To Other Authors: Do You Use an Editor?

[DeYaKen]

Back to normal

Whoever is paying to have it published has the final say. The author, of course, if the author is carrying the publishing burden or not publishing it at all. The publisher in other cases. Here, on Literotica, it's the Web site. The Web site reserves the right not to post anything it doesn't want to.

When I edit for a publisher, the author has the right to plead their preferences, but it's the publisher who decides whether to publish it or not.

Not strictly true. Unless the author has a binding contract with a publisher they can pull the story/book and take it elsewhere.

The same applies to Lit if Laurel demands changes the author can simply choose not to publish on lit. There have been a few thread recently from people who have chosen to do just that.

Even binding contracts are breakable if advances are returned. In extreme cases an author will refuse to acknowledge the book and have their name removed from it.

The person that owns the copyright has the power.

 

[sr71plt]

Not strictly true. Unless the author has a binding contract with a publisher they can pull the story/book and take it elsewhere.

The same applies to Lit if Laurel demands changes the author can simply choose not to publish on lit. There have been a few thread recently from people who have chosen to do just that.

Even binding contracts are breakable if advances are returned. In extreme cases an author will refuse to acknowledge the book and have their name removed from it.

The person that owns the copyright has the power.

Well, yes, but "elsewhere" then has the last word on that transaction.

Primarily don't want authors stuck in the idea that it's all about them. They want to get something published--even here on Literotica--it's not just their decision. Even if they are self-publishing, there's usually someone beyond them in the process that has the final say that it's going to be done that way.

 

[PennLady]

However, I will point out that editing, to me, is not where you tell someone HOW to change it, but just pointing out that they need to change something specific (baring punctuation, etc). Otherwise, the editor can say it was a collaborative effort and claim ownership of said work.

This is possible, but I haven't seen it happen nor seen complaints of it happening. I'm all for being careful, but if you limit the editor that much, they won't be much help.

However, let's say a there's a logic flaw (something that doesn't make sense). This is a nebulous situation. To help edit, the editor would almost have to make suggestions on the fix. The trick is to limit the suggestion to a "seed" concept and let the author germinate that seed, creatively.

The trick is, most authors have fundamental "laws" of their universe. Whether it be; "all good guys wear white hats and bad guys wear black hats", or if they say "gravity is reversed", doesn't matter. This is their foundation for the plot/story/etc.

GOOD editing imo, is where an editor who tries to help with the storyline, accepts the rules of the author's universe. They can question where the limits of the laws end and begin and thereby, maybe find a loophole when the law is mutatable.

The laws of the author's universe don't need to be and perhaps shouldn't be immutable. If there is a glaring logic flaw, the editor should say, this is wrong because. I disagree with this "seed" concept. The editor can point out the flaw, make a suggestion if applicable, and then the author can go with that, or use that as a basis to go in another direction. A good editor will not try to rewrite or take over your story, but it doesn't mean they won't suggest major changes. Sometimes those are needed.

However, if you try to fight and question and cajole in an attempt to change those fundamental laws of an author's universe, then, to me, you will come up against a brick wall every time.

But the author should consider that one or more of their laws may be wrong, in the sense of affecting the story.

Does that mean all things are fixed in stone? No, but, like a spider's web, stories have some concepts so interwoven and entangled that if you start to change one thing, it affects many other aspects in the story and may cause the spider web to unravel.

And again, sometimes that needs to happen.

Editors shouldn't take resistance to their plucking of the web that causes it to unravel, as personal either. It just means try someplace else.

None of this should be surprising.

I'm not saying you mean this, but to a degree it seems like you only want the editor to say what you want them to say. An editor is there to point out issues. The whole point of another set of eyes is to look at it differently. If they only look at it like you do, then it's not very useful.

 

[sr71plt]

A formally trained editor, especially one working for the publisher, isn't far off the mark of what LWuff envisions. The original isn't erased; the edits are shown. Only the list of edit preferences by the publisher (who is seeking uniformity in the basics across its whole catalog) are flatly made, sometimes in "silent" (nonshowing, in an electronic edit) edit. Such things as serial commas (although if I'm going to be on the one doing the cleanup of one of my edits after author review, I show all of these changes as well). More substantive editorial marks usually are in a form of a question without destroying the original (although probably with a line through the original). I will make suggestions of substantive changes but only when I think that minor changes will make something work for me, as a reader. If I have major problems with content or structure I just state what they are and why and dump it back in the author's/publisher's lap for further instructions/author reworking.

Sometimes the publisher has required content or structural changes in directions to the editor. When the author hasn't complied, the publisher's directions are pointed out in marking changes. The author sees and buys into all changes (even if reluctantly) and whoever does the cleanup (these days usually the original editor) follows the directions imbedded in the text. If there are still quibbles at the end--and quite often the author's preferences are respected (even if they are idiotic) if they don't contradict the publisher's house style and specific directives--the issues are kicked up to the publisher. Then the publisher decides to publish or not. And, yes, I've seen manuscripts rejected by the publisher at this point, and usually it was because the author thought it was all about him/her. The publisher is more sensitive to the perceived needs of the buying reader than the (there are hundreds submitting to me) author.

 

[RedMonkeyButt]

The saying goes, "You can't see the forest for the trees." I think it's the exact opposite for authors trying to edit their own work. We can't see the trees for the forest. In other words, we see the big picture and can't see all the nitpicky details that an editor or beta reader will catch. This makes editors and second readers almost invaluable.

I've used two volunteer editors from Lit, and both of them have been great. I always proof read my stories before sending them to an editor or submitting them (because I'm bad and don't always use an editor). So I catch most of the blatant spelling, grammar, and punctuation mistakes. But every time I get a story back from an editor it is covered in their marks. Because no matter how I go about doing my proofread, I always miss something.

It's not just copy editing, either. The stories that have been through these editors have almost always come back with questions. They point out the points where, as a reader, they were left asking themselves what the fuck was going on in the story. Neither of them have ever suggested things that need to happen at these points. But just raising the question of what had happened, or why, or how makes me stop and think. Every single time I sent the revised piece back to them with an added 500-1500 words.

The added words were because of what I said earlier. In my own read-through, I can't catch these details. I can't see the trees because I have the whole forest in my mind. I know the answer to the who, what, when, where, and why. The reader does not.

And after all this, I just submitted two stories without using an editor. I know that the stories I use an editor for consistently score higher and get better feedback than the ones I don't. Why? Because I always forget to explain something that might be important to the story that the reader doesn't know about.

So yes, I use editors. I use second readers. I do not put any expectations on them when I send them the story. We discuss what their expectations are, the content of the story, my timeline, etc. Then I send the story off and work on another one while they have my baby. I almost always take the suggested edits. The only time I didn't was when the change would have required a full rewrite of half the story, and I didn't want to do it because it would have effected everything after the point of change.

And now I'll stop babbling.

 

[LWulf]

This is possible, but I haven't seen it happen nor seen complaints of it happening. I'm all for being careful, but if you limit the editor that much, they won't be much help.

Pretty much everything I said was taken from how they work on a college thesis nowadays and have fellow students help in the editing process. (digitally)

Also, much different but similar, from looking at original manuscripts 30 years ago from some of my parent's friends who were professional fiction writers (all type written).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Editors are for novices.

What other performance art does an editor correct? Sculpting? Painting? Composing? Acting? Singing?

 

[sr71plt]

I see this as a win/win, JBJ. I can't imagine an editor who would want to work with you.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Editors are for novices.

What other performance art does an editor correct? Sculpting? Painting? Composing? Acting? Singing?

Singers have coaches. Actors have directors, and frequently also coaches. Composers frequently have arrangers - Wikipedia tells me that Gershwin got in an arranger for "Rhapsody in Blue" because he lacked experience in orchestration.

Not exact parallels, but then they're different media.

 

[fcknfresh]

No. I just read a final version of my story like 100 times over a week or two weeks. And read it outloud.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Singers have coaches. Actors have directors, and frequently also coaches. Composers frequently have arrangers - Wikipedia tells me that Gershwin got in an arranger for "Rhapsody in Blue" because he lacked experience in orchestration.

Not exact parallels, but then they're different media.

Doesn't matter. Other artists don't use editors or whatever beyond the initial training. At some point youre supposed to know what youre doing.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Singers have coaches. Actors have directors, and frequently also coaches. Composers frequently have arrangers - Wikipedia tells me that Gershwin got in an arranger for "Rhapsody in Blue" because he lacked experience in orchestration.

Not exact parallels, but then they're different media.

Doesn't matter. Other artists don't use editors or whatever beyond the initial training.

Pretty sure even experienced actors have to work under direction most of the time. I understand Jim Carrey's performance depends very much on having a director who can keep his talents focused.)

As for singing - probably plenty more examples out there, but for starters:

"...her students were not merely aspiring starlets from the conservatoires; established names would use a day off between performances at great opera houses to seek her advice on technique and breath control." - obituary for the vocal coach Vera Rózsa.

Pavarotti was coached by Leone Magiera from age 18 until he died at 71.

Katie Agresta gives a fairly impressive list of celebrity clients.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Pretty sure even experienced actors have to work under direction most of the time. I understand Jim Carrey's performance depends very much on having a director who can keep his talents focused.)

As for singing - probably plenty more examples out there, but for starters:

"...her students were not merely aspiring starlets from the conservatoires; established names would use a day off between performances at great opera houses to seek her advice on technique and breath control." - obituary for the vocal coach Vera Rózsa.

Pavarotti was coached by Leone Magiera from age 18 until he died at 71.

Katie Agresta gives a fairly impressive list of celebrity clients.

You know I'm right. I've never had a job where anyone needed to hold my hand and wipe my ass once I knew what I was doing.

 

[DeYaKen]

Editors are for novices.

What other performance art does an editor correct? Sculpting? Painting? Composing? Acting? Singing?

I'm sure that Iain Rankin who grosses more than $1.4 Million a year from his efforts would find it interesting that you call him a novice. I think he's been making a living from his writing for more than Twenty Years.

Many Artist have people they show their work to, people whose opinions they trust. often other artists. Just as a good editor would do this person may make suggestions that the artist can choose to incorporate or not.

Interesting quote on composition "John and Paul came to me with a song which had a bossa nova rhythm. They played it to me and I told them I thought it needed a few bars of different melody in the middle of the song to break it up. They wrote the middle eight in about ten minutes and we recorded it that afternoon" George Martin talking about his relationship with the Beatles. The song was, And I love her.

Actors have someone with more power than an editor. He/she is called the director and he tells them how he wants them to perform.

Singer also have musical directors or coaches on hand to tell them how best to perform a song this is especially so in the case in opera.

In fact it is usually the novice that doesn't use some form of advisor/mentor/editor. There are two main reason's for this. First is they don't want to feel a fool for making silly mistakes. Second they are afraid that the nature of their work will be changed and they will no longer have control of it.

IMHO the key is to develop a relationship with your editor. As you get to know each other you learn how to approach one another and no one gets offended. I had such a relationship with my beloved Juicy, now I'm working on developing something similar with new editors.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm sure that Iain Rankin who grosses more than $1.4 Million a year from his efforts would find it interesting that you call him a novice. I think he's been making a living from his writing for more than Twenty Years.

Many Artist have people they show their work to, people whose opinions they trust. often other artists. Just as a good editor would do this person may make suggestions that the artist can choose to incorporate or not.

Interesting quote on composition "John and Paul came to me with a song which had a bossa nova rhythm. They played it to me and I told them I thought it needed a few bars of different melody in the middle of the song to break it up. They wrote the middle eight in about ten minutes and we recorded it that afternoon" George Martin talking about his relationship with the Beatles. The song was, And I love her.

Actors have someone with more power than an editor. He/she is called the director and he tells them how he wants them to perform.

Singer also have musical directors or coaches on hand to tell them how best to perform a song this is especially so in the case in opera.

In fact it is usually the novice that doesn't use some form of advisor/mentor/editor. There are two main reason's for this. First is they don't want to feel a fool for making silly mistakes. Second they are afraid that the nature of their work will be changed and they will no longer have control of it.

IMHO the key is to develop a relationship with your editor. As you get to know each other you learn how to approach one another and no one gets offended. I had such a relationship with my beloved Juicy, now I'm working on developing something similar with new editors.

My point remains valid: If you know what youre doing you don't need someone holding your hand and stroking your peepee.

 

[sr71plt]

No, there's nothing a valid about your point JBJ--other than possibly in your mind, which would be fine--just don't use editors then--and I think it a waste of time to argue with you about it. You're going to post what you're going to post. No reason for anyone else to suck into your nonsense.

 

[lovecraft68]

Doesn't matter. Other artists don't use editors or whatever beyond the initial training. At some point youre supposed to know what youre doing.

You can always get better.

I've been training in martial arts for just about 30 years now and still have an instructor. No matter how much you know, there is room for more, or if nothing else its good to have someone keeping you on your toes.

And seriously, no one can competently edit their own work.

 

[sr71plt]

And seriously, no one can competently edit their own work.

This is seriously true. At least they can't do so without leaving a considerable number of mistakes. They can possibly do so well enough for it to be read with enjoyment on Literotica.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You know I'm right. I've never had a job where anyone needed to hold my hand and wipe my ass once I knew what I was doing.

I've worked with people who thought they had nothing left to learn. It rarely ended well.

 

[Tyro999]

They can possibly do so well enough for it to be read with enjoyment on Literotica.

With the emphasis on the 'possibly do so well enough.' If there are enough typos, misspellings, punctuation and grammatical errors in a given story I've started I will bail out of it without finishing it. "Enough" is entirely subjective and variable depending on my mood, time of day, phase of the moon, etc., and I'm sure other Lit readers have their own stricter or looser standards for Lit stories they will read to the end.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In fact it is usually the novice that doesn't use some form of advisor/mentor/editor. There are two main reason's for this. First is they don't want to feel a fool for making silly mistakes. Second they are afraid that the nature of their work will be changed and they will no longer have control of it.

Yep. Or third, pretty common on Lit, they want an editor but don't know how to find a good one.

It does happen occasionally with established authors. Anne Rice declared she would never again let an editor touch her work - I haven't read the later stuff, but I hear a lot of people holding it up as an example of why even famous authors who can spell still benefit from an editor.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I've worked with people who thought they had nothing left to learn. It rarely ended well.

And you presume an editor brings more to the party than the writer? Pish posh.

I'll repeat myself because youre paying no attention: if a writer knows his stuff he shouldn't need an editor, and isn't likely to find one who knows more.

I imagine that every half wit who scores a story or comments believes he knows more than the writer. So there's lotsa hubris afloat at LIT.

 

[sr71plt]

And you presume an editor brings more to the party than the writer? Pish posh.

Ah, now you're making up what others have posted to try to save your silly point?

They bring different skills and fresh perspective to the party.

 

[LadyVer]

Pish posh? Good one.

 

[lovecraft68]

And you presume an editor brings more to the party than the writer? Pish posh.

I'll repeat myself because youre paying no attention: if a writer knows his stuff he shouldn't need an editor, and isn't likely to find one who knows more.

I imagine that every half wit who scores a story or comments believes he knows more than the writer. So there's lotsa hubris afloat at LIT.

I know how to drive a car, but it doesn't mean I know how to fix everything that's wrong with it.

The writer is the cook and the editor provides the proper seasoning.