Editor-Writer Relationships

Great topic.

Having worked as an editor myself, I think this relationship is tremendously important. Writers trust editors to do several things: maintain the "voice" of their work, find all the typos and grammar and spelling errors, and tidy the work into a logical and seamless whole. Editors, for their part, depend on writers to listen to their advice calmly and with an open mind. I never, ever mind when writers ask questions about my edits, but I HATE when one of my edits is completely ignored, particularly when it was clearly NOT merely a suggestion but an absolute.

I have had great relationships with editors. (And I've been an editor -- so I've sat on both sides of the fence.) The only problem I had was when our personalities didn't match or we were not on the same page when it came to the work -- there was a rare occasion when the editor did not understand it was my vision, not hers, and she was doing the "if I were the writer, I would have written it this way" thing which, to me, is a no no -- that the editor has crossed the line and assumed the identity of the writer instead.

Other than that, what I learned from my editors is that a) everyone has a different style, but the best editors understand and respect the writer's style -- when doing edits, they make sure they keep the writer's style and vision and voice in mind, and b) an editor's perspective can be extremely valuable, even when the writer doesn't see it at first.

Like LuckyH said, every writer has a bit of that ego and Golden Word Syndrome. And not all editors are right all the time. The trick is to have respect and trust with each other, and have a common goal. Writers most certainly can question and veto edits, but it should be done with respect and also work it through, and not reject and ignore the editor wholesale. Editors, also, should respect the writer's work and not come to the project thinking "this is crap, so it's my job to make it good/to rewrite this crap" -- once the editor loses respect for the writer as the writer, or when the writer believes the editor is out to get him, to ruin his life (or completely butcher his work), the relationship has already got off the wrong foot -- and it's probably a good idea for the editor and writer to part ways. Either find another editor or abandon the project all together (if the writer is not cooperating at all).

At the end, it is a professional situation and both the writer and editor must understand that. They don't have to be friends or have lunch, but they must maintain this business/professional relationship. Abrasive and abusive behaviors should not be tolerated from either side. However, a personality match goes a long way to smooth out this potentially contentious working relationship. Just like any good manager, a publisher could do everyone a favor by pairing the right editor with the writer.

You were threatened for suggesting changes? Uh -- isn't that your job?

Wow.

I can speak from the editorial as well as the writer side of things.

I have gotten poor advice from a seasoned editor. In one case a first draft was accepted as a final and went to copy-edit, the last stage before galleys.

I was horrified that the editor could not tell the difference between it and a final polished final and rewrote that one--fast. The editor was NOT pleased, but he could have asked a year earlier, "Is this your final draft, it reads a bit rough."

That was about 20 years back, but the experience taught me that they are not infallible gods of wordage, and it is okay to speak up and disagree with them.

Just have a good reason for it.

In other cases, I found my editors made a good point for changes, supported by logic and experience, so I took their advice seriously and things worked out great.



Working as an editor, I find my experience as a writer helps me to get across ideas better, should changes be needed.

But it doesn't always work.

One "diva" I dealt with had been on the Times bestseller list for two whole weeks with her first book, so that meant she knew all there was to know about the craft. She was an expert now!

Yeah. Riiiiiight.

When I let her know her story was twice as long as it should be and that cuts were needed, she had a meltdown. I might as well have been feeding her cat to a wood chipper with that shrill reaction. She was literally screaming at me.

But the story was too long, and she wasn't getting paid for the extra words. Nor was it fair to the other writers in the collection who might have to chop their stories down so hers could fit.

I pointed out two scenes that could be cut. They were total deadwood and did not push the plot forward, besides, she had two other nearly identical scenes elsewhere in the story.

She came back with statistics--I kid you not--statistics of her readership, citing the age/sex of the groups that would be pissed off if she did not keep those scenes in the story.

How they could be PO'd by something they never knew was there in the first place, she was unable to explain. She was too busy freaking out.

I chatted with the other editor on the project who wearily said, "Just let it go, she's not worth the hypertension. Anyway, her numbers slipped on her second book, so we won't be doing another contract with her. She's just too much trouble."

Yikes.

I had to agree, though. She refused to listen further and moaned all the way, and only grudgingly cut a tenth of the words that needed to go. After that, she went on my unofficial "Do NOT ask back, EVER" list, so her unprofessional attitude deprived her of future earnings, at least with me.

I don't think I was being unreasonable. From the very first her contract stated X number of words. She did ask if she could go over by a little bit, and I said yes, but no more than a couple thousand words. How she took that to mean "double it!" I do not know.

So, here's a good rule to follow: When your editor asks for 10K words do NOT deliver 21K. Neither of you will be happy.

On that same project and others I got to work with half a dozen other NYT bestselling writers.

I asked for changes and tweaks. One did a head slap and said, "Why didn't I think of that!" The others said, "no problem," fixed things, and turned their work in on time.

They are on my "always invite first A-list", BTW. I love working with them.

I have also invited back writers whose work I don't particularly like simply because they turn in a good product, are on time, and have a pro attitude.

There are other diva stories in my cautionary tales collection, but this post is already too long!

.

Great topic. I recently sold my first to an e-pub and am going through the editorial process for the first time. Very humbling. Very interesting. Generally, she suggests a few changes...and I emotionally fly off the handle. I get up from the computer, walk around the room, go lay down and pout for awhile....

...then kick myself in the ass, go back to the computer, reread her suggestions and get to work. I remind myself that I specifically solicited this publisher because I like their work. She is the pro and I am still learning the ropes...period. What she wants, she gets, even if the process is painful for me. Truth of the matter is, she has already worked with me on POV, dialogue tags and other newbie crap like that, and objectively, the book is getting better with every revise. It's just hard, sometimes, to remain objective when its your 'baby' that is being slashed to pieces.

I do know one thing for certain, coming out the other side of the editing process is going to make me a much, much better writer in the long run. So long as I don't bleed to death, first, LOL!

wannawrite said:

I do know one thing for certain, coming out the other side of the editing process is going to make me a much, much better writer in the long run. So long as I don't bleed to death, first, LOL!

Click to expand...

Amen. I learned so much from my first editor. She was simply great, respectful, and knew what she was doing, and she was honest to a fault. She also understood what I was trying to do and that was a HUGE plus -- she wasn't trying to make my clay into her gold; she believed she was polishing a rough diamond to a brilliant shine. I never thought I could learn so much about writing through editing, but I did. I would work with her again and again if I could...

Not sure this is in the same mode, but I once thought about using an independent editor to cleans things up for submission purposes. I researched all the topics and understood paying and independent editor would not gaurantee a sale with a publisher. Still, I progressed on and sent five editors in the Scifi/fantasy genre examples of my writing. They sent back examples of their editing, and while all five caught the simple typo's and grammar mistakes, all five had very different styles of what they would edit in the sample chapter submitted.

Only one noted that the example was just that, an example because they would need to read the whole manuscript to do the editing justice on what to offer.

Another one wanted to go into flowery prose and when I explained she was bordering on purple she took offense. I later found out she edited for some magazine about Elf fiction.

My first agent turned out to be a better judge of what I needed to work on than all the editors I went searching for. And it was my agent that told me, when I finally get published to listen to the editor, think on what they are suggesting and then just do it...

She warned me I do not want to get a reputation as a difficult author to work with because it really is a very small business and word gets around.

I know that if I disagree with an editor, I will have to explain why, but for the most part, my experience in working with editors is that they understand what needs to be fixed, reworked, cut, added, etc because they are detached from the work compared to the author, or most authors...

Nick Anthony

So many editors...so little time...lol!
Some just focus on grammar and spelling. Others look at characterization and story arc. I find my critical author readers are excellent editors because they've worked through the process. In reality I don't think it's a bad thing for an unpublished writer to work with an editor...

I also think communication is very important -- the writer and editor must be on the same page, understand the end goal, and maintain a respectful relationship with clear communication. The last thing a writer wants to hear is, implied or not, "You suck, this is a piece of crap, and here's what is WRONG with it. And yeah, listen to me because I'm a better writer than you are." True or not, I think that's why writers are so sensitive about the process, because they all have that nagging feeling that they're frauds, and the last thing they want to know is that the editor agrees with them.

Instead, the best editors I ever worked with were all very sensitive about this, because they were also writers and they had been on the other side of the table before. So instead of coming across as "you suck, and there are all shades of wrong with this ms." -- what they're able to convey and communicate with the writer is "it's good and that's why we want to publish this, but TOGETHER we can make this even better, even great. How about that?" Not that the editor has to feed the writer's ego all the time and sugarcoat everything, but communication is important.

As Mary Poppins sang, "Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down." That really is the truth.

Great thread, however I'm pressed for time. I can't wait to read it because this is my next relationship.

I thought nowadays manuscripts received little to no editing. Publishers simply won't invest that kind of time and money in authors anymore, especially unknown ones.

motormind said:

I thought nowadays manuscripts received little to no editing. Publishers simply won't invest that kind of time and money in authors anymore, especially unknown ones.

Click to expand...

... couldn't say, myself, but I suspect that even if this is so to some extent the large houses like Random House still do lots of editing on all their books as they have a reputation to live up to and wouldn't think of putting out a book unless it was totally up to par.

motormind said:

I thought nowadays manuscripts received little to no editing. Publishers simply won't invest that kind of time and money in authors anymore, especially unknown ones.

Click to expand...

They won't invest time in editing poorly written manuscripts even if those contain great ideas, but they do spend quite a bit of time on editing for pacing and clarity, for example. I went through three edits with my manuscript, and for the first edit in particular, almost every page had comments on it.

Wow. I'm sorry to hear about that bad experience!

As a writer, I can and have gotten defensive about my work at times. However, it isn't professional to blow off what someone who has more experience and an outsider's view of your work has to say.

I've been very fortunate. Both my agent and editor had nothing but completely sane, logical advices on what to change in my work. Particularly in my first book -- my agent pointed out some grammatic pitfalls, and my editor recommended a few added things here and there, mostly clarifications of an existing relationship. That, to me, was completely brilliant, and totally welcome.

I thought nowadays manuscripts received little to no editing. Publishers simply won't invest that kind of time and money in authors anymore, especially unknown ones.

Click to expand...

This is untrue; the slur was originally put out by people who do not mean you well.

It is repeated by people who don't know the difference.

maestrowork said:

Amen. I learned so much from my first editor. She was simply great, respectful, and knew what she was doing, and she was honest to a fault. She also understood what I was trying to do and that was a HUGE plus -- she wasn't trying to make my clay into her gold; she believed she was polishing a rough diamond to a brilliant shine. I never thought I could learn so much about writing through editing, but I did. I would work with her again and again if I could...

Click to expand...

This is how I feel about my editor exactly. She has taught me soooo much about publishing in general and what a particular audience likes it's untrue, and she's been patient and kind, with a sense of humor throughout.

All her suggestions have been ones to make the book better. ( even the ones I wasn't sure how to do at first!) She rarely says how to change something, but she does tell me the effect she's after - it's up to me mostly how I implement it ( apart from the grammar stuff ) I've done almost everything she asked - cos she's the pro, and I can see why it neeeds to change, because she's told me - though once or twice I've said 'How about this instead?'. She then either says 'Well have you thought of it like this' or she likes the alternative, and off we go.

She always makes it feel like it's a group effort, something we're all in together to make the best thing we can.

My editor rocks.

Where do you start to respond to a thread that embraces the entire writing experience? Experience is not even the right word.

I can’t, so I’m going to keep it simple, very simple.

And personal.

My last editor was a highly qualified writer, author; if you prefer that term. We corresponded from a distance while the editing process took it’s course. The process took around four months, without too many problems, but I gritted my teeth many times, and I’m sure he did too.

Unusually, we met up afterwards and discussed our differences. I’ve got nothing profound to report, we spoke for hours and got pissed as parrots.

For me, editorial suggestions fall into three categories:

1) ZOMG! (Slaps forehead.) Thank you thank you thank you for catching that! I don't want to look like an idiot to the fans!

2) Not all that important, but hey, if it makes you happy, I could change that. I don't have a lot of emotion invested in that detail anyway.

3) NFW! What are you smoking?

I find that by changing categories (1) and (2) that all the problems with category (3) magically vanish, so I don't have to make those changes after all.

I've had editorial letters that ranged from Editorial Paragraphs ("Chapter Four didn't work for me" was my shortest ever editorial letter) up through Editorial Novellas, with multiple suggestions on every page.

Recognize that you and the editor have the same goal: To make the story the best it can be, to sell tons to the readers, so the publisher can buy your next book and sell tons more.

*is glad she's never had a three*

I get to see the publishing world through the hats I wear on both sides of the desk too. My editor has been encouraging, tough when she needed to be and unfailingly interested in the quality of my work and how I feel about it. These are traits I try to emulate when I'm editing. With both my editor and the writers in my 'stable' communication is the most important facet of the relationship.

For example, when I get a new writer, I send them an introductory letter in which I tell them a little bit about me and some fairly important warnings about my editorial style. I warn them that I'm notoriously hard on plot lines, continuity and character arcs but that I am also open-minded about any suggested change. I don't believe edits are ultimatums, but suggestions. If I make a technical edit, however, that's not open for debate. As the arbiter for the publisher's house style, my grammar/punctuation/spelling edits are absolute and non-negotiable. (Before anyone gets their panties in a twist, I'm referring to things like their/there/they're and verb tense and number agreement) But when it comes to style all of those edits are suggestions, more like signposts of some device that's being overused--like sentence fragments or adverbs. Usually, my writers don't have a problem with my edits because I took the time to inform them upfront of what I intended to do.

However...and there's always a however...I did have one author who probably had "Golden Word" tattooed on his forehead so he could see it everytime he looked in the mirror. This author started a conversation thread on the public group of our publisher talking about how I'd "dumbed down" his manuscript by telling him to change a specific word. (He was using it in the wrong context) As a result, the writer lost his contract with the company and eventually got the manuscript published by another company--with my edits intact and basically done for free. This writer didn't understand the confidential nature of the editorial process, the moment that a writer has to step back and realize that it's not all about their "art" but the successful employment of a "craft" as well. Some writers go into the editorial process in a confrontational manner, assuming that any correction of their manuscript is a personal slight. They don't realize that any editor worth his/her salt is working to improve the manuscript, not looking for ways to insult the writer's work.

The first few stories I had published, every single editorial comment earned either a "What? Are you crazy? That's PERFECT!" or a "How in the hell did I miss that? God, I'm awful--" response from me. Now it's different. Now, as a writer I look upon my editor as a partner--the one person in the world who understands me and my work on a level that no one else can. And as an editor, I look upon my writers as people whose hard work and talent will benefit from my impartial eye and who need to be encouraged to write more, write bigger, write better--write beyond what they've written already. There's a huge trust factor involved on both sides of the relationship, and it's a trust that I cherish no matter what hat I'm wearing.

motormind said:

I thought nowadays manuscripts received little to no editing. Publishers simply won't invest that kind of time and money in authors anymore, especially unknown ones.

Click to expand...

Not true. I am an unknown writer. I have four novels under contract at two different publishing houses. (Viking and Tor.) All four are going through detailed editing.

James D. Macdonald said:

Recognize that you and the editor have the same goal: To make the story the best it can be, to sell tons to the readers, so the publisher can buy your next book and sell tons more.

Click to expand...

QFT.

eqb said:

Not true. I am an unknown writer. I have four novels under contract at two different publishing houses. (Viking and Tor.) All four are going through detailed editing.

Click to expand...

The first story I ever had published received little or no editing. It wasn't until I read a few more stories published by this house that I realized why. Any publisher who wants to create a good reputation and produce quality books is going to invest in extensive editing and proofreading. At the small house I work for, each manuscript goes through a minimum of two edits AND the proofreaders AND the formatter.

I've been pretty lucky and happy with the two editors I've had. I did three books with the first one and her suggestions were all ones I could easily live with and felt had merit. I've now done two books with the second and his suggestions have been generally minimal and excellent. I've never had golden word syndrome, though I have had the occasional "oh, crap!" moments when I got a suggestion along the lines of, "if you could just change this one little thing," that I quickly realized meant I would have to change a whole lot of other things later in the work. Sometimes what appears to be a small change isn't and those suggestions have often not been absolutes, which has made me think, "Screw it, I'm not going to do it. It's too much work." But then I get over it, buckle down, and do them anyway. And I think the works have been much stronger as a result.

I've loved both of my editors. And much of the time, their suggestions for change are things I had niggling little doubts about, or had considered on my own anyway.

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan)