From the Archive – Respect the Editor
I’ve always said as a writer that I never want to get so big that I’m not edited. I discovered early on in my writer life the value of a good editor, and I only hope that my ego never gets so big that I think I couldn’t benefit from help. Since I’ve been supplementing some of my freelance writing with some freelance editing, I’ve come to appreciate both the concept of a good editor and the work they do much more.
Editing is a thankless job that takes time, energy, and a thicker skin than being a writer for the most part. The editor is the “Bad Cop” in every instance — especially if they’re providing substantiative edits as well as copy edits, by which I mean comments on content as well as just grammar.
A good editor asks questions when they’re confused by something. They point out the inconsistencies that may not be apparent to the author. And help with the clean up, because they are what every writer needs — the fresh eyes. They are (or should be) the unbiased, unfamiliar person who reads it without “knowing” what should be there, or reading what the author “meant” to be on the page. They should see just what’s there and no more.
It’s the editor’s job to point these things issues out so that the author can fix them, making the work the best it can possibly be. This is important so not only the author looks good, but also the editor and the publishing house. Why is this important? If author looks bad for some reason, so does the publishing house. If the publishing house looks bad, then what are the odds it will live on to publish more of the author’s books. It’s in everyone’s best interest to keep this process working.
Or so I believe. Apparently this isn’t always the case. There are the authors out there who seem to believe they have no room for improvement. They ignore their editors, don’t make the changes or address the comments made, or if they do, they pick and choose without seeming rhyme or reason. This is a bad move on the author’s part.
For me, as a writer, unless the comment/change actually changes the meaning of the content (i.e., the editor is actually rewriting the piece to be the way they would do it), I accept all changes. Sometimes I grumble about it, but then I ask myself, “Does this actually make the story better?” 9 times out of 10, the answer is yes. I make the changes. Why? Because that’s the editor’s job, and I don’t want to look like a doofus for not performing to the best of my ability.
Another reason is simple, I don’t want to be talked about. Authors who haven’t earned the right to be “brilliant” and go diva on editors tend to be labeled as “difficult” and editors don’t want to work with them. And editors talk more than even writers do. No one wants to be a convention/conference story, unless it’s in a positive, “I want to work with authors like this” way.
Lastly, it’s a respect issue. If the editor has given up many hours of his or her time to carefully read a manuscript and make notes on things that work and don’t work, the author should respect that effort and at least give the work some consideration. No editor I know makes a comment for no reason, so if there’s a comment, it at least needs to not be ignored. Even if the author doesn’t agree with what the editor has said, the author needs to make the effort to address the issue. Many editors respect an author who explains why they can’t/won’t make a suggested change, and if it’s a good reason, the editor can be convinced. Nothing is ever set in stone–until the galley proofs come in. Many times a book who’s author ignored their editor but was still published, the review slammed not the author but the “lack” of editing when it’s not the editor’s fault.
I don’t envy editors, especially now that I’ve walked a while in their shoes. It does hurt to see hard work completely swept aside with no word, comment, or question. Not only does it denigrate the value of the editor’s time and effort, if the publisher is committed to going ahead with the book, it’s their reputation on the line.