thread from yahoo litwriters

[dr_mabeuse]

Two Points:

#1, Proofreading is not editing. You shouldn't have to discuss proofreading corrections

#2. An editor's job is to help you accomplish your goals as a writer - to tell your story in your style. There's no way they can do that without discussing things with you.

Okay, Three things:

#3, In my opinion, the only way to do a valid critique of a piece of fiction is to first have the author state very clearly what they were trying to accomplish in their story, and then evaluate whether they achieved these goals.

In other words: did they mean for that part to be ambiguous or is it just bad writing? Was their hero supposed to come across as a passive, self-pitying schlemiel? Or have they just done a poor job of portraying him? Was the story supposed to be farce? Or is the writing just that over-the-top? There's no sense in complaining about the lak of plot or characterization if the author was just trying to write a quick beat-off scene.

If you don't know what the author was aiming at, then even the best critique is going to be no more than a glorified, "liked it/didn't like it" assesment.

 

[Seattle Zack]

As an editor that gets hundreds of submissions from freelancers: No, once you turn it over to us we can do whatever we want with it.

I'm talking non-fiction of course, tech reviews, that kind of stuff, there is no real rate for freelance erotic writers.

So what is your goal? To get published? If so, you should be courting erotica and romance publishers. If you just want to write some fun erotica and see if you can do it, then any of the editors here will give yoiu valuable advice.

--Zack

 

[S-Des]

#1, Proofreading is not editing. You shouldn't have to discuss proofreading corrections

Actually, I'm going to disagree with you on this. I have fought tooth and nail with all my editors over their proofreading at one time or another. The English language is anything but precise and there are often debates about what is "correct" between people who are supposed to know what they are doing. Additionally, there are times where I might write something that is technically incorrect, but I don't really care. If the average person would read it and believe it to be wrong, what have you accomplished? We don't speak in perfect grammar, so why would characters in a book do so?

Also, if you're writing for Lit's format, things don't stand out the way they would in a book. I don't care if there's a rule about italics verses quotes or elipses versus semicolons. I want it to look appealing to the reader, even if I have to bend a couple of rules to get there. It's not my fault, I didn't invent the stupid, "I before E, except after C..." garbage. I swear some of our forefathers were retarded.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Maybe that's the key to accepting honest criticism: realizing that it isn't your story, unless you're the only one who needs to understand and appreciate it.

The value of reading, as opposed to watching TV or movies, is that each reader brings his own imagination to the experience: we use an author's work as the basis for a story that's uniquely our own.

YES!

I believe that a good editor can be what turns your work into what you hoped it would be.
I have recently had the experience of a Serious and Rigorous Editor. As a proofreader she's finally convinced me that quoted dialogue ends with a comma if it's part of a sentence; there can only be one period in a sentence. She"s explained to me where the apostrophes belong in the dialect I'm writing in where a word is garbled or mumbled; They go where letters are deleted. Very cool to have these things made clear to me at last!

What i have learned with her- at last- is to voice my own concerns clearly, so that she will know what my parameters are, viz.;

1) I feel that I use the word "AND" to great excess in this story, trying to impart the pell-mell rush of events and feelings. I'm sure they can be pruned out to a large extent...

2) The description of the second fucking seems both excessive and muddy to me, comments would be appreciated there!

She answered;

I don’t have aproblem with the number of ‘ands’, ‘cept for the place or two where I suggested a ‘but’ instead; I tend to do the same thing, use them as a rapid rolling device when things are moving along fast, so I guess I’m the wrong person to ask that question of

I found nothing excessive or muddy about Round Two, I have to say! If I was going to be really super picky I’d say you could cut down on the staging descriptions, where legs and arms are. But that’s about it, and it’s not really noticeable, honest.

And I did cut out two 'staging descriptions', and made all the mud go away- except for the mud that was part of the story of course

 

[floweringquince]

You shouldn't have to discuss proofreading corrections.

Of course not, not the 98.7% of the time when the corrections are themselves correct. But sometimes they are not:

I once described a somewhat complex bit of geometry as succintly as I could:
"The bridge and its approach road form the entrance to the grounds, and are used by..."

Office policy called for me to e-mail the (fully proofed) text to a secretary, who was to put it into our requisite business letter format and print it on our jealously guarded letterhead paper. She went the extra mile and "proofed" it for me, presenting it (on the precious letterhead paper) for my signature with my sentence changed to:
"The bridge and its approach road from the entrance to the grounds, and are used by..."

Now it didn't make sense, and what sense might be contrived from it would contradict my intent (and the actual layout).

After I fought down my impulse to march in and abuse her for for being such a nincompoop; I gave in to the impulse to walk in acting puzzled, and quiz her about what it was about my grammar, my letter, and my project that she understood so much better than I.
(I can be *really* mean sometimes

The poor woman apologized profusely, and promptly printed out my original text, formatted onto a new sheet of letterhead paper.

Only one engineer-hour, one administrative-assistant hour, and one piece of that stupid letterhead were wasted.


Here on Literotica, my VE called my attention to where I'd written "he leashed my ankles to tie-downs...", suggesting that I must have meant "lashed." I wrote back that I'd meant "tied using short lengths of rope allowing a small but limited amount of movement" and couldn't think of a better way to put it than "leashed."
He couldn't either, and it stands.


But the vast majority of the time, proofreading is what tells me that there is no 'c' in 'scimile', and that a sentence like "Their only halfway to Schedectady, but there friends are nearly they're" needs some careful attention from me

- Quince

 

[shereads]

Was the story supposed to be farce? Or is the writing just that over-the-top?

"Is it supposed to be farce?! Well, um...Yes. Absolutely."

 

[shereads]

I absolutely love this! So very true! I think a lot of beginning writers don't realize this, however. I think the next time I edit a story for a beginner, I will preface my comments with what you've said above.

Thanks. I hope no one interpreted "it's not your story" to mean that writers should be guided by what readers want to read. If that were the case, there would be no writers who challenge us, and there would be no endings except happy ones.

Even in advertising, where the first hard lesson a writer learns is that her work is not hers but her client's, comments like "people won't like that," and "it's too negative" aren't always relevent, even when they're accurate. What the target audience likes isn't necessarily what they'll remember, and respond to.

What I mean when I say it's not your story is that a writer, lacking the advantage of distance, might assume that his readers' experience is so near his own, they'll grasp certain references, or understand a character's motives because of his history, etc. The editor, if he's qualified to speak on behalf of the target audience, brings objectivity to the question of what is and isn't clear.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks. I hope no one interpreted "it's not your story" to mean that writers should be guided by what readers want to read. If that were the case, there would be no writers who challenge us, and there would be no endings except happy ones.

Even in advertising, where the first hard lesson a writer learns is that her work is not hers but her client's, comments like "people won't like that," and "it's too negative" aren't always relevent, even when they're accurate. What the target audience likes isn't necessarily what they'll remember, and respond to.

What I mean when I say it's not your story is that a writer, lacking the advantage of distance, might assume that his readers' experience is so near his own, they'll grasp certain references, or understand a character's motives because of his history, etc. The editor, if he's qualified to speak on behalf of the target audience, brings objectivity to the question of what is and isn't clear.

It is a very hard lesson to learn, and I have to say, I really hate to be the first person to bring it to a writer's attention.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

What I mean when I say it's not your story is that a writer, lacking the advantage of distance, might assume that his readers' experience is so near his own, they'll grasp certain references, or understand a character's motives because of his history, etc. The editor, if he's qualified to speak on behalf of the target audience, brings objectivity to the question of what is and isn't clear.

I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make with it's not your story.

I do understand the point you made regarding work done under contract or for your employer. Even though you create the work, it belongs to someone else.

Maybe I haven't evolved far enough in my writing career. I see the editor's opinion simply as that, their opinion, an opinion of one.

 

[gauchecritic]

I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make with it's not your story.

You the writer, being six foot six tall and with a penchant for skinny women may write "She was tall and nicely put together" Meaning she was at least six feet and carried no 'excess' weight.

Your reader being five feet one and liking buxom girls reads the line and sees a woman that is five feet six and rubenesque.

That is why the story, after you've finished, belongs to the reader.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

You the writer, being six foot six tall and with a penchant for skinny women may write "She was tall and nicely put together" Meaning she was at least six feet and carried no 'excess' weight.

Your reader being five feet one and liking buxom girls reads the line and sees a woman that is five feet six and rubenesque.

That is why the story, after you've finished, belongs to the reader.

While I don't entirely agree with it, I will begrudgingly concede that there is validity to your statement.

 

[CharleyH]

Just in case anyone was wondering if there would be any more writerly threads now that the self cast cognoscenti are in the corner talking amongst themselves.

Editing/critiquing as a two way dialogue.

In a discussion about editing or critiquing as a useful tool for improving your own writing Neonlite (Lyte? light? never get that right) said:


This week I received a PM from someone whose work I'd just edited which simply said (along with thankyou very much etc) "I appreciate the time that you took to help me out and to give me your comments." which is all very nice, but as Neon said it gives me no idea of the original author's thoughts on the actual work that I did.

So the question is; as an editor do you want your 'editee' to argue/comment/complain about your editing? As an editee do you feel that you ought to explain why you are right and the editor is wrong?

I've argued points with editors and then had them explain in more detail which changed my mind or technically corrected an editor (Oxford are, not Oxord is) when I know I'm right. And I know I'm always happier (from both ends) if there has been dialogue rather than just stated opinion.

So, should editing, focusing here on Lit. stories, be a two way process?

Two way, Gauche.
I want my editee (if a Lit writer asks me) to feel free to question me and ABOUT my opinion because the whole point of writing is writing something better. In the real world, editors just tell you straight up and there is no banter about it - no argument. On Lit - I think you can get and I think it worthy to get feedback from those whose opinions you respect as honest. I believe honesty in an EDIT helps better than an Oh WOW!

(Edit to add that not everyone can handle honesty about their writing).

 

[CharleyH]

#1, Proofreading is not editing. You shouldn't have to discuss proofreading corrections

#2. An editor's job is to help you accomplish your goals as a writer - to tell your story in your style. There's no way they can do that without discussing things with you.

Okay, Three things:

#3, In my opinion, the only way to do a valid critique of a piece of fiction is to first have the author state very clearly what they were trying to accomplish in their story, and then evaluate whether they achieved these goals.

In other words: did they mean for that part to be ambiguous or is it just bad writing? Was their hero supposed to come across as a passive, self-pitying schlemiel? Or have they just done a poor job of portraying him? Was the story supposed to be farce? Or is the writing just that over-the-top? There's no sense in complaining about the lak of plot or characterization if the author was just trying to write a quick beat-off scene.

If you don't know what the author was aiming at, then even the best critique is going to be no more than a glorified, "liked it/didn't like it" assesment.

I agree, but for your last statement: A good editor knows what the author is aiming for - always - the trick is telling said author what they need.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You the writer, being six foot six tall and with a penchant for skinny women may write "She was tall and nicely put together" Meaning she was at least six feet and carried no 'excess' weight.

Your reader being five feet one and liking buxom girls reads the line and sees a woman that is five feet six and rubenesque.

That is why the story, after you've finished, belongs to the reader.

excellent example, Gauche

And a reason why I try to keep descriptions minimal- the ideal in the reader's mind is always more satisfying to him than my ideal that is in my mind.

Now, you've given me a way to explain this to an editee i am ... conversing with

 

[drksideofthemoon]

In the real world, editors just tell you straight up and there is no banter about it - no argument.

Thankfully, I don't plan on writing in the real world. I don't say this to sound arrogant or conceited. I really have no interest in publishing outside of what I do here. My writing is a hobby, nothing more than that, and will never be anything more than what it is.

 

[Foxee Browne]

Thankfully, I don't plan on writing in the real world. I don't say this to sound arrogant or conceited. I really have no interest in publishing outside of what I do here. My writing is a hobby, nothing more than that, and will never be anything more than what it is.

My writing is also a hobby, but if I were approached (won't ever happen, but let's say it did) to publish something, I would probably give it a try. I have a lot of fun writing my stories and if someone else enjoys them, it makes me happy.

 

[shereads]

While I don't entirely agree with it, I will begrudgingly concede that there is validity to your statement.

Does it have to be a grudging concession? Being right nearly all the time is more burdensome than you might think. And it's not even gauche's fault; he was agreeing with me, which nearly always means an argument is valid.

<------ for gauche

Granted, all of my writing is commercial - which places me on the extreme end of the It's -Not-My-Story scale. Harsh on the ego, in the beginning, but that's why it's called a job. An advertising writer's experience has little to do with pride of authorship and everything to do with being marketable. We're the "stroke" writers of consumerism - with one exception: we're forced to learn to communicate with people unlike ourselves. (Golfers! Rich, Republican golfers with trophy wives and plaid pants and more money than the Vatican.) Such is the lot of a Word Whore.

But even authors whose goal is personal satisfaction have to place clarity above pride of authorship to some extent, don't they? The more you cling to what's personal about your work and the purity of your vision, the more you limit the numbers of people who'll read your work, and get it. Not that there's anything wrong with writing for a small, niche audience of appreciative fans. Appealing to a mass audience might create wealth, but it doesn't create much else that's worthwhile.

But how many writers are willing to write exclusively for their own satisfaction? If the hoped-for audience is made up of the author's cultural clones - sharing his history, his experience of relationships, his vocabulary, and the regional influences that color his use of language - the story really is the author's own, and an editor is superfluous. But broaden the target audience to include people even slightly different, and pride of authorship can get in the way of clear communication. That's where the editor comes in. He has the advantage of distance and can function as a test-reader, pinpointing places where the story lags, becomes confusing, or suffers from references so personal, their meaning might be lost on anyone but the author. Yes, he's an "audience of one." But that one is more objective than the author could hope to be.

If your stories really are your stories, uncompromised by an editor's opinion, and your audience follows you anyway, then bravo. It's bound to be more fun than selling swampland.



"Writing, like fucking, is only fun for amateurs. Old whores don't do much giggling."

~ Hunter S. Thompson.

 

[CharleyH]

Does it have to be a grudging concession? Being right nearly all the time is more burdensome than you might think. And it's not even gauche's fault; he was agreeing with me, which nearly always means an argument is valid.

<------ for gauche

Granted, all of my writing is commercial - which places me on the extreme end of the It's -Not-My-Story scale. Harsh on the ego, in the beginning, but that's why it's called a job. An advertising writer's experience has little to do with pride of authorship and everything to do with being marketable. We're the "stroke" writers of consumerism - with one exception: we're forced to learn to communicate with people unlike ourselves. (Golfers! Rich, Republican golfers with trophy wives and plaid pants and more money than the Vatican.) Such is the lot of a Word Whore.

But even authors whose goal is personal satisfaction have to place clarity above pride of authorship to some extent, don't they? The more you cling to what's personal about your work and the purity of your vision, the more you limit the numbers of people who'll read your work, and get it. Not that there's anything wrong with writing for a small, niche audience of appreciative fans. Appealing to a mass audience might create wealth, but it doesn't create much else that's worthwhile.

But how many writers are willing to write exclusively for their own satisfaction? If the hoped-for audience is made up of the author's cultural clones - sharing his history, his experience of relationships, his vocabulary, and the regional influences that color his use of language - the story really is the author's own, and an editor is superfluous. But broaden the target audience to include people even slightly different, and pride of authorship can get in the way of clear communication.

If your stories really are your stories, and your audience follows you anyway, bravo. I envy you. It's bound to be more fun than selling swampland.



"Writing, like fucking, is only fun for amateurs. Old whores don't do much giggling."

~ Hunter S. Thompson.

I really have to start writing down your answers to threads, Sher - You are quite brilliant at times.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Does it have to be a grudging concession? Being right nearly all the time is more burdensome than you might think. And it's not even gauche's fault; he was agreeing with me, which nearly always means an argument is valid.

<------ for gauche

Granted, all of my writing is commercial - which places me on the extreme end of the It's -Not-My-Story scale. Harsh on the ego, in the beginning, but that's why it's called a job. An advertising writer's experience has little to do with pride of authorship and everything to do with being marketable. We're the "stroke" writers of consumerism - with one exception: we're forced to learn to communicate with people unlike ourselves. (Golfers! Rich, Republican golfers with trophy wives and plaid pants and more money than the Vatican.) Such is the lot of a Word Whore.

But even authors whose goal is personal satisfaction have to place clarity above pride of authorship to some extent, don't they? The more you cling to what's personal about your work and the purity of your vision, the more you limit the numbers of people who'll read your work, and get it. Not that there's anything wrong with writing for a small, niche audience of appreciative fans. Appealing to a mass audience might create wealth, but it doesn't create much else that's worthwhile.

But how many writers are willing to write exclusively for their own satisfaction? If the hoped-for audience is made up of the author's cultural clones - sharing his history, his experience of relationships, his vocabulary, and the regional influences that color his use of language - the story really is the author's own, and an editor is superfluous. But broaden the target audience to include people even slightly different, and pride of authorship can get in the way of clear communication. That's where the editor comes in. He has the advantage of distance and can function as a test-reader, pinpointing places where the story lags, becomes confusing, or suffers from references so personal, their meaning might be lost on anyone but the author. Yes, he's an "audience of one." But that one is more objective than the author could hope to be.

If your stories really are your stories, uncompromised by an editor's opinion, and your audience follows you anyway, then bravo. It's bound to be more fun than selling swampland.



"Writing, like fucking, is only fun for amateurs. Old whores don't do much giggling."

~ Hunter S. Thompson.

I was being a bit facetious...LOL...I'm not even right some of the time.

I am willing to write just for myself. If anyone reads it, and likes it, then that is just a bonus.

I don't think my readers are my cultural clones. They are too diverse, and from too many places in the world to be much like me. I don't write to appeal to any one group, I write to appeal to the idea that was the seed for the story.

It doesn't matter if readers follow, I don't measure success by the number of hits, votes, or what the score is. My success comes from within. All I try to do is to be true to myself. And by allowing someone to alter the story, I lose that, the story no longer feels like it came from me, and I'm not willing to make that comprimise.

 

[floweringquince]

Wanna hear something pretentious?
(..oh, well, I'm gonna post it anyway


Reading the "it isn't your story" posts has gotten me to thinking - maybe the story belongs neither to the author or the audience (or the editor, or the moderator, or the guy who keeps Lit's servers running).

Maybe the story belongs to itself. (A story to be sold is a slightly different kettle of fish, but) maybe the author's obligations of quality, consistency, originality, etc. are to the work. And the readers' obligations (f indeed reader have any obligations) of attention and appreciation are to the piece.

When I have to axe some bit of dialogue that I like because that character really just wouldn't say that then, I do it for the story. When I do one more read-over even though I'm sick of seeing that same text over and over, it's for the sake of the story. When my VE points out that, if I want there to be a trout in the milk, I need some believable way of getting it there, and I re-write half the text to dovetail my explanation in, it's for the sake of the story.

When the story does badly, it's the story that suffers first (albeit with the author close on its heels). And when the story does well, it's the story that is first celebrated (with the author quick to arrive at any winner's circle).

So could it be that the story owns itself?


- Quince, thinking deep (way too deep) thoughts

 

[shereads]

I don't measure success by the number of hits, votes, or what the score is.

That's really twisted. Are you a communist?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Wanna hear something pretentious?
(..oh, well, I'm gonna post it anyway
...........
So could it be that the story owns itself?


- Quince, thinking deep (way too deep) thoughts

You should have been in bed, obviously. Far too meta-narrativistic for porn!

but... yeah... Sometimes the tussles I have with my words seem like something live that is struggling with me.

On the other hand, you have to remember just who is the parent here. *nods*

 

[gauchecritic]

Wanna hear something pretentious?
(..oh, well, I'm gonna post it anyway


maybe the story belongs neither to the author or the audience (or the editor, or the moderator, or the guy who keeps Lit's servers running).

Maybe the story belongs to itself.


- Quince, thinking deep (way too deep) thoughts

I'd go along with that. When you look back at your work you think "I wrote that." (wherever you'd like to place the emphasis) rather than "That is my work."

Rather like this computer I'm typing on. I built that. (all the parts being analogous to life's input) What this computer is now is not what I built. What my wife and sons use the computer for is not what I built. but I did build it.

Yep. The story has no belonging it just is.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Yep. The story has no belonging it just is.

I think that sums it up perfectly...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Actually, I'm going to disagree with you on this. I have fought tooth and nail with all my editors over their proofreading at one time or another. The English language is anything but precise and there are often debates about what is "correct" between people who are supposed to know what they are doing. Additionally, there are times where I might write something that is technically incorrect, but I don't really care. If the average person would read it and believe it to be wrong, what have you accomplished? We don't speak in perfect grammar, so why would characters in a book do so?

Also, if you're writing for Lit's format, things don't stand out the way they would in a book. I don't care if there's a rule about italics verses quotes or elipses versus semicolons. I want it to look appealing to the reader, even if I have to bend a couple of rules to get there. It's not my fault, I didn't invent the stupid, "I before E, except after C..." garbage. I swear some of our forefathers were retarded.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But my publisher insists that the verb is come and the noun is cum, which I think is silly. They also insist that the word "till" be spelled 'til, which I also think is silly, and in their books, you're not wracked with pain; you're racked with pain, which is just wrong. They have a bunch of other rules too.

But they also have the checkbook, which is an awfully strong argument right there.