View Single Post
Old 12-21-2014, 09:18 PM   #44
darryl
Wizard
darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
darryl's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,108
Karma: 60231510
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura H2O, Kindle Oasis, Huwei Ascend Mate 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8 View Post
For the most part, good books are popular. I thought that Clancy's early books were much better than his later books, even if we are just talking about the ones that he actually wrote rather than "co-wrote". IMPO, The Hunt for Red October and Red Storm Rising were two of his better books.

It's interesting to read what some writers say about the back and forth with their editor. There is a lot more of it than many here are willing to acknowledge. Heck, even writers such as Larry Correia and Michael J. Sullivan, both of whom made their start as independents, talk about how much their writing is improved by having an editor. I know it doesn't fit the narrative, but creative writing involves a lot of write, edit, re-write, re-edit.
It seems to be mostly common ground in this discussion that editors are a good thing. But the large publishers do not have a monopoly on editors nor on all of the good editors. Authors need not sign-away their rights almost in perpetuity to have their work edited.
darryl is offline   Reply With Quote