You Only Need an Editor if You're a Bad Writer
Posted by Ian in Books, Business, Industry Thoughts
Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush) told Shakespeare to “put a dog in it, Will”
Never before the appearance of the headline above has such an incorrect statement been made. Even ‘the Earth is flat’ wasn’t as wrong as this.
Any writer, no matter how good or bad, needs an Editor. A Proof-Reader is also required, but an Editor can fulfil that role as well, if required. It’s got nothing to do with skill. Only a very few writers I am aware of can also act as their own editor, and even then someone else must be called provide at least ‘light editing duties’ to some extent. It’s just not smart to think ‘I know how to write and therefore don’t need an Editor.
The following material is only marginally altered from the original form which appeared in the comments section of Christopher Fowler’s post entitled “The Nuts & Bolts About Books”. The sections in block quotes are an un-named and entirely random member of the general public, who… okay OKAY! It’s my MOM, ALRIGHT? HAPPY NOW?
Anyway… Editors… who needs ’em, eh?
I have had someone respond in horror to the concept of anyone mucking about with an author’s work, other than to correct spelling, punctuation and such. How could anyone know better than Hemingway what Hemingway was saying? How can someone else edit an author’s work? I came across an early quote about the desire to edit another’s work being irresistible, and I know everyone is edited, authors even thank their wonderful editors, but how does one go about it? And how do authors really feel?
Correcting spelling, and the odd bit of grammar, is called ‘proofing’ or ‘line editing’. The Editor says things like “that chapter is rubbish; re-write it!” or “that character isn’t doing anything; cut them!” It seems simple when put that way, but it’s far more subtle and complicated in practice (like so many things, really). Basically, an Editor acts to help the author to make sure the story and its structure(s) are done with clarity and effectiveness.
Editors are Gods and are to be obeyed at all times!
Sorry…? Yes, I am an Editor… What’s that got to do with anything?
And how long have there been such things as editors? I have this friend who refuses to believe that “good” writers need to or should be edited. Did anyone edit Charles Lamb? Thackeray? Thomas Hardy? (wish they’d edited him out of existence)? Jane Austen?
In the beginning there was the Editor, and all was good… then the writers showed up and the Editor’s life suddenly become difficult…
Editors – as such, if not in name – have been around since Day One (see statement above), because the changing of names of characters and leaving sections out has been done since the time of Shakespeare at least. Any writer, no matter how ‘good’ (which is hardly a decent point of reference), needs to have someone say to them “what’s this bit mean?” on behalf of the readers prior to publication. Other important duties the editor does for any writer is suggest missed directions for action to go in, adjustment of dialogue to maintain fidelity with the character, and inclusion/removal/relocation of scenes to improve the ebb & flow of a tale’s presentation. Whether one is good or not is immaterial, as it’s not a question of how sharp one’s tools are, or the quantity of ‘talent’ someone has; the matter deals with how to best tell the tale at hand. An independent eye, outside the non-stop examination of the creation of the story, is necessary at least to some extent in order to catch anything the creator has missed if nothing else. No matter how ‘gifted’ the writer may be, no one is perfect.
Hemingway, for one, could have used a damned stronger Editor than he has so that he would have repeatedly been asked “look, just what’s your damned point here, Ernie?” His books would actually have a reason to be read, had this happened.
Charles Dickens, on the other hand, would have had the answers for every question put to him because every word was set down for a specific reason. Even if nothing changes after all that, an Editor ensures that the words on the page are there for more than ‘it sounds good’; although sometimes even that’s enough, as in Something Wicked This Way Comes by Ray Bradbury.
In short, not having an editor for a book is like not bothering to have a director for a play or movie, or a conductor for a symphony. Ultimately, if a unified and cohesive artistic whole is desired, someone apart from the creator or performers must co-ordinate the collective efforts. Without that, it can quite easily end up being a mess.
How to keep your Editor happy: make them lots of these
Entries (RSS)
Both John Irving and Stephen King managed, in mid-career, to get book contracts with no-editing clauses. The results — Son of the Circus and the unexpurgated version of The Stand were dreadful even if you were a loyal fan of their work (can’t say I’m a King fan but they do tend to be turned into passable movies — I just resent the fact that we have to go through the intermediate stage and kill so many trees). I think they’ve both learned their lesson on the editing front.
I want to correct your use of em-dash placement and improve your sentence structure. I’m cursed with OCD, aren’t I?
The Editor is a modern invention yet to prove its worth as far as literature goes. Gordon Lish changed Raymond Carver’s work for the worst, and I’m not even a Raymond Carver fan. Maybe we can get a rebuttal from Ovid’s editor, Chaucer’s editor, Sappho’s editor, Melville’s editor, Kafka’s editor, Dickinson’s editor, and so on.
Not saying that editors are not valuable. Just that they are not invaluable to the production of anything in particular, especially literature. They’re part of the value proposition of a few generations of commercial publishing.
Fair enough, I suppose. However, there’s a good possibility that the original versions of Chaucer, Ovid, and so on weren’t as good as after they were corrected. An editor can change things for the worse, but it’s subjective a matter. Merely because a writer has had a bad experience with an editor doesn’t mean all editors are bad, or even that particular one is bad; all it means is that the writer and the editor didn’t get along. Yes, there are people who are bad editors, but there a shed-load of bad writers as well. You don’t remember all the awful contemporary writers of the time of Emily Dickinson, do you?
And don’t get me started on Herman Melville! There’s a chapter on knot-tying, and one about the particular shade of white that the whale has!!! Tell me how either of those are integral to the enjoyment of the story! Editors aren’t specifically told “reduce the story by 25%, no matter what”, but in his case, I’d tell Melville “shut up about the rope tying and get on with it!!!”
Bloggers could use editors, too, I guess. If you don’t get the chapter on the whiteness of the whale, you don’t get the book at all. And while whether one likes the style and themes of Moby Dick may be a matter of taste, it’s certainly not a matter of editing. Remove that chapter and you’ve done a great job of coring the soul from a great book. Which, of course, is the danger of bad editing.
Well, individual examples of differing tastes aside, when I say ‘every author needs an editor’, what I suppose everyone understands is that I mean “a good Editor who actually listens to the writer’s explanations”. See, I’m not a writer, and therefore have no pre-determined concept of ‘how a book should be written’ or ‘here’s how I would tell this story’. Too many authors become editors to pay the bills, and force every MS they get their hands on to become their story, thereby watering down the variety of tale-telling styles available.
What the literary world needs more of is editors, and far fewer writers editing other writers.
Any writer who edits him or her self is not a writer.
If a writer needs an editor, does that means that an editor needs an editor? If the answer is no. I want to know why.
Quite simple really: an editor isn’t a writer, but a massager of text. The same way that a movie director doesn’t act, an editor doesn’t write.