The Editorial Notes

If you're in America, the period should go inside quotation marks. (If you were in the UK, it would go outside.)

And it does sound like your editor will have the hard copy with her marks.

How would I deal with it? Carefully. I would be open to EVERYTHING the editor suggested. If you decide to disregard a change, be prepared to articulate exactly why you disagree with it. I think one thing you don't want to get into is romanticizing your own work. The editor is paid to make books; that's what she does. Because the work can get so close to your face, it is possible that someone else knows better than you what works and what doesn't.

Yet, on the other hand, I wouldn't feel like you have to make the changes the editor suggests. I've taken most of my editor's suggestions and have tossed some out, and I think knowing which is which is important in this stage of the game. But to know which is which, a writer has to let go a little and trust in her editor.

I was always taught (in America) that in this sentence the period would go outside; it goes inside if the quotation marks indicates speech. Anyone else?

I talk to my editor when I'm making editorial corrections. "What do you mean? Didn't you read that in Chapter Two?" and grumble grumble grumble. I'd say that I accepted probably 90% of the edits without question (yes, there was lots of "Doh!") another 6-7% after discussion and the rest I discarded--but I made sure I had a damn good reason for dismissing her suggestions.

BarbJ said:

I was always taught (in America) that in this sentence the period would go outside; it goes inside if the quotation marks indicates speech. Anyone else?

Click to expand...

Outside.

Complete sentences have the punctuation on the inside because the punctuation is part of the quoted sentence. Titles and partial quotes have the punctuation on the outside because the punctuation doesn't belong to the quote (or title). It belongs to the entire sentence.

Willowmound said:

Outside.

Complete sentences have the punctuation on the inside because the punctuation is part of the quoted sentence. Titles and partial quotes have the punctuation on the outside because the punctuation doesn't belong to the quote (or title). It belongs to the entire sentence.

Click to expand...

You would think so, but no.

If it's a period or comma, then it goes inside. This rule has been adopted in America in the last few years by MLA, Chicago, APA, and virtually everybody else.

It does look better, but it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. But that's how it's done.

Link re: what I was just talking about.

In the United Kingdom, Canada, and islands under the influence of British education, punctuation around quotation marks is more apt to follow logic. In American style, then, you would write: My favorite poem is Robert Frost's "Design." But in England you would write: My favorite poem is Robert Frost's "Design". The placement of marks other than periods and commas follows the logic that quotation marks should accompany (be right next to) the text being quoted or set apart as a title. Thus, you would write (on either side of the Atlantic):

• What do you think of Robert Frost's "Design"? and
• I love "Design"; however, my favorite poem was written by Emily Dickinson.

I read too many British books. That's the only input I can give here, because all my stuff has the punctuation outside for impartial quotes.

Will Lavender said:

You would think so, but no.

If it's a period or comma, then it goes inside. This rule has been adopted in America in the last few years by MLA, Chicago, APA, and virtually everybody else.

It does look better, but it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. But that's how it's done.

Click to expand...

Not where I was taught to write professionally. Your American rules does not apply to me.

Star said:

Man, you guys are sharp!

Now Willie, come on back to the original topic. LOL
Did you receive the contract shortly after the editorial notes or at the same time?

Click to expand...

I received the contract well afterward. My editor and I were actually talking about editorial stuff the night before the auction.

There's a department at the house that will be responsible for contracts, so your editor probably won't have anything to do with that. If your situation is anything like mine, you've got awhile to go before you get that contract. Your agent should send you a boilerplate, but it was two or three months before I signed anything.

For my part, I didn't get my editorial notes until long after the contract. They were not substantial, but that still left me with plenty to do.

I think Will's advice is very sound -- be open to anything the editor says. It is very easy to get defensive when somebody is picking apart your writing, but the editor is definitely on your side and trying to make things better. That doesn't meant to just blindly do whatever they say, but read through the suggestions and ask yourself how you could work with each one. I felt that my editor's advice was solid; in fact, where we differed was mostly where I felt like the book needed more changes than she suggested, not fewer!

If the editor suggests a change you really can't abide, ask yourself if there's a third way of doing things -- a different change that will address your editor's concerns while remaining true to your own voice. Editors are usually very open to this.

I would doubt that you're getting the marked-up manuscript back. I got my editorial notes in early spring, but I didn't get my copyedited manuscript until July. Not much point in crossing the Ts and dotting the Is while major rewriting is still going on, I think.

My advice: proceed slowly, at least in the initial stages.

Open the envelope. Give the notes a quick read. Flip through the marked pages. Then WALK AWAY! If you're anything like me, you should leave it overnight before you engage with it in any way, just to get over the shock...

I've found it best to sit on editorial notes and ponder them for a while.

Good luck!

My feeling is you don't really start getting to the heart of your novel until the 9th or 10th revision. Usually that one comes about six months after the novel has been published. So consider yourself fortunate.
P.S. I know James A. Richie only sticks around for two revisions, top. So some minds may differ here.

BarbJ said:

I was always taught (in America) that in this sentence the period would go outside; it goes inside if the quotation marks indicates speech. Anyone else?

Click to expand...

Just the opposite. In America, punctuation goes inside the quotes unless it's logically inconsistent.

Are you going to see, "The Three Caballeros"? Obviously, the three cabs isn't a question, so it goes outside. Periods aren't so picky, though.

I'm going to see "The Three Caballeros." 'Cause placement of the period doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

Willowmound said:

Not where I was taught to write professionally. Your American rules does not apply to me.

Click to expand...

In America, that would be, "Your American rules do not apply to me."

Picky, picky, picky...

Thumbs up to you, and a red face on me.

Star said:

Dear Fellow Scribes,

I am picking up my editorial notes today. Any suggestions on how to work with them? Also, my editor says that she's givine me my edited manuscript and editorial notes. Does this mean that she actually edited the hard copy and included notes? This may be a simple (duh) question which should explain why I didn't ask her.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything my editor says, even if there are things I find unworkable or which don't seem to fit the characters or plot (this is rare because she's very good).

Then, a week or two later I raise a couple of small points and we negotiate a solution. This goes on until all the points are addressed, and then I do the work and send the next version in. (She usually reads the entire novel at least twice, once for the initial report and once when it's in the final version. That's why we work from outlines in the first place, to cut down the workload for both of us.)

Cheers
Simon