Golden-word syndrome: give and take

BethS said:

Good answer. And I would add, your vision for the story.

Click to expand...

Not sure what that means in practical terms. You can change line edits and find another way of dealing with objections at a sentence level editorial input is pretty unlikely to affect your voice.
I tend to believe that writing is almost always improved by the editorial process - the editorial discussion obliges you to justify everything and often you do discover that you haven't achieved what you thought you'd achieved. A good editor is worth a great deal.

I edit nonfiction, so take this with a grain of salt, but I have to echo what a lot of people have said about trying to trust the editor. Their name isn't on your work, and they're not getting any money or fame out of it. They're just trying to make your work as good as humanly possible, and they've got the advantage of an outside and informed perspective.

Having said that, editors are human and sometimes they don't always make perfect suggestions. That's why it's great to discuss when you don't agree. It's nice when writers can argue back in a humane fashion, rather than getting upset and insisting the editor is trying to bury their voice/ruin the piece/calling their mama names. We're open to discussion, I promise, but we're a lot more likely to work with you if you're not calling us names (I once got told an edit I didn't even make looked "cheap, ugly, and lazy.")

If you seem to have stumbled upon a truly bad editor who's just messing with your piece, take a step back and give yourself a bit of time to think. Are you knee-jerk reacting to criticism, or is the editor going all red-pen-happy on you? It does happen, particularly with newer editors. If that's the case, then you may need to escalate the issue or walk away, but I'd say more than nine times out of 10, this isn't the case.

Also, this:

IdiotsRUs said:

that's the day you need to get your head right out of your own arse

I mean that

The day you think everything you write is gold, is the day you stop trying to learn

The day you become an 'I know better than everyone!' arsewipe

Don't look for that day.

Don't be that fuckwit

Click to expand...

Everybody needs an editor, even if it's just to clean up silly little things here and there.

ETA: In my experience, it's the good writers who respond the best to editorial suggestions. I can only assume it's because they feel confident in their work and don't have ego issues. Which is not to say they take everything lying down, mind you, but they tend to recognize when something is a good suggestion and incorporate it.

The Lonely One said:

This is more the angle I was getting at. Not that the publisher buys good writing, but that they then have a say in alterations OF that writing. A painting is a painting. You can't edit it.

But I'm glad you guys responded in a rational manner.

I thought about it and I was like, crap, I probably just trolled my own thread

Shit, maybe this whole thread is an accidental troll.

Click to expand...

not an accidental troll, but even the part in bold is flawed. Yes, you can't edit it (you can, of course, edit a painting by painting over/shadowing/whatever, but giving you the benefit of the doubt here, it IS a different process) but at the same time, you can show off your nice, shiny painting of six spiders playing poker and the gallery owner/buyer can say "I like it, but make them dogs instead" and you're off to revise. They can say "I love what you've done with the chapel, but I am of the 'fat, cherubic angel' school, and you have them looking like creepy Abercrombie models; fix it" and you either lose the job or you fix it.

bottom line, writing is a product. so is painting. those who insist "but, but it is AAAARTTTTT!" don't get that the two are not mutually exclusive, or that, if you intend to sell, you need to offer a product the buyer wants, regardless of integrity and whatnot, OR be willing to forego the sale. There is no reason you can't say "I will NOT paint clowns molesting starfish" because you don't want to, but if that's what the buyer is looking for, you aren't entitled to some divine right of art to sell him your cats on tricicles painting just because it is art.

the more we argue this, the LESS unique I think writing is. just a product, and you need to 1) make it what someone wants, 2) find someone else who wants what you have, 3) change it into what someone wants, or 4) just accept that it isn't going to sell. All 4 are valid choices, but you can't force a buy.

I would argue that the editors of the visual arts community are the gallery owners. They curate the space. Editors curate the page.

quicklime said:

bottom line, writing is a product. so is painting. those who insist "but, but it is AAAARTTTTT!" don't get that the two are not mutually exclusive, or that, if you intend to sell, you need to offer a product the buyer wants, regardless of integrity and whatnot, OR be willing to forego the sale. There is no reason you can't say "I will NOT paint clowns molesting starfish" because you don't want to, but if that's what the buyer is looking for, you aren't entitled to some divine right of art to sell him your cats on tricicles painting just because it is art.

the more we argue this, the LESS unique I think writing is. just a product, and you need to 1) make it what someone wants, 2) find someone else who wants what you have, 3) change it into what someone wants, or 4) just accept that it isn't going to sell. All 4 are valid choices, but you can't force a buy.

Click to expand...

All very good points. Ultimately, you can't force anyone to buy your work.

But I think it's also important to emphasize the fact that the writer does have the right to walk away when asked to paint clowns molesting starfish, so to speak, and that there are situations where walking away is the right decision.

The primary goal of the editor/publisher will always be to sell books. That's their job, and there's nothing wrong with that, but a writer may have different goals. Of course writers also want to sell books, but most of them also have some sort of artistic vision; a particular story they're trying to tell, because they feel that it's important. Maybe not in a huge world-changing way, but in a way that might have significant personal meaning to some readers. I mean, if a writer is in it just for the money, they're in the wrong field.

There are going to be cases where a writer is asked to change their story not to make it better, but to make it more marketable. These two things are not the same. I've read some wonderful books which struck a very personal chord with me, but which never gained widespread popularity because the subject matter was too niche. And I've read some books which sold very well but were pretty bland and mediocre as art. Sometimes, bland and mediocre sells like hotcakes, because people like what they're used to.

I've seen cases where writers have been advised to make changes that water down the essence of their characters or the story they're trying to tell in order to make it more acceptable to the mainstream palette. There've been cases where writers have been told to make their gay characters straight in order to avoid offending anyone. Or to make their characters more "conventionally attractive." Or to insert loads of sex scenes into a story that's not meant to be erotica in order to make it sell better.

I've never had an editor suggest such intrusive changes to one of my stories. A good editor will help you tell your story better, not try to rewrite it into a different, more sell-able story. But the latter situation does happen.

I want to be a successful writer, but I want to be successful as myself. If it comes at the price of writing stories that I don't believe in, that aren't mine, then I don't want it.

I don't think that's golden word syndrome. And I think part of maturing as a writer is learning to recognize the difference between golden word syndrome (which afflicts us all to some degree) and being true to yourself as an artist...and being willing to work with people in the publishing world, to be flexible and have an understanding of their goals, while not betraying your own.

I've had a bunch of different editors and liked them all. But I've also hit direct choices where we've got down to the real issue here. A writer can always walk away from having something being published. A publisher/editor can always refuse to publish something. Contracts ultimately just limit the remedies that can happen in this situation.

Let me give you three examples:

Example A: I'd written an article for a magazine of somewhere around 2,000 words. It was all set and ready to go, and then the magazine sold another ad. Editor calls me up and says I can either cut 500 words from my article and it will run as scheduled, we could substitute another article (it was a question and answer format and the editor often had extra questions for me to work from), or we could skip this issue and publish it in the next issue. My choice, but those were the options. Period. No discussion, no wiggle room.

Example B: I sent my manuscript for EQUINE LIABILITY to my editor. It waddled into her office at 140k and so she politely called me up to say it was way too big and I needed to cut it for them to publish it. My choice. Cut and be published by this publisher, or don't cut and find a new publisher.

Example C: EQUINE LIABILITY is nearing the end of the process and is just about ready for publishing. I wanted to include two indexes -- one general index and one index listing cases by specific states. Editor calls me and says no can do, the second index is going to require another signature and would increase the costs. What she didn't say is that it would also cut their profit margin. I explained why I thought keeping the state index would be worthwhile, increasing the critical acceptance of the book, but it wasn't a breaking point for me. Publisher's choice. Add an extra signature and increase the costs while making a 'better' book or don't increase the costs and risking some lost of sales as a result.

So push can come to shove, and ultimately it comes down to money.

But most of the issues between editors and writers are minor adjustments, where the editor and writer listen to each other and figure out the best way to make the book better. Because ultimately the goal for any commercially published book is sales. And the best way of getting sales is to have the best book possible.

Anything I've had published hasn't been quite my original vision. Instead, they've all been better, and that's because of my editors.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

I think that any and all editorial suggestions, other than simple changes in phrase (unless that changes the tone, of course) should be taken and mulled over. Many times a writer hears from an editor (or agent, I think this happens quite a lot during the submission process), and immediately rebels against it. But, after a little thinking it over, they see the wisdom in the suggestions. I think if they are a professional and have aspirations of getting anywhere in this business, that's what they need to do.

I know that has happened to me a few times. But usually the editor or agent is right, and I end up with a better product. ONCE in a while, the editor will make a suggestion and I don't want to follow it because their change impacts what I mean, and then we work together to come up with a clearer way to say it, or she may leave it as is.

Never had an editor try and change the voice of a piece. Thank goodness

Hip-Hop-a-potamus said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wasn't Talking about you not reading her books, but the first line of the one review I read stated he hadn't read any of her books. I should have made that clear.

Her earliest books weren't touched by editors, either, and editors almost never, ever make a bestselling writer less long-winded. Just the opposite. Having a bestseller or two gives the writer permission to be as long-winded as they like. Readers make this call, not editors. If readers keep buying, why would an editor take a chance on screwing it up?

Most new writers are pressured to keep it short, but it's paper the editor is trying to save, not style. When the writer sells well, the editor gives them all the paper they want, and if the reading public keeps reading, the writer tends to get even longer.

I can pretty much guarantee that an editor would not have made Rice any less "long winded". That's not an editor's job, at least with a proven writer. And your long-winded is another reader's perfection.

This is why King and Rowling both got much, much longer after the first bestseller. Your complaints about Rices books are the exact complaint readers all over the place have with King and Rowling, but other readers more than make up for any loss, and that's how it should be.

But, look, sometimes I think most just don't know what an editor does and doesn't do, or should or shouldn't do. Editors get way too much credit for the good things in a book, and way too much blame for the bad. Good editors touch a writer as little as possible, and not at all, if they can help it.

As for being a diva, too many readers are the real divas, but think it doesn't count because they buy the books. I prefer an honest writer to one who smiles to your face, shakes your hand, signs your book, and then calls you a stupid sonofabitch as soon as you're out of earshot. I've heard this happen more than once.

Readers can be as nose picking stupid as they like,and many of those who reviewed Rice's books on Amazon, gave nose picking stupid a bad name, but if the writer responds in kind, it's, "Who the hell do you think you are for blasting me!?!?"

And I still say Anne Rice didn't get in trouble because she doesn't let editors touch her books, but for admitting it in public. Many writers don't let editors touch their books, but they don't, gasp, tell fans the truth.

Just like a writer I used to know claimed publicly that he always wrote nine drafts. He really wrote one. All writers have feet of clay, all people have feet of clay, including readers. But let anyone see the clay, and you're doomed, even if you write wonderful books. Some simply can't help confusing the writer with the book.

I don't read reviews, and haven't in a couple of decades. I just don't care what they say. But I have told two readers I really hoped they wouldn't read anything else I wrote, and I meant it. One said he wouldn't read another of my books because the cover artist drew a Peacemaker all out of proportion to the character's hand. On the other occasion, I went to a book signing, and I wore boots, jeans, and a flannel shirt. The reader said he wouldn't read another of my books because I obviously didn't care about my fans, or I would have invested in dress pants and a good polo shirt. I also had someone else say the same damned fool thing on a writer's forum.

I told both where they could shelve my books. But as stupid as these comments were, I've read worse in reviews, including in reviews of some of Rice's books.

Originally Posted by BethS
Good answer. And I would add, your vision for the story.

Click to expand...

timewaster said:

Not sure what that means in practical terms.

Click to expand...

What I meant was making changes so radical that they transform the work into a different story.

I suppose when I said that I was remembering the agent who loved my writing, but wanted a different story than the one I'd told. I gave his suggestions considerable thought, but in the end, I walked away.

And found an agent who loved it exactly the way I'd written it.

And yes, I know we're talking editors here, not agents. But OTOH, I have friends who've had some iffy experiences with editors wanting to make sweeping changes in a story, and not for the better.

Toothpaste said:

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

Click to expand...

It happened to me. When I received the edits for an anthology story, I vetoed a few of the changes, the ones that were not improvements and messed with the voice. My vetoes were largely ignored, which I didn't discover until the story went to print. I even found one change that had been made without consulting me at all. And it was a completely nonsensical change, too. It was small, but it added nothing, and it was not something I would ever have written. I still haven't figured out why the editor did it.

A friend in the business told me that anthology editors were notorious for doing this kind of thing and it was just something we had to put up with. Not sure I agree that we should. If there's ever a next time, at least I'll know to inquire up front how the edits are going to work and what the editor's expectations are.

timewaster said:

I tend to believe that writing is almost always improved by the editorial process

Click to expand...

I'm glad you put in the "almost" qualifier. A friend, who is a respectably published mystery writer, shared with me a couple of years back a comment his editor had returned, suggesting he change "nine a.m." to "nine a.m. in the morning."

Editors ain't pefrect.

As for me, I have no "golden word syndrome". My problem is at the opposite end of the spectrum: I have an "osmium word syndrome." Osmium is possibly the most useless naturally-occurring element, the heaviest known and, exposed to oxygen, produces a foul-smelling deadly poisonous gaseous oxide. My words tend toward literary osmium.

caw

blacbird said:

I'm glad you put in the "almost" qualifier. A friend, who is a respectably published mystery writer, shared with me a couple of years back a comment his editor had returned, suggesting he change "nine a.m." to "nine a.m. in the morning."

Editors ain't pefrect.

No, but you the author do have the final say. In any case the whole business of editing is a conversation not a series of edicts. For novel writers who work alone that is invaluable. A good editor points out a problem and will suggest but not insist on a particular solution. The book is improved by the exchanges that ensue.
I've never done everything I've been asked to do - I negotiate on the bits I believe are worth keeping, however it is worth remembering that if an editor doesn't 'get it' your reader may not 'get it' either so finding a better way of writing something is probably a good idea.

As for me, I have no "golden word syndrome". My problem is at the opposite end of the spectrum: I have an "osmium word syndrome." Osmium is possibly the most useless naturally-occurring element, the heaviest known and, exposed to oxygen, produces a foul-smelling deadly poisonous gaseous oxide. My words tend toward literary osmium.

caw

Click to expand...

Probably not.

I only just received my first set of suggested revisions by an editor, and I was delighted with them. They were insightful, and immediately pointed out things that neither me nor my betas had spotted (as we all rather had the benefit of having spoken about plot points, backgrounds, and assorted other things), and were just incredibly helpful to me. Working on the revisions now.

That said, while all of them were spot on in intent and insight, there are a couple of places where I'm going to try and address the problems without implementing the exact suggestions, for reasons related to theme and the narrative arc.

I think an editor should be accorded the same sort of respect and careful consideration as any other professional expert; they may not be right all the time - few people are - but the vast, vast majority know what they're talking about, and more, it's their job to help make the best book possible.