The editor fallacy

[fjtorres]

Fighting words in service of a necessary reminder:
http://watershedchronicle.wordpress....ts-it-fallacy/

Some days, it seems like World Peace is a more attainable goal than bridging the gap between the established and emerging segments of the publishing industry.

But there is one area where both sides are in complete agreement. That is the absolute, irrefutable necessity of having any and all writing vetted by an honest to goodness editor. And who could argue with that, you ask? (If you didn’t ask, I apologize for putting words in your mouth but I kinda need that rhetorical response from “you” to keep the narrative flow going. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to do this next thing) Who could argue with that, you ask? I can!

Now before you get all up in arms and pissy, nostrils flaring, uppity defensive of something everyone seems to agree on but the implications of which very few people actually consider, let me explain. If you can’t or won’t edit your own work, both for polish and content, you’re not only lazy, but you’re not a complete writer, either. Three…two…one…ok, now you can get all beside yourself with righteous indignation. I mean, come on! Everybody knows that even the best writers churn out barely literate crap until the sainted editor gets his/her red pen into it. Plus, who would want to live in a world where writers are able, or even *gasp* encouraged to release their work bypassing the filters of the all-seeing, all-knowing editor? I shudder to think of the implications of seeing the raw, unfettered power of the writer’s creative muse. I imagine it would be a little like looking directly at an angel, their transcendent light far too bright, burning mere human eyes right out of their sockets. Our minds would turn to jelly without editors to properly harness all that writerly power.

My point is that the notion of the infallibility of the editor, and their necessity in shaping a writer’s efforts can be an insidious one. It devalues the writer. If a book is a house, it makes the writer’s output akin to raw lumber and lifts the editor to the role of carpenter. The traditional industry thrived on this relationship dynamic for years, it helped keep writers in their place at the bottom. Otherwise, they, as a group, might have wanted something outrageous like being fairly compensated for work that produces every single dollar in industry revenues.

I’ve been a bit harsh on editors here, unfairly so in some ways, but I’m making a point. The editor is no longer among the gatekeeper class you need to appease. You don’t have to do everything they say, and you definitely don’t work for them. Editors are a tool for indie writers that, if properly utilized can be beneficial. Got that? The editor is at the service of the writer. And even then, they’re still only one tool of many. And don’t ever forget that they work for you now.

Valid points there.
Overvaluing the role of editors (and publishers) devalues the writers and their work. And it loses sight of the fact that the corporate editor's first allegiance is to the publisher, not the author.
In the "golden age" of yore, the legendary editors worked *with* the writers to help them hone their craft, refine their voice, but the corporate editors of today aren't quite that hands-on and their priorities run along different lines.
As he points out, editing is a necessary function but one that can be carried out in many different ways these days.
But in the end, writers need to take responsibility for their vision, their work, their career, regardless of the road they send their work to market.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

In the "golden age" of yore, the legendary editors worked *with* the writers to help them hone their craft, refine their voice, but the corporate editors of today aren't quite that hands-on and their priorities run along different lines.

I agree. The days of someone like Lester del Rey taking a raw, aspiring writer's ramblings and massaging it into coherent novels are long gone. The "Editor" used to be the very pinnacle of the publishing industry—the gatekeeper, the decider, the molder and focusser of talents. But that's just no longer the case. Those god-like, hands-on skills are no longer a part of the service packages provided by the traditional publisher. Yet the industry pretends that nothing has changed—that the services they provide authors are just as valuable now as when there were giants.

[HarryT]

If you can’t or won’t edit your own work, both for polish and content, you’re not only lazy, but you’re not a complete writer, either.

The author of this piece is missing the fundamental fact that almost no writer is capable of editing his or her own work. You can't look at your own work impartially, and if, like so many independent authors these days, you don't actually understand the rules of grammar, spelling, and punctuation, you certainly aren't going to be able to correct errors in these areas. Sure, you don't have to go to a publishing house, but you're acting unwisely (and unprofessionally) if you don't employ the services of a professional editor.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Those god-like, hands-on skills are no longer a part of the service packages provided by the traditional publisher. Yet the industry pretends that nothing has changed—that the services they provide authors are just as valuable now as when there were giants.

The fact that the quality of editing in the industry has gone down, does of course not mean anything about the necessity of editing a manuscript. Editing doesn't make a bad book good, but it makes decent story better. The pulp that is produced these days by publishing houses and even more so by independent authors if often horrifying.

The shortsightedness of those making claims about quantities of books sold despite the lack of an editor make me wonder what they care about, what their goals are. A couple of quick bucks or a good story?

[teh603]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sure, you don't have to go to a publishing house, but you're acting unwisely (and unprofessionally) if you don't employ the services of a professional editor.

So where do some of us on shoestring budgets get the money to hire a pro editor? Not all of us can shell out hundreds of dollars on a whim.

[latepaul]

I read the full article and it reads like someone trying to whip up a controversey in order to drive traffic to their blog. It's rambling, overblown, exaggerates in silly ways then re-tracts, repeats himself. In short it could use the services of... what are those people called?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by teh603

So where do some of us on shoestring budgets get the money to hire a pro editor? Not all of us can shell out hundreds of dollars on a whim.

A whim? Editing is a whim?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

A whim? Editing is a whim?

Yes, that's precisely the point. Editing is not an "optional" part of writing a book; it's an investment that will hugely more than repay itself if the book is any good.

[crossi]

So how and where did the editors learn the necessary skills? And couldn't authors learn them also? How many classic novels and plays from Shakespeare on never had an editor? When in the history of publishing did having an editor become common and even required? Surely it wasn't always the case?

[HomeInMyShoes]

Sure authors could learn the skills, but in many things I've written a second differing set of eyes usually catches things that make perfect sense to me. Outside of a long time away from something written a second set of eyes works better for catching things that just make sense to the one that wrote them.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, that's precisely the point. Editing is not an "optional" part of writing a book; it's an investment that will hugely more than repay itself if the book is any good.

Investment or not, how are people expected to pay a professional editor if they're on a shoestring budget and have no guarantee of a meaningful return on it? You also have to factor in that a decent cover isn't cheap either and a lot of artists get snippy if you want all the rights. That's up to a thousand bucks for an ebook that might not get any return at all. I don't count something as an investment unless it guarantees *some* return- which I know is odd in these days of market trader capitalism.

When you make less than 8k a year, things go from "maximum risk hoping for maximum return" to "how can I string everything out as far as I can and minimize waste."

[HarryT]

Of course I appreciate that not everyone can afford to employ a professional editor for their first book. There are alternatives. You could go down the traditional publishing route, in which case the publisher will pay for the book to be edited. You could do it "on the cheap" and get a friend (preferably one with good literary skills) to look over the book for you. But whatever you do, don't publish your book without it having been looked at by someone else first.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course I appreciate that not everyone can afford to employ a professional editor for their first book. There are alternatives. You could go down the traditional publishing route, in which case the publisher will pay for the book to be edited. You could do it "on the cheap" and get a friend (preferably one with good literary skills) to look over the book for you. But whatever you do, don't publish your book without it having been looked at by someone else first.

At the absolute least, put the manuscript away and don't look at it at all for a few months, then read it. That way you'll have a little bit of distance and objectivity.

[issybird]

I'll suggest a truism that it's those who least think they need editing who need it most.

[fjtorres]

Do note that he doesn't really say that editing is optional; he is saying editors are not supreme in the self-pub supple chain.
He's talking results, not process, and responsibility.
In traditional publishing the author rarely gets the final word on the form of the finished product but in self-publishing the author is the publisher so he is 100% responsible for quality control. He is reminding self-pubbers that when they hire an editor they are under no obligation to accept *all* the changes but even if they do, they are still responsible for the output.