What do I do now?

[where]

This editor thing is curious. Are you guys saying that *anyone* can become a lit editor even if they are rubbish writers?

 

[PariahSolo]

I think their arguement falls in line with what they say about why Literature teach vice write professionally; any body can voice their opinion about what they think is good fiction but only a select few are actually published.

 

[sr71plt]

This editor thing is curious. Are you guys saying that *anyone* can become a lit editor even if they are rubbish writers?

Yes, all you have to do it state a willingess to "edit."

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

This editor thing is curious. Are you guys saying that *anyone* can become a lit editor even if they are rubbish writers?

At one level, yes, in the sense that there is no qualification for becoming an "official" volunteer editor on here, nor for becoming an unofficial one via this forum. There is much more emphasis on the "volunteer" bit. I doubt that is what you mean though.

In terms of whether someone can usefully edit without being able to write well, I cannot compose music, and I cannot read music in the sense of hearing an orchestra when I look at an orchestral score, yet I can tell that Mozart writes good music, and that Andrew Lloyd Webber writes essentially the same tune over and over again, and that modern pop music is mostly tuneless drivel. This may qualify me to be a critic, but not to be a musical editor. A critic can tell someone what they are doing wrong, but not necessarily how to cure it. An editor can point someone along the way to doing something better. The danger is that a heavy-handed literary editor will train the author to write in the style the editor uses.

 

[sr71plt]

At one level, yes, in the sense that there is no qualification for becoming an "official" volunteer editor on here, nor for becoming an unofficial one via this forum. There is much more emphasis on the "volunteer" bit. I doubt that is what you mean though.

In terms of whether someone can usefully edit without being able to write well, I cannot compose music, and I cannot read music in the sense of hearing an orchestra when I look at an orchestral score, yet I can tell that Mozart writes good music, and that Andrew Lloyd Webber writes essentially the same tune over and over again, and that modern pop music is mostly tuneless drivel. This may qualify me to be a critic, but not to be a musical editor. A critic can tell someone what they are doing wrong, but not necessarily how to cure it. An editor can point someone along the way to doing something better. The danger is that a heavy-handed literary editor will train the author to write in the style the editor uses.

I think this is quite true. The skills of a writer and an editor are fundamentally different, even though of course some people can do both well. You actually are likely to have less grief going with someone who primarily is an editor rather than a writer to edit your work for the reason mentioned--there will be less inclination for them to push you to "do what I do."

 

[freshface]

I think this is quite true. The skills of a writer and an editor are fundamentally different, even though of course some people can do both well. You actually are likely to have less grief going with someone who primarily is an editor rather than a writer to edit your work for the reason mentioned--there will be less inclination for them to push you to "do what I do."

Unfortunately, the only objective measure availble here is the quality of the writing.

 

[sr71plt]

Unfortunately, the only objective measure availble here is the quality of the writing.

That's true. But for the purposes of posting at Lit., a competent second reader--who just questions this and that and let's you know where perhaps what you meant to convey didn't convey, should be fine.

The program is just misnamed. In very few cases will anyone be linking with a "voluntary editor"; they will be linking with a "voluntary second reader." And there's nothing bad about that--just in what the writer thinks they are getting. A "truth in packaging" issue.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

Unfortunately, the only objective measure availble here is the quality of the writing.

Sorry to disagree, but the quality of the writing is wholly subjective. I like Sci-Fi and whodunnits, whereas my wife does not like them. She likes Victorian romances, which I find turgid and boring. It does not mean that one of us is wrong, or one kind of writing is bad.

Kipling summed it up when he wrote:

There are nine and sixty ways
Of constructing tribal lays,
And every single one of them is right.​

Or perhaps Artemus Ward (C.F.Brown):

That Chorcer is the wuss speller I ever knowd.​

 

[where]

A critic can tell someone what they are doing wrong, but not necessarily how to cure it. An editor can point someone along the way to doing something better. The danger is that a heavy-handed literary editor will train the author to write in the style the editor uses.

I think this is quite true. The skills of a writer and an editor are fundamentally different, even though of course some people can do both well. You actually are likely to have less grief going with someone who primarily is an editor rather than a writer to edit your work for the reason mentioned--there will be less inclination for them to push you to "do what I do."

OK, well I guess I'm lucky to have an editor who is a good writer (why I chose him) and keeps his hands off my writing style

Unfortunately, the only objective measure availble here is the quality of the writing.

Sorry to disagree, but the quality of the writing is wholly subjective. I like Sci-Fi and whodunnits, whereas my wife does not like them. She likes Victorian romances, which I find turgid and boring. It does not mean that one of us is wrong, or one kind of writing is bad.

The difference between sci-fi and romances is subjective in terms of preference, but you know if a sci-fi has been badly written and you may be able to recognise a well written romance even if you don't enjoy it.

 

[freshface]

Sorry to disagree, but the quality of the writing is wholly subjective. I like Sci-Fi and whodunnits, whereas my wife does not like them. She likes Victorian romances, which I find turgid and boring. It does not mean that one of us is wrong, or one kind of writing is bad.

Kipling summed it up when he wrote:

There are nine and sixty ways
Of constructing tribal lays,
And every single one of them is right.​

Or perhaps Artemus Ward (C.F.Brown):

That Chorcer is the wuss speller I ever knowd.​

When I said quality of the writing, I was referring more to spelling, grammar, and the ability to convey ideas. I may not like the category, but I can still recognize a story that has wooden characters. If the first paragraph has run-on sentences, poor punctuation, and you're in place of your, the odds are against that VE having as much to offer me.

Artemus Ward might get away with wuss and knowd, but C.F. Brown was doing that on purpose and not because he didn't know better.