Editors should not be writers...

unthoughtknown · Mar 23, 2006

- acccording to Gary Fisketjon.

He implies that novels written by professional editors appear to be "overchewed". I think that was the word he used. I've got the article at home (I'm at work), damn it - which appeared in Melbourne's The Age - and I can't find it on the net!

Anyway, I thought it was very interesting and it of course got me wondering...

What are your thoughts about such a statement?

Is it like being a technical writer by day and trying to be a fiction writer at night -- as in you can't leave one world and enter the next?

blacbird · Mar 23, 2006

My reason for editors not being writers derives from the editor who told a friend of mine to change "two a.m." in his manuscript to "two a.m. in the morning".

caw.

CaroGirl · Mar 23, 2006

jen.nifer said:
- acccording to Gary Fisketjon.

He implies that novels written by professional editors appear to be "overchewed". I think that was the word he used. I've got the article at home (I'm at work), damn it - which appeared in Melbourne's The Age - and I can't find it on the net!

Anyway, I thought it was very interesting and it of course got me wondering...

What are your thoughts about such a statement?

Is it like being a technical writer by day and trying to be a fiction writer at night -- as in you can't leave one world and enter the next?

Well, I hope it's all not true! I'm a technical writer and an editor (how's that for a double whammy!) by day, and I'm working away at this fiction writer gig in all my spare time. Actually, I don't think anything except maybe a garbage man could be further from fiction writing than technical writing.

sunandshadow · Mar 23, 2006

What the heck does "overchewed" mean? And would the same person say nobody should write by making an outline and then following it? In my opinion this is just the BS attitude so many romantics and transcendentalists seem to have that it's not 'real' writing unless the muse whispers it in your ear and it spills right out of your fingers onto the page; no logic, analysis, or careful design allowed.

reph · Mar 23, 2006

blacbird said:
My reason for editors not being writers derives from the editor who told a friend of mine to change "two a.m." in his manuscript to "two a.m. in the morning".

That shows only that bad editors shouldn't be writers. They shouldn't be editors, either.

BuffStuff · Mar 23, 2006

Just to give an example of editors who had the view that being an Editor while also being a Writer was a dangerous combination, look to famous (and now infamous) editor Gordon Lish. He had the same viewpoint that the ability to properly edit other's manuscripts can be severely hampered if one is also a writer. This is somewhat ironic given the fact that he wrote a number of books and had a penchant for taking a pro-active approach in his editing, often to the point of completely re-writing the endings of stories of the writers who worked under him.

Short story writer Raymond Carver was perhaps his most famous "pupil". Carver's minimalist style (and subsequent popularity) for many years was the direct result of Lish's influence. (Gordon completely re-wrote the endings of many of Carver's famous stories. Although, Carver's last collection of short stories (Cathedral) is widely considered his best and most optimistic. He wrote Cathedral when he'd entirely broken from the influence of Lish's hand.

unthoughtknown · Mar 23, 2006

Do you think this sort of view extends to different areas of writing as well though?

Say, if you did business writing, including copywriting, for your day job (which is what I'm considering doing) will it be hard to break out of that mode when you sit down to write your novel in the evenings?

I know that the writing process includes a level of editing from the writer, but if you are providing a business writing service then you are your own editor right? So I'm kind of a bit worried about that...

I'm having a hard enough time trying to write my novel as it is!

Jamesaritchie · Mar 23, 2006

jen.nifer said:
- acccording to Gary Fisketjon.

He implies that novels written by professional editors appear to be "overchewed". I think that was the word he used. I've got the article at home (I'm at work), damn it - which appeared in Melbourne's The Age - and I can't find it on the net!

Anyway, I thought it was very interesting and it of course got me wondering...

What are your thoughts about such a statement?

Is it like being a technical writer by day and trying to be a fiction writer at night -- as in you can't leave one world and enter the next?

I think it's a truly silly statement. From my experience, writers make the best editors, and many, many of my favorite writers have also been editors.

The only problem with being a writer and an editor is that being an editor is a higghly demanding job, and there often isn't enough time in teh day to be an editor and a writer.

But, really, the number of very good editors who were also extremely good writers would fill a sizable book. Even if you only go back as far as Poe, the list would still fill a book.

I'd be much more inclined to say that only good writers should be allowed to be editors. Most of the really good editors I've worked with were also very good writers, and most of the editors I've had trouble with weren't writers.

Jamesaritchie · Mar 23, 2006

editors

blacbird said:
My reason for editors not being writers derives from the editor who told a friend of mine to change "two a.m." in his manuscript to "two a.m. in the morning".

caw.

This sounds like a reason to find editors who are good writers.

BuffStuff · Mar 23, 2006

Just write the novel, Jen. ^_^ Honestly, if I were you, I wouldn't let it worry you. I can't speak from personal experience as I've never been a copy-writer but there have been reams of successful novelists and short story writers who've also been copywriters or editors to some capacity, in order to make extra money. I've heard that being an editor won't necessarily help much in terms of editing your own copy, but I've never heard of it destroying, hindering or doing irreperable harm to the ability to write your own copy.

unthoughtknown · Mar 23, 2006

Ok, I guess I am freaking out a bit...

I should just shut up and write eh?

BuffStuff · Mar 23, 2006

LightShadow · Mar 23, 2006

sunandshadow said:
What the heck does "overchewed" mean? And would the same person say nobody should write by making an outline and then following it? In my opinion this is just the BS attitude so many romantics and transcendentalists seem to have that it's not 'real' writing unless the muse whispers it in your ear and it spills right out of your fingers onto the page; no logic, analysis, or careful design allowed.

I think through my fingertips, but I don't think my muse cares when I don't listen to him...hey, be quiet...not you, my muse - -

maestrowork · Mar 24, 2006

It could be difficult for an editor to turn off her "internal editor" to even get through a first draft. When each sentence and word choice have to be perfect, it zaps the joy out of the writing itself.

PerditaDrury · Mar 24, 2006

blacbird said:
My reason for editors not being writers derives from the editor who told a friend of mine to change "two a.m." in his manuscript to "two a.m. in the morning".

caw.

Are you sure that he/she didn't say the opposite? Change "two a.m. in the morning" to "two a.m."? When I'm wearing my editing hat I give that note all the time as the former is a common redundancy in formal (written) work. Fine when speaking informally, of course, as communicating humans always strive to reinforce what they're trying to say aloud.

If the "editor" said what you indicated, and the line wasn't in dialogue, then there's something wrong with the "editor". Any high school English teacher would pick up on redundancy in a flash, much less a pro editor.

I'm an editor and a writer and I'm successful at both. These two occupations don't interfere with each other professionally nor do they even use the same part of the brain.

From my perspective, it's nice to switch back and forth.

sunandshadow · Mar 24, 2006

maestrowork said:
It could be difficult for an editor to turn off her "internal editor" to even get through a first draft. When each sentence and word choice have to be perfect, it zaps the joy out of the writing itself.

Actually editors usually have multiple reading modes and can switch between them. An editor doesn't edit a manuscript for everything all at once - usually they just read it the first time to get a feel for the piece and make notes on what they were thinking at different points, any sentences that were initially confusing. Then they write their overall impression and any suggestions for restructuring the plot. Then they can do a second pass (sometimes reading backwards!) ignoring the content to read for typos and grammar. But if there's significant rewriting to be done it's usually pointless to mark typos - it doesn't matter if the word is spelled right if the word isn't even going to be in the next version.

Jamesaritchie · Mar 24, 2006

Philip64 said:
In my experience very few book editors become novelists for the simple reason that they know too much and have read too much. They know how hard it is for writers to get paid properly; and a life of reading/skimming hundreds - if not thousands - of novels a year leaves them feeling that the last thing the world needs is another one. The editors that try it are probably deranged.

I don't know about book editors becoming novelists, but an awful lot of novelists I've known have become book editors. I suspect writers become editors regularly, but editors seldom become writers because they aren't writers by nature, and simply lack the interest.

Those who are already writers, on teh other hand, often find editing irresistable. And I greatly prefer working with an editor who is also a writer.

reph · Mar 24, 2006

maestrowork said:
It could be difficult for an editor to turn off her "internal editor" to even get through a first draft. When each sentence and word choice have to be perfect, it zaps the joy out of the writing itself.

I haven't found this to be so. If you're talking about novels particularly, I can't say, as I haven't written anything that long. Your description implies, I think, that sentence structure and word choice are supposed to be hard to get right. One spills one's guts ungrammatically and goes back later and fixes. But what if one's guts come out in correctly structured sentences the first time?

brokenfingers · Mar 24, 2006

reph said:
I haven't found this to be so. If you're talking about novels particularly, I can't say, as I haven't written anything that long. Your description implies, I think, that sentence structure and word choice are supposed to be hard to get right. One spills one's guts ungrammatically and goes back later and fixes. But what if one's guts come out in correctly structured sentences the first time?

Hmmmm... usually that's a bad sign. It's not supposed to work that way.

Personally, I would seek help immediately...

Prosthetic Foreheads · Mar 24, 2006

maestrowork said:
It could be difficult for an editor to turn off her "internal editor" to even get through a first draft. When each sentence and word choice have to be perfect, it zaps the joy out of the writing itself.

I guess this is one reason it's taking me so long to get my first draft done. I've never been an editor, but I often find myself staring at the screen for extended periods, trying to decide exactly how I want to word a particular sentence or what the perfect verb is. I didn't realize this isn't how everyone did it. I also have very, very few typos or grammatical mistakes. It's often an agonizingly slow process. For me, rewriting will be in the form of tweaking scenes: adding tension, trimming the fat of some, adding physical descriptions (of places more than people) or sensory details to others.

badducky · Mar 24, 2006

I don't think anyone should be telling others what to do or not professionally based on just one little fact of a prior job.

How many literary agents manage to sell their own books, too?

maestrowork · Mar 24, 2006

reph said:
I haven't found this to be so. If you're talking about novels particularly, I can't say, as I haven't written anything that long. Your description implies, I think, that sentence structure and word choice are supposed to be hard to get right. One spills one's guts ungrammatically and goes back later and fixes. But what if one's guts come out in correctly structured sentences the first time?

I suppose... but there's something about being "too perfect." Part of the fun of novels is that they are not written "perfectly." It's not to say an editor can't let loose and write wonderful prose that is already perfect, but there is, I supose, a tendency for an editor, whose job is to look for "flaws," to mull over minute imperfection just to, say, "get it right."

badducky · Mar 24, 2006

Of coutrse, we also shouldn't ignore the contribution of the whole team in creation of books.

I tell people that I am not really a loner artist. I create a draft of the copy inside a novel. The physical book is actually created by a team of talented people from the agent to the editor to the cover artist and the pr team.

So, someone wants to change position on the team for a while, why not?

A-Rod seems to be just fine doing just that.

blacbird · Mar 24, 2006

PerditaDrury said:
Are you sure that he/she didn't say the opposite? Change "two a.m. in the morning" to "two a.m."?

Yes. I'm quite sure. I saw the comment. I can read.

caw.

reph · Mar 24, 2006

maestrowork said:
I suppose... but there's something about being "too perfect." Part of the fun of novels is that they are not written "perfectly." It's not to say an editor can't let loose and write wonderful prose that is already perfect, but there is, I supose, a tendency for an editor, whose job is to look for "flaws," to mull over minute imperfection just to, say, "get it right."

Ray, have you ever been an editor? Are you sure you haven't mapped an image of the stereotypical obsessive-compulsive onto your idea of editors?

Editors should not be writers...

practical experience, FTW

Living the dream

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Fig of authority

No more being nice to Pee D

practical experience, FTW

No more being nice to Pee D

practical experience, FTW

No more being nice to Pee D

defender of the blahs!

Fear the Death Ray

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Fig of authority

Walkin' That Road

No Time For Chitchat, Kemosabe.

Fear the Death Ray

No Time For Chitchat, Kemosabe.

Fig of authority