Golden-word syndrome: give and take

Brickcommajason said:

There will come a day when I have the reputation and following to insist that my work remains pure, pristine, just my way.

Click to expand...

That's a joke, isn't it?

A while back, I read a book by an established author notorious for refusing to let editors, copy editors or fact checkers near his work. The books sell and presumably he got his own way in having unedited text published.

The novel I read had a main character who lives in a house with no chimneys but several fireplaces, who begins as a heavy chain smoker and miraculously stops smoking altogether after Chapter 3, who has a daughter with her name spelled two different ways, who was both an orphan and beaten by his brutal father, who drives a nifty little green MG in Chapter 4 and is taking driving lessons in Chapter 12, who suffers from a skin disease diagnosed first as eczema and then as impetigo, who has a male friend who was his senior at boarding school but is mysteriously five years younger than him by the novel's end.

And that is before you hit the plot holes and inconsistencies of motivation.

As authors, we read what we meant to write. That is why we need beta readers and sharp-eyed editors.

Fact-checkers. Yes.

In Christine, Stephen King calls a Camero a Ford. His description of a tune-up and car parts is way off the wall. King is obviously not a car person although the book's title character is a car.

In A Man in Full, Tom Wolfe puts engines on a Gulfstream where Gulfstreams don't have engines.

In The Andromeda Strain, Michael Crichton has the government build from scratch a complex underground facility with every technological advance possible in only two years. Yeah, right.

I don't believe that any of these cases were GWS. I believe that some authors and editors don't know squat about technical details, publishers don't want to engage qualified technical editors, and successful authors can't be bothered.

Can you cite an example of an editor changing a writer's work without the author wanting them to? Or an author being so meek that she doesn't fight for her work?

Honestly, while I suppose it must happen on occasion, I've never either experienced it or had it related to me by other authors. And to perpetuate the idea that editors are evil people who change the author's work, and the only way to get published is to sell out really really bothers me. (btw, it wouldn't bother me half as much if such a fallacy wasn't used by vanity presses to lure in unsuspecting authors by playing to their ego ie "We love authors, and we know that you've chosen your words carefully, we aren't like the usual editors who will make you change everything just for the chance of publication. We respect you and want you to publish what you intended to write, not some editor's version of the story. For a mere $4000 dollars, you can publish your work as it was meant to be.")

swvaughn said:

Fixed that for ya.

And in case you need a point of reference (warning: bad words abound)

Click to expand...

Oooooweee.... thanks, s.w. I hadn't heard of this meltdown.

"And this book is most certainly written -- every word of it -- by me. If and when I can't write a book on my own, you'll know about it. And no, I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself. I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me, and I will never relinquish that status. For me, novel writing is a virtuoso performance. It is not a collaborative art."

This is why it took me approximately 9 MONTHS to finish The Witching Hour, and why I have never again touched another Ann Rice book.

About two years ago I sent off a sub to an e pub. It was erotic romance. I got a reply from the owner/editor and she requested that I "sex it up". The story already had a lot of sex scenes in it. If I added more it would have been outright porn. I replied nicely to her and stated that while I respected her opinion, I didn't feel that adding more sex to the story would be a good thing. I got the snarkiest reply back from her. Needless to say, I ignored that reply and subbed elsewhere. I couldn't imagine working with someone like that.

I've had betas and have taken their advice seriously. I don't think all editors are created equal. Some are better than others. I've been lucky. I've only had one terrible editing experience. The others have taught me a lot.

I've been lucky to have a great editor, but I'll just give you one example of the give-and-take. She didn't understand the point of one of the minor characters in one of my books and wanted me to cut the character. I knew the character was essential to the plot, but since she didn't get it, I decided I wasn't writing it clearly enough. It took me two more rewrites for her to see what I knew, and the character stayed.

brainstorm77 said:

I don't think all editors are created equal. Some are better than others.

Click to expand...

This is undoubtedly true. And sometimes there is a clash of what you envision the novel to be, or clash of personality or whathaveyou.

But even with your example, you were asked. You could agree, or not.

The editors I've worked with make suggestions (would you mind terribly?), but it's up to me how to implement those suggestions, or to explain why I don't feel they'd work (and often in that case I'll tweak something else to give a similar effect)

Hmm. Maybe I've just been lucky too? But if editors were all Evul, writers wouldn't work with them. At least not more than once, surely?

Hip-Hop-a-potamus said:

Oooooweee.... thanks, s.w. I hadn't heard of this meltdown.

"And this book is most certainly written -- every word of it -- by me. If and when I can't write a book on my own, you'll know about it. And no, I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself. I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me, and I will never relinquish that status. For me, novel writing is a virtuoso performance. It is not a collaborative art."

This is why it took me approximately 9 MONTHS to finish The Witching Hour, and why I have never again touched another Ann Rice book.

Click to expand...

Does this mean I should be glad that I stopped at Memnoch? I always meant to continue, but Memnoch made me not be in a hurry about continuing.

IdiotsRUs said:

This is undoubtedly true. And sometimes there is a clash of what you envision the novel to be, or clash of personality or whathaveyou.

But even with your example, you were asked. You could agree, or not.

The editors I've worked with make suggestions (would you mind terribly?), but it's up to me how to implement those suggestions, or to explain why I don't feel they'd work (and often in that case I'll tweak something else to give a similar effect)

Hmm. Maybe I've just been lucky too? But if editors were all Evul, writers wouldn't work with them. At least not more than once, surely?

Click to expand...

I agree.

Re: the Anne Rice thing...


holy shit. seriously...holy shit. she may be a very rich preening little snowflake, but what a self-absorbed little snowflake, all the same. That was more than enough to settle any question of me ever buying anything of hers.

Toothpaste said:

Can you cite an example of an editor changing a writer's work without the author wanting them to?

Click to expand...

Yes, I can. The train wreck I mentioned earlier.

In 1989 I created a "line" of computer books for a small publisher. The line was identified by the books' titles. Think "for dummies," but that wasn't it.

Over the years, the imprint was sold and resold. I wrote several books for the line, and the publishers had other authors write for the line on other subjects.

And, the line's name not being trademarked, other publishers released books under the same titles. A good friend of mine wrote several of them.

I provide all this backstory because...well, because I can.

One of my most successful books, about computer programming, was in its 5th edition, and I was under contract to write a 6th, which I was in the process of doing.

When I submitted the final manuscript, the editor told me that the publisher had decided to change the format of the line's books to something less textual and more visually oriented. I spent a good bit of time with the format and told them that it wouldn't work. It might be okay for applications user's books, but not for a programming language book.

She told me the decision was final. I told her that I had met my contractual obligation and did not care to reformat a completed work, particularly given that the new format was hopeless.

The publisher hired someone to do the reformatting against my wishes. I couldn't prevent it because the contract gave them that privilege. I could not believe they were doing it. The editor was not happy with the decision, either. But the "powers that were" had more votes than she had.

The book was a disaster. It was not well-reviewed. It did not sell well. I might own the only copies that weren't thrown away. When the edition had run its short course, the imprint had been sold yet again, the editor had moved to the new publisher, and she contracted with me for a 7th edition and gave me full control over the format.

The 7th edition suffered from the reputation that the title had earned from the 6th, and its reviews reflected that. It has sold reasonably well since then, and now that I have the rights reverted, it's now my best e-book seller.

I don't claim, nor do I believe this story to be typical. But it has happened.

Anne Rice has done pretty well, and made millions on top of millions by telling editors to leave her writing alone. Going bat guano crazy on Amazon has nothing to do with her writing. And someone who hasn't read any of her books is as stupid for posting about them and her, as she is for going bat guano crazy.

A bunch of writers out there never let editors rewrite sentences, paragraphs, etc. Anne Rice just got in trouble for making a public splash about it.

Good editors make suggestions about story and character, and these should be taken seriously, and followed when and if you agree with them. Good editors never, ever make such changes on their own, without consulting the writer, and never force the writer to make such a change. If you do not agree with changes, or simply don't want anything changed, you're a damned fool for allowing such changes, regardless of what other writers, critics, or idiotic Amazon reviewers have to say about it.

For me, a good editor is one who sees a way I can make a story better, or a way I can bring a character to a fuller, richer life. But it's always a case of he makes the suggestion, and if I agree with it, I make the change, not him.

Bad editors try to be writers. They rewrite sentences, paragraphs, etc. Outside of unintentional grammatical errors the editor points out, I don't allow this. Ever. My writing is in the style I want it, the style that's me, and I'd never allow anything to be published in any other style.

There are times, even with good editors, when you have to stand up for yourself and say, "STET the whole damned thing."

The book is going out with your name on it, and if you don't like any part of it, you shouldn't let it go out that way. No matter who the editor is, no matter what the editor does to the book, the writer gets the blame.

Allowing any change you disagree with isn't being humble, it's being foolish. It's allowing the editor to do your job for you.

Fortunately, good editors do not try to force any changes on writers. If you say no, then it's no.

quicklime said:

Re: the Anne Rice thing...


holy shit. seriously...holy shit. she may be a very rich preening little snowflake, but what a self-absorbed little snowflake, all the same. That was more than enough to settle any question of me ever buying anything of hers.

Click to expand...

Give Rice some credit. It must be really hard to write with your head stuck up your arse that far.

The Lonely One said:

Also, I didn't mean to giggle at your example, but equating anything but rape to rape is so silly I can't even...anyway, back on topic

Click to expand...

Yeah, but she was SERIOUS. That's how bad her GWS was. And trust me, her words were NOT golden.

Devil Ledbetter said:

I think you can disagree with an editor without it being "golden words."

To me, golden words means you can't cope with any criticism whatsoever, and you lash out at whomever fails to recognize your utter brilliance.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

bearilou said:

What Devil said. Any instance I've seen of GWS has been someone who completely melts down when someone gave criticism of their work, clearly not understanding their vision and their genius and that the critter has a serious case of jealous-itis.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

Jamesaritchie said:

For me, a good editor is one who sees a way I can make a story better, or a way I can bring a character to a fuller, richer life. But it's always a case of he makes the suggestion, and if I agree with it, I make the change, not him.

Bad editors try to be writers. They rewrite sentences, paragraphs, etc. Outside of unintentional grammatical errors the editor points out, I don't allow this. Ever. My writing is in the style I want it, the style that's me, and I'd never allow anything to be published in any other style.

There are times, even with good editors, when you have to stand up for yourself and say, "STET the whole damned thing."

The book is going out with your name on it, and if you don't like any part of it, you shouldn't let it go out that way. No matter who the editor is, no matter what the editor does to the book, the writer gets the blame.

Allowing any change you disagree with isn't being humble, it's being foolish. It's allowing the editor to do your job for you.

Fortunately, good editors do not try to force any changes on writers. If you say no, then it's no.

Click to expand...

And especially ditto all of this. Editors aren't gods. There are bad editors, just like there are bad writers.

Jamesaritchie said:

Anne Rice has done pretty well, and made millions on top of millions by telling editors to leave her writing alone. Going bat guano crazy on Amazon has nothing to do with her writing. And someone who hasn't read any of her books is as stupid for posting about them and her, as she is for going bat guano crazy.

Click to expand...

Not sure if that was directed at me, but nowhere did I say I hadn't read any of her books.

I'd read several by that point, but I don't touch them anymore. 9 months on one book is way too long to do something that I NORMALLY enjoy...READING. By that point, I'd been at it so long that it was like a marathon I was determined to finish.

I think an editor could have gotten her to be a bit LESS long-winded. Sorry, but her diva attitude has a LOT to do with her writing and why I no longer read it. Take a look at The Vampire Lestat or The Mummy, and then look at any of the Mayfair Witch saga. The early ones are digestible, even somewhat enjoyable for me. The later ones, which drag on for pages and pages and pages....just no.

Jamesaritchie said:

Anne Rice has done pretty well, and made millions on top of millions by telling editors to leave her writing alone. Going bat guano crazy on Amazon has nothing to do with her writing. And someone who hasn't read any of her books is as stupid for posting about them and her, as she is for going bat guano crazy.

A bunch of writers out there never let editors rewrite sentences, paragraphs, etc. Anne Rice just got in trouble for making a public splash about it.

.

Click to expand...

I have read several of her books. I'm just not interested in funding her silly sense of self-entitled specialness.

as for bad editors, there's bad everybody; I agree 100%. She wasn't talking bad editors, though, she was talking "anyone touches my awesomeness they will only dilute it. I'll do her the favor of not touching and diluting either, thank you.

The Lonely One said:

It's an interesting discussion, though, because as much as someone like Ann Rice could perhaps find value in an editor's input, we don't ask the same of a painter. A painter goes to art school, or learns on their own, and then they're off. Either they do well or they don't, but there's no third party to tell them how to paint. Either it's good, or strikes a chord with someone, or it doesn't. You could say the same for other forms of art. We don't call them pretentious for considering themselves the primary voice on what should or shouldn't be created.

So where's the disconnect between writing as art and other art?

Just a hypothetical, but I've read several writers throughout history that compare writing and painting, though it's an altogether different process of realization into the public sphere.

Not advocating we don't use editors, not at all, but I just find it a curious difference.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. an artist doesn't get to paint shit because he wants to, and if a buyer is looking for kitty pictures he doesn't get to say "no way; I have sunsets....buy them instead!"

writing arguably has a bit more middleman influence, but for any art, if you intend to sell, you need to please the audience. and if in painting you can sell outside a gallery, you can sell fiction by self-pubbing. But you wouldn't rail at a gallery owner for insisting on having a choice of what he shows there, would you?

Also? Theatre. Dance. Music.

Ever auditioned for anything in performance art? Pretty much like a query, except in person (and yes, that makes it a hell of a lot harsher). And if you get the role, do you actually think the director has LESS say over your performance than an editor does over a writer's writing?

Surely you know that any member of an orchestra who suddenly breaks out into improv isn't going to be playing with that orchestra much longer.

There are middlemen in all forms of art. Some have more control than others.

For the most part, my editors only fixed grammatical errors or made tweaks according to house style (since some houses have rules about style, formatting, how pronouns are used, and whatnot). I have had a few cases where editors recommended changing the order of certain scenes, fixing logical problems in the story, or adding something to a scene. In most of those cases, I either agreed with the changes or felt neutral about them, so just made them anyway.

I can only think of one editorial suggestion that I actually disagreed with. There was a mention of saliva during a love scene, and they wanted me to take it out because spit "isn't sexy." Well, maybe not, but it's a realistic detail, and I tend to go for realism over idealism in love scenes. But I ended up making the change because it was just one line and didn't make a big difference either way.

That's not to say, however, that I will make any change an editor requests; just that so far, I haven't run into any requests that I've disagreed with strongly enough to fight them over. If an editor wanted me to change a character's personality or any aspect of their identity in order to make a story more marketable, I absolutely wouldn't do that. If an editor wanted me to make changes that would change the message of the story, I absolutely wouldn't do that either.

I think that's what it comes down to. Does the change enhance the story I'm trying to tell, or is the editor trying to turn it into a different story?