Editor-Writer Relationships

Having read through the entire thread carefully, I need to choose my words carefully, because I’m going to disagree on a small matter in distinguished company. Perhaps it’s not even such a small matter either.

Some years ago, I came across an editor I couldn’t get along with, and I’m not an argumentative or pedantic person, and would quite happily bastardise my work if it meant earning more money from it.

The lady in question was so highly qualified that it made my head spin, and I unquestioningly went along with all, yes, all of her suggestions, and there were many. The manuscript that emerged at the end of it bore no resemblance to the one I had submitted 18 months earlier.

Then she got promoted and another editor took ever. She asked me for my original manuscript and it was edited from scratch in something like three to four months, before publication.

I later discovered that my original editor, who has since been promoted several more times, had a personal outlook on life that made us completely incompatible. My story must have caused her a great deal of anguish, and she changed it, completely; and I didn’t know why at the time. She was employed by a major publisher at the time and could easily have withdrawn from editing my story by passing it to someone else.

She’s unlikely to read this post, her job has now taken her to great heights in this industry, and we live a few thousand miles apart. But she was wrong all those years ago, and if I hadn’t been such an unprincipled writer, I would have told her so.

cwfgal said:

One other thing about this relationship...I include a thank you to my editor in my acknowledgments.

Click to expand...

I thank them in my acknowledgment, too.

LuckyH said:

Having read through the entire thread carefully, I need to choose my words carefully, because I’m going to disagree on a small matter in distinguished company. Perhaps it’s not even such a small matter either.

Click to expand...

I don't think you're disagreeing, so much as providing an alternate perspective from someone who's seen the bad side of an author/editor relationship. Not all authors will get along with all editors. I'm sure there are instances of the editor wanting changes that ultimately do more harm than good. Editors aren't infallible.

But you bring up a valid point, and it, sadly, happens. Authors don't always know what an editor will expect in revisions before the contract is signed.

It can be intimidating for a new authors, especially when it's their first big contract. They've heard that "arguing with the editor's decisions is the #1 cause for getting their contract canceled." That statement alone gives the editor tremendous "power" even if the publisher does not mean to; new authors could come to believe that if they even disagree with one suggestion, they would be dropped. Also, some big time editors do play the power thing -- it has been known to happen. It comes back to the whole respect thing: Does the editor respect the writer and vice versa? Sometimes the editors, unfortunately, do have that "I'm the editor and you're not" attitude going into the process (as opposed to the writer's golden word syndrome), and that's very intimidating to a new writer.

Yeah, I get annoyed with the suggestion that everybody has GWS. I am both confident and egotistical (know thyself), and when I received the suggestion that I axe 20,000 - 40,000 words from my manuscript, I did it immediately, without regrets or pouting. And the person who suggested it isn't even my agent (yet?). And certainly not an editor. I just heard from a professional who has an interest in making sure my book is the best it can be that I should make these changes, and I said, "YOU GOT IT."

I've never felt a lack of confidence about my writing. That is to say, since my early twenties, I've never thought I'm bad at writing. Some days I write better than others, of course, but I've always felt confident about my abilities. I have frequently received suggestions that because I don't think I suck, I must have GWS, and I'd better watch out for my career when I get to the editing phase, because man am I gonna be an unbearable diva!

Boy, could nothing be further (farther? I need an editor!) from the truth. I didn't even hesitate for one minute to hack 26,000 words out of my book for somebody who wasn't even an editor.

I really wish people would stop assuming that everybody who has an overall positive attitude about their writing must be an editor's worst nightmare. I don't know what makes people so overprotective of their work, but I assume it's actually insecurity, not security.

Birol said:

The editor editing your work is probably not the same individual who accepted it. Different editors have different roles within an organization.

Click to expand...

However, shouldn't these editors collaborate or coordinate to see where they want to go with the project? To be on the same page? It would be discouraging when the acquisition editors give the project a go, saying, "This is a great book -- I really like her writing" and then have the developmental editor saying, "This is crap and needs a complete rewrite."

However, it is a reality that editors do move around. We've all heard stories about authors and projects getting dropped because the original editor who wanted it has just get sacked or moved to another publisher (without taking the authors with her)....

Having posted a somewhat negative comment earlier, I would like to add that most editors like nothing better than a new, raw writer, with bags of courage, bursting on to the scene. That’s what keeps the dreams, and the writing industry going.

It negates the cynical, staid, establishment-ruled attitudes of some editors, they’re not up to speed when confronted with something so different that it affronts their staidness.

When the new author is matched with an appreciative editor, magic can happen. And it frequently does.

Very informative thread. Thanks all you experienced people.

Birol said:

The editor editing your work is probably not the same individual who accepted it. Different editors have different roles within an organization.

Click to expand...

Again, it depends. In my case the acquiring editor has also been the one doing the actual editing.

Just want to chime in saying thanks for a really useful thread.

I'm really curious to hear about people's first encounters with editors, and what they now take to be the signs of a good/bad relationship. The sort of "I should have realized when s/he did X that this was going to be horrible" or "s/he said Y and it was like we had the same brain and I knew it was going to be awesome" moments.

That's kind of hard for me.

The first editor I had that I knew was going to be good took the time to read my entire manuscript before she started edits. She sent me an introductory letter with some of the things she'd noticed from the book--some things that she loved story wise, some things she noticed that were not so great (I believe in that book it was adverbs and commas). She explained how she liked to do edits, encouraged me to speak up if I felt I should and emphasized that editing was a collaboration.

And I stole all her tricks and use them as an editor today.

Over the years, I've found that most editors have the annoying habit of being right about 98% of the time, and I follow what they say just about this often. Good editors only enforce their suggestions when the matter is really important.

Ultimately, the writer's name is the one on the book, so you have to know when to say yes, when to say maybe, and when to say no.

CaroGirl said:

Ignoring edits that aren't mere suggestions is the kind of thing that's bound to piss off an editor. Some edits that might seem minor to an author are, in fact, based on house style. Authors don't know all the minute details of house style and when they ignore a detail it can make an editor crazy. I used to edit to the house style guide (which I wrote, so was pretty intimate with) and get the thing back without the essential changes made because the writer didn't agree that, say, "group" is a collective noun.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, it's nearly always the editor who changes things to match inhouse style, and many writers don't even notice.

Since the editor makes these changes himself, and since they never harm the manuscript, there should be no need for the writer to argue with such changes.

But some do, don't they?

Jamesaritchie said:

Fortunately, it's nearly always the editor who changes things to match inhouse style, and many writers don't even notice.
Since the editor makes these changes himself, and since they never harm the manuscript, there should be no need for the writer to argue with such changes.

But some do, don't they?

Click to expand...

I think it's useful to draw a distinction here between the editor who makes substantive edits and the copyeditor who brings the writing into conformance with -- for instance -- the Chicago Manual of Style.

Though they may be the same person, of course.

In matters of substantive content . . . yes. One should think and think and think yet again and go with a good editor 98% of the time.
Because an excellent editor has both skill and objectivity and the writer generally only has one of those.

But,
when it comes to copyedits and the dictates of CMoS -- which I loathe and detest and abominate ...
No.

I'm thinking here of CMoS's truly weird dislike of
Capitalization,
though I have some comma issues as well.
If you have to choose between house style and being clear to the reader, chuck the house style.

One particular case -- the title of a major character was 'Head of Section'. I stetted like mad and he gets called 'Head' throughout. It's hard enough for American readers to recognize 'Head' as a title without doing it uncapped.

"The head is just so stuffy," he complained.
"Talk to the head," he advised.
Let's not go there.

And then there's the treatment of colour
-- They looked out over a blue green sea.
or
-- They looked out over a turquoise-blue sea.

But not,
-- They looked out over a blue-green sea.
which CMoS doesn't like, even though it's obvious and easy and altogether more clear.

But when we come to 'blood red'.
They didn't want 'blood red'.
Didn't want 'blood-red'.
No. They wanted bloodred.
Which looks like the past tense of 'to blodder'.

Grrr ...
I hate Chicago Manual of Style.

dempsey said:

I'm really curious to hear about people's first encounters with editors, and what they now take to be the signs of a good/bad relationship.

Click to expand...

Almost the first thing my editor said was . . .
"You know we're going to have to change Anneka's [the character's] name."

Which was so very correct and put so very very well -- making it clear this was a partnership in which she trusted my judgement -- that I knew everything was going to work out.

For me, it was the fact that my editor highlighted a sentence, something like "he enjoyed the delicious pasta with tomato sauce" and said, "Give me the sensory details. Make me salivate." That's when I knew she and I were on the same page.

job said:

I think it's useful to draw a distinction here between the editor who makes substantive edits and the copyeditor who brings the writing into conformance with -- for instance -- the Chicago Manual of Style.

Click to expand...

Fiction editors edit to the Chicago Manual of Style?! This is news to me, and not very happy news. The CMoS is for scholarly work, not fiction. Gah, that's like editing fiction according to the Microsoft Manual of Style. Just...sorta silly. That's the point of creating a house style, so you don't have to follow the regimented rules of a guide like CMoS.

Only problem I ever had with an editor was when I was working on one of my Star Trek short stories. The copy editor had uncapitalized a number of words that I KNEW had to be capitalized. I made my changes, stet'ed the rest and sent them back only to get an e-mail from the actual editor asking me to make the changes to those capitalized words.

"Marco, look, I've been in the military long enough to know those words have to be capitalized."

"Rich, maybe they are . . . IN THE ARMY. They're not in Starfleet. Make the changes."

Oops.

I made the changes.

CaroGirl said:

Fiction editors edit to the Chicago Manual of Style?! This is news to me, and not very happy news. The CMoS is for scholarly work, not fiction. Gah, that's like editing fiction according to the Microsoft Manual of Style. Just...sorta silly. That's the point of creating a house style, so you don't have to follow the regimented rules of a guide like CMoS.

Click to expand...

Well, CMoS is more about how to publish a book than it is about how to write one. There's a big difference. I know a fair number of editors, and a LOT of writers, who insist on Strunk & White for the writing side.

But house style does not negate the rules of good grammar, good punctuation, or a readable style. The stylebook generally comes first, and most house style is actually based on the look of the book, rather than the style, at least for fiction.

What a good editor will never, ever change is intentionally poor grammar in dialogue, or any effective breaking of grammar, punctuation, or style. Good fiction editors always allow the writer to maintain his own style, assuming that style is good enough to buy in teh first place.

job said:

I think it's useful to draw a distinction here between the editor who makes substantive edits and the copyeditor who brings the writing into conformance with -- for instance -- the Chicago Manual of Style.

Though they may be the same person, of course.

In matters of substantive content . . . yes. One should think and think and think yet again and go with a good editor 98% of the time.
Because an excellent editor has both skill and objectivity and the writer generally only has one of those.

But,
when it comes to copyedits and the dictates of CMoS -- which I loathe and detest and abominate ...
No.

I'm thinking here of CMoS's truly weird dislike of
Capitalization,
though I have some comma issues as well.
If you have to choose between house style and being clear to the reader, chuck the house style.

One particular case -- the title of a major character was 'Head of Section'. I stetted like mad and he gets called 'Head' throughout. It's hard enough for American readers to recognize 'Head' as a title without doing it uncapped.

"The head is just so stuffy," he complained.
"Talk to the head," he advised.
Let's not go there.

And then there's the treatment of colour
-- They looked out over a blue green sea.
or
-- They looked out over a turquoise-blue sea.

But not,
-- They looked out over a blue-green sea.
which CMoS doesn't like, even though it's obvious and easy and altogether more clear.

But when we come to 'blood red'.
They didn't want 'blood red'.
Didn't want 'blood-red'.
No. They wanted bloodred.
Which looks like the past tense of 'to blodder'.

Grrr ...
I hate Chicago Manual of Style.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree. I'ma Strunk & White fan, and when there's a difference between CMoS and Strunk & White, I stick to strunk & White, and insist that editors do teh same. I've never had an editor say no.

And in things like blood red/blood-red/bloodred, no editor could ever, in any way, make me let bloodred stand.

"You'll never make me change my style!" he bloodred.

maestrowork said:

They've heard that "arguing with the editor's decisions is the #1 cause for getting their contract canceled."

Click to expand...

Only if "arguing with the editor" is in the contract as a cause for cancellation.


If you make a sufficient horse's ass of yourself, however, you can talk yourself out of a subsequent sale.

I recently saw "bloodred" in a novel and it struck me as so odd it actually interrupted my reading experience and I sat there trying to figure out when this became a word. I decided it was a typo. Guess I was wrong. Is carrotorange a word? Or sapphireblue? Or grassgreen?

Don't worry about it. Taken as a whole, editors are easy to get along with.

And you will love the finished version even more. Because it will be better, and closer to the glory you'd originally imagined.

Jamesaritchie said:

And in things like blood red/blood-red/bloodred, no editor could ever, in any way, make me let bloodred stand.

Click to expand...

Nobody has ever made the faintest objection to any of my stets.
I mean ... bloodred?
Really.

<g> grousing aside,
my copyeditor is careful and knowledgeable and sees details that utterly escape me and has saved my bacon a dozen times.
I love my copyeditor.

The Chicago Manual of Style, on the other hand, is pure evil.