I feel a rant coming on...

[katiefoolery]

I’m going to rant today.  Indeed I am.  This one’s been coming on for a week or so, ever since I read a quote from an author who I used to count among my favourites.  Note the “used to”.  She used to be the first name I mentioned whenever I was asked for a favourite author, or even just an author worth reading.  I loved her books and her style and sometimes found myself influenced by it myself.  That’s all in past tense now.
[ETA: Just to clarify, it’s been a looooong time since this author was my favourite; I wasn’t turned off them or their books by the quote below.  The main purpose of the above paragraph was merely to reveal one of the biases that might have affected my rant.]

So I have a bias, I suppose.  And since this rant is about editing, my icon will hint at my other bias.  I love editing.  I believe there’s not a single writer out there who can’t benefit from a good editor.  Not.  A.  Single.  One.  And I may be only a humble beta but I still feel a thrill of pride when I read over a revised draft from one of my writers (I’m very possessive of them) and think that I helped a tiny bit in bringing that to life.

It feels like magic sometimes.

But I’d like to get to my point eventually, so I shall stop rambling and instead include the quote that inspired this rant.  (I’m not going to name the author, as I believe their identity is irrelevant.  Several of you will most likely be able to identify the author, though.  n.b. Although I mention J. K. Rowling towards the end of this rant, she is not the one who wrote the original quote.)

The quote:

“In a way I love editing... editors always want to reduce words by cutting incidents in a book, but each step is a point of careful trajectory so to cut a step is to simplify, to de-complexify a journey and I much prefer the far more time-consuming business of cutting single words from sentences, or rearranging sentences to get rid of a couple of words.  That way you retain the complexity of a book - of a journey.”

Ah, where to start?  Firstly, may I object to that generalisation that editors like to remove incidents from stories without reference to those stories as a whole?  Because any editor who does that is most certainly not doing their job properly.

I doubt that’s the case, though.  If an editor suggests an incident should be cut, then it’s usually for a good reason.  Perhaps it’s just not necessary.  Perhaps it overwhelms a more important scene.  Perhaps it’s in the wrong spot.  Or maybe it’s self-contained enough to deserve a separate story or book of its own.  But here, the author is almost implying that editors just choose scenes at random and remove them; that the editor is the enemy of the story and has no respect for it.  Here’s where my bias kicks in, for I find this insulting.  An editor’s job is to take a story and to make sure it’s the best it can be.  To imply that they have no care for the story and are prepared to suggest things that would injure it is not only fallacious, it’s downright immature.

Let’s remember that any good edtior will allow you to argue your point.  If you can sit there and say “This must stay because [insert damn good, unassailable reason here]” then your editor will most likely be impressed and may even concede the point.  An incomparable editor will not only concede the point, they’ll also sit down and work with you to make sure your damn good, unassailable reason has even more impact than you could have hoped for.

I’m going to preface this next statement by re-asserting the fact that I’m a writer, too.  I even have a degree that proves it (for what it’s worth...), along with several achievements in writing competitions.  In short, I’ve been writing since I was roughly five years old.

That being said, I do not believe for one minute that you can seriously edit a story simply by cutting single words from sentences or re-arranging them.  It is not possible.  It’s certainly possible to refine your style that way.  And it’s certainly possible to round off the structure of a short story that way.  But it is no way to edit a book and it is no way to edit AT ALL.  It’s like painting a masterpiece two inches away from the canvas and never stepping back to look at the painting as a whole.  Sure, it sounds lovely and painstaking and terribly artistic to edit by removing single words but it ignores the fact that a book is more than just the way it’s told - it’s also the way it’s structured.  You can have the loveliest sentences in the world... and they’ll do you no good if you don’t have a plot.  Or if your plot, your “journey”, is flawed and badly-constructed.

Finally, let’s look at that last statement: “That way you retain the complexity of a book - of a journey”.  There’s complexity and there’s over-writing - it’s important not the confuse the two.  What looks like complexity to one person is another person’s pointless ramble and a reason to put the book down, unsatisfied and unfinished.  There’s also complexity and pointless side-plots: one’s good, the other can destroy what could be a great book.  In my opinion, a prime example of that is Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.  Were I J. K. Rowling, I don’t believe I could ever forgive my editor for letting that book be published in the state in which it was released to the world.  Half of the book was vital; the other half was an author having fun in the world she had created.  There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that - I wouldn’t want to take any of the small joys away from writing - but there’s no excuse for leaving it in the finished product.  Rowling was just lucky that her legions of readers were just as keen to revel in that world, too.  It could have been a great book; instead, it was just acceptable.  And all because verbiage was mistaken for the “complexity of a ... journey”.

I worry that young writers who still hold this author in awe will be swayed by these words; that they’ll believe editors are omgsoevil and are the enemy of every good story.  They’re not.   They’re the impartial voice.  They’re the eyes that can see the flaws we can never see as writers.  Even at our harshest, we writers are still too close to our stories to always know what’s good for them.  And if we know our story inside out, then it’s like a well-trodden path: no matter how wildly it diverges from our destination, no matter how many pointless detours it involves, it still feels like the right way to travel.  And to carry this metaphor a little further, an editor is the guide with the map who can point out the side-trips that add nothing and the trip around the base of the mountain that’s quite unnecessary because there’s a path that cuts right through here.  They’re on the same side as writers after all.

Here endeth my rant.  Please, argue or agree with me - I welcome all debate.  Do you also think you can edit one word at a time?  Or would you welcome an outside voice to point you in the right direction with your writing?  I want to know it all.

Comments

[gehdra.livejournal.com]

I think I will always feel a loyalty to this author, but I do see where you are coming from. I've grown up a lot since I first became so involved in her stories. So, while I may have when I was younger, I certainly don't take her word as gospel... and I think you're right - this quote could easily become a "editors r teh evviiill!!!11!11one!", though I don't know if it was actually intended that way by the author.

[snarkymonkey.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with you. I read a book by Kate Elliot and found it rife with errors that would have been caught by any self-respecting editor. It made me wonder if she scoffed at the idea of an editor or somehow managed to wiggle her way past one. Editors are necessary as I for one would not be able to find half the problems my editor pinpointed. And they weren't even problems. Simply areas that needed tightening. I think that's invaluable.

I'm horribly curious as to what author said this.

[flippyfrog.livejournal.com]

Well, I know who you're talking about, and that coming from her? Well, it's obvious isn't it, we have another Anne Rice in the making.


I'm all for editors. I seriously am. Not just because my writing is a grammatical nightmare, but because, and i see this in other people's writing too, you need that extra set of eyes to tell you if your story has run amuk. Or even, better yet, I know if there's a scene or a character who is important if their survival is threatened and I'm willing to write a thesis on why they should stay above "well I like them." I know I'm on a winner if I'm ready to defend them to the death, just as I know if there's something frivolous if i can see how the story would run without them. But the thing is, I need someone to point out to me where this is happening, and that's what I see editors doing.

And sculpting lines to cut down words... that's a writer's job, not an editors. A writer isn't just the story, it's the craft of the words, and the writer should be able to do that without the editor. The editor has much bigger issues to sort out than word limits, as I see it.

[drscruffy.livejournal.com]

I also know to whom you are referring, and I remember reading that comment and thinking two things:

'Ah, so that's why it's taking so long'
'It's sad that she feels that way'

When I get home this evening, Mr Scruffy will ask 'how was you day?' and I will tell him in a few sentences about the crazy nurse who taught us to intubate, the boring pathology lecture, the chance meeting with an old friend and the interesting discussion I had in class this afternoon. Of course, my day was much fuller and richer than maybe these few minutes will imply, and I might go on to tell him a few more things throughout the evening as they occur to me. However, there is no need for me to give him a blow by blow accounting of every minute of my day from the time I waved goodbye at the station, to the time I arrived at home.

When a writer creates a world they love, peopled with characters they adore, there is always such a temptation to recount the details which make the fabric of this world real. The reality is, sometimes, less is more. An Editor isn't trying to "reduce words by cutting incidents" they are trying to give more to your story - more room, more time, more emphasis, more depth... more... By looking at editing as merely reducing the word count, author's are missing the point.

[flamehail.livejournal.com]

Amen. I don't think I can add much to what you or the previous commenters have said, but I think you're right on the money.

[bunhusband.livejournal.com]

Wow, i rekon you should be an editor, you sound as if you would be a great one, perhaps there's a course you could do????

[gehdra.livejournal.com]

You should give some pointers to my fiance. He really does give me a blow by blow accounting of his day... and I won't even begin to describe the telling he gives for his games of golf on Saturday mornings X.X

[alankria.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of Anne Rice, Crazy Lady #1, saying:

"After the publication of the The Queen of the Damned, I requested of my editor that she not give me anymore comments. I resolved to hand in the manuscripts when they were finished. And asked that she accept them as they were. She was very reluctant, feeling that her input had value, but she agreed to my wishes. I asked this due to my highly critical relationship with my work and my intense evolutionary work on every sentence in the work, my feeling for the rhythm of the phrase and the unfolding of the plot and the character development. I felt that I could not bring to perfection what I saw unless I did it alone. In othe words, what I had to offer had to be offered in isolation. So all novels published after The Queen of the Damned were written by me in this pure fashion, my editor thereafter functioning as my mentor and guardian."

She does admit to letting the copy editor check for spelling mistakes and minor continuity errors, but that's all. Link (http://www.annerice.com/sh_MessagesBeach2.htm)

Later, in her infamous amazon rant, she says:

"And no, I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself. I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me, and I will never relinquish that status. For me, novel writing is a virtuoso performance. It is not a collaborative art."

Link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_rdp_st_rd/102-8625086-7342535?ie=UTF8&ASIN=037541200X&store=yourstore&cdThread=Tx2995TQ1YT1YI2&reviewID=R1FLRHCYSK13PB&displayType=ReviewDetail)

In conclusion: Smack me if I ever become this conceited. Please? Every time I've had something beta'd I'm reminded of why editors are there, because there are *always* things that I've never noticed. And even on the times I've not taken all of the offered advice, it's still important because it makes me think about the bit in question and consider whether I really do want it that way or whether it could be done better another way.

[kangaruth.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm going to argue her case. Let me just start by saying, I'm not really I writer, but I love to proofread. The complexities of language and grammar delight me and I love to sit down with someone's first draft of a story or essay and find the sentences that don't quite flow properly, or don't make sense, or the phrasing that trips up a reader. I don't pay as much attention to the plot or the arguments, unless there are glaring errors which have to be rectified, because I feel that is down to the author. It might be because much of my writing is scientific and so I try to say only what needs to be said but, while I will take on board any criticism, if I think something is justifiable or important I'm not going to cut it just because my essay is 100 words too long, I will do the word-at-a-time edit and include it if I can. Not that that is ever really an issue in my work, I usually have the opposite problem!

So, having said that, I don't think she's making an attack on editors. From what I know of the author, her stories are both long and complex. I imagine her publishers have some kind of word-limit ceiling for a book that they need her to work with, and also that some scenes and incidents in her books may seem arbitrary but will have some significance later on (and how we theorise over minutiae!) I think, what she was trying to say is that there gets a point where she doesn't want to cut any more because she doesn't want us (her readers) to miss out on these, and would rather take the time and effort to do the word-at-a-time editing than take out something she thought was vital.

In the case of this author and this book, there are a lot of loose ends that we the readers want to see tied up or explained, and I for one, would be disappointed if they were cut out to fit the story into one more book if it can be done in full in two.

And yes, I know your problem is with the generalisation of editors=bad, but I think it may be just a generalisation. She may have meant her editor, she may have meant an editor a friend has had in the past. The editor in question may just have been pushing her to defend each incident in a long and complex book. Maybe her editor does say 'you need to cut out 500 words, is there an incident we can cut' without considering what incidents *could* be cut. The context for the quote is missing - is she talking about the first stage of editing, or the last stage where she thinks the plot is as tight as it can be?

From the summary of the letter that the quote was taken from:
She worked on trying to make the final book one book. She'd do a rewrite to 900-odd pages, edit it down to 700, then write some more and be back up to 1000 pages, and have to edit again. The editing made the book tighter, but she was more and more certain she couldn't fit it in one book.
That doesn't sound like she has a problem with serious editing.

At the end of the day, I've never read her books and thought there was a lot of pointless meandering and one of the things I love about her books is the way the language flows. (Both things that bug me about HP, I'd add!) Which suggests the way she (and her editors) edit her books must be working.

What I'm saying is, don't judge an author you have respected up until now, on the back of *an excerpt* of something she's said. You may be taking it out of context. You might be right and she might have lost the plot but I think you should withhold judgement until you read the book she's talking about. If, at that point, you agree with her editors, then fair enough.

Also, everyone's method of writing is different, and everyone will want or expect different things from their editor/beta. Whether they make the right choices or not when they get the feedback shows in the quality of their final product.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

I don't imagine it was intended that way at all. :) But I rememer how much I used to adore her writing and I imagine that if I'd read that at the age of thirteen or fourteen I would have been completely swayed by it, to my later disadvantage. (Although I was very easily influenced by things at that age, so it would have been mostly my own fault.)

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

There should be less sarcasm and more cooking of dinner from you. :P

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

I'm glad to hear it. :) I had no idea how passionate I was about this subject until I started writing this post and I'm still slightly surprised at how it actually is.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

I have to admit, I read a book a little while ago that was full of really very appalling errors (plurals with apostrophes, simple spelling errors and so on) and I actually started writing a list of them with the page numbers. I was this close to actually contacting the publisher with the list. It was a YA book, too, which just seemed to make it even worse for me.

Heh - sorry to make you so curious about the identity of the author. I did rather build it up a little at the start there, didn't I? But I really wanted to address the statements the author was making, rather than the author themselves, which is why I left their name out.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

It also seems to explain why the first third of the fourth book was so dull and irrelevant and full of unnecessary exposition.

I'd like to think I could write a story and really polish it and make it perfect... but I know it's not true. That outside perspective is invaluable and can't be too highly prized. And you never know when another person's casual comment is going to make you think about your story in an entirely different way. I can't bring myself to resent any of that.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I wonder what the story would have been like if she'd stuck with the original trilogy. It almost feels as though the story is out of her control now and is going to refuse to end, no matter what.

That's a very apt example there and I couldn't agree more with your statement "they are trying to give more to your story". It's so very true. Too much detail, too many stops along the journey, will only end up stifling the story. It needs to breathe. This particular author has a very distinctive style to her writing, so I can understand that painstaking, word-by-word edit, but I do wish she hadn't dismissed the work an editor does as just hacking scenes without reason.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Oh yes - upon reading the quote, I immediately thought of Anne Rice. I think that quote you provided is pretty much a textbook definition of pretention. Nobody's good enough to do without an editor. I'm quite amazed at her editor's restraint, really.

That phrase "I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me" seems to speak of a writer who has completely misinterpreted the role of an editor. And that's very sad. I'm not going to claim that every editor is perfect but it's sad that she's seen her editors' comments as demands instead of the constructive criticism that they actually were.

I'm constantly amazed at the things I overlook in my own writing and I can't thank people enough for taking the time to point them out. I'm going to join you in that hope never to become conceited to the point where I believe my writing's perfect.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Thank-you so much for taking the time to sit down and write this comment - I really appreciate it. I'm also delighted to hear a different point of view.

Firstly, I'd just like to say that it wasn't actually my intention to attack the author with this rant, although I'm afraid it may have come out looking that way. I really just wanted to address the sentiments within the quote itself.

I do agree - everyone has different ways of writing and revising their own work. And I'm sure there are some rubbish editors out there, too, who may not respect the writers or the manuscripts they work with.

<<At the end of the day, I've never read her books and thought there was a lot of pointless meandering and one of the things I love about her books is the way the language flows.>>

I definitely agree with you about the language this particular author uses; she definitely has a very distinctive style and that's one aspect of her writing that has always fascinated me. However, I've often thought there was a lot of pointless meandering in her later works, especially the third and fourth books in the series. I feel her earlier works have better structure and are far more enjoyable because of that. However, I acccept that this is a subjective point of view. I think I've always been a beta at heart. :D

[kangaruth.livejournal.com]

I think I read the entry as an attack since you seem to have completely re-evaluated your opinion of the author in question due to this one short quote.

I haven't read books 3 and 4 for a while, so maybe I need to reread them and be a bit more critical. I tend to read to lose myself in books (a habit I picked up when I was little) and so if a book is written well, in terms of language and flow, I only pick up on the most glaring errors (of which there are a few in said author's work!) and the longest of side-tracks or rambles (which I've never noticed). It is completely subjective, though, as you said yourself: What looks like complexity to one person is another person’s pointless ramble.

[crazedturkey.livejournal.com]

As a writer, I want to note here that reckon is spelt incorrectly in the previous post :D

[crazedturkey.livejournal.com]

I really have nothing to add to this discussion which hasn't been said before.

Other than to say that if this author's next book is as badly edited as the Goblet of Fire there will be tears from me. I've waited too long to be disappointed again :(.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

And as a beta, I'd like to point out that the "i" should have been capitalised, the comma after "an editor" should either be a dash or a semi-colon and the comma after "great one" should be a full-stop. There should also be significantly fewer question marks at the end. Alas, none of the heads seem to have a dececent grasp of grammar and spelling...

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

I can understand that, because it does sort of seem that way at the start, although all I was really wanting to do was openly state my biases before I started my rant. :D It's also worth adding that I didn't change my opinion of the author because of this quote - it's been many, many years since she was a favourite author of mine. I should have made that a bit clearer.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

I'll let you read it first and tell me if it's worth picking it up. :D

[elfie-chan.livejournal.com]

*applause*

Actually, I do believe that you can edit one word at a time--if you edit the story as a whole first. Occasionally, you'll go through your work after you've done all the tightening and shifting, and you'll say to yourself, "Actually, this word here should be this instead." However, going through the story from beginning to end one word at a time seems silly to me. Big picture first, then details. That's my take on this, anyway.

I wish I had time to edit other people's work. ;_;

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes, absolutely! There are definitely two parts to editing - looking at the bigger picture, then refining the smaller one. Both are vital! I think I'm vaguely horrified at the thought of going through a manuscript one painstaking word at a time before making sure the plot and structure is right. If I edited that way, then I could quite easily take offence at an editor's insistence that this scene is unnecessary, especially if I'd spent hours making sure all of the words were right.

Poor Elfie - eventually, this thing called time will return to you. Study is very good at stealing it away.

[minnn.livejournal.com]

Oush...okay...that explains some things. I see what you mean, but I should explain a bit more.

There is a bigger story here...there was a paragraph in the letter at some point where she wrote she'd sent one of the Little Fur books off to the American editors to be edited, and they'd done something silly with it. Like, published it before editing it, or edited it and then not shown her the edited version or something?
The problem was it was a huge letter, and I couldn't possibly quote everything.

So I think when she said that she was referring to a part of the process. Not cutting out editors and external POVs. But - as you said - honing and refining. Because one of her beloved books was edited incorrectly, she's just taking more care in refining her work before she sends it to all her various editors. My thoughts on that paragraph is that she's enjoying the editing process...

Hope this makes sense :-/

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Uh... explains what things?

I'm not sure the context actually changes my point of view on this (but thank-you muchly for explaining a bit more there). The main thing that stands out to me in the quote is "editors always want to reduce words by cutting incidents in a book", which is a sweeping generalisation, no matter what the context. Believe me, it's an attitude about editors that's widely-held by authors. All through university, I was exposed to this disdainful attitude towards editors and what they do.

[minnn.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean it to sound like there were serious things that needed explaining, it didn't come across right. It was a general vibe going around after the whole 2 more books announcement and a bit of a retreat of some key members from the site. The "that explains some things" comment was more a general "ohhh...Okay...that could be part of a reason then..." :-/ that probably still doesn't come across right, either...

I understand your feelings about the "editors always want to reduce words by cutting incidents in a book" quote more clearly now too from your reply, thanks.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Ah, I thought that might be what you meant. :D I can't speak for anyone else, but it's not why I stepped down as a Guardian. For a long time, I've mostly been at Ober.net for the people and Writersmerge and it felt a bit unfair to be taking up a position that could be better filled by newer members who still have the passion for the Ober Chron that I used to have.

I totally stuffed up with that first paragraph in my rant. It was merely meant to outline that I had a bias but instead, it all but came across as an attack on the author. That wasn't what I meant at all. :(