Editorializing
Don't mind me -- I'm going to do a little editorial about editors. Editors are to publishing what, say, lighting engineers are to moviemaking or what bass players are to music. They are essential to the process, but there's zero appreciation for what they do,
That's because if an editor does their job well, it's invisible. Bad (or nonexistent) editing stands out. But good (or even great) editing? Nah. Invisible.
I've worked professionally as an editor since, hell, 1992 -- and I've often quipped that there are two types of editors: those who edit with pens, and those who edit with martini glasses.
The latter are the show pony editors -- the ones who circulate at parties and show up on the mastheads of publications, and gladhand people, ostensibly for their amazing editorial judgment. I imagine there are still some of those left at, say, The New Yorker or The Paris Review. Maybe Esquire or The Atlantic. Otherwise, not so much.
The rest of us are workhorse editors -- the ones who actually dive into copy and clean it the hell us. You'd be amazed how much cleaning up copy requires for it to be readable.
What's interesting is that I've also worked as an indie editor -- I do editing for Nosetouch Press -- and I'm going to flat-out say that indie editing (if/when it even occurs) is thoroughly unappreciated.
The writers drawn to indie aren't used to having their copy edited. Judging from most of the indie works I see trudging amid the sludge, I think editing is at best a remote consideration for the majority of them. Maybe somebody'll do some cursory proofreading, possibly they'll run a spellcheck, and TA-DA! Edited.
When you actually do developmental editing -- which is to say, editorial work that moves beyond mere grammar and structure to the heart of the story, indie writers squirm. They don't like it. How dare this nobody indie editor touch their perfect prose?
Newsflash: Everything written can benefit from editing. It's just the nature of the process. A back read is essential, and sometimes it can help just to have another set of eyes on the pages. But man, is it ever resented.
Editing sucks as a profession. I'm sure the sad souls doing trad editing are hating life. But I have to say that the only way to make it worse is for it to be indie editing.
But if anything would benefit from copious editing, it's indie writing. The problem is that there are clown cars packed with clowns masquerading as indie editors -- I mean, just like anybody with a pile of junk writing can call themselves a writer, so can anybody attach "editor" to their name. It's a real problem with indie publishing, for sure.
Good editors are unicorns; good indie editors, rarer still. Indie writers should be grateful if any indie editor actually takes the time and energy to try to make their work sharper, crisper, clearer, cleaner. And, like so much with indie, it's being done without pay.
If an indie editor isn't actually editing your work or asking you questions about the work, don't consider it a kindness or a reflection of your writing genius; consider it neglect.
That's because if an editor does their job well, it's invisible. Bad (or nonexistent) editing stands out. But good (or even great) editing? Nah. Invisible.
I've worked professionally as an editor since, hell, 1992 -- and I've often quipped that there are two types of editors: those who edit with pens, and those who edit with martini glasses.
The latter are the show pony editors -- the ones who circulate at parties and show up on the mastheads of publications, and gladhand people, ostensibly for their amazing editorial judgment. I imagine there are still some of those left at, say, The New Yorker or The Paris Review. Maybe Esquire or The Atlantic. Otherwise, not so much.
The rest of us are workhorse editors -- the ones who actually dive into copy and clean it the hell us. You'd be amazed how much cleaning up copy requires for it to be readable.
What's interesting is that I've also worked as an indie editor -- I do editing for Nosetouch Press -- and I'm going to flat-out say that indie editing (if/when it even occurs) is thoroughly unappreciated.
The writers drawn to indie aren't used to having their copy edited. Judging from most of the indie works I see trudging amid the sludge, I think editing is at best a remote consideration for the majority of them. Maybe somebody'll do some cursory proofreading, possibly they'll run a spellcheck, and TA-DA! Edited.
When you actually do developmental editing -- which is to say, editorial work that moves beyond mere grammar and structure to the heart of the story, indie writers squirm. They don't like it. How dare this nobody indie editor touch their perfect prose?
Newsflash: Everything written can benefit from editing. It's just the nature of the process. A back read is essential, and sometimes it can help just to have another set of eyes on the pages. But man, is it ever resented.
Editing sucks as a profession. I'm sure the sad souls doing trad editing are hating life. But I have to say that the only way to make it worse is for it to be indie editing.
But if anything would benefit from copious editing, it's indie writing. The problem is that there are clown cars packed with clowns masquerading as indie editors -- I mean, just like anybody with a pile of junk writing can call themselves a writer, so can anybody attach "editor" to their name. It's a real problem with indie publishing, for sure.
Good editors are unicorns; good indie editors, rarer still. Indie writers should be grateful if any indie editor actually takes the time and energy to try to make their work sharper, crisper, clearer, cleaner. And, like so much with indie, it's being done without pay.
If an indie editor isn't actually editing your work or asking you questions about the work, don't consider it a kindness or a reflection of your writing genius; consider it neglect.
No comments have been added yet.
