Editing
brinkett said:
I've read two novels in the past year (not fantasy) that were horrible no matter what angle you come from (story, plot, characterization, quality of writing). If they were edited, then either the manuscripts were so lousy to begin with that they should never have been acquired (both books were written by previously published authors), or the editors should be fired.
Well, I'd ask who published them, and what you, as editor, would have changed. Good editors never, ever mess with a writer's style, and never have. And the writer should be the one who knows what a good story and a good plot and good characterization are.
All an editor does, all a good editor does, is try to put the final bit of editing on a novel that makes it as good as it can get, and without changing a writer's style or voice. No editor can turn a bad novel into a good one, or a bad writer into a good one.
I'd also want to know which books those were, and whether or not the majority of readers felt the same way you did about them?
Were these things bad, or is it just that you didn't like them? If they are bad, those novels will stop selling, and that writer will be out of a job. The editor might well be out of a job, as well. Editors who do not consistently buy books the public likes generally get fired very quickly.
Now, there are certainly some bad editors out there, but most often they're the ones who edit too much instead of too little. There are more publishers now than ever, and there are more editors now than ever. Far more. Some few just aren't going to be any good at what they do. These few will get replaced, but there will always be bad editors. Always have been. It makes no sense to think all those in any profession are all going to be great at their job.
Likelwise, it also makes no sense to think editors today don;t do a great job because you read two novels that you think weren't any good. You may be right. Maybe those two novels could have stood a great deal more editing. And you may be completely wrong, and the editor did exactly the job she was supposed to do, which is to publish novels the majority of her readers will enjoy. Once writers reach teh gettign published stage, good and bad are largely subjective. I've heard the same comments about the novels of darned near every published writer out there. Bad writing, bad plotting, bad characterization, etc. Sometimes these comments are accurate, but far more often than not they mean nothing except that reader did not like that writer.
But people, particularly wannabe writers, seem to have a really odd notion of what an editor's job really is, and this iis often brought about by mythical tales of a never did exist time when all editors were wonderful, and would turn the work of any writer into deathless prose.
It si essentially teh writer's job to write a good novel. It is the writer's job to come up with a good story, with good characters, and with prose that's the best that writer can do. It's the editor's job to find writers who can do these things. Always has been.
But anyone who thinks novels do not get edited these days, often more than they should, has purely and simply never been through the editing process, or simply doesn't understand an editor's job. That job is not to be a writer, and that job is not to turn bad into good.
An editor's job is to find good writers, which means writers who can please the majority of teh reading public, and then to help those writers put a finishing touch on the novel that makes it as good as it can be, which may be very good, or may be mediocre. But editors can only work with the material that's submitted to them, and there are, unfortunately, more good editors than there are good writers.
This said, editors routinely work mioracles. They cut, polish, edit, tighten, suggest and implore. But they do not and cannot turn bad writing into good writing, or bad novels into good novels. When the writing really is bad, when the stories and characters really are bad, the editor should not buy that novel, but it's the writer's lack of talent that makes these things bad, not the editor's lack of editing.
And as I said, just because any of us think a couple of novels we read are bad in every way in no measure means they were. That's a decision that requires a concensus, and that concensus shows in sales numbers. Some few really bad novels will sell well, and some extremely few good novels won't sell at all, but these are the aberrations.
Neither means editors do not edit. Some few editors are lousy at their job, most are pretty good, and some are as good as any editor who ever lived, and pretty much every last one of them tries very hard.
Those who gripe at editors should find a way to spend a month or so watching them work. The amount of editing they do is unbelievable. Those who gripe too much should spend more time learning how to write well, and less time worrying about editors. Writer's who can't write well do not need to look at editors to cast blame, and writers who can't edit their own work to a professional state are living in a fantasy world.
It's such a gift when you find an editor who understands your work and merely wants to help you make it shiny. You learn so much from the good ones, whereas the bad ones just leave you feeling violated... or neglected.
