small question

[rainyguy]

Hello,
So what I am curious to know is do most editors feel like there is a "click" with an author as to how well both of you can work together? Or is it just a simply function of corrections on your part and any type of cohesive interaction is superfluous.
I am just curious because I wouldn't mind finding an editor but at the same time I am kind of leery and dare i say it, shy footed at just having someone that doesn't "click" with me going through and editing.

am I just weird?
Hmm, maybe you can answer the first question and just ignore that last one?

 

[Weird Harold]

I am just curious because I wouldn't mind finding an editor but at the same time I am kind of leery and dare i say it, shy footed at just having someone that doesn't "click" with me going through and editing.

As an author, I want someone who will poke and prod at every weak point from spelling to fine shadings of vocabulary choices -- to me, the perfect editor is "an anal-retentive English Major with a grudge against me."

If I totally disagree with an editor's comments and changes, I always have the original version to fall back on.

I'm not sure how you mean "an editor who 'clicks' with me" but I prefer an editor I can argue with and who won't just praise my story.

As an editor, I try to point out everything in a story that raises a question about what the author is trying to convey andmake the author think about whether if what they said is what they wanted to say. I prefer working with authors who feel strongly about their work and are willing to defend cherished points.

The only way to find an editor you can work with to improve your story is to try several and see if you can work together. That may require several polite "thanks for your efforts" and a return to the original version before you find the right match.

I can almost guarantee that you're going to disagree with a good editor who goes beyond the basic proof-reading for spellng and punctuation -- and you'll disagree with a few of those, too.

 

[rainyguy]

Oh no, I didn't mean I was hoping to find an editor that I would rarely disagree with, quite on the contrary actually. Contrast of opinion is what really helps it's when an editor tries to rewrite a story or chapter or what have you. I haven't worked with editors on this site but i have worked with editors and maybe it's just been my bad luck but I have seldom found one that is truly helpful for me as an author. What I meant by "clicking" was when you and the editor have a similar concept as what your writing is and could be with more work. It's sharing the same view of a horizon but maybe not sharing the exact focal point of where you are both looking and then arriving on the compromise that enhances both of your views. that's what I meant.

But no, disagreement is a very good thing.

 

[HawaiiBill]

Consider the love

A writer worthy of the craft loves writing.

Editors -- unless they are getting paid what they are worth! -- obviously love making the written word better used.

Not to be critical but your notes here don't encourage me to ask to see your copy. You are not graceful in your language.

When you wrote, "quite on the contrary actually" you lost me totally.

Let me quickly add that your original point was about writer/editor harmony. There are editors here who could care less about the contstructs I love in language. They want to "get it on," or, in the phrase of the season, "Bring it on!" With that, I describe a totally different yet equally valuable interest in words, how they fit together and making their sense vivid and true.

God, I hope that's clear.

 

[HawaiiBill]

Re: Re: small question

I can almost guarantee that you're going to disagree with a good editor who goes beyond the basic proof-reading for spellng and punctuation -- and you'll disagree with a few of those, too.

Harold, did you write THAT? Bless you, my son, and sin no more.

 

[rainyguy]

Thanks,
You both have ben quite helpful.

 

[Lou Nuttick]

A different slant, perhaps

As a reader, I feel that the story's the thing. If that don't work, the rest don't matter.

As an editor, I guess you could say that I'm gentle. I try to help the author ensure that mistakes don't get in the way, but I also try to have the least effect on the author's syle (yeah, the case mismatch in the previous paragraph was intentional).

As a writer, I want an editor whose strengths complement mine. I'm relatively good with minutiae, such as spelling, grammar, punctuation, point-of-view, and word choice, so my editor needn't do much of this, except as a final proofreading. I'm less facile with flow, pace, and mood, so this is where I'd prefer an editor to be strong.

 

[HawaiiBill]

. . . let me count the ways

It must be very large, the number of reasons that drive us to write. Mom expects a letter, for example. My information must be given to others for my living, some say. Or, I want to impress people with what a cool dude I am. How many other reasons there must be, all valid, commanding and urgent?

Consider two quick categories, 1) the ego trip and 2) true love. You know about the first one.

The latter, however, imposes itself with equal force in a love letter or letters written in love, anything written by a person who genuinely loves the process of fitting concept, emotion and meaning to paper -- whatever the content!

And you better love it because it's hard work if you want to do it right.

"What is right?" the lady in the hot tub asks?

Right, in writing, means the product -- the words on paper -- will be clearly understood for exactly what they were meant to give.

Everything else is embroidery.

Use of swaggering language, familiar in the ego trip pages, is meant by the author, to be uncomfortable just as a sashaying bully tries to intimidate people with a certain walk.The trouble is, more information spills than the writer understood. Such language says more about the writer than it does about his subject, it's an ego trip.

If "the story is the thing," then why is it that some people couldn't tell a joke if their lives depended on it -- even when they just heard one that cracked up a whole audience?

The "story" is important, of course, but without skillful telling much is often left on the cliched cutting-room floor. To argue otherwise is to suggest that a good story can't be improved by writing it again, say, or letting an editor see it with fresh, unpursuaded eyes.

If a story has promise a good editor will want to work on it to bring its quality to reality. But if the writer didn't care enough about his work to bring some craft and skill to the table, no amount of help will do.

 

[Lou Nuttick]

Re: . . . let me count the ways

It must be very large, the number of reasons that drive us to write. Mom expects a letter, for example. My information must be given to others for my living, some say. Or, I want to impress people with what a cool dude I am. How many other reasons there must be, all valid, commanding and urgent?

And your point here is...?

Consider two quick categories, 1) the ego trip and 2) true love. You know about the first one.

The latter, however, imposes itself with equal force in a love letter or letters written in love, anything written by a person who genuinely loves the process of fitting concept, emotion and meaning to paper -- whatever the content!

These certainly are two categories, and I'd even venture to say that these categories are very well represented on Literotica. I'd also submit that another category is equally well represented: those with a story they want to share. If we took a poll among the authors here at Literotica, which category would you suppose most would say they fell under?

Right, in writing, means the product -- the words on paper -- will be clearly understood for exactly what they were meant to give.

I see. That explains the many instances in classic literature where readers see meaning or symbolism in a story that the author claims not to have intended. Doesn't it?

What is the "right" way to paint a landscape? To bake an applie pie? To orchestrate a concerto? Hmm, there is no "right." There's done well, and done poorly, and many ways to do either. And whaddaya know? There's also a continuum of shades in between.

Use of swaggering language, familiar in the ego trip pages, is meant by the author, to be uncomfortable just as a sashaying bully tries to intimidate people with a certain walk.The trouble is, more information spills than the writer understood. Such language says more about the writer than it does about his subject, it's an ego trip.

Sometimes. And sometimes not. As you yourself stated earlier, writers write for many reasons. There's no easy litmus test with which to discern their reasons.

If "the story is the thing," then why is it that some people couldn't tell a joke if their lives depended on it -- even when they just heard one that cracked up a whole audience?

Gee, I guess it's for the same reason those loving, "right" words that you claim to exist can sound like crap if read aloud by my freshman chemistry professor.

The "story" is important, of course, but without skillful telling much is often left on the cliched cutting-room floor. To argue otherwise is to suggest that a good story can't be improved by writing it again, say, or letting an editor see it with fresh, unpursuaded eyes.

I'd be interested in seeing how many others who read this thread interpreted my statement as an assertion that skillful telling was unimportant. I simply do not see that "the story's the thing" equates with "the story's everything."

Perhaps my meaning could have been made more clearly. In forums like this, though, I try to be succinct, so as not to bore; misinterpretation is always possible.

I'll try to present the statement in a different manner: as a reader, I prefer to see an excellent storyline presented with flawed technique rather than a flawed storyline presented with excellent technique. In either case, there will be a point in which the flaws render the story unreadable; for me, that point will come much sooner in the latter. Care to predict what a reader poll would reveal?

If a story has promise a good editor will want to work on it to bring its quality to reality. But if the writer didn't care enough about his work to bring some craft and skill to the table, no amount of help will do.

Very poetic, but here again, you paint the bleakest possible picture to make your point. There are levels of caring, as there are levels of talent and skill. Even a writer who doesn't find it a priority to reach a level of quality that you find "right" may have a story worth telling. It may not be as good as can be, but it may still be worthwhile and worth reading.

Lou

 

[HawaiiBill]

. . . let me count the ways again

Originally posted by Lou Nuttick What is the "right" way to paint a landscape? To bake an applie pie? To orchestrate a concerto?

May I remind you that this is an editors forum. While they surely exist, I know of no editors in the plastic arts, in music -- or in spelling applie pie.

Words are symbols of ideas. You seem to approach this discussion to the effect that expressing ideas correctly -- that is, imparting the meaning intended by the author -- is somehow not a criterion for success. Strange.

Originally posted by Lou Nuttick Sometimes. And sometimes not. As you yourself stated earlier, writers write for many reasons. There's no easy litmus test with which to discern their reasons.

Did I say there is? Your errors about what I wrote are from interpolation rather than interpretation. You are putting words that don't exist between my words which do.

Originally posted by Lou Nuttick Gee, I guess it's for the same reason those loving, "right" words that you claim to exist can sound like crap if read aloud by my freshman chemistry professor.

There you go again. I wrote nothing about how words sound. My example was in meaning, a joke being 'meant to be funny.'

Originally posted by Lou Nuttick Perhaps my meaning could have been made more clearly. In forums like this, though, I try to be succinct, so as not to bore; misinterpretation is always possible.

Again, this is an editors forum. You are free to wander on and on if you wish because everyone here is fully capable of going on to the next thread. You needn't worry about readers here, they take care of themselves.

Originally posted by Lou Nuttick I'll try to present the statement in a different manner: as a reader, I prefer to see an excellent storyline presented with flawed technique rather than a flawed

Henry James comes to mind. His stories, to some, are awful, but we read him anyway because his language is so pure.

Originally posted by Lou Nuttick Care to predict what a reader poll would reveal?

Care to guess how much I care?

Originally posted by Lou Nuttick Very poetic, but here again, you paint the bleakest possible picture to make your point. There are levels of caring, as there are levels of talent and skill. Even a writer who doesn't find it a priority to reach a level of quality that you find "right" may have a story worth telling. It may not be as good as can be, but it may still be worthwhile and worth reading.

We are not in a bar, swapping stories and such. We are in a website devoted to literary erotica -- Literotica. Most of the editors who volunteer their efforts seek to make stories better. Most succeed. Perhaps all succeed, to some degree, in improving what we see. We only have this forum to discuss our process and share thoughts about it. You have done that and it's good. I've answered you.

Every story posted in these web pages has value. In my view, likely, most are only interesting to researchers -- say -- counting the number of times the same theme appears in each of the various categories. It would not be true to say the stories are all written well. Nor am I saying they should be. The owners of the site welcome everyone -- nearly -- and I am most content with that.

I will say it would be good if every story were better written and the accomplishment of that, in some small measure, is what editing is all about. Do you disagree with that? If not, if you agree, what is it you are discussing? Am I missing your meaning?