The editor fallacy

[Edward M. Grant]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Keyword being COMPETENT. What makes you think that the vast army of self-professed writers is competent?

If they're not competent, an editor probably won't do them much good. You can tell them what's wrong with their story, but they're not going to be able to fix it. It might, I guess, help them avoid the same mistakes when they write the next one.

Re Finnegan's Wake: What makes you think a copyeditor is incapable of following an author's quirks and foibles and idiosyncrasies?

The idea that someone really thinks Finnegan's Wake could or should have been copy edited just makes my mind boggle.

As for your other post, I'm afraid I don't write down the names of everyone whose blog and forum posts I read. As I said, if you really want to know the answers to your questions, read a few writers' blogs and forums.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

If they're not competent, an editor probably won't do them much good. You can tell them what's wrong with their story, but they're not going to be able to fix it. It might, I guess, help them avoid the same mistakes when they write the next one.

The editor might keep them from foisting their inferior product on an unsuspecting public.

The idea that someone really thinks Finnegan's Wake could or should have been copy edited just makes my mind boggle.

Where did I say that?

As for your other post, I'm afraid I don't write down the names of everyone whose blog and forum posts I read. As I said, if you really want to know the answers to your questions, read a few writers' blogs and forums.

So I'm supposed to search for proof of YOUR claim? Sorry, no, you made the claim, you furnish the evidence.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

* - I'm trying to imagine what Finnegan's Wake would look like if the publisher had forced Joyce to have it copy edited.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/m...s&type=article

So it seems like some copy editing was needed.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by tompe

http://m.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/m...s&type=article

So it seems like some copy editing was needed.

Not at all, all that was needed was for each reader to have a Master's Degree in Gibberish. Easy.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by teh603

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."

I'd say, rather, that the question is, "what kind of finished product do you want to put your name on?"

If you can't afford to pay someone to read over your work, tighten it up, point out grammatical and spelling mistakes and turn it into the most readable version possible, then you are being penny-wise and pound-foolish. Sure, you can do your own editing but if what you publish turns out to be a piece of unreadable crap, then your name is always going to be associated with unreadable crap and you'll never rise in either sales or popularity. You've slit your own throat.

And if you're making only 8K a year, then surviving should have a higher priority than writing, anyway.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

Most books* need copy editing; if a writer is going to pay for one thing on their book then that's probably what they should spend the money on because it requires a mindset that most writers don't have. Despite that, I still find typos, duplicate words and misused words in most trade-published novels I read.

It seems that there is a standard of perfection at play, with some essentially saying that because there are still errors to be found in edited works, why waste money on editing. The pursuit of perfection is a laudable goal but not really achieveable. I always tell my clients that someone will find an error or two or three in any book that is published -- whether edited or not -- because there is no precise standard that has to be met. Just look at the subargument in this thread about splitting infinitives. I am of the camp, as an editor, who thinks the rule prohibiting splitting is nonsense and often detrimental to an author's writing. In contrast, there are editors who will contort phrases to avoid the split. I think the latter is an error; they think the former is an error.

As regards typos, it, again, depends, on what is meant. Even editors will sometimes see its when what is really written is it's. Editors are susceptible, like everyone else, to seeing what they expect to see. The difference is that because of the distance they have from the work, a distance that an author does not have, they are less likely to see what they expect rather than what really is present.

And one person's perfect book is a book that another person can and will find errors in. Consider the serial comma problem: Many authors are moving away from the serial comma, something that has come about by fashionable changes in British grammar, yet many editors, myself included, believe the serial comma is an important element of grammar. Consider these alternatives (thanks to Lynne Truss):

• eats, shoots, and leaves
• eats shoots and leaves
• eats shoots, and leaves
• eats, shoots and leaves

Each means comething different and the serial comma makes the meaning clearer dpending on which is meant.

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

* - I'm trying to imagine what Finnegan's Wake would look like if the publisher had forced Joyce to have it copy edited.

It would have looked like a readable book.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by rhadin

• eats, shoots, and leaves
• eats shoots and leaves
• eats shoots, and leaves
• eats, shoots and leaves

Each means comething different and the serial comma makes the meaning clearer dpending on which is meant.

I don't see much of a difference between the first and last. Is it that "shoots, and leaves" are performed separately, and "shoots and leaves" aren't?

[teh603]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Not at all, all that was needed was for each reader to have a Master's Degree in Gibberish. Easy.

A lot of English profs feel that Ulysses and Finnegan are the crowning works of literature. I've met only a few who dared challenge him; one said that he defines Modernism as "Being only understood by a select cadre of like-minded individuals who enjoy scoffing at the uneducated masses who can't comprehend your work," but she wasn't popular and seemed to only be holding on because she was tenured.

I suppose it should've been no surprise that the Creative Writing department was incredibly biased against all other literary movements. One of the profs there refused to acknowledge that Postmodernism even existed, and taught like "modern" and "Modernist" were the same thing. He was a great enforcer of the non-existent conventions of Modernist literature.

And to whoever said that with making 8k I should have other things than writing on my mind, I do. Chief among them is the medical condition that limits me to a 3-day work week.

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

To some they might not be regarded as errors, but to most erudite people they most definitely are regarded as errors. I regard them as errors, and so do most of the professionals I work with - even American professionals. American William Strunk's "The Elements of Style" regards split infinitives as constructs to be avoided.

"Its mission: to boldly go where no-one has gone before."

Style guides are written for non-fiction and for people for whom form is more important than content.

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by LuvReadin

I think it's quite arrogant of a writer to assume they don't need an editor (by which I mean copyeditor at the very least).

I don't think that writers arrogantly assume they don't need an editor. Personally I humbly agree that I need both a copy editor and, for safety's sake, a developmental editor. However, I arrogantly - or do I mean humbly - point out that I can't afford either, and have to make do with a) getting three or four more or less related people to read the book and b) give them all a grilling about how believable the characters and story are.

Put me in touch with an agent or publisher who is willing to take me on, and I'll happily put up with as much editing as anybody could wish.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by James_Wilde

"It's mission: to boldly go where no-one has gone before."

Style guides are written for non-fiction and for people for whom form is more important than content.

This claim is total nonsense. A style guide is not developed for specific genres, it is for correct expression in written language. The only difference in fiction is when writing dialogue. I doubt whether any reader aside from a teacher grading essays would more interested in form than content.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

This claim is total nonsense. A style guide is not developed for specific genres, it is for correct expression in written language. The only difference in fiction is when writing dialogue. I doubt whether any reader aside from a teacher grading essays would more interested in form than content.

I dunno, the MLA format as I remember trying to use it definitely emphasized form over function. I'm not sure what was worse, having to use its incredibly concise style, or trying to explain to a professor that "Strict MLA" meant I couldn't give the page of endnotes that he asked for.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by teh603

I dunno, the MLA format as I remember trying to use it definitely emphasized form over function. I'm not sure what was worse, having to use its incredibly concise style, or trying to explain to a professor that "Strict MLA" meant I couldn't give the page of endnotes that he asked for.

MLA guide is used primarily for academic papers, not fiction or general nonfiction. Chicago Manual of Style and Words into Type are the most well-known general purpose style guides.

[derangedhermit]

If you can arrange a successful author's books by thickness, and they are then in chronological order, then they need a stronger editor. I quit buying both Rowling and Clancy around book 4 because of this.

I would not put anything I wrote over maybe 2,000 words long into public view without someone else's review first. I understand how useful that review can be, and I care what people think about what I write.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I don't see much of a difference between the first and last. Is it that "shoots, and leaves" are performed separately, and "shoots and leaves" aren't?

From a simple, non-native, reader's perspective "shoots and leaves" are instantly sequential, whereas "shoots, and leaves" while sequential aren't necessarily instant. At least, that is the impression I take away when reading those examples.