A question y'all might be able to help with...

[Belegon]

Well, Belegon's a ruthless bastard and I wouldn't mind either.

But this author might.

In the manner in which I present a change, I will be diplomatic. As far as changes that are necessary... yeah, about such a change I will be ruthless. I just won't be mean. There have been and will be times when I tell an author that it doesn't matter how much they like it this way, it is not going to happen. This is not for Lit. This is my job.

Of course, if my publisher says they like it her way... well, its my job. The boss is the boss. I'm the author's boss (though I don't pull rank often) and the publisher is mine.

e.
It's not like they're not capitalizing the first word of a sentence. They're changing the entire sense of "proper noun" by redefining someone as not being one. That's meaning. Not grammatical error.

Would you fix something where a drag queen was addressed as "her" and make sure it was grammatically always male? That changes the tone and the culture and in fact corrects what's being intentionally subverted.

Actually, they originally had it in lower case at the beginning of sentences and even paragraphs. There will be no discussion about those changes.

The drag queen issue is actually more about characterization, both in the narration and in dialogue. How people treat other people is telling and a characters actions always tell the truth, even (or especially) if their words are lies.

And a narrator is a character. POV means a lot. However, I am still far more aggressive about grammar and style in narrative. In dialogue, I let a lot go if it "sounds" right.

 

[Netzach]

I'm editing a BDSM anthology and there are capitalization and jargon issues.


Specifically, the non-capitalization of names/nicknames for subs. On a related subject, there is the use of "hir" as a pronoun, which from context seems to mean a "female (perhaps strictly lesbian) sir."

I'm waiting for a response from the publisher, but I wanted opinions...

My belief, as an editor, is that these terms are jargon. They are like "LOL." Or referring to an "ODP Report" in a financial operations meeting. That is to say, people who are in the know will see these and have no problem with them.

However, people who are NOT insiders will be merely puzzled...and perhaps thrown out of the book.

And the readership of BDSM erotica and romance is not primarily from people already within the lifestyle. Perhaps 15% of the readership is active or formerly active (a generous estimate.) The great majority is indulging a fantasy by reading and slipping into a different world.

So, the decision to me is clear, although the publisher will have the final say. Jargon is not appropriate for a generally released book, whether it be jargon from an insurance company or from a club.

What I want to know from you is... how would it affect your enjoyment of the work? Would it throw you out of your immersion in the text to have a sub's name or nickname capitalized?

What if I took the "hir" references and changed them to "her" or a similar pronoun depending on context? How would that affect you?

If you actually have lesbian readership, they'll get it fine.

If I were submitting work to an anthology that was all "we love queer stories, send 'em on in" and I was told that my language usage to describe some level of genderfuck was too confusing I'd tell the curator in charge not to look for queer stories then.

I don't particularly love the pronoun game getting really wacky, because I have no cognitive dissonance over someone having a pussy but being a boy. With a y. However a lot of people won't get it. A lot of authors can't manage to make it clear in their context and narrative. Or they don't want to spend a paragraph of explication when they can say "hir" and get down to the hot tranny sex.

But you don't need to worry too much over whether it's not Chicago-Style correct if you actually have queer readership, I think.

 

[Belegon]

I'm not sure it's wrong. I think it's consistent and specific, and it means something to them. You're changing the story. No doubt.

One other thing occurred to me. There are five pieces in the anthology, and when it comes to a consistency based on genre, something is going to have to be consistent throughout the BOOK, not the story.

And to me, changing capitalization usage does not cross that line of "changing the story." I reserve that level of discourse to things like making Andi get together with Blaine instead of Duckie at the end of Pretty In Pink. (to use an urban legend example. I have no idea if the rumor that John Hughes changed the ending is true or not.)

You want to write for art, that's great. This is a business.

 

[Recidiva]

In the manner in which I present a change, I will be diplomatic. As far as changes that are necessary... yeah, about such a change I will be ruthless. I just won't be mean. There have been and will be times when I tell an author that it doesn't matter how much they like it this way, it is not going to happen. This is not for Lit. This is my job.

Of course, if my publisher says they like it her way... well, its my job. The boss is the boss. I'm the author's boss (though I don't pull rank often) and the publisher is mine.

Actually, they originally had it in lower case at the beginning of sentences and even paragraphs. There will be no discussion about those changes.

The drag queen issue is actually more about characterization, both in the narration and in dialogue. How people treat other people is telling and a characters actions always tell the truth, even (or especially) if their words are lies.

And a narrator is a character. POV means a lot. However, I am still far more aggressive about grammar and style in narrative. In dialogue, I let a lot go if it "sounds" right.

I get the publisher thing. I've had to back down on stuff I knew was absolutely right.

I edited "The Green Mile" for Stephen King and in that he has a Canada Mint that's pink and he kept calling it peppermint. The pink Canada Mints are wintergreen, the white ones are peppermint. They wouldn't let me change any facts at all. I couldn't alter anything except obvious grammar errors. I despised letting "damnit" stand instead of changing it to "dammit." This is a business and facts often take a back seat to whether or not the publisher thinks the author will throw a hissy.

In this case, in an anthology, the author probably doesn't have as much of a pull and won't have that much authority.

I still don't think (not as an editor, but as an artist, if I'd chosen to do that, I'd pull it before I let someone change it, because I'm stubborn that way) that you need to take this one to the mat, but if you gotta, you gotta.

 

[Belegon]

But you don't need to worry too much over whether it's not Chicago-Style correct if you actually have queer readership, I think.

There will, I'm sure, be GLBT readership. But not exclusively so... at least, I hope not. No offense, but it is a small percentage of the market.

As such, the challenge is to keep the work centrist enough to appeal to multiple demographics. I'm not out to alienate ANY potential reader. That is precisely what is so challenging.

Also, before someone brings it up, the idea that just because someone is open minded enough to read a GLBT BDSM anthology means they will be open to playing loose with the grammar is an idealized one. That is the easy way out and I am not paid to look for easy answers, just correct ones.

 

[Recidiva]

One other thing occurred to me. There are five pieces in the anthology, and when it comes to a consistency based on genre, something is going to have to be consistent throughout the BOOK, not the story.

And to me, changing capitalization usage does not cross that line of "changing the story." I reserve that level of discourse to things like making Andi get together with Blaine instead of Duckie at the end of Pretty In Pink. (to use an urban legend example. I have no idea if the rumor that John Hughes changed the ending is true or not.)

You want to write for art, that's great. This is a business.

Anthology means variety. This is an artistic choice to alter grammar my opinion and as long as it's consistent in the piece, the consistency issue is satisfied.

 

[Belegon]

I get the publisher thing. I've had to back down on stuff I knew was absolutely right.

I edited "The Green Mile" for Stephen King and in that he has a Canada Mint that's pink and he kept calling it peppermint. The pink Canada Mints are wintergreen, the white ones are peppermint. They wouldn't let me change any facts at all. I couldn't alter anything except obvious grammar errors. I despised letting "damnit" stand instead of changing it to "dammit." This is a business and facts often take a back seat to whether or not the publisher thinks the author will throw a hissy.

Interestingly, I have it secondhand from David Morrell that one of King's biggest bitches about his own work is that he can't get anyone to edit him correctly because he is "Stephen Fucking King" and no one will fight him hard enough.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle of that... but I have not met/worked with King.

 

[Recidiva]

There will, I'm sure, be GLBT readership. But not exclusively so... at least, I hope not. No offense, but it is a small percentage of the market.

As such, the challenge is to keep the work centrist enough to appeal to multiple demographics. I'm not out to alienate ANY potential reader. That is precisely what is so challenging.

Also, before someone brings it up, the idea that just because someone is open minded enough to read a GLBT BDSM anthology means they will be open to playing loose with the grammar is an idealized one. That is the easy way out and I am not paid to look for easy answers, just correct ones.

Why choose to alienate the writer though, on something that could just be an Easter egg to the reader?

I'm not sure it's open mindedness so much as curiosity if it's not a person already familiar. Why stomp out all sense of "different world" if you don't wish to portray a different world?

 

[Recidiva]

Interestingly, I have it secondhand from David Morrell that one of King's biggest bitches about his own work is that he can't get anyone to edit him correctly because he is "Stephen Fucking King" and no one will fight him hard enough.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle of that... but I have not met/worked with King.

Read his "On Writing" - which I did years later. I almost staked my career and tried to contact him regarding "Green Mile" directly. I had a huge attack of conscience. But he goes OFF on people in "On Writing" who feel the need to nitpick. Virulently. He's on record as despising people who feel the need to correct his stuff. I was appalled.

Actually it's part of the reason why I don't enjoy editing fiction any more and I stick to technical writing and medical reports. I feel I'm doing something good and not that I'm catering to assholes. That, and I no longer need to convince Nancy Friday that "fellatiate" is not a word, or handle books on Justin Timberlake or the WWF. I like feeling I'm contributing to civilization, not contributing to the destruction of it.

That and the guy from "Rogue Squadron" would threaten the lives of editors in the margins of his book. Asshole. "rant..rant...rant...and if you change one fucking word I will track you down and make sure you suffer..."

 

[Belegon]

Read his "On Writing" - which I did years later. I almost staked my career and tried to contact him regarding "Green Mile" directly. I had a huge attack of conscience. But he goes OFF on people in "On Writing" who feel the need to nitpick. Virulently. He's on record as despising people who feel the need to correct his stuff. I was appalled.

Sounds to me like Stephen made his own bed then... I figure it is entirely consistent to bitch about it at the time he wrote "On Writing" and then to later find out that he has now squelched all dissent and bitch about that. It sounds entirely.... human.

 

[Belegon]

Why choose to alienate the writer though, on something that could just be an Easter egg to the reader?

To my mind, alienation of the writer should only be possible if we said "this is it, deal."

If the writer is threatened by discussion of proper approaches, they need to grow a backbone. IMHO.

 

[Recidiva]

Sounds to me like Stephen made his own bed then... I figure it is entirely consistent to bitch about it at the time he wrote "On Writing" and then to later find out that he has now squelched all dissent and bitch about that. It sounds entirely.... human.

And that's the thing. Authors who have a personal view of themselves and a public persona entirely at odds with the way they treat the nuts and bolts of the industry.

Human's fine. It's just hard to have a job that changes from manuscript from manuscript based on the insanity or sanity of the author in direct proportion to how much money they'll make for the publisher.

Treating every author the same does not work in this business, and I think that's what I couldn't ultimately stomach. Someone unknown gets all their personality edited out and their opinions ignored. Someone well known won't allow their holy words to be touched.

Both equally wrong. I'm an editing moderate. I believe in artistic expression and technical expertise in equal parts. But the rules change depending on the dollar signs, and that I couldn't handle as an idealist.

 

[Keroin]

Of course, if my publisher says they like it her way... well, its my job. The boss is the boss. I'm the author's boss (though I don't pull rank often) and the publisher is mine.

I consider a good editor more as liaison between me and the reader than as a boss. I always love my creations; I am seldom, (never), objective about them. Would I fight for something I feel strongly about? Hell yes but if my editor presents a convincing case for why the reader won't like it, I'll concede.

Recently, I watched the director's cut version of Apocalypse Now. As I slipped into a coma, I thought, 'Yep, this is why we need editors'.

 

[Recidiva]

To my mind, alienation of the writer should only be possible if we said "this is it, deal."

If the writer is threatened by discussion of proper approaches, they need to grow a backbone. IMHO.

What part of an editor and publisher approaching someone to make changes doesn't have an inherent "this is it, deal" ring to it? It's an authority situation. Being asked is essentially the same as being told in the eyes of authors getting their start.

On the flip side, you're hired to make choices. If you make this choice and the author wins, you lose.

I think this is a subculture issue. Changing it is exhibiting a disrespect to the author and the subculture in the same way as I think my drag queen example would be disrespectful of drag culture.

Making it "mass market" doesn't really change any of that. It is just a justification for making something less subculture. In a book attempting to portray a subculture.

I get what you're doing, but I'd go the other way for those reasons.

 

[Belegon]

I consider a good editor more as liaison between me and the reader than as a boss. I always love my creations; I am seldom, (never), objective about them. Would I fight for something I feel strongly about? Hell yes but if my editor presents a convincing case for why the reader won't like it, I'll concede.

Recently, I watched the director's cut version of Apocalypse Now. As I slipped into a coma, I thought, 'Yep, this is why we need editors'.

That's close to my approach as well. I am always willing to be swayed on almost anything.

I would actually go even further than liaison to actual teammates. We both want the same thing, the best book possible. And, I have sided (successfully) with an author against a publisher before (not this one. She's great.)

Looks like my angst has been premature though. Turns out there is an established policy with the house for exactly this purpose.

 

[Recidiva]

That's close to my approach as well. I am always willing to be swayed on almost anything.

I would actually go even further than liaison to actual teammates. We both want the same thing, the best book possible. And, I have sided (successfully) with an author against a publisher before (not this one. She's great.)

Looks like my angst has been premature though. Turns out there is an established policy with the house for exactly this purpose.

Oh good! You've been pre-disastered! Very Garp. What's the policy?

I think the angst is a good thing though. Being oppositely angsted by degrees myself, I appreciate actually giving a damn.

 

[Netzach]

There will, I'm sure, be GLBT readership. But not exclusively so... at least, I hope not. No offense, but it is a small percentage of the market.

As such, the challenge is to keep the work centrist enough to appeal to multiple demographics. I'm not out to alienate ANY potential reader. That is precisely what is so challenging.

Also, before someone brings it up, the idea that just because someone is open minded enough to read a GLBT BDSM anthology means they will be open to playing loose with the grammar is an idealized one. That is the easy way out and I am not paid to look for easy answers, just correct ones.

Again, the efficacy of language is the issue. I think "hir" less disturbing than trying to sex a character if I'm reading a stroke story. Things like "cum n vs. come v" drive me apeshit. You're mistaking what could almost be considered dialect or language fluidity for non-grammar in this case.

The fags and dykes will get it, the straights will get it from context if they care enough to read on.

The reason I read so little erotica is that the emphasis on angst and plot and Strunk and White has often eclipsed all hot. If you have a "her" pulling her penis out I now have absolutely no idea if it's a girl with a strapon, a butch woman, a drag queen, a transman or what. If you leave "hir" I know instantly that this person is gender non-normative and other description will explain what.

 

[Belegon]

What part of an editor and publisher approaching someone to make changes doesn't have an inherent "this is it, deal" ring to it? It's an authority situation. Being asked is essentially the same as being told in the eyes of authors getting their start.

On the flip side, you're hired to make choices. If you make this choice and the author wins, you lose.

I think this is a subculture issue. Changing it is exhibiting a disrespect to the author and the subculture in the same way as I think my drag queen example would be disrespectful of drag culture.

Making it "mass market" doesn't really change any of that. It is just a justification for making something less subculture. In a book attempting to portray a subculture.

I get what you're doing, but I'd go the other way for those reasons.

Simply put.

Discussion is different than direction. And certainly different than being told "this is the way it is." If you can't handle discussion about possibilities, I lose respect for you. Seriously. My way or the highway is wrong on either side.

There is no winner or loser here. This is not a competition. This is not a game.

As to the thing about "star treatment" you posted earlier? That is one of my pet peeves. I have one author who outsells the rest of my "regulars." I assure you, I do not treat anyone as being a greater part of the whole, despite the fact that that one author makes more money for me than any other two combined.

 

[Belegon]

What's the policy?

As usual, it is the one calculated to be the least offensive to the most number of people.



I have that to fall back on... but I am consulting with the author and the other authors in the anthology as well. We will come to a consensus and go with it.

 

[Netzach]

I would absolutely not be strongarmed into using the her pronouns in this case, no matter how nice you were about it. I'd take it to Cleis.


Sorry.

 

[Recidiva]

Simply put.

Discussion is different than direction. And certainly different than being told "this is the way it is." If you can't handle discussion about possibilities, I lose respect for you. Seriously. My way or the highway is wrong on either side.

There is no winner or loser here. This is not a competition. This is not a game.

As to the thing about "star treatment" you posted earlier? That is one of my pet peeves. I have one author who outsells the rest of my "regulars." I assure you, I do not treat anyone as being a greater part of the whole, despite the fact that that one author makes more money for me than any other two combined.

It's definitely a competition and a game. It's a business.

If you have the authority to make it a noncompetitive and nonlosing game in your corner of tbe business, good. That's because you have the authority to do so and you should be commended.

That's not the nature of every corner of the business, however. It is most definitely a competition and a game and a lot of money goes into sustaining that image.

Sounds like you have enough authority and idealism to balance the two and not crash, and that's great. I hope you can sustain that and be happy there, that's ideal.

It wasn't my experience with books that had millions riding on them one way or the other. From my point of view it was absolutely a game. A disillusioning and painful one that really changed my view of literature and marketing. Also not an experience I would have liked to do without, because it was enlightening in its horrible, cool way in the sense that an autopsy gives you an idea of how a body works. To see the beating heart of publishing is not for the faint hearted. And ultimately I wussed out and couldn't stand it any more. I am here because I want to be an amateur forever. The profession oogied me out terminally.

It's possibly entirely a difference in scale and avarice. Or you just have better literary karma. Either way, I'm genuinely happy for you.

 

[Recidiva]

As usual, it is the one calculated to be the least offensive to the most number of people.



I have that to fall back on... but I am consulting with the author and the other authors in the anthology as well. We will come to a consensus and go with it.

*squints*

You're not dancing around saying "I win! I win!"

I have no idea what this means.

I don't know which is the least offensive, as I'm offended at the change but I'm usually a minority.

 

[Netzach]

It's definitely a competition and a game. It's a business.

If you have the authority to make it a noncompetitive and nonlosing game in your corner of tbe business, good. That's because you have the authority to do so and you should be commended.

That's not the nature of every corner of the business, however. It is most definitely a competition and a game and a lot of money goes into sustaining that image.

Sounds like you have enough authority and idealism to balance the two and not crash, and that's great. I hope you can sustain that and be happy there, that's ideal.

It wasn't my experience with books that had millions riding on them one way or the other. From my point of view it was absolutely a game. A disillusioning and painful one that really changed my view of literature and marketing. Also not an experience I would have liked to do without, because it was enlightening in its horrible, cool way in the sense that an autopsy gives you an idea of how a body works. To see the beating heart of publishing is not for the faint hearted. And ultimately I wussed out and couldn't stand it any more. I am here because I want to be an amateur forever. The profession oogied me out terminally.

It's possibly entirely a difference in scale and avarice. Or you just have better literary karma. Either way, I'm genuinely happy for you.

It's a BDSM anthology, not Stephen King. No offense, but it's indie in scale and a lot of them are out there.

The competition FOR writers is just as strong.

 

[Belegon]

I don't know which is the least offensive, as I'm offended at the change but I'm usually a minority.

Of course I'm dancing... I am, by nature, a diplomat. The fallacy that a diplomat never takes a strong position is not one I am subject to... but nor am I one who takes it as a personal won/loss thing. That road leads to dissatisfaction for all.

The only place I "put my foot down" was starting a sentence or paragraph lower case.

I would say that if you looked at the finished product and knew that there had been a change, I was not doing a very good job as an editor.

I very deliberately am not being specific here. I would be dismayed if someone were to figure out the work in question at a later date. I wanted guidance, not an opportunity to rant.

BTW, the "hir" pronoun thing is staying put. The narration is first person and the usage is absolutely consistent with the story, so there is no reason to change that.

 

[Netzach]

Of course I'm dancing... I am, by nature, a diplomat. The fallacy that a diplomat never takes a strong position is not one I am subject to... but nor am I one who takes it as a personal won/loss thing. That road leads to dissatisfaction for all.

The only place I "put my foot down" was starting a sentence or paragraph lower case.

I would say that if you looked at the finished product and knew that there had been a change, I was not doing a very good job as an editor.

I very deliberately am not being specific here. I would be dismayed if someone were to figure out the work in question at a later date. I wanted guidance, not an opportunity to rant.

BTW, the "hir" pronoun thing is staying put. The narration is first person and the usage is absolutely consistent with the story, so there is no reason to change that.

Oh well, fuck me. By all means a paragraph starts with a cap. Jeez.

If I were an editor, the only place the capitalization thing would stay is in this context: written communication within the story. Or if the story is a letter addressed to someone in full. You can't hear the lowercase, you can read it though.

If the characters are in a high protocol relationship and someone is writing a letter to the other or emailing or something, then it would stay if the author thought it how these people would communicate.