******
Do note that Anne Rice confirmed that the below excerpt did come from her and she did so in a comment to this post!!! What? How she happened to see my blog in the massive blogosphere, (where I can only hope to be read,) I'll never know. But it is what it is. So jump to the comments if you're interested. You certainly won't see someone along the lines of Anne Rice commenting on my blog very often . . . if ever again. But at least the ten or fifteen who follow my blog might be impressed. ;)
************
I've pretty strong feelings about having an MS edited and I've shared them before. But to better understand the different feelings some well-known authors have about editors one must truly understand the nature of publishing. Otherwise, the information put out will have one switching from one idea back to another based on who said what.
I recently read a "supposed" entry made by Anne Rice on Amazon. Do understand that I did NOT go beyond reading it to see if the post was legitimate. So while I say the post was from Anne Rice and thus most likely reflects her views, I'm not 100% certain. It did sound like something she would say but even if she wasn't the one who wrote it, I do know it is the way many long-time published authors feel. Here's the excerpt from what I read (again, maybe Anne Rice, maybe not.)
". . . and no, I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself. I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me, and I will never relinquish that status. For me, novel writing is a virtuoso performance. It is not a collaborative art. . . ."
After reading this one is tempted to walk away saying,"ha, see! I don't need an editor."
My response to that is this. ALL larger published authors are at the mercy of those editors who work for the publishers whose job it is to produce a book that they've decided will sell better than say some other book. More times than not, they will drastically cut, rework and otherwise revise an MS until it's virtually unrecognizable leaving enough of the authors voice in to make it distinguishable from all the other stuff they put out.
These editors are in no way reflective of the work a professional editor can do for you if you're self-published or with a small press who can't afford to hire an editor (beyond perhaps a line-editor.) An editor you hire yourself will ask you at every turn and only suggests things to make your work more readable. Acceptance is based on what you want, not what they want. Any contentions large published authors have with their editors stems from the fact that they have little control over what these editors want to do with their MS. The author above states they've fought long and hard to have it the way they want it. Seems like they could've saved themselves the trouble of a fight by going with a publisher that will give them the final say. Many have said for years that going with a large publisher means giving up everything, a sort of selling-your-soul-to-the-devil scenario. Perhaps back in the day larger publishers hid information from authors they signed. I don't know. But everyone knows today that large published authors have to "fight" to have their work not edited so much that it isn't even their story anymore. Even at that I wish large published authors would clarify when they speak so horrendously of being edited and editors in general.
Just keep in mind that the excerpt above, (no matter who said it as it's all been said before) means that most, if not every large published author, hates that they don't have the final say on their edits. Just keep in mind that it's a very different scenario when you're hiring your own editor. And if you feel that writing isn't a collaborative experience between writer and editor then it will be a very, very long journey for you indeed and you most likely won't make it to your destination at all. It IS a collaborative work and as many large published authors believe otherwise there are just as many who disagree. J K Rowling is one. At least she got something right. HA!
I did indeed write the post on Amazon a long time ago. But it has given rise to much misunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteAll books from New York houses are proofread, for style, grammar, punctuation, etc. and no book of mine or anyone else's goes out without this form of "editing" which is essentially proof reading.
Some have thought I was against that. They find a typo or print error in one of my books, and they blame it on my attitude. This is unfortunate. Errors get through multiple copy edits.
I was talking about creative editing, the idea that all writers are children whose unfinished and immature efforts require a creative edit to help get the work into shape.
Not so.
Writers should be respected like singers or dancers. You don't dub in another tenor where you think Pavorotti could use some help. You don't splice in another dancer where you think a great dancer in a film needs some enhancement. Not unless you want to violate the integrity of the art.
Actually, writers like myself often can stand up for our way of saying something, and we certainly are respected.
But first novelists frequently suffer terribly at the pressure to allow "editing" of their work that can break their hearts.
Ideally, New York editors don't force things on you. They can reject you outright, but not really force you to take their changes.
Anyway, I maintain a devotion to the singular work of a creative mind. I don't want the "edited" Dickens. I want Dickens. And since nobody edited Dickens, I love him.
Same with Tolstoy.
Heavily edited writers? Who knows who you are reading?
Good luck.
I've had few "professional" editors and they've been a mixed bag. Some were good, some not so much.
ReplyDeleteWhat I more often rely heavily on after going with non-traditional publishing is a sample readership, say about 10, whom I then ask focused questions. I then have it proofread by a couple of people.
All of that seems to buy me more than much else.
In the end, authors should always be in control of the creative aspects of their work be it their first or twenty-first novel. Otherwise, what we end up with is pedantic types like this Alan Gribben who plans to edit Mark Twain. That's unacceptable.
Yes Jon. I agree. But for someone with a debut novel, I'd almost always suggest they take a shot at getting a professional editor. After that they should have a good idea on how to proceed with subsequent novels. Of course the best hope would be to secure a publisher who has in-house editors but even at that,creative integrity should never be messed with!
ReplyDeleteBTW, in my book, I'm as honored to have a comment from you as I am from Anne Rice. I absolutely love your writing style. LOVE IT!
You're most welcome Jodie. I got my first traditional publisher straight away and ONLY because they saw it was edited with a 2% error rate and they knew that if the story was good, they wouldn't have to put out more money on having someone work with it.
ReplyDeleteThe publisher went under but the professionally edited book went on to be short-listed for a 2007 Bram Stoker Award for Superior Achievement in a First Novel as well as short-listed for a 2009 Pluto Award. It has now be re-published by Black Bed Sheet Books.