Some very quick notes from a panel called 'What Do Editors Do?', hot from the press (4pm today), at Eastercon 2008. Panel members: Darren Nash (exec. editor at Orbit), Jo Fletcher (exec. editor at Gollancz), Jetse de Vries (editor at Interzone); Ian Whates and Ian Watson (small press editors, mainly anthologies). In no particular order:

Gollancz receives 'thousands' of unsolicited manuscripts per year, and take on average just one of them every three years. The rest of their new writers come from agents.

Both Gollancz and Orbit's lists are more or less permanently full, which means any new author has to be up to the standard of what they already have, if not better.

The standard of grammar, punctuation and structure of author's work has declined dramatically in recent years (although there are still the occasional exceptions from people who obviously care about the craft). Added to that, is the fact editors now are under enormous pressures to produce books, and simply don't have time for a manuscript from a new author which requires a lot of work.

Pressure is also on the new author, too, in that they may have taken most of their life so far to produce their first novel, then have to sign a contract which commits them to deliver the second one within a year.

Editors very much have to convince their publisher that a book will sell, regardless of whether or not they personally love it. One story told was of the editor who pushed hard in a meeting for a book she wanted to do, but which could not be sure would sell. Eventually, the publisher said, "You really love this book, don't you?" She said, "Yes, I do." So he said, "Well, why don't you wait until another publisher does it then buy a copy in Waterstones."

The point was made that marketing is not just about money, but also about effort put in. Editors don't get a lot of say on how much money gets spent on what books, and it's tough luck on their non A-list authors if it just so happens that one or two of their big-hitter authors have books coming out in the same year, and most of the budget goes on them.

Many factors can determine why a book is rejected, as well as it not being any good: e.g. that particular publisher has already published a lot of books of that kind; it doesn't quite fit with their list; it simply isn't to that editor's personal taste, etc. The lesson being, research your market before submitting (and don't do what apparently increasing numbers of authors are doing, which is to blanket email publishers - including ones who don't even publish in their genre).

Small presses have a lot more freedom in what they publish, mainly because the editor is often the publisher too, and doesn't have to convince a sales team. Also, Jo Fletcher said that she reads the small press and takes note of promising new authors there. Therefore, it's worth a new author considering starting in the small presses.

Not using English correctly was a big bug-bear, e.g. sentences that aren't sentences; over-use of triple dots; inconsistent formatting; over-use of 'it', etc.

Terry

Thanks very much for this Terry. It's a valuable insight.

Could you bear to elaborate on the poor use of English? Sentences that aren't sentences worries me. I often use fragments to convey idiomatic/idiolectic thought. Is this frowned on?

And what's the problem with 'it'?

Thanks

C

Thanks, Terry. Very interesting.

Pressure is also on the new author, too, in that they may have taken most of their life so far to produce their first novel, then have to sign a contract which commits them to deliver the second one within a year.

And this is very scary.
Susiex

Just back from dinner. Talked to a German SF author who spent 10 years writing his book - in English (there isn't much of an SF market in Germany). It's with a very small publisher and probably won't sell much but he's got a lot of other benefits from doing it.

As for sentences, well the simplest sentence must contain at least a subject and a predicate (basically a verb which describes what the subject is doing). So, in 'Jack ran quickly up the stairs' - 'Jack' is the subject, 'ran' is the verb. But I've seen that kind of sentence split into two: 'Jack ran. Quickly up the stairs.' The second 'sentence' is not a sentence, because there's no subject. One of the editors said, "Sometimes authors tell me that this [making non sentences] is their style - well, I say, bollocks to that!"

The problem with 'it' is that it's usually a bad habit - the author can't be bothered to use the proper noun. And, once it [see - I'm doing it - again - myself!] becomes an unconscious habit, their work can be very difficult and irritating to read - because you have to keep working out what 'it' they mean at any given time.

<Added>

Whoops! In my bad sentence example, I forgot to mention that there's no verb either.

<Added>

It's probably worth mentioning that most editors are old-fashioned enough to want to see the predicate include some description of what the verb is having the subject do. So, while some would say, 'Jack ran.' is a sentence, others would say not unless 'ran' is put in context, i.e. 'Jack ran quickly up the stairs'.

Would this apply to a sentence like:

I shut the door. Locked it. Hurried up the path.

I know some people loathe this, but it does add a certain terseness which can be helpful in some situations.
Susiex

Thanks for posting this, Terry

Sarah

Thanks, Terry. As I also likes properly constructed sentences I feel quite cheered up.
Sheila

'Like', I mean.

Susie, I'm sure you can answer that question yourself. A certain terseness. Aside.

Terry

I'm still flummoxed by the 'not full sentences' rule. Your example makes sense because that's just shoddy use of punctuation. The extra full stop does nothing for the flow or voice.

But here's an extract from Joyce Cary:

And what a technique when you come to think of it. Nothing like the classical. A sense of form. None of your surface tricks: but solid construction.

May not be clear what he's referring to out of context, but I'd argue that from that fragment it's perfectly clear the man can write and is choosing fractured grammar to create the narrator's idiomatic thought pattern's.

I'm concerned because I'd occasionally advocate the reverse of the advice given. Writers who carefully construct each sentence with subject, verb etc are sometimes in danger of wooden prose and need to break it down a little, to mirror natural thought. I never think, I'd better go and turn the oven down; I think: oven. I never think, I wish the children would play a little more quietly. I think Bl***y din. Should our writing not reflect how we actually use language, rather than how our english teacher preferred us to? (Assuming a solid grasp of grammar to begin with so we know when and why we're breaking the rules.)

Thanks for explaining 'it'.

Susannah

Terry.
Susiex

Writers who carefully construct each sentence with subject, verb etc are sometimes in danger of wooden prose

Very true, Cherys, and Nathan Bransford warned about just such a thing in one of his blogs; it was a common complaint amongst the Agents at a convention he had been to. Maybe a more complex, or just a more varied, sentence structure was being advocated.


- NaomiM

Writers who carefully construct each sentence with subject, verb etc are sometimes in danger of wooden prose and need to break it down a little, to mirror natural thought.

So, carefully construct sentences that aren't wooden. Care and passion aren't mutually exclusive; and the opposite isn't necessarily true: that the way to avoid wooden prose is to construct fragmented sentences.

The reason that editor said, "Bollocks to that!" is because he's tired of these old arguments for 'natural' language, or 'realistic' patterns of speech; or 'personal style'. The whole point of craft is that when it's well done the edifice disappears and the story soars into the reader's mind, unencumbered by the reader having to work out why on earth Joyce Cary wants to put full stops where they don't need to go. Is she being daringly experimental? Is she just trying to get back at her old English teacher? Is she potty? Who cares - the fact is, the reader, or more importantly the editor, mostly just won't buy it. Literally. Whoops.

If you mirrored 'natural thought' in prose it would be unreadable and boring. I don't know about you, but my thoughts are mostly not worth thinking, and the last thing I'd want to do is splurge them onto a page which I expect others to read. I don't even do that in my diary, and it's only me who's going to read that.

Anyway, look, no one's telling anyone how to write. If you want to use non-sentences, fine. I posted this report to show that at least one group of editors all agreed - and most vociferously, it has to be said - that they are mighty turned off by poor grammar and punctuation, including the use of non-sentences (in the classical sense).

Terry

<Added>

I never think, I'd better go and turn the oven down; I think: oven.

Actually, this is a good example; because, if you just write 'oven', how on earth is the reader supposed to know you mean you'd better turn it down? You could mean you want to put your head in it. Or that you need a new one; or that it needs cleaning. This is precisely where the craft diverges from the personal: inside your head, you know what you precisely mean without having to spell it out to yourself; but outside of it, you have to show anyone else what precisely you mean. Does that make the thought process look more unnatural on the page? Well, that's the challenge of writing, and of learning the craft.

I have to agree with Susie and Susannah. When I began writing fiction I always meticulously included a finite verb, subject and object in every sentence, never began a sentence with 'and' or 'but'..... The result was very formal and wooden - my novels read ike my law articles (which is where I'd learned to write that way). My agnt needed to point it out to me - in fact, he took the mickey something rotten! I had to learn to let go. Go with the flow. Fiction oughn't to read like a PhD thesis. Because it isn't! Certainly not dialogue, if it is to be anywhere near naturalistic. And not narrative which is in the internal voice of a character, either. People just don't think in perfect sentences!

But maybe the speaker was just thinking of plain bad grammar - accidentally bad sentences, as opposed to deliberate stylistic effect?

I am also curious about this reported exchange between an editor and 'the publisher'. Do you mean an editorial director? Or someone in marketing? I am very curious about how final decsions like this get made.

Thanks for posting, Terry - lots of food for thought.

Rosy

<Added>

Just read your last post properly, Terry. I wonder of it's either a matter of taste, or of genre? I don't think I've never read a chick lit book, for example, which stuck meticulously to complete, formal sentence structure throughout. Anything approaching a chatty, conversational, intimate tone (almost de rigueur in commercial women's ficiton) is very difficult to achieve without bending the occasional rule of grammar. My books certainly use many, many incomplete sentences, when I'm in dialogue or internal monologue - and I've never had one queried or 'corrected' by either editor or copy editor. Maybe it's a commercial fiction thing? And - certainly - a case of breaking the rules consciously rather than unconsciously - and being very aware of why you are doing it.

Odd isn't it? This is a site for people who want to improve as writers, yet when they get advice from people in the business (albeit from a third party) the reaction is to throw arms in the air and go on the defensive.

Terry, I thought it was a very useful post. Cheers.