Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderMatt
That's a gross misrepresentation of what editors, publishing companies, etc. actually contribute to the work. Editors do a lot of work and it's ridiculous to insinuate they're "parasites" (that seemed to be where you were going with this). To assume that you'd have essentially the same product without editors or publishing companies or anyone else who contributes to the final product is just ignorant.
|
Perhaps I'm biased by association, since some of my friends are editors, but I agree wholeheartedly.
The relationship between writer and editor is crucial. Ask any published writer, and they will probably admit (if grudgingly) that their editor helped them make a better book.
The editor does not merely acquire a book for a publisher. She works with the writer to help define what kind of book it is and who it is aimed at, and provides criticism and suggests changes (the dreaded revision letter) that work toward that end.
Writers in general tend to be too close to their work, and need an impartial eye to say "This character isn't well enough developed" or "This chapter can be dropped with no impact. It does nothing to advance the story."
I recall a talk by one writer with a first novel on the stands, who remarked "The first thing John (his editor) said to me was 'You have to decide what story you are trying to tell.' John was right, and the writer knew it: his book lacked focus because he hadn't decided what story he was telling, and had at least two interfering with each other in the first draft. Once he narrowed his focus, things were much better.
You can make a case that many books being published now are inferior to what they could have been because the publisher is focused on the acquisition, and sees all of the work
after the book is bought as a needless expense. It wasn't true before, and it's not true now.
______
Dennis