Silencing the voices

[YmaOHyd]

See, that's the thing. I agree about not underestimating editors either. But WHO is that good, knowledgeable, in tune with readers but also taking care of the art side of writing, so that they can "rule" that this or that in a story or novel would've been better than what the author wrote?

Every editor is different. Bad editors lay down diktats and ultimatums and turn every writer into a clone of their own voice. Great editors -- well:

I hope you’ll indulge me for some story time: Last week I got word that my friend Erich Eichman had retired. You don’t know Erich; there’s no reason you would. But I want to tell you about him.

I have—this will not surprise you—a high opinion of myself as an editor. I’m not a good editor; I’m a great editor. But Erich was the best editor I ever worked with.

I first started writing for Erich in my late 20s. I was a kid at The Weekly Standard and he was the books editor at the Wall Street Journal.

I was trying to break into the big leagues as a freelancer so I pitched him on reviewing a book. It was my first time writing for a “real” publication, so I wanted my piece to be great. I gave it everything I had and delivered a solid draft. Maybe an 8/10.

The next day Erich sent me back the galleys with his edits and as I read them, the piece wasn’t good anymore. It was the best piece I’d ever written. It was a 10/10.

But here’s the thing: I couldn’t tell what he had done to it. As a writer, usually when you get your edits back you can see every comma that’s been changed. Erich’s edits were seamless. I couldn’t tell what was his and what was mine. I knew he had done something to it, because the piece I had submitted wasn’t nearly as good as the version I was reading.

So I took Erich’s galley, put it next to my draft, and went line-by-line doing a forensic excavation of his edits.

---

There are different schools of editing.

Some editors want all of their writers to sound the same—they want a uniform voice for their publication.

Other editors will inadvertently make you sound like them—they have a writing voice of their own and its the only one they can hear.

Still other editors want writers to be their sock puppets: They view editing as creating the piece that they wanted to write, but didn’t have time to do themselves.

Erich’s philosophy was simply this:

He made every writer sound like she would on her best day.

I cannot begin to describe the level of intelligence, artistry, and generosity involved in this school of editing. I can only say that it is what I’ve tried to emulate as an editor ever since I was lucky enough to fall under Erich’s care.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Why would we be talking about the editors at a publishing house when none of us are using one?

You are characterizing the whole editing process based on an extreme case.

I'd also disagree with your idea that they are gatekeepers in that sense. If you've gotten far enough publishers are paying for an editor you are past the gatekeepers.

 

[iwatchus]

I'd also disagree with your idea that they are gatekeepers in that sense. If you've gotten far enough publishers are paying for an editor you are past the gatekeepers.

I know in some houses, editors may fulfill part of the gatekeeping role (or be recruiters) but that is not in their editing role.

 

[TheLobster]

I'd also disagree with your idea that they are gatekeepers in that sense. If you've gotten far enough publishers are paying for an editor you are past the gatekeepers.

I’m pretty sure some publishing houses have their editors do manuscript selection. I sometimes watch videos about writing from Alyssa Matesic who used to work at Penguin and says she did both selection and subsequent dev editing.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

Why would we be talking about the editors at a publishing house when none of us are using one?

Several people "here" (not me) are in fact publishing professionally. @StillStunned is a professional editor himself.

--Annie

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Several people "here" (not me) are in fact publishing professionally. @StillStunned is a professional editor himself.

--Annie

I'm aware of both things. But to say "editors" repeatedly when you mean a small, distinct subset of editors is at best misleading.

 

[sister jenny]

After being told by 2 beta readers (who have written stories I respect) that my story was unreadable had potential but needed quite a bit of work. I have not been able to write anything.
I tried yesterday to avoid grading but I could not write 2 sentences without deleting them. So I have not written a word in 10 days. I have had stories in my head but that is where they are. The reason is that anytime I put something together, I hear the voice inside my head (my own voices, not the beta readers) laughing at me and telling me "your shit is unreadable."

I am sure I am not the first one to face such a situation. Any suggestions on how I effectively tell the voices to fuck off?

To be clear, this is not author's block. I have plenty of ideas in my head. I just cannot get past the idea that what I write is shit will end up being mocked. I know intellectually that this makes no sense but emotionally, I cannot shut them down.

I hear them all the time.
And I am convinced that everything I write is shit.
What I do is I tell myself that I know it’s shit, but luckily no one will ever read it. The only reason I am writing it down is to get it out of my head so I can move on. And since it is shit I don’t even fix grammar or spelling. I just write to get it out. Then later, since the story is there I might as well fix it. Editing is fun and I might even learn something.
Then suddenly one day I just go in and post it without reading it again.

This whole time I actually never intend to publish it. I am not lying to myself. Just writing because it helps to get the idea out of my head.

The sad part is that since I am convinced I am no good and what I write is shit, I never read my stories again. And if I would I might delete them.

But at least I write.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I’m pretty sure some publishing houses have their editors do manuscript selection. I sometimes watch videos about writing from Alyssa Matesic who used to work at Penguin and says she did both selection and subsequent dev editing.

But that isn't the same thing as AwkwardlySet seems to be implying, which is that when they edit your work you must do as they say or you don't get published.

 

[StrentWriter]

I’m published, albeit in a different field (I’m a historian by trade).

Never met an editor who didn’t have suggestions and was also open minded enough to listen to my rebuttals.

It’s a give and take, the editing process.

What is being described is a form of censorship as opposed editing, which is an art in and of itself. A lot of hard work and experience needed.

I have found I was good at self editing for history books but for erotic romance fiction, not so much!

 

[EmilyMiller]

I’m published, albeit in a different field (I’m a historian by trade).

Never met an editor who didn’t have suggestions and was also open minded enough to listen to my rebuttals.

It’s a give and take, the editing process.

What is being described is a form of censorship as opposed editing, which is an art in and of itself. A lot of hard work and experience needed.

I have found I was good at self editing for history books but for erotic romance fiction, not so much!

Nice to hear from soemone with experience of the process.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I’m published, albeit in a different field (I’m a historian by trade).

Never met an editor who didn’t have suggestions and was also open minded enough to listen to my rebuttals.

It’s a give and take, the editing process.

What is being described is a form of censorship as opposed editing, which is an art in and of itself. A lot of hard work and experience needed.

I have found I was good at self editing for history books but for erotic romance fiction, not so much!

My experience in journalism has been similar. There is always a give and take. How to communicate an idea in the most effective way possible?

 

[StrentWriter]

Nice to hear from soemone with experience of the process.

It does depend on what’s being published mind. What I was writing for many years was basically statistical analysis, factual statements, journalistic stuff - editors tended not to want to edit in terms of what was written; more to help with getting the particular line of inquiry across.

Eg - I wrote a book on an historical figure. The primary evidence I had shows he was a war hero of sorts, in the trenches, and he became a pacifist after the First World War.

This is used by other historians to diminish his contributions in a particular field - I was critical of other writers, my editor at the time didn’t think it was helping my case and worked with me to soften the point of my jibe.

That I see clearly in hindsight was absolutely the right decision.

My experience in journalism has been similar. There is always a give and take. How to communicate an idea in the most effective way possible?

Depends which network I think - I worked with channels 4 and 5 in the UK and they were open to being corrected on historical things.

The BBC had one agenda, which was to satisfy their head of news’s agenda.

I would politely say that I didn’t enjoy working with them, albeit it was near the start of my career and I’m glad it’s not a programme that gets rerun.

 

[EmilyMiller]

It does depend on what’s being published mind.

My only experience of real publishing is scientific journals - and that’s different yet again.

 

[StrentWriter]

My only experience of real publishing is scientific journals - and that’s different yet again.

That’s amazing Emily. I have a huge respect for those in that world - my late wife published in medical journals and the amount of work she put into her papers was extraordinary.

 

[EmilyMiller]

That’s amazing Emily. I have a huge respect for those in that world - my late wife published in medical journals and the amount of work she put into her papers was extraordinary.

It was only me as the lead author on one. I actually wrote quite a lot of a second where my PI was the lead. And a few others where I was just one of a cast of thousands* .

And sorry for your loss

* Exaggeration

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It does depend on what’s being published mind. What I was writing for many years was basically statistical analysis, factual statements, journalistic stuff - editors tended not to want to edit in terms of what was written; more to help with getting the particular line of inquiry across.

Eg - I wrote a book on an historical figure. The primary evidence I had shows he was a war hero of sorts, in the trenches, and he became a pacifist after the First World War.

This is used by other historians to diminish his contributions in a particular field - I was critical of other writers, my editor at the time didn’t think it was helping my case and worked with me to soften the point of my jibe.

That I see clearly in hindsight was absolutely the right decision.



Depends which network I think - I worked with channels 4 and 5 in the UK and they were open to being corrected on historical things.

The BBC had one agenda, which was to satisfy their head of news’s agenda.

I would politely say that I didn’t enjoy working with them, albeit it was near the start of my career ended I just and I’m glad it’s not a programme that gets rerun.

My journalistic experience has been limited to "print" media, I published a recurring column for a few years.

 

[StrentWriter]

It was only me as the lead author on one. I actually wrote quite a lot of a second where my PI was the lead. And a few others where I was just one of a cast of thousands* .

And sorry for your loss

* Exaggeration

Thank you appreciated. My apologies - not said to garner sympathy but to extol her excellence.