Whose story is it?

[rhymegirl]

I am wondering what you think about this problem/situation. I don't know if this happens to other freelancers on a regular basis or not.

First of all, let me say that I am very thankful that I have a dependable source of income each week from the online publication for which I write. I know I am fortunate to be earning money as a writer.

My frustration comes from the fact that the editor always re-writes my articles--sometimes so much I can barely recognize the story as mine. (And MY byline appears under the story)

Yesterday I spent hours trying to get my 400-word article just right. I go over and over my work to make sure everything is correct (facts and spelling, etc.).

I guess you could say the editor and I have different styles of writing. I'm never going to write my articles the same way he does because it's just not my style.

So what do you think? Is it common for an editor to turn words around like this on a regular basis?

I can honestly say this never happened with my last newspaper editor. He used to publish my articles just the way I submitted them.

Is it worth writing for a publication that "mangles" your words?

[Silver King]

...Is it worth writing for a publication that "mangles" your words?
Yes, as long as they pay you a decent sum for your work.

The other extreme would be to have your stories published unaltered, for zero pay.

[Bushrat]

In my experience that's not common. My newspaper editor never changes a thing, and the different magazine editors I've worked for have just done very minor word changes or else asked me to re-write a paragraph.
If you can afford it, I'd stop working for them. That's just too frustrating.

[poetinahat]

Is it worth it? I'd say there's only one person who might be able to answer that question correctly.

[WildScribe]

If it's about the money for you, then as long as they don't make things factually incorrect (and you haven't contractually accepted liability for what is published), then who cares. But if you are writing for publication because of the thrill that you get when you see your words in print, then you have to decide for yourself whether the money is worth your byline being on altered work.

As a side note, I would not ever use these as clips. I'd be happy to mention that I write for X publication, but not actually hand out the clips. After all, it isn't your style and you say you can't copy it.

[rhymegirl]

In my experience that's not common. My newspaper editor never changes a thing, and the different magazine editors I've worked for have just done very minor word changes or else asked me to re-write a paragraph.
If you can afford it, I'd stop working for them. That's just too frustrating.

This is interesting. See, I don't mind minor word changes or having to re-write a paragraph. I think that's fine.

But this editor will insert complete sentences that I didn't write. I was reading one of my online stories and came across a sentence like this: "(Name) is singing the praises of the high school math team," etc., and I thought: I didn't write that! Not only that, I wouldn't write it that way, because as I said, it isn't my style. He uses expressions that I don't use.

If it's about the money for you, then as long as they don't make things factually incorrect (and you haven't contractually accepted liability for what is published), then who cares. But if you are writing for publication because of the thrill that you get when you see your words in print, then you have to decide for yourself whether the money is worth your byline being on altered work.

Well, the money IS important to me because it's my only source of income. That's why this is so frustrating. It would be easier to walk away if I had any other money coming in.

When I see an article that I've worked on for hours getting so re-written I start thinking: Why did I even waste my time? I might as well have worked on it for only 30 minutes if he was only going to re-write it.

As a side note, I would not ever use these as clips. I'd be happy to mention that I write for X publication, but not actually hand out the clips. After all, it isn't your style and you say you can't copy it.

This is definitely a problem area. I've written many articles for this publication and I'd like to have some as clips for future freelance opportunities.

[stormie]

Yes, as long as they pay you a decent sum for your work.

The other extreme would be to have your stories published unaltered, for zero pay.
I agree with SK.

This has happened to me, but not as often as you, Kathy, since yours is a steady job. Can you talk to the editor about it?

[rhymegirl]

Yes, as long as they pay you a decent sum for your work.

What do you think a decent sum would be?

[WildScribe]

What do you think a decent sum would be?

What would a decent annual income be? I couldn't answer either of these questions because they are highly individual. It all comes down to YOU and what you want to put up with. They aren't doing anything illegal or wrong, so none of us can give you any advice, really, except decide how strongly you feel and act accordingly.

[Silver King]

What do you think a decent sum would be?
Anything that you feel is fair compensation for your work. Since you've been writing for that pub for a while, the pay must be what you consider acceptable.

The editor, after all, hasn't agreed to publish your stories in the same form as they were submitted. Maybe she takes a few liberties here and there, but in her mind (and perhaps in reality), she's improving your stories for the audience they're intended to reach.

[Jamesaritchie]

It's extremely common. It isn't really about whose story it is, it's about whose magazine it is, and who takes the heat if a published article does not match the style of the magazine, and meet with reader's expectations for that magazine.

Magazine editors love finding writers who can write in a style that matches what they want, but articles are about information, and this is what editors really buy.

An editor who wants your information, but who believes your writing style does not match what the magazine needs, has three choices: 1. Ask you to rewrite with the goal of matching the magazine's style. 2. Rewriting himself to match the magazine's style. 3. Rejecting the article. What no good editor will ever do is allow an article to be published in his magazine that does not match the style and content he needs to please his readers.

"Decent sum" is something else altogether, and is always an individual decision. Until you have name big enough to ask for more money, magazines pay what they pay. The best way to determine whether this is for you is to follow the two basic rules of hourly wage and desired credits.

Money from freelancing is best determined by hourly wage. You determine how much per hour you'll settle for, how many hours will go into the article, and that's that.

Not lone ago, I sold a 2,000 word article for $200. Not a heck of a lot of money, but it was an easy article, and took only two hours to write, including about fifteen minutes of research. That's a hundred bucks an hour, and I'll take that every last time.

But I've turned down articles that paid a thousand dollars because research time would have meant travel, a lot of it, and at least a month of my time. At an hourly wage, it sucked.

When you're starting out, however, you do need credits, and if the credit is a good one, you can ignore hourly wage in order to gain a credit that will produce more money in the long run.

And you never really know about money. I once wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper. The letter took maybe twenty minutes to write, and, of course, I expected no pay. The editor liked it enough to publish it as a guest column, rather than a letter, another editor saw it there, and asked for a reprint. Another editor saw it there, and he also wanted reprint rights.

One reprint led to another, and that no pay letter to an editor has now earned me several thousand dollars in reprint sales.

At any rate, absolute DO use these says as credits, and as clips. Any good editor understand that other editors make changes, and know fully well they will likely make some changes in your writing, as well. Nonfiction writing is more about information, about finding the right information, developing it into an article readers will want to read and learn from, than it is about the actual writing. Editors can and do make changes to the writing, but what they can't do is go out and find those ideas, do all the required research, and put it all together into a well-structured article. They just don't have the time.

Of course, if you are a writer capable of matching the style and length of any magazine you choose to write for, your writing will be changed less and less, or not at all.

I've had articles published in tiny magazines that were almost completely rewritten, and others, for big glossies, that were published without a single word being altered. It's all about matching style.

[squibnocket]

It is common in my experience. As Jamesaritchie (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=184) said above, sometimes it's a voice/tone issue. With magazines sometimes it's a space/layout issue. They'll add or cut words to make an article fit within the page layout and those can change unexpectedly (photography changes, advertiser bumped her ad space buy down to a lower tier and now they need to fill more space, typography size issues, etc.). Editors may not have time to send a re-write to you and get that back in time before their pub date.

[rhymegirl]

It's extremely common. It isn't really about whose story it is, it's about whose magazine it is, and who takes the heat if a published article does not match the style of the magazine, and meet with reader's expectations for that magazine.

Magazine editors love finding writers who can write in a style that matches what they want, but articles are about information, and this is what editors really buy.

An editor who wants your information, but who believes your writing style does not match what the magazine needs, has three choices: 1. Ask you to rewrite with the goal of matching the magazine's style. 2. Rewriting himself to match the magazine's style. 3. Rejecting the article. What no good editor will ever do is allow an article to be published in his magazine that does not match the style and content he needs to please his readers.

"Decent sum" is something else altogether, and is always an individual decision. Until you have name big enough to ask for more money, magazines pay what they pay. The best way to determine whether this is for you is to follow the two basic rules of hourly wage and desired credits.

Money from freelancing is best determined by hourly wage. You determine how much per hour you'll settle for, how many hours will go into the article, and that's that.

Not lone ago, I sold a 2,000 word article for $200. Not a heck of a lot of money, but it was an easy article, and took only two hours to write, including about fifteen minutes of research. That's a hundred bucks an hour, and I'll take that every last time.

But I've turned down articles that paid a thousand dollars because research time would have meant travel, a lot of it, and at least a month of my time. At an hourly wage, it sucked.

When you're starting out, however, you do need credits, and if the credit is a good one, you can ignore hourly wage in order to gain a credit that will produce more money in the long run.

And you never really know about money. I once wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper. The letter took maybe twenty minutes to write, and, of course, I expected no pay. The editor liked it enough to publish it as a guest column, rather than a letter, another editor saw it there, and asked for a reprint. Another editor saw it there, and he also wanted reprint rights.

One reprint led to another, and that no pay letter to an editor has now earned me several thousand dollars in reprint sales.

At any rate, absolute DO use these says as credits, and as clips. Any good editor understand that other editors make changes, and know fully well they will likely make some changes in your writing, as well. Nonfiction writing is more about information, about finding the right information, developing it into an article readers will want to read and learn from, than it is about the actual writing. Editors can and do make changes to the writing, but what they can't do is go out and find those ideas, do all the required research, and put it all together into a well-structured article. They just don't have the time.

Of course, if you are a writer capable of matching the style and length of any magazine you choose to write for, your writing will be changed less and less, or not at all.

I've had articles published in tiny magazines that were almost completely rewritten, and others, for big glossies, that were published without a single word being altered. It's all about matching style.

Thank you so much for this response, James.

I read every word and what you said makes a lot of sense to me. And it also made me feel better about the whole situation.

Yes, I think you're right about the editor having 3 choices--let me re-write the article, re-write it himself or reject it.

I would not mind doing a re-write, but I think he re-writes it himself to save time. This is a daily online publication, so articles have to be written fairly quickly.

I am not used to writing fast. I used to write for a monthly newspaper, so I had maybe 3 weeks to report on and write the story. Now, with this publication, I sometimes have to report on and then write the story in the same day!

I'm a perfectionist so I can't turn the story in unless I've made sure it's perfect. But, time is not on my side. That means I really spend too much time on one story, so money-wise it's not really that profitable. I just can't write fast without writing crappy.

However, I do appreciate everything you said because it really does help. It makes me feel better to think the main problem is the style difference and I'm still giving him good information, good research, etc.