Plot & Structure Changes

[dr_mabeuse]

This topic probably could go under the "Approaches to Editing A Story" thread, but it's a little more specific than that.

I kind of think of editing as going from the micro--basically proofreading and correcting errors of mechanics--to macro, which involves suggesting changes to plot and structure of a story. In between you have matters like clarifty and readability, consistency and continuity, things like that.

To what extent do you think it's your duty as an editor to suggest changes to the macro features of a story like plot, and characterization? Would you tell an author if you felt that a character was acting out-of-character? Or of you thought of a better ending to a story?

At what point are you stepping beyond the bounds of being an editor?

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

I think coming up with a better ending would be stepping out of bounds. It's ok to say that the ending needs work and make suggestions if asked but not completely rewrite the ending.

I would think that authors would want any help or suggestions to make the story better, but would also want to make sure that the changes made don't interfer with the author's style of writing. If you get too much input on plot and story ideas then it ceases to be your story.

As an author, I would want to be told what needs to be worked on and why and then try to fix it myself. If it's a minor part of the plot, details, or characterization, then I wouldn't mind changes being done by the editor, but if it's a major problem (like the ending of the story), then I would want to try and fix it myself before having the editor step in and make changes.

 

[Weird Harold]

At what point are you stepping beyond the bounds of being an editor?

You go from "editor" to "co-author" when you begin to impose your style on the client's story.

Whether you're doing a "Copy Edit" or a "Story Edit" (Editing for spelling and grammar vs editing for plot and continuity) the goal is to improve the client's story by making suggested changes. Even with spelling and grammar "errors" the changes you suggest might be a deliberate choice by the author to convey a desired feel and tone to a story.

Personally, I never change a plot or structure point, but Ido suggest that a change is needed and what kind of change would work best. I make comments like, "The highlighted section would work better as dialogue" and "the position you've described is physically impossible." I sometimes make "sample changes" as an illustration of the point, but I make it clear that the change is only ONE possible way of correcting the "problem."

 

[snooper]

I'm afraid I stop short at comments like "How did he know that?"

Any further into story or plot changes and the editor is taking over the author's privileges and duties.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Have to agree with Harold and snooper here, the editor's influence should stop right at the line of mechanics. Let the work sink or swim on its own merits, although suggestions (phrased as such) may help an author reevaluate his or her approach.

A book editor, on the other hand, who has a different outlook (making money for the publisher), certainly has more leeway in trying to make the work marketable than a short story editor.

 

[Weird Harold]

A book editor, on the other hand, who has a different outlook (making money for the publisher), certainly has more leeway in trying to make the work marketable than a short story editor.

I think you're on the right track, but just a bit off-target.

A publishing editor -- one who has the power to decide whether a work selected for publishing, like the editor of a short story anthology -- has more say in the content of a story than the "Editors" who frequent this forum. Inthe context of volunteer editing for Literotica, none of us have any say in whether the changes we suggest will make a story more or less likely to be accepted for publishing; We can't say, "You need to make these changes before I'll accept your story."

A publishing editor, who has the power to say, "make these changes if you want to get published," is an entirely different editing process than volunteer editing for grammar and spelling with an occasional comment or suggestion on making a story better.

For us, the author should always have the final say on what changes are made to a story and all we can do is suggest improvements.

 

[bridgeburner]

If an editor has a serious question about character or plot continuity or strength, I'd want to know about it. I might not change my story, but I don't think the questioning hurts at all. Perhaps it's an angle I wouldn't have thought of myself or perhaps I've written something that is too self-referential and it's going to confuse my audience. Or perhaps I got in a bit of a hurry and forgot to flesh some part of my character out --- I know the character and I just assume that I've revealed enough for my reader, but maybe I didn't.

As an editor I ask these questions if I have them. Or I mention the thought processes that I had when reading -- particularly if I thought a story was headed in one direction but it ended up going in another. Some of these things are due to personal style, yes, but I think often writers just get caught up in their stories and neglect certain parts. Or they have trouble with some plot or character contrivance and so they gloss over it.

If someone truly wants your help and you've offered to give it to him, then I think you should go all the way. It's going to vary from author to author. A lot of them are fragile so you have to be careful if you're questioning a significant point in the story, but I think this can be done without bruising the author's ego. No sense in only giving half the help you're capable of, right?


--B


P.S. I realize that I feel this way partially because I don't mind being questioned about my own work. I'm strong enough in my own mind and confident enough of my skills that I can decide for myself when a suggestion truly is better than what I've written myself. I'd feel dissatisfied if no one questioned me.

 

[wornoutkeyboard]

I suppose...

I guess it depends on what you mean by being an "editor". In the real world of writing, editors for publishing houses will not limit their commentary to typos and the like. That is what "copy editors" are for. If they don't like your ending, they will tell you (and sometimes ask you to re-write or whatnot).

When I edit, I do a little of everything. I give the general SPG edit and then I will also go into things that seem inconsistent (such as having the sun set at 6pm during a story that takes place in Texas in the summer) and also character inconsistencies (a character whose actions go against their nature without enough exposition). But, I phrase them as suggestions only and tell the people whom I edit for that they should just take those remarks as my personal "thoughts" as Joe-Schmo reader.

I think it is important to give a full critique with the editing so that the writer gets an opportunity to "test" their story on an audience that will have constructive feedback before sending it out into the "wild" where the feedback is very often anything but constructive.

Of course, I always ask about what they want. But honestly, if you tell me you only want SPG, then I will e-mail you back and tell you I am otherwise occupied. I have better things to do than be a substitute for spell check and thorough proofreading.

I suppose it is a matter of personal preference.

~WOK

PS~ I still think its possible to overstep your bounds. I would never tell someone they HAD to change something or make them feel as though their whole idea is bad or tell them that they HAVE to do something. That....to me... is overstepping the bounds.

 

[KillerMuffin]

When I edited here, I made sure it was clear what the author was looking for in an edit. Proofreading or more in-depth story critique. And I would base my comments accordingly. Whenever I have a yen to give critique at Lit anymore, I try to make certain the author specifically wants my crit and that they are open to a full crit.

I have never hesitated in a full critique situation to explain a plot or character's weaknesses, why they're weaknesses, and suggest potential ways to fix them. I don't believe that's adding my voice because I never write the changes. My M.O. is to point out strengths and weaknesses of any kind, explain why I think they are strengths or weaknesses, and then suggest things. I think this benefits an author far more than letting them flounder away, trying to fix something they either didn't understand or are too close to the story to see.

I edit professionally the same way if it's going into publication. If it's not: form letter.