I'm writing to draw attention to Blake Morrison's fascinating article in yesterday's Guardian 'Review' section, titled' Black day for the blue pencil', bemoaning the current lack of the publishers' editors, and to ask what other people think. The extent to which classics such as 'Sons and Lovers', The Waste Land' and 'The Great Gatsby' came under the pencil before publication makes fascinating reading, as does how much help editors gave to a writer like Thomas Wolfe, churning out words by the thousand, to have them cut and re-arranged instead of just rejected outright. The disadvantages of 'interfering' or 'censoring' editors are discussed from a historical perspective, whilst modern day writing courses, it's suggested, fill the gap editors used to occupy. Thinking of how I've been helped myself in this forum, I was struck by the truth of the following, about the value of an objective reading:

'because what's wrong with the book is something the author has repressed all knowledge of , something glaringly obvious which, the moment an editor or other reader identifies it, you think, yes, of course, Eureka, and then you go back and fix it.'


Sheila

Here's the link: http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,6000,1543308,00.html#article_continue

Part of the reason I quit journalism was because I was sick of the way my stuff was edited. All too often my articles were edited in such a way as to actually change my correct facts to incorrect ones, and of course I never had a chance to check before publication. Obviously that's is a different ballgame with tighter word limits and deadlines, though.

I didn't really consider editing would be an issue with fiction publication. At least, I only imagined it would be a collaborative effort where the final version could still be completely called mine. According to this article, I'm right, but that wasn't always the case. That kind of makes me breathe a sigh of relief. However, it's so true the point the piece makes about White Teeth and Brick Lane seeming like they could have done with more editing. Interesting stuff.

Cath

I would guess that it's a sign of the times; being that more people, with better skills are trying to break into the market. If this is true then why should a publisher pay out good money employing an in-house editor when sooner or later they are going to get a perfect script. It makes perfect financial sense to me, but it's shit for those with good storytelling but shit editing skills.

There is something else about this that worries me. It's that I put the effort in now to get my first novel noticed, get a contract, and then two or three books down the line I start to loose the discipline I had on the first attempt. Would someone try to pull in the reins, or would I just get dumped, in favour of a new name who is yet to slide down into the waffle-mire?

Colin

<Added>

two "shit"s - an in-house editor would have removed one of those!

I do think this is a sign of the times, but not because 'more people with better skills are trying to break into the market' - on the contrary, the need for a good editor is as strong, only publishing is now about quick, massive sales, not long-term nurturing of authors. Editors have to be as good with numbers as they are with words, enduring hours of 'business' training, number-crunching exercises etc etc but not necessarily the equivalent in how to be a useful, nurturing editor in the traditional sense. That's why a lot of them don't stick it out, and why others aren't equipped to do a great job on a manuscript - worse still, it's why a lot of them find themselves leapfrogged by 'editors' who are better with numbers. It's interesting that people are worried about possession of a piece of work - as Sheila pointed out we all need someone else to point out what is glaringly obvious...I'd much rather have someone do that for me, give them the credit they deserve for that and be happy with the end result than carry on in my own merry way and produce something that could have been so much better.

Interesting about Ted Hughes and Shelley 'raping' manuscripts - that's a while different ball game though.

Myrtle

Yeah, but someone pointing something out that enlightens you is not the same as editing - that's good critique.

Cath

It's not the same as line-editing, but it is what being an editor (as opposed to a copy-editor / proofreader etc) should be about.

M.

when I said more people have the skills, that also includes people who use freelance editors and editing services as a means to getting their script up to standard. So we still need editors, but the publishers don't.

Bastards, eh?

A nifty way of getting the writer to cough up for the editing, instead of the publisher... Damn these people are smart.

M.

I've got a friend who's a bit of a marketing genius. He's retired now, but he does a lot for charity. He's just published a book, "Special Children" which comes out in October. The first print run is going to be several thousand copies, plus printed fliers and cards (business type cards). He hasn't shelled out a penny. He just knows how to talk to people. He wandered into a printers, sat the boss down and said, "This is what you're going to do" He explained how the company can get their initial outlay (including the price of typesetting, jacket design and editing) back through further printruns, but if they want his business, they are going to have to cover the initial costs.

Now if you or I went in and tried this on, we'd probably be lucky to land on the pavement face-up, but like I said, this guy's a bit of genius. When he talks, people listen.

Just as a matter of interest, the charity his book is supporting is the Grace House Children's Hospice Appeal. His book is mentioned in the October section of the EVENTS page.

Colin

Sheila, Cath,

Thanks for pointing to this fascinating article. I can vouch for much of what it says. My first book was published in 1984 and was greatly transformed by my editor. Better still, the experience of working with her taught me how to do a lot of editing myself, so that my next novel was much tighter when submitted. However, she was one of the last of the long-term in-house editors. After she 'retired', a large publisher hired her part time to work in the background, editing many books that their younger and more passing-through editors couldn't. Now she really has retired and I guess they won't bother from now on. The two books I wrote a couple of years ago received virtually no editing, so rather than have them go out with only the writer's input, I edited them myself; and that really is not satisfactory. Even if you know how to edit, you can't always see the bigger picture problems in your own work.

I very much feel for new writers today. They have a damned-if-I-do and damned-if-I-don't choice to make about getting their work edited before they submit it. If they do, then it's possible they may end up doing more work on their book than many a published author – because so often these days, books are published without good editing. But if they don't, then they will get rejected because their book needs too much work doing to it (even though this probably won't be done anyway!).

Speaking as a freelance editor, I often find it difficult to get the balance right with new writers. There is just so much editing, usually, that can be done – from line by line to structural and everything in-between. Because you're working for the writer, you have to ask him what he wants but of course, at an early stage in his career, he doesn't really know.

Also, it can be difficult for a new writer to take the shock of being edited for the first time. He's been writing in his own sweet way for some years, and receiving bits of feed-back from family, friends and perhaps writers' circles; but being edited professionally is by comparison very exposing. It doesn't help that he probably, like most people, believes that professional writers don't really get edited.

I've often struggled with how to present tough editing. You're using cutting techniques and making structural suggestions, all towards helping the gem of the book within shine out uncluttered by messy writing. But however you phrase it, the writer is facing what is usually his first big development step. Some react badly, perhaps because they don't, in the end, want to take that step. It means, initially, changing one's self view and becoming open to learning whole new ways of writing. I guess, if a writer want it enough, he will see this process as an exciting new world to explore. The only problem, as the article shows, is what exactly constitutes 'it' these days. For someone who wants to be the best writer they can be, 'it' means learning to work with a good editor, gradually picking up the good habits, moving towards being able to do much of it for themselves. Then, working with an editor refines towards producing truly superb and lasting work. But for someone who just wants to sell lots of books regardless, I suppose 'it' means simply selling the concept.

Terry

I was particularly drawn to one of those points, Terry. Some writers aren't ready for the step from casual critique to professional critique. I think the comments on this site often fall into the harsher side of the fence, which is great if you want it. But I've had an experience of getting used to giving honest criticism on here, then walk into my writers' circle and do the same there to a room full of shocked and genuinely hurt faces.

Oops

Colin

Terry, I had a similar experience. I had a great editor and we worked together very well for my first novel. But after all, that was already finished when she got it so all they had to do was find a slot ofr it. Time was tight, but the job got done. With the next two it was different. Time was of the essence; I did the edits she suggested but we both knew it wasn't yet quite right. But there was that deadline....
I was very dissatisfied with the editing done on those two. I know the stopries didn't shine the way they were supposed to, and sould have done, with a bit more attention.

Colin,

I think the step up from amateur to professional in any field is always a shock point.

I played table soccer (Subbuteo-type) avidly from age 8-13. I could beat all my friends easily and so decided to join a big league in London, fully expecting to beat everyone there too. The first night I turned up, this 30 year old guy agreed to try me out for twenty minutes, in a friendly. He happened to be the English Champion. But I wasn't worried - I could beat anyone. Well, while he played he was chatting to a friend, his mind only half on the game. But he beat me 8-0. I went home devastated, angry, resentful - trying to find an excuse, basically. But I couldn't: I just had to admit that the higher level of the game was far more advanced than where I was at.

So, I destroyed my old equipment, bought better stuff and completely re-modelled my game. I watched and learnt everything that I could from the champion and other great players in that league. Within a year, I was a completely different player and three years after my initiation into the real world of table soccer, I beat the same guy in the final of the English Championships. The only other choice would have been to go back to my little league of friends and continue believing I was the best. That would have saved the many hours of practice, the painful reconstruction of my game and the endless defeats while I was learning again from scratch. But it wouldn't have provided the sheer pleasure of becoming truly changed by working at a high level.

I honestly don't think it's any different if you want to be a good writer.

Terry

<Added>

Sorry, I didn't mean 'you' as in you, Colin - probably should have said 'one' but that always sounds a bit poncey.

A perfectly excellent analogy. Liked it.

Agree with you about 'one', Terry. It sounds presumptous using 'you' in lots of contexts, but 'one' sounds distressingly like Prince Charles.

Emma