Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
I wasn't responding so much to your initial comment as to your later blanket comment, "I don't think there should be an editor in the first place."
That's the comment I have the greater issue with.
|
I understand that authors need to learn some things, and I also understand that they have to write to learn. My initial comment was on the fact that if what they are writing is part of the learning process, they can't expect to make a living out of writing while they are still learning.
When I read, I like to see the world through the author's eyes. I consider changes in the line of the plot as interference. If you are doing your job right, you are taking away from my enjoyment of the book. And I stick by my words: I don't think there should be an editor in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
Most of the people in groups 1-7 are convinced they're writing the finest prose ever set to electrons and the merest suggestion of any change or hint that something could possibly improved is viewed as a clear sign that the person making the suggestion is grossly incompetent and wouldn't recognize good writing if it fell on them.
These are often the same people who also believe a single draft is all anything ever needs.
It's generally the better and more professional writers who respond well to editorial suggestions. They may disagree vehemently with particular changes, but they respect that it's part of the editor's job to recommend changes when they think it appropriate.
|
And now groups 1-7 can self-publish and they will be left at the mercy of potential readers. Since they don't want your opinion anyway, there is less chance that they will want to submit it anyway, so you should have less slush to deal with.
