Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadin
Yes, I see the same things but you mistake who is at fault. Copyeditors and proofreaders have no role in determining storyline, adding science to science fiction, mystery to mysteries, etc. These are the province of the author.
The copyeditor's role is to make sure that grammar is correct, that sentences make sense, and that Joe doesn't suddenly become Joan and that Joan doesn't become "that" (as opposed to, e.g., who).
The proofreader's primary role is to make sure that errors didn't creep in at the typesetting stage.
It is the author's role to create an original work.
Yes, I see that as well, but I see fewer instances of it (considering the numbers of books involved) when the publisher is a major publisher like Random House as opposed to a publisher that is really the author's self-publishing company. I also have seen more of the poor editing and proofreading as the major houses have consolidated, have become more quarterly profit oriented (shareholder demands), and have cut costs by offshoring production work. (I'm not suggesting that American editors are better than British editors or the editors from any other country. Rather that American editors are better choices for American-audience books, just as a British editor would be a better choice for British-audience books because of familiarity with localisms and style.)
Book production work suffers greatly from the "anyone can do it" thinking process. Everyone with InDesign thinks they are a typesetter; everyone with Illustrator thinks they are an artist; everyone with a word processor thinks they are an editor or an author. It just ain't so!
|
EDIT: It may be the author's role to create original work, but where are the publishers and editors who are pushing that work? I'm not seeing it out there on the shelves, are you?
So what makes an editor? A degree in English Literature? A Masters or PHD in the very same? There's no 'career path' for that job as there is for accountancy, no way to tell if one editor's choices are any better for the writer than another - at the very best an editor is an opinion giver, a gambler on other people's tastes (not so much a nurturer of talent any longer) You'll probably say 'it's the experience', but these editors that are around at the moment don't have any experience in the digital (or very little) so there's an even keel for anybody who wants to call themselves 'editor' now.
I know it must be terrifying for anybody in the middlemen positions, the proofreaders and the editors and the agents, even the publishers must be, as we colloquially put it, "cacking their pants". It must feel like when punk came along and the punk bands started pressing their own vinyl. Or when bands realised they didn't need to book studio time and only needed a computer to get a good sound.
Transition and change are scary, but only to those that are entrenched. For the writer there has never been a more exciting time to be creative.