An Editor's Angst

[redzinger]

Robertreams, I just got into trouble!
One of the stories I'm editing at the moment is proving to be particularly tricky... because of the author. He contacted me to help out with his dialogue, but after a week of emailing me hints and prompts I got frustrated of his fumbling around and asked him for his full draught to start editing: "Please send me your story so that I may understand your writing style and offer more focused help, corrections and integrations. An editor must always be invisible: without any of your work that's difficult for me."
He says he understands, then after a few days he writes "For my stories to really work, I need to be that Greek solider and I need you to be that Amazon. As I write the story, I need you to provide the dialogue of the Amazon. But I need you to be that Amazon-what are you thinking as you chase me. I want to get horny when I read your comments. I want you to get horny as you read my stories."

I'm no prude (otherwise I wouldn't even BE here), but I really don't feel comfortable with this turn of events... I'm here as an editor, not anything else. Any advice on how to handle the situation?

It sounds like he just wants to get his rocks off. I would back out of the relationship ASAP. You've already explained what you do as an editor.

I'd send him a polite note stating that he requested an editor, not a co-author, that unfortunately you can't help him write the story, and good luck in his future endeavours.

 

[PennLady]

I'm no prude (otherwise I wouldn't even BE here), but I really don't feel comfortable with this turn of events... I'm here as an editor, not anything else. Any advice on how to handle the situation?

You tell him, once, that this isn't what you signed on for, you don't want to do it, and then you don't respond to anything else. Try to state things clearly and don't leave any wiggle room -- I'm bad at that myself -- and then let it go. Don't blame (unless it's necessary) or anything like that. Just say want to say in the clearest, cleanest way, and move on.

Remember -- you are in control of *your own time*. You are not obligated to do this, you are not being paid or graded or anything else. You do not owe this guy anything.

 

[Fuzznfangs]

He says he understands, then after a few days he writes "For my stories to really work, I need to be that Greek solider and I need you to be that Amazon. As I write the story, I need you to provide the dialogue of the Amazon. But I need you to be that Amazon-what are you thinking as you chase me. I want to get horny when I read your comments. I want you to get horny as you read my stories."

I'm no prude (otherwise I wouldn't even BE here), but I really don't feel comfortable with this turn of events... I'm here as an editor, not anything else. Any advice on how to handle the situation?

Ginger_scent, I recently joined the site after lurking for a while, and I volunteered as an editor. I got the same request to provide the Amazon's dialogue. I turned the request down because I felt it was impossible to provide dialogue without the actual story. How on earth should I know what the Amazon's personality is like without a draft? I received the request yesterday, and turned it down today. Is asking multiple people to edit the same "story" appropriate? Sounds like "Naked Male" is just wanting women to talk dirty to him.

 

[Ginger_Scent]

Hey Fuzznfungs... Yes I too got really annoyed at his continuous prodding after a dialogue that I was just supposed to improvise based on his little prompts... I was under the impression from the third email that he actually just wanted to talk dirty, like you said.
I'll back out now from the whole Naked Male (that's his username) fandango.
Thank you very much Fuzznfangs, PennLady, Redzinger and sr71plt for your advice

 

[O_G_Salli]

Just out of general curiosity ...

When you folks edit, do you generally use "Track Changes" in Word documents to show the writer what you've done?

 

[sr71plt]

When you folks edit, do you generally use "Track Changes" in Word documents to show the writer what you've done?

I will only edit in Word track changes now. It's industry standard and I've retired my mainline editing business, which would deal with most anything a publisher wanted (which increasingly Word track changes). I rarely am willing to go beyond that anymore.

 

[PennLady]

When you folks edit, do you generally use "Track Changes" in Word documents to show the writer what you've done?

I do. Seems easiest to me. Since this isn't anything I do professionally, I'd be willing to talk to an author and see if they'd prefer something else. But it's the quickest way for me to do it.

 

[Todger65]

When you folks edit, do you generally use "Track Changes" in Word documents to show the writer what you've done?

I much prefer word tracking, it is so much easier. I will also use open office tracking if requested. It is easy for the editor, once it is switched on, but not as simple for the author to accept or reject the changes. It is a bit more 'long winded'

 

[_Lynn_]

When you folks edit, do you generally use "Track Changes" in Word documents to show the writer what you've done?

Yes, I use track changes in Word for edits. It's both easier and faster than any of the other methods I've tried.

 

[Bramblethorn]

So I recently edited Chapter 2 of what I consider a cringe-worthy 2-3 star story from a new writer. Other than quotation marks, he did not use any punctuation in his dialogue blocks... no periods, commas, semi-colons... nuthin'! No exaggeration, I had to place close to 200 punctuation marks in this 3-4 page story. I also suggested numerous stylistic changes and some (many) dialogue improvements. No problem... I had the time and patience to hopefully help an inexperienced writer complete and post an acceptable story.

So he sends a revised Chapter 2 that addressed just a few of the changes I suggested. That's not a problem. He evidently has a style and approach that he doesn't want to change. But unfortunately, he revised the original Chapter 2 document, not the edited document that I returned to him. His revised chapter is still missing +/- 200 missing punctuation marks! I reviewed his new revised chapter, complimented the few changes he did make, but pointed out that I wasn't inclined to correct-- for a second time -- his numerous punctuation and grammatical errors.

I'm waiting for a response, but now I'm starting to feel guilty. Did I fail to go the extra mile for this guy? Should I have just gone ahead and spent the couple of hours needed to do another complete edit?

Interested to know how other editors would have handled this situation...

When I edit, I do it in Word with the change-tracking feature switched on. So my response at that point would have been "don't forget the punctuation and grammar fixes in the edited document I sent you last week".

If an author is consistently making the same mistake, I will let them know the rule that applies (e.g. "see this link for rules on how to punctuate speech"). After that, I expect to see some evidence that they've looked at that rule and made efforts to follow it. Everybody makes mistakes, and as an editor it's my job to help catch and fix them, but I'm not here to cover for somebody who just isn't trying because they've decided their time is more valuable than mine.

(Well, not for free. If they want to pay me a decent hourly rate, I'm quite happy to fix the same mistake over and over.)

 

[sr71plt]

(Well, not for free. If they want to pay me a decent hourly rate, I'm quite happy to fix the same mistake over and over.)

That's the same divide I've made. Professionally, I'm either paid by the hour or I'm working to a "no more time than X" basis. In the former I'm making money by repeatedly fixing the same issues again and again rather than having to scratch my head over only new problems. In the latter, it's the author who is suffering from his/her laziness, because if I spend all available time changing wrongly used semicolons, I'm not looking at deeper contextual problems that are likely now to make it into print and negative reviews.

 

[robertreams]

direct him/her to the sexual role playing thread

 

[Bramblethorn]

That's the same divide I've made. Professionally, I'm either paid by the hour or I'm working to a "no more time than X" basis. In the former I'm making money by repeatedly fixing the same issues again and again rather than having to scratch my head over only new problems. In the latter, it's the author who is suffering from his/her laziness, because if I spend all available time changing wrongly used semicolons, I'm not looking at deeper contextual problems that are likely now to make it into print and negative reviews.

My textbook editing pays by the page, same rate regardless of difficulty or quality of the material. That got exasperating the time they sent me 500 pages of error-riddled crap that needed major fixes, but they made up for it with some low-hanging fruit soon after; overall it averages out at a pretty decent hourly rate.

 

[sr71plt]

My textbook editing pays by the page, same rate regardless of difficulty or quality of the material. That got exasperating the time they sent me 500 pages of error-riddled crap that needed major fixes, but they made up for it with some low-hanging fruit soon after; overall it averages out at a pretty decent hourly rate.

Hmmm, in over 160 mainstream books edits for some 25 publishers (most of them academic press), I've never encountered a pay-by-the-page arrangement. It's always been a "by the hour," with a ceiling, or a flat fee based on their calculation of how many hours at what rate it should take.

 

[Trip_Dalton]

Hmmm, in over 160 mainstream books edits for some 25 publishers (most of them academic press), I've never encountered a pay-by-the-page arrangement. It's always been a "by the hour," with a ceiling, or a flat fee based on their calculation of how many hours at what rate it should take.

You don't get out much I guess? That's how it works in the real world. It's usually 3 or 4 dollars a page (A page being 300 words) and the prices goes up if you need it quicker.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Hmmm, in over 160 mainstream books edits for some 25 publishers (most of them academic press), I've never encountered a pay-by-the-page arrangement. It's always been a "by the hour," with a ceiling, or a flat fee based on their calculation of how many hours at what rate it should take.

Interesting. I've only freelanced for the one employer (most definitely "academic press") so I haven't had opportunity for comparison. I wonder if it's a US/Australia difference, or if it's about the nature of the work.

From what you've said in this thread, it sounds as if there's a significant amount of discretion in how far you edit a book, e.g. whether you stick to "wrongly used semicolons" or get into "deeper contextual problems". For that sort of work, I can imagine paying by the page might be undesirable since there's no incentive to do more than the minimum.

For me, within my remit, completion is usually pretty black-and-white. I have specific things to check and when that's done, it's done. I often do put in discretionary effort if I spot something outside my job description that needs fixing, but it's not what I'm paid for.* So I imagine it makes sense for them to pay by results.

*at least, not directly; it certainly helps bring in repeat business.

 

[sr71plt]

Interesting. I've only freelanced for the one employer (most definitely "academic press") so I haven't had opportunity for comparison. I wonder if it's a US/Australia difference, or if it's about the nature of the work.

From what you've said in this thread, it sounds as if there's a significant amount of discretion in how far you edit a book, e.g. whether you stick to "wrongly used semicolons" or get into "deeper contextual problems". For that sort of work, I can imagine paying by the page might be undesirable since there's no incentive to do more than the minimum.

For me, within my remit, completion is usually pretty black-and-white. I have specific things to check and when that's done, it's done. I often do put in discretionary effort if I spot something outside my job description that needs fixing, but it's not what I'm paid for.* So I imagine it makes sense for them to pay by results.

*at least, not directly; it certainly helps bring in repeat business.

There are two issues here that may set U.S. practice apart from other markets. We have a strong professional freelance editors' association in the States, the Editorial Freelancer Association, which has strict demands for member credentials, but that then puts the screws to the publishers in various ways. One of those ways was the pay-by-the-page method. I think EFA had generally gotten rid of that in the States before I joined.

One still being fought is how much contextual work a copyeditor should be expected to do (and, as a result, EFA fights for higher fees for anything dealing with content editor and/or rearranging or cutting or suggesting adding material). That's what the acquisition editor is supposed to do, working with the author, before handing the manuscript over for copyediting. More and more the acquisitions editors aren't doing their full job on this. I worked off and on as an academic press managing editor in the last decade, and this was my number one struggle in the publishing house.

I've always pretty much just turned back anything that required a lot more contextual work (developmental editing) than it got before it got to the copyediting phase.

 

[Trip_Dalton]

Well these are editors, in the US on a US website.

They all charge by the page. I have paid by the page, but never by the hour. Truth is how do you estimate an hourly wage, or time frame?

http://www.servicescape.com/svcdirectory.asp?adstat=94268&page=1&pro=3&search=&searchfield=&nco=&ava=1&prolang1=en&prolang2=&svccat=&svcsubcat=&minrating=&mindis=&perpage=15&small=0&save=0

 

[sr71plt]

The issue isn't what an editorial service will charge a writer to edit his/her work; it's the basis on which a publisher will construct payment to a freelance copyeditor to edit a manuscript. Those are two different worlds.

So your little jabs here are more about you not getting it than about me.

 

[LadyVer]

The issue isn't what an editorial service will charge a writer to edit his/her work; it's the basis on which a publisher will construct payment to a freelance copyeditor to edit a manuscript. Those are two different worlds.

So your little jabs here are more about you not getting it than about me.

The reality is that there are editors who charge by the page. Maybe it doesn't fit it with traditional publishing, but it's common knowledge traditional publishing thinks it's God's gift to the universe.

 

[sr71plt]

Yeah some do. I never said they didn't. What I posted (what you quoted) is that Trip was 180 degrees off what we were discussing--what freelance editors got from publishers; not what authors contracting their own editors paid editorial services. Even in what you posted, we weren't talking about what some editors use to base their charges to authors for editing. We were talking about how publishers pay their freelance editors.

You want to go for being as far off base as Trip was? (wouldn't surprise me.) Yet another clueless jabber overreaching actual experience--or understanding of what's being discussed.

Like Trip, your only petty interest in this is trying to prove me wrong on minutia--and, as usual, failing miserably.

Don't you ever get tired of being such a petty bottom feeder?

 

[LadyVer]

Yeah some do. I never said they didn't. What I posted (what you quoted) is that Trip was 180 degrees off what we were discussing--what freelance editors got from publishers; not what authors contracting their own editors paid editorial services. Even in what you posted, we weren't talking about what some editors use to base their charges to authors for editing. We were talking about how publishers pay their freelance editors.

You want to go for being as far off base as Trip was? (wouldn't surprise me.) Yet another clueless jabber overreaching actual experience--or understanding of what's being discussed.

Like Trip, your only petty interest in this is trying to prove me wrong on minutia--and, as usual, failing miserably.

When you can have a discussion and not act like a know-it-all asshole, get back with me. I'm not holding my breath, though.

The bottom line is that there are editors who charge by the hour and editors who charge by the page. And some do both. It depends on the project.

 

[sr71plt]

The bottom line, dimwit, is that isn't what Bramble and I were discussing.

And I guess the answer is that no, you're never going to give up being a petty bottom feeder trying to show she's more of an editor than she actually is.

The discussion was on how publishers pay their freelance editors. Go ahead and name one U.S. publisher that pays freelance editors by the page (but what, pray tell do you think constitutes a page? The concept of standard page went out with paper manuscripts at the dawn of the computer age). There may, in fact, be one or two, but you couldn't name them (or cite what constitutes a page to them) because being a freelance editor for a real publisher is way, way out of your league. You are clueless about real editing.

 

[LadyVer]

The bottom line, dimwit, is that isn't what Bramble and I were discussing.

And I guess the answer is that no, you're never going to give up being a petty bottom feeder trying to show she's more of an editor than she actually is.

The discussion was on how publishers pay their freelance editors. Go ahead and name one U.S. publisher that pays freelance editors by the page (but what, pray tell do you think constitutes a page? The concept of standard page went out with paper manuscripts at the dawn of the computer age). There may, in fact, be one or two, but you couldn't name them (or cite what constitutes a page to them) because being a freelance editor for a real publisher is way, way out of your league. You are clueless about real editing.

Please continue. Tell us all about editing and how you are the only editor on Lit who is an expert, or knowledgeable about editing. Obviously, no one else knows what you know. As a reminder, Lit is not Harpers, and thankfully, you are not the head editor of Lit.

BTW, a standard page is 250 words.

 

[sr71plt]

Buzz, times up on the "what constitutes a page?" question. Every editor who isn't just pretending to be an editor now (and since the setting in of the computer age) talks about wordage as a measurement, not page. You can even trot through this forum on folks asking for editorial help and invariably someone will ask them for wordage rather than pages, as pages have no standard meaning in the computer age--they can vary too much at the author "I got" stage. (And what was the standard page in the print manuscript era as far as calculating printing and editor payment? 250 words.)

Now it's time for Lady V to get the last word she always takes, no matter how idiotic it is or irrelevant to the point she's now purposely ignoring.