How to weigh/interpret the edit letter

Ooooookay, I'm the first to comment and still a little inexperienced here, but this is sending up some major red flags. An edit letter isn't supposed to completely derail the plot/character development/arch/structure of your book. I've always seen it as a take or leave situation, since after all, it's your book, but before you move forward I think you might have to talk to your editor to see how your visions for the finished project differ.

First, a caveat: I'm an author who has worked with an editor, not a book editor myself.

But my impression is basically what s_nov said. Developmental editors can and do suggest drastic revisions, but their goal should be to help you improve the book you have, not to make you write a new book.

Is this editor the same editor who acquired your book? And what do you mean by the publisher's beta readers? In my case, I dealt directly with just one editor, the one who acquired the book. Other people read it, of course, but I never heard their views.

If someone else acquired the book, can you go to that person and ask for help in negotiating with the editor? If your editor acquired the book, is it possible the letter isn't quite as harsh as it initially appears? Some editors praise; others use a "tough love" approach; others do some of both. Just hypothetically, it's possible that your editor loves your basic premise of a teen spy, but feels like you could add more details to reduce the suspension-of-disbelief problem. Maybe the way the editor is expressing this seems more negative than it actually is.

Again, though, this is all hypothetical, since I don't know the details of your situation.

I do know this: It is absolutely normal for writers to receive editorial letters that make them want to curl up in a corner and cry. (In an article about John Green's editor, we learn that she basically snarked on his first draft of The Fault in Our Stars, calling a passage "bad John Green fanfiction." She has reduced many writers to tears, and the ultimate result is some great books.) But there's a difference between tough love and actual hostility toward your book.

If you decide this is a case of the former, then no, you do not need to follow every editorial suggestion to the letter. The final decision is yours. But you should at least consider the suggestions, and ideally solve the problems identified by the editor in some other way. Sometimes all it takes to achieve suspension of disbelief is a certain amount of skilled hand-waving.

Whatever you do, take at least a day before responding to an editorial letter. Give yourself some downtime and let it marinate in your head. Believe me, that makes a difference; what initially seems harsh can come to seem quite reasonable. If that does not happen, and the letter still reads as hostile to the very premise of your book, you may have a problem.

ETA: As I say, I've only worked with the one editor, but she read the book extremely carefully and didn't make errors in describing it. So, if your editor is making actual factual errors, I'd say that's a problem, but if it's more "You need to explain this better," I would heed that critique. It's so easy to feel like you've spelled something out when you haven't—I do this all the time.

An editor can recommend changes, but you don't have to change them if you don't agree: just discuss it with your editor and open up a conversation on where you think it needs to go. Just keep in mind what you know already: You know your story, but might be too close it.

On the author side: I'm not keen on aggressive editors. I just want them to pinpoint issues so I can see if it needs a rewrite. I do get close to a script, so I trust an editor to say: potential issue here. I've changed short stories into novels, and also rewritten a novel on the back of editor comments. But the changes worked for the better. But I'm a logical processor when it comes to puzzles, so I just need a logical reply from the editor to sort out issues with any puzzle I'm crafting together, no attitude needed off the editor.

On the Editor side: I'm not an aggressive editor: I work edits as I'd like to see them as an author: just the need to know when and where there's a potential issue, and if there's avenues they can take to fix it. And yeah, that can mean plot themes need expanding, motivations aren't in-depth enough, characters regress instead show growth, and the likes of logic failures mean the work needs a serious rewrite. But structural comments are balanced with what is making the story work.

To be honest, if you're still having doubts: look at what the editor has previously edited. If they're Amazon, are there complaints over editing (and I'm not just talking basic grammatical edits), those that pinpoint a reader couldn't understand why character did something (motivations etc)? If all the editor's works are getting the same comments with readers, then you have every right to be concerned! And then you should be able to talk with the publisher about working with another editor, if that's the case.

But talking to your editor is the first stop, and just seeing if he's absolutely adamant you make all those changes, or if he's more open to compromise and discussion. If it's the former, I'd be concerned.

Aside from what everyone else said, it might also be a good idea to re-read your manuscript, keeping the editor's letter in mind as you go, before you respond. You might uncover things you didn't notice before, and/or brainstorm ways to address issues that are different than the ways your editor suggested, but will still improve your novel. There's always room for improvement. Even the most experienced writers can always find something to tweak while doing another pass.

I recently did this with my own editor for a small press, and I have to say, when I first read the edit letter, I was completely overwhelmed. Fallen mentioned crying in a corner, and that is spot on. But once I re-read my own work, I could see what she was saying, even at times where I didn't agree with the fix she suggested. It took me about three weeks to digest it all and come out from the corner, at which time I sent her an overview of which of her ideas I planned to implement, which of them sparked ideas for different fixes entirely, and which of them I preferred to reject, and why. It turns out we are both happy with the new direction that my novel is taking, and I've just recently begun re-writing what I believe will be a better book in the end.

With all that said, my editor wasn't harsh with her letter, even with the amount of changes she asked for. I'm sorry to hear that your editor was harsh with you, I'm sure that makes the process that much harder. Hang in there, and I hope you come to an agreement that you are both happy with. And by the way, congrats on landing a contract and getting published! Not everyone does, so it is a good thing to keep in mind while you are working this through. This is just another hurdle of many.

noonian said:

Hi everybody and thanks for reading this,

I recently got a contract with a small independent publisher and received my first-round-edits back from the editor, including "edit letter", and I'm not quite sure how to handle it. His first criticism is that he doesn't like the plot. Ouch--because, well, that's the story that was accepted and taken under contract. His other comments make me wonder, and editors here, please don't take this the wrong way, if he ever read the manuscript properly, because there are so many comments on things that are clearly explained in the book and not at all what he is thinking. Now, granted--maybe I need to be more explicit. Deal. ;o)

Him and I also seem to have a different point of view in regards to suspense of disbelief: My teen protagonist got hired as a spy, and of course he does spy-things, neither of which my editor likes (for example saying the MC's parents would never let him do that--well, NO! Not in real life--which it is not!). I agree that in real life nobody would take a sixteen-year-old on a dangerous mission--but if he didn't go, then we wouldn't have this story. And my MC has a good reason to go (there is a logical progression of events, his background is clear and explained)--only the editor says it wouldn't happen in real life. Sigh.

My overall problem with letter is that he is telling me more or less to write a different book (never mind the aggressive and somehow deprecating tone), and that I feel we're looking at this story completely differently: I can't win. No matter what my characters do, it's never right. Funny thing is, this backlash is coming a bit out of nowhere, because none of my beta-readers nor any of the publisher's beta-readers had any of the problems with the story he does (but they're not editors, I know).

So, what do I do? Is that the way an editing letter/process works? Do I write back, explain my POV for each of his bullet points, and we come to a solution together? Do I *have* to take his suggestions (and yes, no worries: I will consider them all and think them through), or can I take some and leave others? What does the publisher expect me to do--> "obey" the editor's suggestions?

If anybody could give me some pointers, it would be greatly appreciated.

THANK YOU! )

~noonian

Click to expand...

I've been on both sides of this--I've edited a lot of fiction, and I've been edited. First of all, it's concerning that you say your editor is actually hostile and apparently didn't read the book carefully. Both huge problems if true. Why did the editor acquire the book if he/she dislikes it so much? If he didn't acquire it but had the editing of it foisted upon him, that would make more sense.

What strikes you as hostile in his tone? It is the nature of editorial letters that they focus on the negative, the stuff that needs work. There really isn't time for the editor to cite the stuff he/she loved. A writing teacher will do that,so that the writer can build on what's strong in his work; but editors are not hand-holders. Is there any possibility that you're taking the edit too personally and mistaking rigor in editing for hostility?

Every edit I do goes back to writers with the caveat that they should take only those suggestions (and they are suggestions, not diktats) that bring them closer to the book they envisioned. Sounds like your editor left that bit out. But it still applies, even if he/she didn't say it. You have every right to reject any suggestion that changes the work, assuming that the change is not the direction you wanted. But you have to take into account that if you summarily refuse all editing notes, the publisher could potentially drop the book.

It's a dialogue. Take a day or two to soothe your wounded feelings, then reread the letter and try to find some helpful stuff in it. Also allow it to stimulate your own thoughts about the ms. As a writer, I've found that edits often stir up new ideas and solution, which neither I nor my editor previously considered; pay attention to those thoughts. When you've done all that, then contact the editor to discuss the issues you don't agree on. Whatever attitude the editor takes, yours should be "We're in this together and want the same thing: a strong, successful book." And keep an open mind. Beta readers--no offense to the beta readers out there, but they're not professionals and 9 times out of 10 they're far less rigorous than pros would be. Your editor's focus seems to be on making the book as realistic as possible. Especially when you're writing a story with fantasy elements, that's a great counter-balancing attitude for an editor to take. It'll keep you honest. You can't rely on readers to suspend disbelief when you present them with ten impossible things before breakfast.

Good luck to you!

I have dealt with a number of editors, some were wonderful and others I had knock-down-drag-out-I'm-going-Medieval-on-yer-evul-arse (ahem) "disagreements."

In one case, when I made a reference to a character in a Dickens novel, the editor had a freak out, saying this character hadn't appeared in MY book at all and who was it?? I can't just drop a new name in this late in the action, blah-blah-blah panic attack.

I figured out my reference wasn't clear to someone who was asleep during 10th grade English. As I've gotten older, I have found that some editors (younger) are decidedly ill-educated, but I have learned to work with and use their lack to make things more clear in the books.

Like yours harping on "real parents wouldn't allow that to happen." Interpret that to mean you may need just a single line to cover your arse on that point. None of the Buffy gang's parents were visible except for Buffy's oblivious mom. Whedon never covered that, but you can.

When this editor raises a point, consider that if he missed something so it seems like he didn't read it, it could mean your reader could miss where you covered it. Some editors work like that (which is too subtle for me), while others are not, they missed the stuff that covers that issue.

This sounds like a case where this editor was given an assignment out of hand, so he may not like your book at all. That's hard luck, but you can turn the negatives around to your advantage. By adding a line, even a word, here and there you can correct the things that DO need attention.

The things you disagree with him about get a STET, which means leave as-is. I had to STET a lot of things on one book simply because I know a bunch more on history than my editor did. She was fresh outta college and had inherited my book from the editor who had bought it. We got on okay, but I used her lack of knowledge to make my historical references more clear. (Certainly I backed them all up with solid references!)

Do I *have* to take his suggestions (and yes, no worries: I will consider them all and think them through), or can I take some and leave others? What does the publisher expect me to do--> "obey" the editor's suggestions?

Click to expand...

You can absolutely reject things! In another book, my editor wanted to have a minor character in on the climax with the main characters. She really liked the minor, but it simply didn't work when I tried a rewrite. The main characters were needed, no one else, because it diluted the suspense and pacing. What I DID do was go back and reduce the presence of the minor character in other scenes, making him even more minor. I came to see why she liked him so much, but it threw off the balance for the ending. I gave his lines to someone else. This was a case where the editor's preference was unworkable, but I was able to adjust things to cover it.

You can absolutely leave others things intact after you figure whether it's a valid point or not. If the editor seems to have missed something, consider that the cover-your-arse point may need punching up. If the editor clearly got something wrong, stick to your guns.

YOU have the final say on everything.

In my case, I needed help on punctuation/grammar, sometimes sentence structure, on my first book, no arguments! But I was solid on the story, plot, and characters.

The publisher expects both of you to work together to make a great book, but sometimes that doesn't work out. For years I listened to a dear friend whinge on about her evul editor riding her ragged about fixing this and that and being a pain in the tookus about every tiny detail. She finally got her agent to get the publisher to find her someone more compatible. You may have to do that, so keep it on the back burner as a last resort.

However, when I edited a story by that dear friend, I found tons of things that needed to be fixed. Her MS looked like a patchwork quilt in blue from my comments. What I did differently from the evul editor was to soften the feedback into suggestions and possible examples. You may not have a diplomat, though! (My friend corrected the problems and to be fair, she wrote that story at lightning speed, so things got missed. The final result was boss!)

If you are getting the impression that this editor just doesn't like your writing (do NOT take it personally!), you can certainly request a different one for future books.

If things are flat out impossible on this project, you can ask the publisher for "advice" on how deal with the situation. Diplomacy is your friend. (STET is your other friend.)

Keep it short and on point, the Suits don't have time to spare, and you don't want to look like you need coddling.

If you have too many head-to-head issues with this editor, you have a case. If you can resolve everything with some tweaking, then power through. The time to ask for a different editor for future books is before starting the next project.

D.L. Shepherd said:

I recently did this with my own editor for a small press, and I have to say, when I first read the edit letter, I was completely overwhelmed.

Click to expand...

Was the letter asking for big, developmental changes, or just talking about a few chapters and/or paragraphs? I thought that publishers usually want the manuscript as close to be published as possible before they accept it, while agents are more involved and they ask those types of changes (Sometimes I imagine them as real estate agents--"I love your house but I'm not in love with it"--that ask you to remodel your house before you sell it ).

But then again I know nothing of the process. Just curious.

chracatoa said:

Was the letter asking for big, developmental changes, or just talking about a few chapters and/or paragraphs? I thought that publishers usually want the manuscript as close to be published as possible before they accept it, while agents are more involved and they ask those types of changes (Sometimes I imagine them as real estate agents--"I love your house but I'm not in love with it"--that ask you to remodel your house before you sell it ).

But then again I know nothing of the process. Just curious.

Click to expand...

My edit letter requested big, developmental changes. My editor had a vision that involved some restructuring, which she ran by us before the deal was done, so I knew what I was getting into. Based on what I’ve heard from other writers, it’s common to be asked to restructure, add or delete characters, change backstory, etc., even if you already revised for your agent. I remember reading an article about a “big book” (million-plus sale) that insiders were saying would need a “lot of work.”

So I think that is pretty common. It doesn’t mean the books were in horrible rough shape when the agent submitted them, just that editors are good readers and tend to have strong ideas about how to make a book better, more commercial, etc. In my case, the result was definitely a stronger book. There are so many things the writer is too close to see, but an editor does.

chracatoa said:

Was the letter asking for big, developmental changes, or just talking about a few chapters and/or paragraphs? I thought that publishers usually want the manuscript as close to be published as possible before they accept it, while agents are more involved and they ask those types of changes (Sometimes I imagine them as real estate agents--"I love your house but I'm not in love with it"--that ask you to remodel your house before you sell it ).

But then again I know nothing of the process. Just curious.

Click to expand...

I had the opposite experience. My former agent just asked for some minor brushing up, like expanding a few scenes, and further developing some character traits before she sent it out.

My new publisher wants me to show more and tell less, change the role of one of the major characters, vastly expand the role of another, develop my characters even further, and make some other minor changes in between. They are still all my original characters, and the beginning and ending just needed some tweaking, so that's that.