The Role of the Editor

I've now had the opportunity of working with more than half a dozen editors and a great chasm has appeared between two distinctly different kinds of editors.

The first kind correct your work and give suggestions in the form of comments, of ways they think the work could be enhanced, including notes on grammar rules etc. Now they can be very persistent when you dig your heels in and say... well actually I don't care what the rule says I like the way this sounds and it's staying so there. They pound away at your stubborn recalcitrant brain, offering explanations and illustrations until finally you realise that actually they have a point and your work WOULD be better if you changed it a bit.

The second kind correct your work and tell you where you're going wrong. They quote rules and explain why what you have written is going to turn readers off and are unacceptable to the publishing world at large. They tell you how to fix things and tell you that you're cheating your readership if you don't.

The biggest difference comes when you tell them you've listened to their advice and you appreciate their POV but you're still not going to change... Then they tell you you have to. Have to? It's my story so since when do I 'have to' do anything with it? When they tell me to.

And that's it in a nutshell. I don't like being told what to do. It's not a virtue and I'll go as far as to accept it's probably a fault, but that's me. I'll take direction, I'll listen to opinions and I'm very open minded so if the opinion is valid and helpful I'll change. But I won't be TOLD what to do, not with my creation, my baby, my work.

So what IS the role of the editor? Is it to root out what they consider to be flaws in your work and force you to change them until the work conforms to their standards (which, given that every rule has its interpretation and counter rule is never anything more than an opinion)

Or is it to highlight potential flaws and provide you with an opinion and an opportunity to improve, without imposing their view or removing your ability to choose or discuss?

I am a lawyer. I know the law. I know the law a lot better than the people who come to see me do. They pay me a lot of money for my advice because they know I know more about the law than they do. They put their lives and the lives of their families in my hands. I give them advice. I tell them the best thing they can do to resolve their situation and make their lives better. Then I let them decide. If they choose not to take my advice then I take them down a different road. I might know full well that the road will lead to a world of pain but, once I've told them that, I let them make their own choice and that, I think is exactly what an editor should do.

I certainly won't work with an editor who doesn't ever again.