing.

And as I said, just because any of us think a couple of novels we read are bad in every way in no measure means they were. That's a decision that requires a concensus, and that concensus shows in sales numbers. Some few really bad novels will sell well, and some extremely few good novels won't sell at all, but these are the aberrations.

Neither means editors do not edit. Some few editors are lousy at their job, most are pretty good, and some are as good as any editor who ever lived, and pretty much every last one of them tries very hard.

Those who gripe at editors should find a way to spend a month or so watching them work. The amount of editing they do is unbelievable. Those who gripe too much should spend more time learning how to write well, and less time worrying about editors. Writer's who can't write well do not need to look at editors to cast blame, and writers who can't edit their own work to a professional state are living in a fantasy world.

[brinkett]

Well, I'd ask who published them, and what you, as editor, would have changed.

Simon & Schuster was one of them. Bella Books was another. What would I have changed? A hell of a lot. The two books I'm talking about aren't marginal--they're horrible by any standard.


Good editors never, ever mess with a writer's style, and never have.

No, but you'd expect them to correct things like blatant POV violations when a book is supposed to be written in 3rd person limited, as you know Bob dialogue, stilted dialogue, dangling modifiers, overuse of the verb "to be" (like in every friggin' sentence), etcetera, etcetera.


Were these things bad, or is it just that you didn't like them?

No, I've said before in many posts that I'm a very forgiving reader as long as the story and characters are good. I can overlook a lot. For me to notice the writing means that the writing is very, very bad.


Now, there are certainly some bad editors out there, but most often they're the ones who edit too much instead of too little.

I suspect the author at Simon & Schuster received no editing. The one at Bella Books thanks her editor in the acknowledgements-- as far as I'm concerned, the editor is incompetent.


Likelwise, it also makes no sense to think editors today don;t do a great job because you read two novels that you think weren't any good.

Never said it did.


But people, particularly wannabe writers

I'm speaking as a reader who expects at least passably competent writing in books published by commercial publishers. If much of your post wasn't meant to address me specifically (and I don't see how it could have been since you're addressing points I never made), then please make your points without quoting my post. It's common courtesy to do so on boards like these.

As far as my post went, pointing out that two books didn't receive enough editing isn't a statement about ALL editors or a statement that NO books get editing--it's a statement that I know of at least two books that definitely required more editing. You have a lot of valuable things to say and I read your posts with interest, but refusing to acknowledge that anybody in publishing ever screws up does detract from your credibility at times. It's silly and defensive to take pot shots at anyone who criticizes a book and suggests that more editing (or a better editor) might have helped.

[GPatten]

This subject is so very discouraging.

Too many new authors.
Too many new editors.
Too many new agents.
Too many publishers.

Not enough room on the shelves for books.

I think I’ve heard something like this. Is this what everyone is saying?

I think I’ve heard where some ones work they’ve submitted is lost in some black hole for months.

It seams as though there are less Hollywood movies out now, and it seems as though they’ve become less interesting to me.

If all of this is so, when is the marketing world, the publishers and agents going to step up to the microphone and tell it like it is? People have become proficient with the new tools to writing stories and are turning them out like pregnant rabbits and they are clueless to what is facing them.

I would say this is the most discouraging topic of the month, if not the year.

[Jamesaritchie]

Simon & Schuster was one of them. Bella Books was another. What would I have changed? A hell of a lot. The two books I'm talking about aren't marginal--they're horrible by any standard.


No, but you'd expect them to correct things like blatant POV violations when a book is supposed to be written in 3rd person limited, as you know Bob dialogue, stilted dialogue, dangling modifiers, overuse of the verb "to be" (like in every friggin' sentence), etcetera, etcetera.


No, I've said before in many posts that I'm a very forgiving reader as long as the story and characters are good. I can overlook a lot. For me to notice the writing means that the writing is very, very bad.


I suspect the author at Simon & Schuster received no editing. The one at Bella Books thanks her editor in the acknowledgements-- as far as I'm concerned, the editor is incompetent.


Never said it did.


I'm speaking as a reader who expects at least passably competent writing in books published by commercial publishers. If much of your post wasn't meant to address me specifically (and I don't see how it could have been since you're addressing points I never made), then please make your points without quoting my post. It's common courtesy to do so on boards like these.

As far as my post went, pointing out that two books didn't receive enough editing isn't a statement about ALL editors or a statement that NO books get editing--it's a statement that I know of at least two books that definitely required more editing. You have a lot of valuable things to say and I read your posts with interest, but refusing to acknowledge that anybody in publishing ever screws up does detract from your credibility at times. It's silly and defensive to take pot shots at anyone who criticizes a book and suggests that more editing (or a better editor) might have helped.

Maybe you did read two such novels, but I'll reserve judgement until I read them Simon & Shuster has a number of the best , and hardest working, editors in the business. I guarantee any novel pubished there was edited.

And as I said. What were the novels?

I never said no one screws up. I said any profession is going to have some bad people in it, and publishing is no different. But bad editors do not last. The average lifespan of an editor, depending on the size of the pubisher, is from three to six years. This turnover is largely because an editor who does not do a good job editing is soon fired.

I did not mean to take potshots, I'm simply stating that from my experience, editors, by and large, do an extremly good job, and do a LOT of editing. Aying those novels are bad by anyone's standards is what seems a gross overstatement to me. But without knowing just hwat those two novels wewre, it's impossible to tell, isn' it?

The truth is purely and simply that from my experience I do not see many novels published that an editor could have done much more with than he or she did.

Some editors, many editors, do correct POV violations, others do not, but it isn't because they aren't editing, it's because some editors prefer to let the writers write, and some writers make POV violations work.

For you to notice theriting may indeed mean it's very, very bad. It may also merely mean you don' like the writing, and that many others who read the novels will think the writing is fine.

I repeat, an editor' job is not to be a writer, and no editor who's any good messes with a writer's style.

But this aside, I never said you didn' read two very badly written novels that needed editing. It's entirely possible you did. But it's also possible you read two novels that you simply didn' like. But with two two examples, you can't even necessarily indict those two editors, let alone an industry.

We're simply going to have to agree to disagree. I find many published novels that I do not like. I very, very seldom find one where the editing is at fault.

[Euan H.]

If they were edited, then either the manuscripts were so lousy to begin with that they should never have been acquired (both books were written by previously published authors), or the editors should be fired.
Or the author refused any editing. *Cough* Jordan, Rice *Cough*

[aruna]

I never said no one screws up. I said any profession is going to have some bad people in it, and publishing is no different. But bad editors do not last. The average lifespan of an editor, depending on the size of the pubisher, is from three to six years. This turnover is largely because an editor who does not do a good job editing is soon fired.

.

James, the article didn't saythat editors today are necessarily bad - justthat they don't have time to edit or to give as much attention as they'd like to a book. My editor was briliant with my first book. SHe seemed to see things that I didn't, made suggestions that really took the story to a whole new level. Butthat book was finished before I delivered it. The next two books were written to a contract and already there was a deadline hanging over us. I knew for a fact that both needed much more time, another lookk through fromher, another polishing by myself but there was no time. The last draft I wrote of both, I didn't even have the time to read through it one more time before delivery, and I'm sure she didn't. I couldn't even bear to read it once published, I was so ashamed! The third book had a lot of flab that needed cutting, but againwe were both rushed. Luckily, I suggested that it be cut between the hardback and paperback editions, and that's what we did. But I know more could have ben done.

I've said this before but the HarperCollins chick lit novel PS I Love you was so devoid of editing it was an embarassment. The writing was that of a schoolgirl, cliches all over the place, entire telephone conversations with all the useless chat that should not be in a novel, repetitions of descriptions. A person in shock looks like a goldfish every time, or their hands fly to their mouths, or they giggle hysterically on almost every page. That's no exagerration. The story was not bad but needed some severe editing.

[brinkett]

Maybe you did read two such novels, but I'll reserve judgement until I read them Simon & Shuster has a number of the best , and hardest working, editors in the business. I guarantee any novel pubished there was edited.

And as I said. What were the novels?

I've PMed you the names. I don't like naming specific novels publicly. I doubt very much the Simon & Schuster one was edited because it's just so bad. If it was edited, the editor should do something else for a living.


Or the author refused any editing. *Cough* Jordan, Rice *Cough*

Yes, that's possible, but then you'd think the publisher would refuse to publish the book. That's what would happen to a first time writer that refused editing.

[Christine N.]

Yes, but Jordan AND Rice have money attached to their names, so the publisher cowtows to them.

[brinkett]

Yes, I know. What does that say?

[aruna]

I've PMed you the names. I don't like naming specific novels publicly. I doubt very much the Simon & Schuster one was edited because it's just so bad. If it was edited, the editor should do something else for a living.



That's a good policy - I've thought about the ethics of that myself - what if the author of that book is lurking here, for instance! Or what if I were to lurk on some board nad see them talking negatively about me! But I decided that i'm Ok with that.

[pconsidine]

Ultimately, I would blame it on the fact that nearly every publishing house in America has been operating on a skeleton crew for quite some time now. It would amaze me if editors actually had time to read all their e-mails and shuffle all the paper they have to shuffle in the course of a day, let alone actually read, digest and comment on a manuscript. What's sad is that this has probably been going on for years, but it's only now gotten to the point where someone notices enough to write about it.

It also doesn't help that we seem to be rather firmly entrenched in an auteur society these days, where the prerogative of the original artist (in whatever medium) is seen as sacrosanct and immune to tampering. Never mind that that "tampering" is often what produces the best result in the first place. Art always has been a communal effort. It's only lately that the individual artist has been placed on such a lofty pedestal.

Oh well.

[HapiSofi]

Or the author refused any editing. *Cough* Jordan, Rice *Cough*You're wrong. So's everyone who agreed with you.

Yeah, Anne Rice made a big noise about not getting edited. Most likely that means she doesn't, but it's not a sure thing. The truest words said so far in this thread came from James Ritchie: If you didn't see the marks on the manuscript, the editorial correspondence, and the copyediting and proofreading, you can't be sure you know what happened.

(Personally, I can easily believe Rice doesn't get edited. If she's willing to make that much of a flap about it, and if it doesn't make a huge difference in her sales, trying to edit her would be more trouble than it's worth.)

Robert Jordan is where you seriously go astray. Robert Jordan -- that is, James Rigney -- is married to an accomplished and highly respected editor who has decades of hands-on experience in the industry. And when he and his wife are finished with the latest manuscript, it gets sent out to the best copyeditor in the genre, who gives it a thorough going-over.

There are things authors always say about The Way Things Used To Be, a.k.a. Back Then: a period which they generally identify as having ended about ten or twenty years before they started selling. Back then, a writer could make a decent living, not just scrape by. Back then, editors used to edit. Back then, publishing wasn't just about money: people really cared about books. (Yeah, right. And the fishing was better too, and children were respectful of their elders.) Twenty years from now, they'll be saying the same thing about those halcyon days at the turn of the millennium.

Here are a few of the other things authors may mean when they say editors don't edit:If editors did as much "editing" (by which the author usually means line-by-line, word-by-word text cleanup) as they used to, my book would be publishable as it stands.

I don't feel like my editor pays enough attention to me.

My book as published was no better than it was when I wrote it.

I don't see how [thus-and-such book], which got published, and which is not to my taste, is all that much better than My Own Beloved Book, which was rejected.
And so forth and so on.

Do editors edit? Some do, sure. Others do it less. Almost all editors do it situationally.

[Garpy]

For my money, I'm with the 'too many books - too few editors' argument. I think most editors are incredibly snowed-under with work, I'm pretty certain most if not all of them are so busy during office hours with meetings and office work, that the actual reading-editing comes home on the train with them and they have to fit it into their out-of-work hours.

I won't profess to knowing this....but I suspect it from my humble dealings thus far, and the fact that the publishing industry has done a lot of talking recently about cutting down on the numbers of books being published.

[aruna]

The truest words said so far in this thread came from James Ritchie: edit? Some do, sure. Others do it less. Almost all editors do it situationally.

I object: my words were also true -at least - those in my second post, about my editor.. It was a personal experience, I can say it is 100% true that she did not edit enough. She did two rush jobs.

[brinkett]

Do editors edit? Some do, sure. Others do it less. Almost all editors do it situationally.
Well, I hope some books aren't being edited then, because if they are, the quality of editing is slipping into the toilet. All I can say is that as someone who's been reading for more years than I care to admit, I've noticed a decline in the quality of the writing in published novels (and stupid stuff, like more spelling errors slipping through), and I'm a very forgiving reader.

As far as Robert Jordan goes, I thought advancing the plot in a 500+ page novel would be desirable. I guess I'll rethink that. ;)

[pconsidine]

Having been in and around publishing for the better part of a decade, I do find myself wondering about the skill level of people in the industry lately.

I'm a perfect example. My actual degree is in Fine Arts - Painting, with a minor in English. Yet the level of editorial work I've been called on to do over the course of my career ranges from a little odd to downright ridiculous. By now, it's probably all the same, given the professional experience, but if a relatively unqualified person like me has been asked to act as editor, how bad must it be for an actual professional?

Frankly, fewer books would be a great idea. Of course, that doesn't do my chances for publication any favors, but at least I'd have some decent books to read while I wait.

[HapiSofi]

"Black Day for the Blue Pencil" is a thumb-sucking piece of poorly-thought-out nonsense. I'm surprised more people haven't noticed how often and how thoroughly it contradicts itself.

One sees these articles ever few years: pouty, dissatisfied authors, wanking over the idea of Max Perkins as perfect surrogate auctorial Mom. (What, you thought they were talking about other writers and their inconsequential little books? Perish forbid!)

Pout, sulk, sulk, pout, whine. It's so unfair! Why couldn't they have had an editor like Max Perkins? He'd have understood them, and brought out the lurking genius in their books. (Eventually, this line of thought reverts to one of the basic auctorial mindstates: And then, everyone will read and love my books.)

Just once, I wish one of these articles would mention Ian Ballantine.Well, I hope some books aren't being edited then, because if they are, the quality of editing is slipping into the toilet. All I can say is that as someone who's been reading for more years than I care to admit, I've noticed a decline in the quality of the writing in published novels (and stupid stuff, like more spelling errors slipping through), and I'm a very forgiving reader.Y'know, Brinkett, I could try to discuss patterns and trends in text quality with you -- tracking that is part of my job -- but I've been watching you on AW for a while now, and you have a real tendency to respond with bluffing and sneers whenever someone suggests that you don't know quite as much as you pretend.

I'm sorry, but you're being unpleasant, you're spouting cliches, and you don't engage. I won't ignore you if you say something interesting, but right now you're in a loop. I wish you the best of luck in getting out of it on your own. I object: my words were also true -at least - those in my second post, about my editor.. It was a personal experience, I can say it is 100% true that she did not edit enough. She did two rush jobs.Hello, Aruna. Here's how you quoted me:The truest words said so far in this thread came from James Ritchie: edit? Some do, sure. Others do it less. Almost all editors do it situationally.
Those are two separate bits from the beginning and end of my message. Here's what I really said. First:The truest words said so far in this thread came from James Ritchie: If you didn't see the marks on the manuscript, the editorial correspondence, and the copyediting and proofreading, you can't be sure you know what happened.
As the author, you will have seen the markups and correspondence. I've never suggested otherwise. What I did say was that without that data, you couldn't reliably discern what had happened. This is not the same thing as saying that if you had it, you were guaranteed to know what had happened. The information is a prerequisite to judgement, not the product of it.

Let's look at your own description of your experience:My editor was briliant with my first book. SHe seemed to see things that I didn't, made suggestions that really took the story to a whole new level. Butthat book was finished before I delivered it.
That is to say, you'd already done most of the polishing on the manuscript. That was your editor's introduction to your work. She bought your book, rightly perceiving that the type and amount of editorial work it required would fit into her workload. That wasn't the case with the later books. Has it occurred to you that if she'd known how bad the second and third mss. would be, she'd never have bought the first?

Onward, then, to the two titles where you say she did a rush job and didn't edit enough.The next two books were written to a contract and already there was a deadline hanging over us. I knew for a fact that both needed much more time, another lookk through fromher, another polishing by myself but there was no time.
Those were pre-set deadlines. The manuscripts you delivered in time for them were far less polished than the one you delivered your first time around. But what your editor knew about you as a writer was that first clean manuscript. She'll have thought it was representative of your work.

Why are you surprised, then, that she didn't allocate the substantial amount of work time it would have taken for her to fix up your second and third manuscripts? Why didn't you turn them in early, given that you knew they were going to take extra work? Did you warn your editor in advance that they were going to be a mess? I'm betting you didn't tell her. You didn't even deliver the manuscripts until the deadline was hard upon you:The last draft I wrote of both, I didn't even have the time to read through it one more time before delivery, and I'm sure she didn't. I couldn't even bear to read it once published, I was so ashamed!
The word for today is "clarity."

An editor working on a reasonably clean text can see what's going on. They're free to address the complex, fine-gauge issues that can, as you put it, take the story to a whole new level. Which is all to the good. However, the amount of work it takes to edit a manuscript increases exponentially with its messiness. Just sorting out what the problems are can be a daunting task. Describing them, and recommending improvements, is easily as much work all over again.

Every editor I know has, at some point or another, had to quietly rewrite a troubled book they were supposedly just editing. Most often, it's because it was literally faster to rewrite the entire book themselves than explain to the author how the thing needed to be rewritten. A secondary reason is despair: they had ceased to believe that the author would be able to do the rewrite. Under those circumstances, elaborate editorial notes would be a waste of time.

You barely got the first draft written as it was. Your editor may not unreasonably have thought that your heart wasn't in the work. Did you tell her you'd be willing to engage with a heavy edit? Again, I'm betting you didn't. Why should she waste a very substantial amount of her time directing you in work she didn't think you would do?The third book had a lot of flab that needed cutting, but againwe were both rushed. Luckily, I suggested that it be cut between the hardback and paperback editions, and that's what we did. But I know more could have ben done.
It's clear who did a rush job, didn't edit enough, and could have done more: it was you.

The other bit of my post which you quoted in chopped-up form was my last paragraph. Here it is as I wrote it: Do editors edit? Some do, sure. Others do it less. Almost all editors do it situationally.
Ever paused to wonder why I know that? You're not obliged to think about the question, of course. Feel free to go on telling me what editors do. I promise I'll be impressed.

[Euan H.]

Yeah, Anne Rice made a big noise about not getting edited. Most likely that means she doesn't, but it's not a sure thing.
...
(Personally, I can easily believe Rice doesn't get edited. If she's willing to make that much of a flap about it, and if it doesn't make a huge difference in her sales, trying to edit her would be more trouble than it's worth.)

So...half wrong then, rather than just a 'you're wrong.'

Robert Jordan is where you seriously go astray. Robert Jordan -- that is, James Rigney -- is married to an accomplished and highly respected editor who has decades of hands-on experience in the industry. [QUOTE]
Yes, I know. However, marriage does not equal editing. Some might argue that the closeness of their relationship is possibly detrimental to objectivity.
[QUOTE] And when he and his wife are finished with the latest manuscript, it gets sent out to the best copyeditor in the genre, who gives it a thorough going-over.
I'm not commenting on the quality of the ms. in terms of spelling and typos and so on, I'm talking about the fact that the books in the WOT series (IMHO) are not as good as they used to be. And I think the principal reason for this is that Jordan is including everything up to and including the kitchen sink in his novels--which (IMHO) a editor who was being objective would have suggested that he remove. Brinkett's comment about moving the plot forward in a 500 page book hits the nail on the head. The reviews on Amazon for Crossroads of Twilight suggest that a lot of other people see things the way he and I do.

[HapiSofi]

Having been in and around publishing for the better part of a decade, I do find myself wondering about the skill level of people in the industry lately.It's just fine, thanks.

Copyediting's a touchy area; but then, it always is. Art and design are on the whole much better than they used to be. Printing is too, but binding systems are still debugging the new automated sensor and monitoring technologies. Typesetting has been making up the ground it lost when typesetters trained on specialized systems were supplanted by deskilled keyboardists. Accounting practices have not kept pace with the increasing sophistication of contracts, but one hopes they'll catch up soon. Warehousing and inventory are hugely improved. Distribution continues to be a turbulent area, as it has been for most of the past decade. And as for overall sales, more people are buying and reading more books per capita than there ever have been before.

Was there something more specific you wanted to know about? I'm a perfect example. My actual degree is in Fine Arts - Painting, with a minor in English.
What does being an English major have to do with it?Yet the level of editorial work I've been called on to do over the course of my career ranges from a little odd to downright ridiculous.
Could you be a little more specific about what you were doing?By now, it's probably all the same, given the professional experience, but if a relatively unqualified person like me has been asked to act as editor, how bad must it be for an actual professional?
My apologies for my confusion. Are you under the impression that there's some sort of educational background that qualifies one to work in publishing? At my most recent in-house publishing job, there was a certain admixture of English majors, but the people I worked with had also majored in music, mathematics, engineering, physics, chemistry, philosophy, history, interdisciplinary humanities studies, counseling, resort management, and fine arts. Several senior staff members had dropped out of college. One department head had dropped out of high school.

It's a lot like writing: credentials don't much matter. Being good at the work itself is what counts. Frankly, fewer books would be a great idea. Of course, that doesn't do my chances for publication any favors, but at least I'd have some decent books to read while I wait.
That's the problem, you know; writers all think the other writers should be the ones who quit.

You say you can't find any decent books to read? Now you're just being snotty. As I mentioned earlier, never before in human history have so many books been published on so many subjects, nor sold to such a broad audience. There's no keeping up with them, even if you just read the outstandingly good ones.

So...half wrong then, rather than just a 'you're wrong.'If the implicit question is "Do you have any idea what you're talking about," your answers don't get half points.

Robert Jordan is where you seriously go astray. Robert Jordan -- that is, James Rigney -- is married to an accomplished and highly respected editor who has decades of hands-on experience in the industry.
Yes, I know. However, marriage does not equal editing. Some might argue that the closeness of their relationship is possibly detrimental to objectivity.Nope. You're changing the terms of the argument. You started by suggesting that James Rigney's work isn't edited -- not that he has a less than ideal relationship with his wife and editor.

Incidentally? You don't know jack about their editorial relationship. Neither do you know anything about the more general subject of couples who work professionally in the industry and who edit each other's work. Excessive fondness and a tolerance for weakness is not a characteristic failing of those interactions.I'm not commenting on the quality of the ms. in terms of spelling and typos and so on, I'm talking about the fact that the books in the WOT series (IMHO) are not as good as they used to be.
No. What you said was that they weren't edited. You were wrong.And I think the principal reason for this is that Jordan is including everything up to and including the kitchen sink in his novels--which (IMHO) a editor who was being objective would have suggested that he remove.
I am of course fascinated by your opinions on this subject. Nevertheless, I must one last time repeat that this is not an extension of your original argument. It's an attempt to substitute a completely different argument, in order to obfuscate the fact that you made an assertion that was dead wrong.

Do you intend to keep on with this? Because your ego financial counselor would tell you this is not a good place to invest.

[brinkett]

Y'know, Brinkett, I could try to discuss patterns and trends in text quality with you -- tracking that is part of my job -- but I've been watching you on AW for a while now, and you have a real tendency to respond with bluffing and sneers whenever someone suggests that you don't know quite as much as you pretend.

I just state my opinion and speak from my own experience, like everyone else. I don't recall responding very often with bluffing and sneers. As far as this particular thread goes, I'm not pretending I know anything, just making an observation as a reader.


I'm sorry, but you're being unpleasant,

And you're not?

When I see someone address a point by attacking me, I can't help but think it's because they don't want to address the point for whatever reason. If you've got hard data about patterns and trends in text quality, why not put it on the table?

[Mistook]

I'm still miles away from queries, much less editors, but this whole thread really has me wondering.

My first novel has come along incredibly slowly. Part of that I attribute to the learning curve. When I started on it - I really had no idea what I was doing. I'm sure a second novel would come along faster - but maybe not fast enough to meet a deadline, and be in the same shape as the first will be.

Now, I have a second novel half started - though it sits on the back burner at the moment. Would it be a good idea to have that second novel finished, and in good shape before I even try to market the first?

My thinking is that if I keep one book ahead of deadline, I'd be able to match the polish that will be on this first manuscript by the time I start sending it around.

I'm also aware that the whole process of getting signed in the first place takes a long time, and I can use that to my advantage. Anyway, is it a good idea to have a backlog of finished material to work from - so that if lightning should finally strike... I'm not caught with my pants down?

[HapiSofi]

I'm still miles away from queries, much less editors, but this whole thread really has me wondering.

My first novel has come along incredibly slowly. Part of that I attribute to the learning curve. When I started on it - I really had no idea what I was doing. I'm sure a second novel would come along faster - but maybe not fast enough to meet a deadline, and be in the same shape as the first will be.The best statement I've ever heard on that subject was that what you learn while writing a book is how to write that book. By the time you're finished, you've mastered the art of writing that book. Then you start over from scratch with a different book.Now, I have a second novel half started - though it sits on the back burner at the moment. Would it be a good idea to have that second novel finished, and in good shape before I even try to market the first?
Not necessarily. The process can be maddeningly long and slow. Finish what you write, send out what you finish, and keep writing other stuff while you wait to hear about it.My thinking is that if I keep one book ahead of deadline, I'd be able to match the polish that will be on this first manuscript by the time I start sending it around.
It's certainly a good idea to leave yourself enough time to let a finished manuscript settle and ripen.I'm also aware that the whole process of getting signed in the first place takes a long time, and I can use that to my advantage. Anyway, is it a good idea to have a backlog of finished material to work from - so that if lightning should finally strike... I'm not caught with my pants down?
My only cavil is your apparent idea that you'll sell your works in the order in which they're written. Things are never that tidy. In general, though, you're quite right. When an editor hangs on to your book for months and months, but in the end regretfully decides it just doesn't work, and tells you that he or she will be interested in reading anything else you come up with, it's a fine piece of strategy to be able to immediately say you have another book, and send it along to that softened-up editor. It also keeps the rejection from hurting quite so much.

[Vomaxx]

The best statement I've ever heard on that subject was that what you learn while writing a book is how to write that book. By the time you're finished, you've mastered the art of writing that book. Then you start over from scratch with a different book.

I do not understand why this statement is so wise. Would you not say that, having written one book, a capable author has learned things about style, mechanics, pacing, etc. that will enable him to write the next book more easily and fluently?

[Euan H.]

Nope. You're changing the terms of the argument. You started by suggesting that James Rigney's work isn't edited -- not that he has a less than ideal relationship with his wife and editor.
No. What you said was that they weren't edited. You were wrong.
Well no, not really. My first post said that some authors refuse editing. I offered Rice and Jordan as examples to support that assertion. If Jordan does get edited (which if you say he does, I guess he does), then the argument still stands--and is a true statement, if what Anne Rice says about her own work is true.
Incidentally? You don't know jack about their editorial relationship.
You're right. I was speculating. That's why I used the word 'might'.
Neither do you know anything about the more general subject of couples who work professionally in the industry and who edit each other's work.
Also true. You're absolutely right.
No. What you said was that they weren't edited. You were wrong.
Well, let's change 'they' to 'Jordan', and then this is a fair statement, yes.
I am of course fascinated by your opinions on this subject.
I feel warm and fuzzy all over. :kiss:
Nevertheless, I must one last time repeat that this is not an extension of your original argument. It's an attempt to substitute a completely different argument, in order to obfuscate the fact that you made an assertion that was dead wrong.
Once again, the original post said "Or the author refused any editing. *Cough* Jordan, Rice *Cough*"

The assertion is that some authors refuse editing. I offered two examples in support of this assertion. One of those examples is not valid, which you very kindly pointed out, but the other one is--if we believe Rice's own words on the subject.

The statement 'Jordan does not get edited' being false does not mean that the statement 'Some authors refuse editing' is also false.

Because your ego financial counselor would tell you this is not a good place to invest.
If I'm wrong, go ahead and tell me. I'd rather be embarrased and correct than righteously angry and wrong.

[aruna]

Those are two separate bits from the beginning and end of my message.




It's true; I quoted you wrong; actualy, I meant to qoute only the first sentence and cut out ALL the rest but I missed that last bit; I would certeinly never have placed them together like that, I apologize.




That is to say, you'd already done most of the polishing on the manuscript. That was your editor's introduction to your work. She bought your book, rightly perceiving that the type and amount of editorial work it required would fit into her workload. That wasn't the case with the later books. Has it occurred to you that if she'd known how bad the second and third mss. would be, she'd never have bought the first?

Those were pre-set deadlines. The manuscripts you delivered in time for them were far less polished than the one you delivered your first time around. But what your editor knew about you as a writer was that first clean manuscript. She'll have thought it was representative of your work.

Well, of course they were far less polished! She wanted to see the first draft; surely any editor knows that a first draft is ALWAYS a mess, especially if you write without outlining, as I do. I warned her of this from the start. If she had waited until I had reached a third or fourth draft before I handed it in it would have been a different story. She'd haev received a much cleaner copy, could have made her suggestions, and that would have been it.

These are long books; she knows that. The publishers wanted a certain rythym: trade copy, mass paperback, every two yers a new book. The author becomes a book machine. A factory. Yes,that;s business, but it's not the way most authors write best. If editors want this then they have to accept that books will get worse.

Finally, only I knew the second book had not been edited properly. Many readers - some who I hold in high regard - say the second was better thanthe first. I don't agree; I do want each book to be better than the last, to grow as a writer, but the publisher wants more of the same. Publishers don't care of the author's growthand development; they just want books delivered on time. This is the reality and I'm now aware of it; but at the time of writing it was very upsetting. That's why I rebelled; I refused to write a fourth novel under the same conditions. No more first drafts. I now write in my own time, at my own pace,and guess what? It's a better book, and finished in half the time I took for the others!

Perhaps if editors would try to tune in a bit more to their authors, they'd get exactly what they want, and better, and quicker.







Why are you surprised, then, that she didn't allocate the substantial amount of work time it would have taken for her to fix up your second and third manuscripts? Why didn't you turn them in early, given that you knew they were going to take extra work? Did you warn your editor in advance that they were going to be a mess? I'm betting you didn't tell her. You didn't even deliver the manuscripts until the deadline was hard upon you:The last draft I wrote of both, I didn't even have the time to read through it one more time before delivery, and I'm sure she didn't. I couldn't even bear to read it once published, I was so ashamed!


The word for today is "clarity."






most of this is already answered. She got a VERY EARLY draft; as soon as I;d finished, in fact. She edited, gave it back to me, I corrected; and at THAT stage I didn't have the time to reread, nor she to re-correct. It was practically a second-draft novel. I think, taking that into consideration, it was pretty good.

An editor working on a reasonably clean text can see what's going on.

Thats exactly what i've been saying. Then let the writer write and correct her first draft, and hand in a later draft. This first draft business is far too interfering.
.

You barely got the first draft written as it was. Your editor may not unreasonably have thought that your heart wasn't in the work. Did you tell her you'd be willing to engage with a heavy edit? Again, I'm betting you didn't. Why should she waste a very substantial amount of her time directing you in work she didn't think you would do?

You're betting wrong. I don't like showing my first drafts, In fact, I intensely dislike it. She WANTED a first draft, so as to be able to direct from an early stage. If she'd allowed me to do things my way she'd have received a far cleaner, better book. But I'm repeating myself. You are assuming too much.



It's clear who did a rush job, didn't edit enough, and could have done more: it was you.

Really? I actually took my time, wanting to produce my best work. But a first draft is a first draft. If that's what you want that's what you get.

Anyway, I learned my lessons from all that. And that lesson is: no editor ever again gets to see a first draft of mine. No contracts until a book is quite finished. That's what I gained from this experience. So no, I'm not whining. I'm just saying this is what happened, this is what I learned.

[Sharon Mock]

Would you not say that, having written one book, a capable author has learned things about style, mechanics, pacing, etc. that will enable him to write the next book more easily and fluently?

I've written novels that have taught me lessons in how to write novels. Both of them ended up trunked.

The current WIP hasn't taught me a whole lot about novel-writing that I didn't already know (though it has pointed out certain weaknesses of mine and suggested ways of bolstering them in future work). I'm hoping that's a good sign.

[mistri]

Interesting thread.

I've edited books. I was merely an editorial assistant, but I edited books from start to finish.

Where possible, I would work with the authors from the synopsis onwards. This meant pointing out any potential pitfalls or plot holes, more than anything else. Sometimes, authors would deliver the first three chapters next - this was a useful way to see if the story had any problems with the beginning, whether it was headed in the right direction, and was a nice checking-in point, though not everyone did it (it depended on contracts and personal preference).

When it came to the full MS, I never wanted to see a first draft of anything, though I suppose a rushed author may have delivered one. I only wanted the best of the author's work - it's not the editor's job to change a MS from a first to a final draft. Rather, they polish and revise the final draft. I suppose some editors might ask for a first draft, but the only reason I can think for wanting to see it is as a progress check, really, or if things are running really late.

When the MS came in, it would be read with a view to whether it needed major changes (would have to go back to the author) or just a line-edit (and sometimes, a heavy line edit, if needed, though we were instructed not to change an author's style). Some authors could deliver very polished manuscripts. Others needed work, and if this happened, they were given the MS to revise. We'd never let a book with what we considered to be major problems get published without changes.

Admittedly, if deadlines were tight, they weren't always given long to do revise. And on some imprints, it was easier to allow time for revision and heavy editing than others. The point is, I guess, is that we did our best, but if an author delivered a manuscript that wasn't up to scratch, with little time to turn it around (because it's late), there wasn't much we could do, unless we could find a way to move it around in the schedule. The best way to get a good book on a bookshelf is for authors to deliver the best book they can, preferably in good time, and for editors to dedicate a good amount of time to reading it. If the book is bad, or late, or both, it will obviously be harder for the editor to deliver at their end.

All this was at Harlequin, a company probably not renowned for its editing. If I did all this, surely most editors elsewhere will do the same?

With the big authors, where a publishing schedule may be built around them, I guess that it will be harder for structural edits to happen. That being said, the editor is not the person fully responsible for what goes on the shelf. The author is the person with the most responsibility, and they have to do their best, too.

[aruna]

The author is the person with the most responsibility, and they have to do their best, too.

I agree with you wholeheartedly; but the publisher has the reponsibility to give that author space according to his/her needs. It seems we always return to the question of TIME. An author needs time to produce his or her best work, and every author's time needs are different. Some can speed through a first draft without an outline and never lookingup; some take time outlining, work slowly, and produce a neater first draft. There is no correct way, and the last thing we need is to be turned into machines that have to fit a publisher's time schedule.

I can only speak for myself; I did my best in the time allotted me, and after that it was just rush rush rush. Yes, I did need more time; and so did the editor. The whole business needs to take a deep breath and relax. Maybe some Yoga.

[mistri]

That's true, I agree with you, too :)

It seems that one big problem lies in allocating this time in the first place. At Harlequin M&B, we sometimes got around this by giving a few authors no deadline at all (this happened very, very, rarely) - because they couldn't work with one hanging over them, no matter how distant it was. Authors were generally given deadlines that were agreed with both parties. Nevertheless, deadlines were sometimes missed anyway.

[StoryG27]

To quote Jenny Crusie (RWR 8-05)
"They (eidtors) work impossible hours, often for impossible people, trying to achieve impossible outcomes, most of them for impossibly inadequate wages. Nobody in her right mind ever became an editor. Which I think explains a lot.";)

Just like agents, authors, and publishers...with editors there's the good and bad. But they are undeniably overworked.

[pconsidine]

Hapi,

I'm curious as to what about the topic has stuck the burr under your saddle, but since we're doing point-by-point debates now, it's my turn:

What does being an English major have to do with it?

It means that there was a time when working in publishing was strongly reliant on having a degree in English or a similar area that would indicate a deep familiarity with the written word. At such a time, I, with my little BFA, would never have been allowed to do anything editorial, much less asked to do it.


Could you be a little more specific about what you were doing?

Be glad to. While my jobs have always been in the design and production areas, I have at times been asked to be copy editor and proofreader, as well as having had to completely rewrite pieces from scratch.


Are you under the impression that there's some sort of educational background that qualifies one to work in publishing?

Are you under the impression that there isn't? I agree that publishing can be very responsive to talent when it arises, regardless of the background of the individual, but to imply that someone who has a degree in English is not better prepared to work in the industry seems a little disingenous to me.


That's the problem, you know; writers all think the other writers should be the ones who quit.

I didn't at all imply that anyone should stop writing. All I said was that if fewer books are being published, my chances of being one of those few would be smaller than they are now.


You say you can't find any decent books to read? Now you're just being snotty.

Hardly. I suppose you could take it that way, though. Didn't mean to cause confusion. But, even if you want to call it snotty, the fact is I don't like very much of the fiction that's being published today - as is my right.

I imagine you'll cool off at some point and perhaps the rest of us can continue this thread in its previous pleasant, though snarky, fashion.

[Roger J Carlson]

A couple of observations:

My brother is the editor of a newspaper. Once when I was in his office, I complained about the copyediting of the paper, claiming I could do better. He handed me a tear sheet and said, "Proof this. You have 10 minutes." I took his point. Granted, a newspaper is not a publishing house, but parallels remain.

I've also recently read two books by a well-known author that I thought needed a lot of editorial help. They were too wordy. Too much talk and not enough momentum. It also occurred to me that perhaps because he was so well known that 1) he refused editorial help, 2) the publisher decided that he was such a money make that they let it slide, or 3) a young editor was intimidated by a famous author. (Of course, these are all speculation!)

But despite that, I'd put the onus squarely on the author. He is ultimately responsible for the quality of the book. Perhaps the earlier works had more editorial help. Did the editor receive the praise? No, the author did. That being the case, the author should also accept the responsibility when the quality of his work suffers, regardless of the reason.

[MacAllister]

Roger, how very adult and reasonable of you. :)

You also make a good point--albeit in sort of a sideways manner: I've also recently read two books by a well-known author that I thought needed a lot of editorial help. They were too wordy. Too much talk and not enough momentum. You bought the books, though--(at least presumably, cuz you're such a boy scout you'd hardly seem the klepto-type :) )

It always sort of depresses and mystifies me when I hear the whole "publishing is a business, and it's all about money" thing, so often thrown up as a reason for some failing or another.

Sure, it's a business. But it's also a business where the people on the production end are hardly getting rich--most authors included.

If the authors, agents, editors, etc. aren't doing it for the vast riches, then why do they do it? I suspect because they love books. That's certainly why I write. I also suspect it's why the authors of those two books you were less-than-crazy-about write. Even if they're rich and famous now, they weren't when they first started. They were shopping around an unpublished ms they loved and believed in.

I just had an interesting conversation with a close friend, about a well-known book I adored but my friend just loathed. Turns out, the things I adored about the book are the same things she loathed. Those specific issues were mostly the sorts of things Roger just mentioned--what my friend thought was wordy, I thought was lyrical detail, and so on.

Go figure.

So which of us was the editor supposed to cater to?

[scribbler1382]

But despite that, I'd put the onus squarely on the author. He is ultimately responsible for the quality of the book. Perhaps the earlier works had more editorial help. Did the editor receive the praise? No, the author did. That being the case, the author should also accept the responsibility when the quality of his work suffers, regardless of the reason.

While I agree that the author needs to do everything and anything they can to improve the quality of their work, let's not forget that while the publisher didn't receive the praise, they did receive most of the money. Editors are paid to do a job, just like authors are. If an author didn't do the job they were paid to do, how understanding would the public or the publisher be? "Yeah, I was going to write an ending, but I didn't have time. Where's my check?"

(I'm talking about individual editors, not the editing profession as a whole.)

[ChunkyC]

I write a weekly movie review column. A couple of weeks ago, I reviewed a film and included an op-ed style paragraph castigating the rating given the movie.

I goofed. Two versions of the film had been released and I had not double-checked the rating on the version I saw, I only jumped online as I was writing it to see what its rating was, and got the wrong one. The real rating was perfect for the version I saw.

My editor pointed this out to me the day the paper was going to print, and said he had tweaked the column accordingly. When I saw the result, I was annoyed at how clumsy the paragraph was after his tinkering. Yet there is no way I can blame him. He had a deadline to meet, and didn't have time to polish the prose, only fix my glaring error to keep me from looking like a moron.

My point is, unless we are part of the process, there's no way we can know exactly why some things end up as they do in a finished product.

[Torgo]

Jesus, you spend years holding authors' hands and telling them how great they are and quietly rewriting the bits where they've written complete rubbish and pulling their asses out of the fire and persuading people to sell their books and buy their books and worrying about how exactly to word things without hurting their feelings and reading manuscripts and arguing with sales people and giving free advice to people out of the slush pile and writing the entire text of books that other people will take the credit and royalties for AND PEOPLE STILL COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW MUCH WORK YOU DO.

If everyone wants beautiful prose and profound storytelling and unforgettable living breathing characters, could you please restrain yourself from going out and buying the fecking Da Vinci Code? Or at least don't complain about the fact that this horrendous novel failed to get the editing that would have removed its many, many egregious flaws. It might have been ten times worse in the first draft; it might have been exactly the same, but hey, people bought it anyway, didn't they? Whose fault is that?

[Roger J Carlson]

Here's the last paragraph of the article:
Perkins warned editors against delusions of grandeur. "Don't ever get to feeling important about yourself ... an editor can get only as much out of an author as the author has in him." He's right. When a book appears, the author must take the credit. But if editing disappears, as it seems to be doing, there'll be no books worth taking the credit for. (emphasis added)I think the last line is hogwash.

It's important to remember that editorial intervention in content is a product of the 20th century largely due to Perkins example. Prior to that, editing consisted mostly of copy-editing. Yet for all of that, many, many great classics were produced, and they will be again, even if "editing disappears."

[brinkett]

and writing the entire text of books that other people will take the credit and royalties for

Why do this (seriously)? Why not buy a manuscript you don't have to rewrite rather than rewriting one that's complete crap?


If everyone wants beautiful prose and profound storytelling and unforgettable living breathing characters, could you please restrain yourself from going out and buying the fecking Da Vinci Code?
I didn't buy the Da Vinci Code. :tongue

I'm not looking for all of the above, and I certainly recognize that there are books I don't like or think are crap for purely subjective reasons. I can objectively see that that the writing/characters/story are okay. No, the two books I referred to earlier are badly written by any standard (okay, a five year old might not think so).

I'm not saying editors should do more work. I think some books get less editing than they require (or no editing at all), but I'm not blaming editors for that, nor do I think many in the thread are. We all recognize that editors' plates are already full. As a consumer of books, I have the expectation that publishers are screening for quality (which is why I buy the vast majority of my books from commercial publishers), and when I shell out money and find that's not the case, I'm disappointed.

[Torgo]

I've written spin off books for Famous Authors - because the demand is there but F.A. doesn't have the time or inclination to write them. Rewriting is another matter. There, it's easier and better IMHO to break the contract.

I'm sorry to say that as a consumer you will occasionally be disappointed by a sub-standard product. Now and again you will find a book that has been badly or insufficiently edited. However, the thesis of the Guardian's article - that editing doesn't go on any more - is, in mine and my friends' and acquaintances' experience, nonsense. Absolute cobblers.

[icerose]

Wow, lots of opinions. I haven't really seen a decline in editing myself other than the books where the authors refused any help. I'm just looking forward to someday being in this process.

So it seems there are a few editors here, question for you. Once a book has been taken into contract is it a good idea or bad idea for the author to enlist outside help from other professional editors to help them in their part of bringing their book up to par???

I have heard conflicting reports, most from authors who haven't been published, so just wondering, do you prefer the author to stick only with you and not get any kind of outside help because it might alter their voice, or do you prefer the better edited??

Thanks.

Sara

[pconsidine]

Why do this (seriously)? Why not buy a manuscript you don't have to rewrite rather than rewriting one that's complete crap?

Because sometimes, a story's concept is absolutely amazing, but it far outreaches the author's execution (something like how Hollywood buys scripts). Not to say that's often the case, but it's a reason to do it.

The Devil's Advocate, Esq.

[Torgo]

Icerose: once you've got an editor, please don't pay a freelancer to edit your book as well. This may well make your editor chew their arm off in frustration. If you are unhappy with the level of editing you are receiving, you need to talk to them about it and explain what's going on.

A book needs at most one editor, one copy-editor and one proofreader, and no more, or it becomes confusing and awkward to work on.

[brinkett]

I've written spin off books for Famous Authors - because the demand is there but F.A. doesn't have the time or inclination to write them.

I'd be inclined to tell F.A. to F.O., but I guess you can't do that when a job is on the line.


I'm sorry to say that as a consumer you will occasionally be disappointed by a sub-standard product.

I know, and just like when I buy anything that's sub-standard, I'll complain. I guess the difference is that here, the people in the industry that produced the sub-standard product hear me complain and take it personally. They shouldn't. If you're good at what you do, any complaining isn't directed at (the generic) you.


Now and again you will find a book that has been badly or insufficiently edited.

Torgo, stop being so reasonable. I'm not used to it!


Because sometimes, a story's concept is absolutely amazing, but it far outreaches the author's execution (something like how Hollywood buys scripts). Not to say that's often the case, but it's a reason to do it.

Dunno. Find it hard to believe that a story concept would be that amazing that a publisher is willing to rewrite an entire novel, especially with all the available manuscripts these days.

[icerose]

Oh Okay. :D That answers my question. I just didn't know. I haven't been there with a real publisher (After Publish America I will probably think any editor I get is a god!) so I was just curious. As the complaints on the board seems to stem from lack of editing, then I just didn't know what to expect.

Thanks Torgo.

P.S. To all those who think mainstream editing is bad, just buy a PA book. You will never be the same. :P

[Torgo]

[QUOTE]I guess the difference is that here, the people in the industry that produced the sub-standard product hear me complain and take it personally.[QUOTE]

Yeah, I had a long day at the coal-face today. What actually ticks me off is that the editor gets blamed for all sorts of mutually exclusive things, like editing too much, editing too little, setting the bar for quality too high or too low when reading submissions... a lot of the time it feels like what we're here for is to be professional scapegoats (and here let's plug Daniel Pennac's excellent novel "Write to Kill", on just that theme.)

[James D. Macdonald]

It's demonstrably true that publishers do, on occassion, re-write entire books.

I think that part of why it seems that books are getting worse is that we've been reading for a long time. A book that would have seemed fresh and new had we come on it when we were young now seems like trite hackwork.

That same book is, right now, seeming fresh and new to a brand-new reader who's never seen seen some particular stylistic trick before, hasn't run into the same plot a dozen times before, hasn't grown old and tired in the book wars.

[pconsidine]

Dunno. Find it hard to believe that a story concept would be that amazing that a publisher is willing to rewrite an entire novel, especially with all the available manuscripts these days.

It's part of the blockbuster mentality. There are some concepts that you can look at and say, "Man, we could sell a TON of these!" I kinda think The DaVinci Code is such a concept.

Considering all the negative press around the Catholic Church recently, a novel whose primary storyline paints the Catholic Church as the villain in a 2000-year-old conspiracy would be just too good for any publisher to pass up. Especially since so much of that negative press stemmed from cover-ups and secret keeping - just like in the book. It just tapped the zeitgeist. And that's what any medium - be it film, print or music - is always looking for.

[James D. Macdonald]

While I have no specific knowledge, I'd guess that what got Hapi's knickers in a twist was just getting off the phone with an author who was either screaming or sobbing.

[pconsidine]

I imagine you're right, JD. It's not as if anyone in the process is immune from being a psycho now and then - authors, editors, and everyone else. I've certainly had my moments, that's for sure.

[mistri]

It's demonstrably true that publishers do, on occassion, re-write entire books.



I've certainly had to do a heavy line-edit on a romance author who used ellipses several times in every sentence, said the heroine's nipples 'unfurled' and whose heroes could be a little (a lot!) too violent at times.

Some would ask why we published her at all, but despite the rough prose, the story shone through, and the readers liked her (and the sales figures proved it). Revisions went back to her where possible, but some of it just had to be done in a line edit.

[scribbler1382]

the heroine's nipples 'unfurled'

:ROFL:

Oh man, that milk sure burns the sinuses. <mopping up>

[James D. Macdonald]

...the heroine's nipples 'unfurled'...Man, I hate when that happens....

[mistri]

Man, I hate when that happens....

You're not the only one... :cry:

:)

[ChunkyC]

the heroine's nipples 'unfurled'
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/Emoterofl5.gif Chunky heads to the computer room to look for the spare monitor....

[Birol]

:ROFL:

Oh, my.

CC, can you look for a new laptop while you're back there, too?

[aadams73]

Jeezus! If my nipples ever "unfurl", I'm running straight to a plastic surgeon.

[reph]

Jeezus! If my nipples ever "unfurl", I'm running straight to a plastic surgeon.
If you plan to run in that condition, I hope you'll have a really good bra on.

[mistri]

The unfurling might've worked if it was a science-fiction romance. Sadly, it wasn't...

[HapiSofi]

Jesus, you spend years holding authors' hands and telling them how great they are and quietly rewriting the bits where they've written complete rubbish and pulling their asses out of the fire and persuading people to sell their books and buy their books and worrying about how exactly to word things without hurting their feelings and reading manuscripts and arguing with sales people and giving free advice to people out of the slush pile and writing the entire text of books that other people will take the credit and royalties for AND PEOPLE STILL COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW MUCH WORK YOU DO. I have somewhere the collected sentences typed back and forth in Instant Message by two editors swapping Things Editors Think But Never Say. I only remember a few: "You only had one good book in you, and you sold it to another house."
"You're a midlist author. YES, YOU ARE. Get used to it."
"You don't sell nearly well enough to get away with behaving this badly."
"Better writers than you are out of print."
"I didn't buy you. I was assigned you. And I'm not your friend."
"Stop whining about your advances when you're making six times as much as I do."
"If you're like this now, what are you going to be like once you start selling?"
If everyone wants beautiful prose and profound storytelling and unforgettable living breathing characters, could you please restrain yourself from going out and buying the fecking Da Vinci Code? Or at least don't complain about the fact that this horrendous novel failed to get the editing that would have removed its many, many egregious flaws. It might have been ten times worse in the first draft; it might have been exactly the same, but hey, people bought it anyway, didn't they? Whose fault is that?I think I'm temporarily in love with you. Don't worry; just one of those things. Anyway, I forwarded that message of yours to another editor. He or she said it was the greatest statement about the industry since "The Book of My Enemy Has Been Remaindered" and The Unstrung Harp.

[icerose]

I have somewhere the collected sentences typed back and forth in Instant Message by two editors swapping Things Editors Think But Never Say. I only remember a few:"You only had one good book in you, and you sold it to another house."

"You're a midlist author. YES, YOU ARE. Get used to it."
"You don't sell nearly well enough to get away with behaving this badly."
"Better writers than you are out of print."
"I didn't buy you. I was assigned you. And I'm not your friend."
"Stop whining about your advances when you're making six times as much as I do."
"If you're like this now, what are you going to be like once you start selling?"

:roll: :roll: :roll:

(Although I really hope no editor thinks this about me when I get there!)

[HapiSofi]

Brinkett, the day you say something I take personally, I'll congratulate you on the improvement in your writing.

[AncientEagle]

the heroine's nipples 'unfurled'

I hear it's terribly painful when they furl again.

[James D. Macdonald]

Better than going *spung!* I suppose.

[DaveKuzminski]

Sheesh, that sounded more like a line from Blazing Saddles.


"All right, stand back while I unfurl this thing."
Ziiiiipppp!
"Oh, it's twue, it's twue, it's weally twue!"

;)

[aruna]

the heroine's nipples 'unfurled'

Why don't mine do that!!! Sounds amazing!

[aruna]

I have heard conflicting reports, most from authors who haven't been published, so just wondering, do you prefer the author to stick only with you and not get any kind of outside help because it might alter their voice, or do you prefer the better edited??

Sara

Definitely not, and it's an author saying this, not an editor!
This seems an explosive topic and there's no black and white, and no perfect solution. I personally see author and editor as in a kind of marriage and ideally they should work together to perfect that product, the book, and when this happens its beautiful. I'm sure this too is what editors want, and it must be awful to have the contraints of time, plus the nagging people from sales and marketing who insist on "making it more commercial" (as if anyone knows what that is!) in the background. I appreciate that there are authors out there with more ego than talent, and who expect their editors to nurse and bolster that ego; which, I believe should NOT be the editor's role, and when it is, then the book goes downhill fast.

[Torgo]

On sales and marketing: they tend not to be involved in the editing process. There are two moments when the 'c' word gets mentioned. The first is when the book is acquired. It's obviously important for a publisher to be able to sell a book, so if the sales dept. feels they aren't going to be able to shift more than a few hundred copies, they have to speak up then. Sometimes Editorial and Sales will disagree over the marketability of a book, but Sales are experts - they sell books all day, every day. There are books that are 'uncommercial' and Sales do have a pretty good idea which ones they are.

The other moment is when you have to decide on a cover design. Sales feedback is often highly important there. You can see it most clearly between hardback and paperback editions of a book. The hardback might not have made a big splash and the reps might have come back saying the buyers didn't like the cover. That's an opportunity to change the design and get a more commercial look going. I believe that's close to what happened with Louis de Bernieres some years back - his books weren't big sellers, but then they hit on an incredibly commercial look for Captain Corelli, and his books took off.

It's easy to disparage the people in Sales (hell, I blame them for stuff when I'm talking to authors all the time.) But they do work incredibly hard on behalf of authors, and they deserve respect for their expertise and judgement.

[aruna]

It's easy to disparage the people in Sales (hell, I blame them for stuff when I'm talking to authors all the time.) But they do work incredibly hard on behalf of authors, and they deserve respect for their expertise and judgement.

But in the mad rush to promote what they see as big sellers and to meet mass reader expectation I can't help feeling that quality is paying a heavy price. It's true that readers don't care much about the writing when the stpry is good; and for that reason it seems to me quality is suffering, as well as depth. Maybe I'm harder to please than I used to be but these days I am so often disappointed by books that become big sellers - ie meeting the mass public taste, and so set an example for books to come. So many of them seem shallow... and shallowness seems to be taking over. I guess I am WAY out of the mainstream. As far as my own books are concerned I am terribly disappointed in "sales".

[Torgo]

Well, don't buy mass market novels, if you don't like mass market taste. Publishers certainly have to cater to people who want Dan Brown or Patricia Cornwell-style tripe. They're subsidising the rest of the list. If you don't like those kind of books, there's plenty of more highbrow stuff around.

You may well be disappointed in the sales performance of your own books. At a guess, they didn't get an advertising campaign. This is perfectly normal. Most books don't get any sort of advertising, beyond some proofs toted round by sales reps, to get them on to the shelves. It is, of course, the big commercial mass market titles that get the big marketing spend.

It was ever thus. You can't afford to promote more than a couple of really big titles every year; marketing is highly expensive. And even with a big push, sometimes you don't get a blockbuster.

It's a tough old market out there, and it's made harder for midlist authors by the way books are sold, with increasing discounts and diminishing profit margins for publishers. If anything is squeezing authors it's the book trade rather than the publishing industry.

[aruna]

It's a tough old market out there, and it's made harder for midlist authors by the way books are sold, with increasing discounts and diminishing profit margins for publishers. If anything is squeezing authors it's the book trade rather than the publishing industry.

Yes, I agree; it seems to be getting tougher by the day. What to do?:Shrug:
I tend to borrow books from the library now more than buy them as my taste has grown very peculiar and I am getting harder than ever to please. Maybe it's just me getting older and more cynical... however, I feel the need to keep abreast of what people are talking about so i force myself to read some bestsellers that aren't to my taste, such as DVC.

[brinkett]

I think that part of why it seems that books are getting worse is that we've been reading for a long time. A book that would have seemed fresh and new had we come on it when we were young now seems like trite hackwork.

Good point. I know it's one reason I read less fantasy than I used to.


It's a tough old market out there, and it's made harder for midlist authors by the way books are sold, with increasing discounts and diminishing profit margins for publishers. If anything is squeezing authors it's the book trade rather than the publishing industry.

Torgo, do you think this will ever change? I was blown away when I first heard about returns and the amount of discounting that goes on. I'm amazed any publisher can make money.

[Torgo]

Certainly there's little money around for salaries, he grumbled, as a chilly breeze whistled through the holes in his sneakers.

Bookshops are, increasingly, big chain operations. The bigger they get, the more muscle they have as far as discounts are concerned. It's rather like what goes on with supermarkets and farmers, in a way (ha! where does that leave the authors...?)

I can't really see how we get the upper hand. I suppose if you've got Harry Potter you have the booksellers over a barrel (I wonder what their discounts are like?) We just have to keep adapting to the changes in the market and competing hard against rival publishers.

Returns are an amazing anomaly in this industry, but I suppose it means booksellers can afford to take a punt on things more cheaply than they otherwise might.

[James D. Macdonald]

If returns went away the words "proven sellers only" would take on new meaning.

Meanwhile -- for a real thrill find the best seller lists from the 1920s or '30s. Find those books (if you can!) and read 'em. I think you'll find that the public's taste hasn't improved (or diminished) all that much, nor has the quality of writing and editing varied noticeably.

[clearrr]

Still laughing over that one!:ROFL:

[Torgo]

30's bestsellers - yep, done that. I quite agree.

[brinkett]

It's rather like what goes on with supermarkets and farmers, in a way (ha! where does that leave the authors...?)

I was surprised when I learned how little an author actually makes on the sale of each copy of a book. I think the reading public at large would be surprised too. Then again, I wasn't aware of how much of a collaborative effort producing a book is, but it seems to me that the lion's share of the money doesn't go to any of the people involved in producing the book, but to distributers and the like.


Returns are an amazing anomaly in this industry, but I suppose it means booksellers can afford to take a punt on things more cheaply than they otherwise might.
But no other industry has that luxury. Since a bookseller can return a book with no impact to its bottom line, books aren't given a chance to build word of mouth before they're pulled from the shelves.


I think you'll find that the public's taste hasn't improved (or diminished) all that much, nor has the quality of writing and editing varied noticeably.

I have noticed more typos slipping through--I can remember when books never contained typos, or maybe I had the good fortune of reading only well edited books. My main beef with the two books I've referred to is that I'm surprised they were published at all. Most of the stuff in SYW is better.

I found a 1930's bestseller list here:

http://paperbarn.www1.50megs.com/BestSellers/1930s.htm

I've read a few. Unfortunately, I don't remember all that much about the writing itself which probably means I didn't think it was terrible. Didn't enjoy any I was forced to read for English classes. Which ones would show that books could be just as bad back then as they can be now, strictly in terms of the quality of the writing? I'll try to snag a couple.

[Torgo]

Actually, books do stick around on the shelves for quite some time before they get returned.

[icerose]

Definitely not, and it's an author saying this, not an editor!
This seems an explosive topic and there's no black and white, and no perfect solution. I personally see author and editor as in a kind of marriage and ideally they should work together to perfect that product, the book, and when this happens its beautiful. I'm sure this too is what editors want, and it must be awful to have the contraints of time, plus the nagging people from sales and marketing who insist on "making it more commercial" (as if anyone knows what that is!) in the background. I appreciate that there are authors out there with more ego than talent, and who expect their editors to nurse and bolster that ego; which, I believe should NOT be the editor's role, and when it is, then the book goes downhill fast.

I always felt that way too. I definately do not want an editor to nurse my ego, I want them to tear apart my work so it is the best it an be. But a group of authors (of course considering the source...) anyway then they said your book should be professionally edited outside the publisher's editor that has been assigned to you. So I figured while all these editors are here talking about editing might as well ask the ones who would know.

I was very disappointed with Publish America, I always had this picture in my head of working with an editor for quite some time, fine tuning the book, both having manuscript in hand talking about the book and areas that work and areas that don't, I have heard that some editors even work face to face with some of their authors and such. (Of course I might still be dreaming! I know editors are very busy.) But I really did have this picture and hope someday I can come somewhere close this kind of atmosphere and connection to bring my books to a higher polish. Rather than a 3 week rush of their end being a spell checker. Ah learn and live right?

[aruna]

Yesterday in out local Poundland (where everything costs a pound - you have the equivalent in the US) I was surprised to see several novels by popular authors. I wonder what is going on? And an old English pal mailed me yesterday to say that he found my first novel heavily discounted in a shop, and he asked if it was out of print. No, it isn't, at least not the mass market edition. Can anyone explain what may have happened?

[James D. Macdonald]

When you're reading the best sellers from the Thirties, don't stick to the ones that have stood the test of time -- Of Mice and Men and Goodbye, Mr. Chips -- read them all.

Another experiment for anyone interested: Go to your local big-box bookstore. Pick a ten-foot shelf at random. Check the copyright dates on every book on that shelf. See what percentage have been out for more than five weeks.

Most of them, right?

[Torgo]

Aruna - this happens. If the publisher isn't shifting copies of the book, they may have a lot of them in the warehouse, for which they have to pay warehousing fees. It may well be a better deal for them to sell off their stock to remainder bookshops at high discount (say, 90%) than to keep storing a slow seller. Then they wait until they have enough dues (that is, orders from bookshops) built up to justify a reprint.

A book that is out of stock is not necessarily out of print. OP means that reprinting will not be considered by the publishers, and the book will languish until they decide to reissue the book or revert the publishing rights to the author.

[brinkett]

When you're reading the best sellers from the Thirties, don't stick to the ones that have stood the test of time -- Of Mice and Men and Goodbye, Mr. Chips -- read them all.

Ack. Who has time to read them all? If you've read them all, which ones were stinkers?


Another experiment for anyone interested: Go to your local big-box bookstore. Pick a ten-foot shelf at random. Check the copyright dates on every book on that shelf. See what percentage have been out for more than five weeks.

Most of them, right?
Which could imply that a number of new books aren't staying on the shelves very long, given the number of books being published each year.

[Jaycinth]

I read. I live for the written word! But although I know that authors, publishers, editors, etc don't get paid unless I buy the book, I can't afford to buy every book I want as soon as it comes out. (That would be (at two books a week) Thousands of dollars.) So I buy a few new every year, trying to rotate among my favorite authors. Then I shop the discount bookstores and the discount racks at the big box stores. ( I assume that someone gets something for those, maybe not a huge percentage, but at least a book is added to the number sold). Finally, since I need to stay on top of the game, when a friend or acquaintance or a writing 'buddy' suggests something that is outside of my genre that I absolutely MUST read, I check those and the current best sellers from the library. And if something really grabs me then I will go out and buy it to add to my library. ( I am sorry, but I am not impressed with Dan Brown)
Bookstore or lunch, bookstore or lunch? I've skipped lunches because the bookstore beckoned and I came running. (Listen, it is calling even now!)

[Torgo]

Yeah, I actually buy about 90% of my books second-hand (usually from Abebooks or the like.) There are only three or four writers whose books I rush out to buy new. So, I suppose I'm starving those poor guys whose stuff I'm picking up in dusty boxes on Charing Cross Road. (Mind you most of them are looking pretty, er, bony as it is.)

Actually, there was a bit of research recently to suggest that second hand book sales do not cannibalise new book sales, so maybe we're all OK with that. That was looking at Amazon's system.

[pconsidine]

I hear ya, Jac. I've been fortunate to have a relatively steady supply of free books for a long time (one of the few perks of working in publishing). My wife used to work for Sky & Telescope and their editor in charge of book reviews would pass on all the books they receive for review that don't fit their criteria. They're an astronomy magazine, but people send them large numbers of physics- and biology-related books to review (a pretty basic marketing mistake, if you ask me). But lucky for me, since I like to read physics-related nonfiction.

One time, I had a gift certificate to a book store and thought to go and buy a new geek book, since my wife left that job and my supply sorta dried up. Turns out, even the cheapest book that interested me was far more than my gift certificate would allow. Looking back, I can't imagine how much it would have cost me to buy all those books I read for free.

[Carole]

I tend to borrow books from the library now more than buy them as my taste has grown very peculiar and I am getting harder than ever to please. Maybe it's just me getting older and more cynical...

I am floating in the same boat, I think. I used to have a difficult time deciding which book or books I would be walking out of Barnes & Noble with, and now it's all I can do to find something that interests me.

[HapiSofi]

Out of stock vs. out of print:

Sometimes it can be useful to let a book go out of stock and let the back orders pile up for a little while, then reprint at just the right moment to prompt a wave of backed-up sales for that title that will appear in the chains' and distributors' computers just as they're calculating their orders for that author's next book.

Re used books:

The largest single factor that causes people to buy a book is that they're read and enjoyed another book by that same author. That reaction can be triggered by reading a secondhand copy just as well as by reading a new one.

Generally speaking, though, a person who'll buy a secondhand book online would buy it retail and in person if they could. If they can't, the publisher isn't losing a sale.

Why your publisher wants the new book so soon:

Sales. If you wait too long between titles, the reading public forgets who you are, and you lose all those sales to people who read and enjoyed your previous books. Also, it's advantageous to bring out the new hardcover at the same time the trade paper or mass market edition of the previous title is coming out.

If you stop thinking like a writer, and instead remember what it's like to be a reader standing in front of a massive wire-rack display of hundreds of different paperbacks, a lot of these issues will instantly become clearer.

[Lenora Rose]

I have to say, this is a fascinating topic, little flare-ups and all... But I'm noticing here that some people seem lost at the difference between editing, copy-editing, and proofreading. Copy-editing, for instance, was dismissed at least once as "The mistakes I found weren't just a few typos and misspellings..." or words to that effect, which, as I understand it, is proofreading.

And I know Teresa Nielsen Hayden has commented that

Well, next time someone's harrumphing about how They Just Don't Edit Books These Days -- typos, bad grammar, inconsistencies, factual errors, oh the shame of it all -- you can one up them by saying, 'Ah. You don't so much mean the decline of editing per se, as the disappearance of the in house copyediting department.'
(Making Book page 115, Introduction to On Copyediting)


I think I'm clear on the definitions, but, anyone actually in the industry care to comment one way or the other on these three jobs to make sure of it?

[Torgo]

Proofreading - catching the spelling, punctuation and typesetting errors.
Copyediting - catching bad grammar, inconsistencies, usage and factual errors.
Editing - trying to make the book work better at an artistic or practical level.

[HapiSofi]

I can't argue with TNH's take on copyediting.

[reph]

Proofreading - catching the spelling, punctuation and typesetting errors.
Copyediting - catching bad grammar, inconsistencies, usage and factual errors.
Editing - trying to make the book work better at an artistic or practical level.
Yes, in the real world, but in theory proofreaders wouldn't find spelling and punctuation errors, because copy editors would have caught them all.

Occasionally copy editing includes making suggestions in the artistic/practical area, too.

There's also a distinction between acquisitions editing and developmental editing. Some accounts on this thread, however, imply that the authors posting worked with editors who combined those functions and copy-edited as well. Maybe those are all one job in England? At small presses? For novels?

[HapiSofi]

Yes, in the real world, but in theory proofreaders wouldn't find spelling and punctuation errors, because copy editors would have caught them all.

Occasionally copy editing includes making suggestions in the artistic/practical area, too.Ain't that the truth. I've seen sluggers catch major problems. Not that that necessarily means the editor, copyeditor, and proofreader were lax; sometimes, when a book has problems in depth, it takes successive rounds of cleanup to make them all visible. There's also a distinction between acquisitions editing and developmental editing.
Well, sorta. There are some high-end rainmakers whose job it is to pull in big-ticket books, which are then edited by less glamorous editorial staff. That's not the commonest arrangement, though. In my experience, it's more usual for the editor who acquired the book to be the one who works with the author. They may or may not do heavy line editing, but if someone else does that, the main editor keeps an eye on the process.

This is all before the ownership of the manuscript passes into production's hands. A line edit can enjoy a degree of latitude not granted to production freelancers, but it's no substitute for a proper copyedit.

Note: I have suspected that the overemphatic distinction between acquiring and developmental editors owes something to certain varieties of literary scam.Some accounts on this thread, however, imply that the authors posting worked with editors who combined those functions and copy-edited as well. Maybe those are all one job in England? At small presses? For novels?
Copyediting and editing proper don't mix. The tasks look like they should be more similar than they are, but they require very different mindsets, and they can't be combined in a single pass.

[aruna]

There's also a distinction between acquisitions editing and developmental editing. Some accounts on this thread, however, imply that the authors posting worked with editors who combined those functions and copy-edited as well. Maybe those are all one job in England? At small presses? For novels?

No, at least not in my case. The copy-editor came later and did the fine-tuning.

[aruna]

I also get the distinct feeling that established, recognised literary authors as well as commercial ones get slipshod with their work after a few books - perhaps complacent, as they already have a name. I just read a book by a literary author whose first book I loved - she won the British WHitbread prize with her first novel about 7 years ago. I haven't read any other of her books between these two, but this one is definitely lacking. The style seems mechanical and contrived: long sentences without commas, and lost of "ands" linking clauses; all the POVs (and there are several, charaters changing with every chapter) are written in this style. It's a literary murder mystery and most amazingly, the killer is a character who does not appear in the book until just before the "mystery" is revealed - and that's a BIG no-no.
Yet this book gets lots of literary ravings on the back cover. Although I notice the quotes from the newspapers are not specifically for the BOOK in questin, but for the AUTHOR. My own publisher did this. Instead of going to look for new quotes for the new book covers, they re-used the same ones, just made sure they were universal ones in the spirit of "this is a wonderful storyteller".

Re mid-list books staying on the shelves for more than five weeks: yes, I can confirm this. I can still usually find one of my books, even the earliest one which came out in 1999, on the shelves of most bookstores - the back shelves, though.

I think the five-week limit refers mostly to new books front-of-store. The conventional wisdom is that if word-of-mouth doesn't kick in within that time frame, word-of-mouth that will propell your book into bestsellerdom, then it never will, and the book goes off the tables and into the back shelves. So that is the toughest fight - getting that first momentum going. You have to find those first readers who can set the ball rolling.

One thing I've learned from the past is that the author HAS to be involved in promotion - you can't just sit back and leave it all to the publisher, which is what I did.

[Torgo]

Definitely, Reph, and sometimes even three pairs of eyes don't catch everything, which is why we have reprint corrections!

Some houses have tried to get rid of their in-house copyediting and proofing departments - I know I have to do a lot of my own proofing these days - but it seems to me you end up using freelancers a lot instead.

[reph]

There's also a distinction between acquisitions editing and developmental editing.
Well, sorta....In my experience, it's more usual for the editor who acquired the book to be the one who works with the author. They may or may not do heavy line editing, but if someone else does that, the main editor keeps an eye on the process.

This is all before the ownership of the manuscript passes into production's hands. A line edit can enjoy a degree of latitude not granted to production freelancers, but it's no substitute for a proper copyedit.
Wow! That's a quite different system from the one I'm familiar with in academic publishing. I was about to describe how the latter works until I remembered that this is the Novels forum.

[SJB]

Wow! That's a quite different system from the one I'm familiar with in academic publishing. I was about to describe how the latter works until I remembered that this is the Novels forum.

Go on, please. It's very interesting.

[By the way, "awhile" is perfectly all right as an adverb, as long as it isn't preceded by a preposition.]

[pconsidine]

Copyediting and editing proper don't mix. The tasks look like they should be more similar than they are, but they require very different mindsets, and they can't be combined in a single pass.

While it's absolutely true that these two functions can't be combined in a single pass (in fact, should positively NOT be combined), they are at times combined in a single person. It often relates directly to the size of the publishing company and whether they have the resources to hire the proper number of people. Many of my experiences in publishng have been with just such understaffed companies and, while the results can sometimes be good, they're usually not. Like Hapi said - different mindsets.

[Dru]

The board ate my first post yesterday after spending forty or so minutes on the process. Anyhoo...

I think that the observations that people have about the copy-editing may have some merit. Then again, it may be that there are a certain percentage of copy edit errors per page, and since books tend to be longer as a whole, people reach their 'too many copy-errors' counter max in books now. Also, I see tons and tons of 'spellcheck' errors these days in books, by in all styles of genres. 'he' for 'the', 'to' 'too' 'two', etc.

However, I think that most of this issue and why it flares up on the boards every so often is that as aspiring or published authors, people have a hard time disengaging their 'internal editor' while reading for recreation.

I know that I have trouble with, and had to stop reading several authors.

As you develop your own internal editor, it starts to speak up at the most inopportune times. Especially if you are re-training yourself about sticking to the 'rules' of good writing. There are adverbs and split infinitives, cliches and head-hopping in some of the very best novels out there. They just aren't handled the way you might have handled it.

I think the other large component is that people will 'see' more errors in something that they are already having issues with. If the story isn't moving, or the voice doesn't work for you, or the character is irritating... you start inadvertently picking the piece apart.

If I start 'seeing' errors or noticing that I'm parsing punctuation issues, then I put a book down and try again some time later (day/week/month) because more often than not I'm not in the correct mindset to deal with the piece at the moment.

I had more, but work calls.

my 2 credits

[ChunkyC]

And a very good two cents they are, Dru. I have not published a novel yet, but as I have worked on improving my own work, I have found myself noticing the technical aspects of the writing more and more when reading for fun.

I think it's the same in any field. Once you begin to learn how a certain thing is done, you are much better equipped to notice when it is not done well. I spent the first two decades of my adult life as a professional musician, and I cringe every time Keith Richards touches his guitar or Bob Dylan opens his mouth, yet millions flock to hear them play and sing.

[HapiSofi]

Wow! That's a quite different system from the one I'm familiar with in academic publishing. I was about to describe how the latter works until I remembered that this is the Novels forum.Go on, please. It's very interesting.Seconded. How does academic publishing handle it?Definitely, Reph, and sometimes even three pairs of eyes don't catch everything, which is why we have reprint corrections!
Some houses have tried to get rid of their in-house copyediting and proofing departments - I know I have to do a lot of my own proofing these days - but it seems to me you end up using freelancers a lot instead.Oooooh. You have in-house copyediting and proofreading departments? I am awash in sinful envy. There may be U.S. trade houses that still have them, but not at any of the houses I've worked for.

It's very frustrating. True copyeditors are born not made, but their innate hardwiring isn't enough. They must also -- or should also -- learn the art and practice of it from other, more experienced copyeditors. That happened automatically when they worked together. Then, when houses started getting rid of their copy departments, there was still a pool of experienced copyeditors available, so for a while the system still worked.

Now, god knows where they learn it. I see supposed professionals who think a single-pass copyedit is acceptable, and have never heard of preponderant usage or privileged forms of speech.

Kids these days. Harrumph.

[HapiSofi]

While it's absolutely true that [editing and copyediting] can't be combined in a single pass (in fact, should positively NOT be combined), they are at times combined in a single person. It often relates directly to the size of the publishing company and whether they have the resources to hire the proper number of people. Many of my experiences in publishing have been with just such understaffed companies and, while the results can sometimes be good, they're usually not. Like Hapi said - different mindsets.I've known switch-hitters who can edit and copyedit, and do both well; but I haven't known many of them. It's like having two different gear trains for the same car.

Huh. That's odd. It's just now occurred to me that all of the editorial/copyeditorial switches I've known have also been published authors.

[Medievalist]

On proofing vs. copyediting:

I do a fair amount of both for academic publications in a very limited field. They are two entirely different tasks. For me, when I'm proofing, I'm not really "reading" the text the same way. I'm looking at it. I don't really have the experience of reading a book when I proof it.

When I copyedit, I'm thinking about meaning, and about larger units than a sentence. It's as if I'm looking through the text to the meaning.

My "other field" is technical writing, of computer hardware and software, and consumer computer books. In technical publishing of consumer computer books one has:

An acquisitions editor: This person makes the deal, sets the schedule, and "buys" the book. At some publishers, this person also gets paid a bonus when the book meets schedule. They tend to control "lines" of books.

Project editor: This is the person who works most closely with the author, and serves as the information hub. He or she will read every blessed line several times, look at figures, deal with Production and Design, suggest content level changes and may sometimes advise on style sheet and format issues. This person honestly is sometimes almost a second author. A good one is gold; a bad one makes your life a living hell.

Copyeditor: Looks at the language. This is specialized copyediting, because of the language associated with computers, and various usage principles.

Technical editor: This person is sort of like a fact checker; looks at the procedures, and verifies that they are correct. Looks at factual statements for accuracy. Looks at language for appropriate use and terminology. Checks figures.

Proofreader: Most consumer publishers don't seem to use them on computer consumer books; they should.

[HapiSofi]

BTW, Dru? A split infinitive isn't an error.

[Dru]

Hapi:

I know that, but some people are trained that they are, and thus parse them as errors. My bad for not having more style examples.

One of the editing threads by TNH (or was it scholastic reform) on Making Light has a whole subthread about recovering your writing from the 'rules' you are ingrained with from higher and lower education (especially English classes).

Even here we have arguments over there being rules versus guidelines in terms of novel writing. I'm in the 'do what works for the story' and 'more... guidelines than rules' camp.

I just think rules and style make it hard for authors (especially ones developing their craft/skills) to read for recreation, until they learn to detach the editor mode. Especially with authors who have a different style and voice than that person's.

I do wonder what people make of something like Feersum Endjinn from Iain M Banks, where he purposely injects typo/phonetic spelling, punctuation and numeral errors for the MC.

[HapiSofi]

I just think rules and style make it hard for authors (especially ones developing their craft/skills) to read for recreation, until they learn to detach the editor mode. Especially with authors who have a different style and voice than that person's.

I do wonder what people make of something like Feersum Endjinn from Iain M Banks, where he purposely injects typo/phonetic spelling, punctuation and numeral errors for the MC.It's true; when you work with text, you perforce see the errors.

Fond though I am of Iain Banks, cutesy misspellings make me want to gnaw my paw off to escape the trap.

[reph]

Go on, please. It's very interesting.

[By the way, "awhile" is perfectly all right as an adverb, as long as it isn't preceded by a preposition.]
Thanks for the correction. I've changed the usage tip. That one was inspired by something I got in the mail – from an editor – that said "Guess it's been awhile." It annoyed me so much, I forgot about the adverbial use.

Academic book publishers may hire freelance developmental editors. The F.D. ed. writes a report, including a recommendation to publish the ms. or not, and submits it to acquisitions. Acquisitions editors also solicit opinions from content experts who are academics in the same field as the author. Ideally, a ms. gets several of these peer reviews. In academic journal publishing, peer review occurs earlier, under the academic editor's direction; articles that don't pass the review never go to the publisher. (The academic editor is a university professor off-site, not the publisher's employee.)

When a ms. goes from acquisitions to production, the acquiring editor is done working on it, although she may maintain an interest in its progress through the system.

In academic publishing, copy editing is part of the editorial/production phase; that is, it comes after acquisitions. It can be done in-house or freelance. Consequently, I don't understand HapiSofi's reference in "A line edit can enjoy a degree of latitude not granted to production freelancers, but it's no substitute for a proper copyedit": in the terminology I'm used to, proper copyedits can come from freelancers.

Where practices differ between fiction and academic publishing, I suppose they differ because style is less important to acceptance for academic books. The author (these days, more likely several coauthors) must get the content right; that's the number one requirement. Leave it to ed/prod to make the English understandable and effective.

Translation: You wouldn't believe the stuff they dump on copy editors to fix up.

[Medievalist]

Translation: You wouldn't believe the stuff they dump on copy editors to fix up.

Reph's right.

The first time I received a peer review request for a ms. by a respected professor in my field, I was horribly shocked. The content was super, but the ms. was so poorly done (punctuation, spelling, formatting) that my eyes nearly crossed.

That's when I realized there was a reason they were offering me money and free books <g>

[TashaGoddard]

Translation: You wouldn't believe the stuff they dump on copy editors to fix up.

Ain't that the truth!

The level of editing I have had to do in my career as an editor (almost exclusively in educational publishing) has ranged far and wide. Some scripts come to me almost perfect and need very little other than marking up headings, bullet lists, figures and so on. Others (especially co-authored books) need a runthrough for consistency and a few grammatical tweaks here and there.

Some, however, (and I have noticed that these are fast becoming the norm - for me at least) need huge amounts of developmental work and even considerable rewriting. This usually stems from lack of time or resources in-house, where the developmental work should have been done. The problem with scripts in this state is that we (the freelance editors) are not generally given enough time (or money) to do a full job. As has been mentioned above, development editing and copy editing do not really mix (in the same pass, at least). However, due to time constraints they frequently have to. Which means you (I/we) miss things. We add in our own typos/stupid mistakes in rewriting/restructuring. But the script then goes straight to production and the next pass is a proofread. The proofreading stage should really only be picking up small errors and layout problems. Instead it's often being used as a pseudo-copy-editing stage.

The other thing that happens a lot to us that we work on each stage of the process, from copy-editing (or development editing) through to final proofs. This, again, is not ideal. If you work on every stage, you become far too close to the text and there is a danger of seeing what you expect to see, rather than what is actually there. You have to be very disciplined to distance yourself from the work you have already done in order to spot all the errors.

Still, it keeps a roof over our heads, so we shouldn't moan. Much.

[reph]

Ain't that the truth!

The level of editing I have had to do in my career as an editor (almost exclusively in educational publishing) has ranged far and wide.
These two words explain why:

educational publishing

Among all fields that get a label of "professional," education has to have the worst-written manuscripts. And, just as a special punishment for copy editors, the books are dull.

[Mistook]

[indent]...when houses started getting rid of their copy departments, there was still a pool of experienced copyeditors available, so for a while the system still worked.

Now, god knows where they learn it. I see supposed professionals who think a single-pass copyedit is acceptable, and have never heard of preponderant usage or privileged forms of speech.

Kids these days. Harrumph.


I've seen ads in the classifieds for "work at home" gigs, where they send you books to proofread. Is this just a scam? Or is somebody actually farming out the copyediting to pot-heads that don't like to work?

Very informative thread by the way, everybody! I'm learning a lot. :)

[Torgo]

Hapi: The editorial team who took on Neal Stephenson's umpteen million longhand sheets of 'The Baroque Cycle', cutesy archaic spellings and all, deserve to be allowed early retirement. It was worth it, though, IMHO.

[Medievalist]

Hapi: The editorial team who took on Neal Stephenson's umpteen million longhand sheets of 'The Baroque Cycle', cutesy archaic spellings and all, deserve to be allowed early retirement. It was worth it, though, IMHO.

Whaaat? Longhand? Stephenson's a solid programmer, and LaTEX pro--I can't see him turning in longhand, or a publisher taking them. He's the kind of author who'd use some obscure word processor or text editor and then do all sorts of gyrations to convert the file . . .

[reph]

I've seen ads in the classifieds for "work at home" gigs, where they send you books to proofread.
Those people aren't hiring. They want you to buy their books about freelancing. To get actual gigs, you apply to publishers.

[Mistook]

Those people aren't hiring. They want you to buy their books about freelancing. To get actual gigs, you apply to publishers.


Dear publishing dude,

I am a most awsome proof reader. Also I can always tell if a story blows, or if it is exellent. Please condider me for a high paying job as some kind of reader, for your bookstores.

Love,
-GarciaFan81

[Torgo]

Medievalist: look on his works, ye editor, and despair...

http://www.nealstephenson.com/content/meta_photos.htm

[James D. Macdonald]

I've seen ads in the classifieds for "work at home" gigs, where they send you books to proofread. Is this just a scam?

It's the old Make Money Reading Books (http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Crimes/Telemarketing/Inbound/MinorIn/HowTo/work_at_home.htm#Reading%20Books%20for%20Money%20F rauds) scam. It's right up there with the Make Money Reading Screenplays scam and the Make Money Taking Surveys scam and the Make Money Stuffing Envelopes scam among the Work At Home scams.

[Medievalist]

Medievalist: look on his works, ye editor, and despair...

http://www.nealstephenson.com/content/meta_photos.htm

That's not what the editors got; Stephenson keyboarded the longhand version:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/20/1518217

For the Baroque Cycle books I needed to convert my manuscripts, which were all TeX files, into a Quark format used by the publisher. So I wrote an emacs lisp program that churned through the TeX files looking for TeX escape codes and converting them to their equivalents in Quark. This was nasty and tedious but, in the end, reasonably satisfying.

[scribbler1382]

That's not what the editors got; Stephenson keyboarded the longhand version:

Maybe so, but it's still bizarre as all get out that someone so steeped in technology would resort to longhand for his rough drafts.

[Dru]

scribbler:

not really. almost all the writers I know perform 10-50% of their rough work in longhand. I know at least three of the commercial authors who I've met do all their rough work in longhand.

different strokes for different folks... I free/longhand story arc and brainstorming, but type everything else.

my brain does shut down trying to imagine rekeying the baroque cycle from longhand notes though.

[Medievalist]

Maybe so, but it's still bizarre as all get out that someone so steeped in technology would resort to longhand for his rough drafts.

Actually, no, it's not.

When you're deeply enmeshed in things technological, you often realize that really good tech--like the interface to a codex book, or a quality fountain pen, doesn't stop working when something else comes along.

Then too, for many who learned to write in the pre-digital era, there's a freedom to paper and pen; it just works. No distractions in the form of the 'net, no problem with batteries . . .

It just works.

[ChunkyC]

I do almost everything on computer, but when I'm struck with inspiration while sitting on the john, it's still a darn site quicker to whip out the trusty ol' pen and notepad rather than boot up my laptop.

Not that I generally carry my laptop into the can. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[icerose]

I find I do much more/better editing if I have to write it all over again. Since my handwriting turns into scribbling when I am flowing with ideas I tend to stick to typing. But re-typing it can also give you that same effect, so if you are having trouble with a passage, chapter, book, whatever, I suggest printing it out and retyping it all. You will automatically edit as you go along often resolving any issues you may have been struggling with.