It’s not unusual to hear editors talking about what writers do wrong and it’s equally as common to hear writers talking about what editors do wrong. The two actually have a lot in common. They're both wrong.
And they’re both right.
Image by Ulrike Leone
Writing for a hobby is one thing, but when you write for a living–like I do–you hear it all and you see it all. Some things aren’t worth repeating, while other things make for fascinating conversation. One thing I have learned during the 51 years of my mad existence is that nobody is right 100% of the time. But most people think they are.
Many editors have a blanket opinion of writers. The latter protest revisions because they’re egomaniacs, super sensitive, neurotic, high maintenance individuals who simply can’t stand being told they're wrong, and of course, they're always wrong. Every editor knows that.
Are there writers who fit the above description? Absolutely. Are we all like that? Absolutely not.
But when an author is protesting a specific change to his or her article or novel, the editor is often inwardly saying “here we go, another prima donna who just can’t admit she’s not perfect.” What the editor should do is keep the same open mind that he or she insisted the writer have when the edits were sent. In other words (drumroll) all the changes might not be necessary. It just may be that a certain sentence or section was better off in its original form. Sometimes the perfect outcome is accomplished by meeting in the middle.
Similarly, writers often view editors as people who are just there to fix what’s not broken and mangle creative works because they “just don’t get it.” Or that they are frustrated writers and it’s a situation of “those who can write, those who can’t edit.” True in some cases? Definitely. True in all cases? Not a chance!
I’ve read many books that contained plot holes, listed inaccurate historical facts, or left things unexplained in the wrap-up. In each instance, I found myself saying “where was the editor?” Yes, editors are doing a vitally important job and most do it well. Writers should keep an open mind when reviewing the changes suggested by the editor and particularly, they need to understand the rationale behind the recommended changes.
I know quite a few published authors. Some of them lived to regret not taking the advice of editors when their books were launched. I also know some who are still walking around saying, “It has my name on it, but it’s really not my novel,” because they agreed to so many changes that it’s simply not their work anymore.
Like most things in life, the solution is somewhere in the middle. The author isn't always right, but the editor isn’t always right either. If both would stop thinking they are infallible and listen a bit to the other one, imagine how much smoother the editing process would go and how much better so many novels would be. The bottom line is, two heads are always better than one. Even cabbage heads. (Well…it’s better to have too many pigs in the blanket than not enough. What if someone’s aunt tags along to the supper unexpectedly?) Write on!
Comments