A question for the professionals:
Do you think that a professional editor/ reader/ critiquer needs to have a certain affinity with the writing style of the writer in order to be useful and constructive or can they abstract themselves from that?
And here I am really thinking of style as opposed to subject matter. For example, I can't stand Anita Brookner (her dreariness gets on my nerves) but I love Margaret Atwood (her sharp bitchiness), I read a book by Mark Billingham a while ago and didn't like it at all but I think Ian Rankin is a great writer and yet their subject matters are not that different. I know that thousands, if not millions, of people have the opposite opinion to me so I was just wondering.

Ashlinn

I think I may have given the wrong impression. I don't see it as my job to re-write someone's book. My job is to find out what the writer wants to do – what kind of writer she wants to be – and help her become that, as far as she needs help. I started out by assuming everyone wanted to become the best writer they can be, not just in terms of expression, but also technically (the two obviously being linked). But I've learned that's not necessarily the case, and probably shouldn't be. Some writers have specific goals, e.g. to write a basic, entertaining, action-based, thriller, where the job is to satisfy an identifiable audience. They're not so bothered that the writing is 'pure', for want of a better word – where every word counts, and there is minimum Tell, etc.

This principle is perhaps clearer to see in non-fiction writing. For example, I've just started working with someone who writes articles in the business/training field, and is also working on a book. To begin with, I did two edits on the same article. One was what could be called a full edit, in that I re-wrote quite a bit of it, into what I thought was clearer language. The other was a light edit, just making syntax, grammar and punctuation consistent, and changing the odd word. When we discussed it, he said he felt his own voice wasn't strong enough in the full edit, so wanted me to continue with lighter editing, making comments separately on anything I thought might be put differently. Which is absolutely fine: he knows what he wants, and I know how to help him. It's not actually that different with fiction writing. But what tends to make fiction more tricky is that the writer isn't always so clear who his audience is (and it's only modern commercial publishing attitudes that say he should be, really; but that's the way it is), or what kind of writer he wants to be.

Colin, I completely agree: a writer who means business, who's in it for the long haul, will always find what he needs.

Ashlinn, as you can probably tell from what I've said above, I don't think an editor needs necessarily to have an affinity with the writer's style. He just needs to understand what the writer is trying to do. Having said that, there are two areas I find it hard to work in, mainly because I don't really appreciate what they're trying to do, and that's chick lit and 'comedy' fantasy (sorry, but I can't not use inverted commas there).

Finally, above and beyond technical knowledge and the different requirements of different genres, I think a good editor must have a sharp instinct for what works and what doesn't. Emma and I have had our differences on this site, but I've always thought she has a very good instinct for what works and what doesn't in other people's writing, and I'm sure she's making a great reader for her agency.

Terry

<Added>

By the way, I see coaching to be very different to editing. Coaching is when, for example, a writer asks for help in overcoming what's preventing them communicating their vision. Some writers are brilliant in certain areas – humour and dialogue, for example. They have a natural ear for it, which can't be taught. But they aren't so strong in other areas, maybe plot or setting. Sometimes, this causes a loss of confidence, and their writing dries up, or gets fixed in a cycle of overall ineffectiveness. Coaching can help them to break out of such cycles, and to have confidence that working consciously on their weak areas will not, by bad magic, drain their strengths (a quite common perception in writers with a natural ear, I've found). Editing then comes in as a secondary, back-up, system for the coaching, and/or becomes the code through which the real, developmental, work operates.

A few people asked for an update when I got the report on The Winter House from Cornerstones.

They emailed the nine-page report to me this afternoon, and it’s extremely positive and encouraging. The reader likes the style, narrative, and characters. She thinks the pace is excellent but – and it’s a very big BUT – the tension is too spiky and peaks too early. And her solution is a pretty major restructuring.

Ho hum… I can see what she means – after thinking about it all afternoon, I’m sure she’s right – but I'm daunted by the enormity of work involved. Some of her suggestions will amount to a massive amount of new writing – but that’s balanced by the huge chunks I’ll need to take out.

I need to give her suggestions a lot of thought. If I don’t go along with them, then the money spent on the assessment will be wasted… I just wasn’t expecting such a major restructure.

Overall, I'm very pleased with the report. It’s clear, detailed and constructive. She’s shown me what’s good about my writing, which is encouraging. In fact it’s only the structure that needs addressing… such a little word, only…

Dee
x

Take the positives and the negatives and make the whole thing better. You're good enough to, Dee.

It's hard work, this writing lark, isn't it!

Like I said, you're good enough.

Nik.

I'm sure it's daunting when faced with such a big overhaul, but it sounds like money well spent, especially if you've sat down and feel the comments are probably right.

Take some time out, let it all bounce around in your head, then get to work.

Best of luck with it, Dee.

Colin M