Stylistic Choice: I Call BS
Having edited an anthology (Abandoned Places and having been a part of a number of other anthologies, the same thing keeps cropping up. Usually it has to do with an author who has submitted a story that has been accepted, and usually said author has done something in their story that the editor (or editing team), do not like. When the head editor approaches said author about this error, the author replies with:
"But it's my stylistic choice!"
Now, I do recognize individual style.
I also recognize that there are some beautiful stories out there where people have broken/bent the rules of writing to produce some amazing stories. But as an old drawing instructor of mine once said:
"You have to know the rules inside and out before you can start bending them."
This goes for writing as well. Too often, a writer will pull the 'stylistic choice' when a writer's biggest trap is in the way: Their Ego.
You've produced a wonderful piece of fiction. In it, you think you've done some brilliant things and after all, this is your baby. What's not to be proud of?
And then along comes some editor to tell you that your baby is flawed. That something you thought was brilliant wasn't working, and they would like you to change it.
Can't they see your genius? Can't they see your amazing writing style? Why this is what makes you unique in a world of authors. This is what will make you the next King, Lovecraft, Rowling. What do the editor mean by stating that it's not working?
Now, a good writer will talk with the editor and hash things out. These are the people who recognize that the editor has a vision for the anthology, and just as the writer has a vision of their story, things need to be changed sometimes to have everything work together. These writers will work with the editor and come to some form of agreement.
Bad writers will instantly bring out the most hated card that all editors hate to hear: It's my stylistic choice.
I call bullshit.
It's a cop out answer. It means you can't engage in an adult conversation with another human being about your work. It means you can't think of a valid reason to defend your choice in breaking the rules of writing. It means you are too egotistical of your piece to see that maybe, just maybe, the editor is right.
And here's the thing: Someone is paying for this anthology to be made. Be it the publisher or editor themselves, someone is paying YOU, the writer, for your piece. That means if you can't work with them, you're out.
I don't know why writers forget that simple fact. I once signed a contract before any editing was done which stated that at any point, if I and the editor could not reach an understanding on my piece, they could drop me. It was a nice reminder on the fact that you as a writer are not invincible.
Hell, there's a good chance you wrote that piece FOR that anthology so you can make some money/gain recognition, or for the fun of it. Why are you fighting with the editor then?
Now, yes, there is artistic integrity. Having gone through four years of fine arts in university, I am well aware of this. But I will also tell you that when a dozen people look at your piece and say it's crap because of one or two details, artistic integrity means nothing. If you don't want people messing with your work, go write for yourself and never publish anything and never post it anywhere.
In the end, stylistic choice is a thing, and it can be an amazing thing. But too often writers have used it as sort of a deus ex machina of dealing with editors that don't like their work or want to correct something.
Pulling the style card doesn't make you look smart, artistic, or anything else other than a huge a-hole who can't use the very words you decided to craft a profession out of to explain yourself to your editor.
So next time an editor wants to correct something you did as a stylistic choice, try actually explaining why you did it to them. They may understand, they may not. In the end, they are an artist as well, crafting their own work of beauty using yours. More bees with honey than vinegar and all that jazz.
Just don't say anything about style choice, or you will have made an instant enemy of the one person who can tell you to f*ck off. And that's a lot of hard work done on your side to throw away simply because your ego won't let you work with someone...
"But it's my stylistic choice!"
Now, I do recognize individual style.
I also recognize that there are some beautiful stories out there where people have broken/bent the rules of writing to produce some amazing stories. But as an old drawing instructor of mine once said:
"You have to know the rules inside and out before you can start bending them."
This goes for writing as well. Too often, a writer will pull the 'stylistic choice' when a writer's biggest trap is in the way: Their Ego.
You've produced a wonderful piece of fiction. In it, you think you've done some brilliant things and after all, this is your baby. What's not to be proud of?
And then along comes some editor to tell you that your baby is flawed. That something you thought was brilliant wasn't working, and they would like you to change it.
Can't they see your genius? Can't they see your amazing writing style? Why this is what makes you unique in a world of authors. This is what will make you the next King, Lovecraft, Rowling. What do the editor mean by stating that it's not working?
Now, a good writer will talk with the editor and hash things out. These are the people who recognize that the editor has a vision for the anthology, and just as the writer has a vision of their story, things need to be changed sometimes to have everything work together. These writers will work with the editor and come to some form of agreement.
Bad writers will instantly bring out the most hated card that all editors hate to hear: It's my stylistic choice.
I call bullshit.
It's a cop out answer. It means you can't engage in an adult conversation with another human being about your work. It means you can't think of a valid reason to defend your choice in breaking the rules of writing. It means you are too egotistical of your piece to see that maybe, just maybe, the editor is right.
And here's the thing: Someone is paying for this anthology to be made. Be it the publisher or editor themselves, someone is paying YOU, the writer, for your piece. That means if you can't work with them, you're out.
I don't know why writers forget that simple fact. I once signed a contract before any editing was done which stated that at any point, if I and the editor could not reach an understanding on my piece, they could drop me. It was a nice reminder on the fact that you as a writer are not invincible.
Hell, there's a good chance you wrote that piece FOR that anthology so you can make some money/gain recognition, or for the fun of it. Why are you fighting with the editor then?
Now, yes, there is artistic integrity. Having gone through four years of fine arts in university, I am well aware of this. But I will also tell you that when a dozen people look at your piece and say it's crap because of one or two details, artistic integrity means nothing. If you don't want people messing with your work, go write for yourself and never publish anything and never post it anywhere.
In the end, stylistic choice is a thing, and it can be an amazing thing. But too often writers have used it as sort of a deus ex machina of dealing with editors that don't like their work or want to correct something.
Pulling the style card doesn't make you look smart, artistic, or anything else other than a huge a-hole who can't use the very words you decided to craft a profession out of to explain yourself to your editor.
So next time an editor wants to correct something you did as a stylistic choice, try actually explaining why you did it to them. They may understand, they may not. In the end, they are an artist as well, crafting their own work of beauty using yours. More bees with honey than vinegar and all that jazz.
Just don't say anything about style choice, or you will have made an instant enemy of the one person who can tell you to f*ck off. And that's a lot of hard work done on your side to throw away simply because your ego won't let you work with someone...
date
newest »
newest »
As both a writer and editor for others, I consciously make the effort to make all negative responses to a writing/editing choice an opportunity for dialogue.As a writer, there are definitely times I want to bend/break the rules. But I also recognize that there's times that can go too far. Creativity is great, but it must be tempered by discipline.
As an editor for others, I reflect on the same dynamic: Discipline needs to be tempered by creativity.
As both, I recognize that every piece of work will be in need of an editor's touch and sections rewritten. It isn't unusual for any piece I'm working on to see three or four revisions in the course of the work.
Editors and writers alike: Temper yourselves. Turn everything into a discussion. Justify yourself when you feel you ought to.
Sometimes a sentence fragment is a stylistic choice made for powerful impact. Sometimes it's just an overused trick the writer's using as a crutch. (Sometimes it is both at once, and then you've got to choose which ones to cull!)
Most of all: Writers AND Editors alike! Kill your darlings.
Just as the writer must ask if every word is in service to the story, so too must the editor. (But factor in that the editor too has to ask if it is in service to the publication or anthology.)
Sometimes, at the end of the day, the writer has to take a stand on something. Likewise, so too the editor. If you're engaging in this process as a professional, then engage in dialogue. Neither writer nor editor will benefit by edicts made by the other.
I think you both hit important points here and I have to be careful about not turning this conversation into a duality.The best piece of advice a beta reader has given me is "words mean things." I used to make mistakes (using a close-but-wrong adjective, using transitive verbs as intransitive verbs) that I thought were fine because they sounded better with the rhythm of the prose. This particular beta reader, who was very mean, but also very right, taught me to never use words without seeing them in a sentence first, no matter how quickly I wanted to expand my vocabulary.
I've noticed furry writers have a huge range of experience: some have been published in internationally acclaimed magazines, some have been published in some fandom anthologies and student mags only (hi, that's me!) and some have not been published at all. This same range of experience can be found in editors, too, so it's awkward when a less experienced editor (not their fault!) tries to correct a sophisticated piece of prose that they should perhaps not be correcting.
If an editor keeps in mind that a writer might be more advanced than them occasionally, constantly tries to improve, and treats every accepted submitter as an adult, I think the writers will respond to that expected sense of responsibility, and it is far less likely that they will act childish. I definitely have more trust in an editor that is genuine, hard-working, and actively suggests changes in a respectful manner than an editor who treats their submitters like peons, because even if furry has at least the perception of maturity issues, editors don't need to be actively contributing to that expectation.
It's questionable that furry writing has an infinite amount of markets, especially depending on what you write, although it seems that pretty much anybody in the fandom can start up an anthology. But hey. Sometimes a better attitude from both sides of the editor/writer relationship makes work much easier and faster.
I dislike the argument that "the editor/publisher is paying for this, so he/she has the right to call all the shots." No, that's an unbalanced way of looking at it.I also dislike the argument that "editors need to respect artistic integrity." No, that's also unbalanced.
Just because the editor/publisher is making the anthology doesn't mean they can make unreasonable changes. Just because the author created the story the editor/publisher wants to sell doesn't mean the writer can demand no changes at all. There's plenty of room for balance.
Writers need to be mature enough to be open to outside opinions. I've made many concessions about "style choices" in my short stories and novels. Some of those changes I kind of resent, like numbered chapters in short stories. I'd rather keep them, since I did write it that way, but the editor insists they need to go. No big deal--it was just a style choice; it's not that important.
For my latest book, Huvek, some of the chapters were combined at the last minute. I was a bit miffed by this, but they're just chapter breaks. No big deal. The story is otherwise in tact. And for Felix and the Sacred Thor, several thousand words of action plus an entire chapter were deleted because the editor thought they were frivolous. I went back and forth with him on that, but in the end I relented, and it turned out the story survived quite well without those extra words (though I would like to put a few hundred of them back in if I ever have the chance).
But if the editor wants to change some dialogue and you're sure the character would not say this or that, then we need to discuss this. Being able to give logical reasons for a choice is essential. Playing the style card and refusing to budge is emotion, and you just can't argue with emotion.
Likewise, being able to give a logical reason for an edit is just as important. if the editor can't explain him/herself, or if the only reason he can give is personal preference, it is emotion on part of the editor, and he or she has no business making the writer change something purely for that.
I agree with let's discuss these things. Both editor and writer need to be mature enough not to make it personal.
Mary wrote: "Having edited an anthology (ROAR 6) and been published by a variety of markets (36 mainstream sf/f; 10 furry), I completely disagree with this. There is a culture in furry editing that assumes a s..."You seem to be missing the factor of number of submissions. An anthology may receive 20 submissions. If an editor rejects them because the editor doesn't want to question the editing choices of the authors, then he's rapidly going to few stories to print.
We are not to the point where we receive 700 stories and can simply select the ones that are perfect and merely suffer from a few typos. I've edited five anthologies, and at this point very few stories needed less than two editing passes, and that wasn't just for typos. We're not talking about the Oxford comma, we're talking about "this thing here makes your story weak". Poor endings, unintentionally unsympathetic main characters, stories that don't deliver what they promise. If we followed what you were suggesting, these just would not see print, rather than receive the necessary direction to make them print-worthy.
If it scares "experienced writers", oh well. Because if we don't do it, the non-fandom writers are the only ones we can count on, because the fandom writers sure aren't going to be delivering perfect stories free of non-typo issues.
Rechan -- I took the time to work with several ROAR 6 authors on their stories before I accepted them. However, I also knew where to draw the line. If you have a story in your hands that's already done, don't mess with it just because you're in that habit.It's not a question of scaring experienced writers. It's a question of behaving professionally.
I took the time to work with several ROAR 6 authors on their stories before I accepted them. However, I also knew where to draw the line. If you have a story in your hands that's already done, don't mess with it just because you're in that habit.The stories that I have received needed that editing. Printing them as is would have made the book, and the fandom, look worse, not better. That's not professional to me.
I'm very middle-ground with this article.I've seen authors pull the "this is my style card" several times, and just about every time they've pulled that on me, it's been an excuse for ignorance.
The number one rule of editing, before knowing the rules, knowing the markets, or knowing words, is to "let it go". Sing the song from Frozen if you have to. There are some thing that are just not worth arguing about.
Now, this rule goes for both editors AND authors, which is where my agreement in this post begins. There are a handful of things that will not make print in my anthologies, such as a lack of use of the Oxford comma, wrongful capitalization of improper nouns, the interrobang, and several other things. As an editor, it's part of my job to know when it's absolutely required to use these things, and it's not very common. I can almost guarantee you that other markets, ones that don't show you literally every basic copyedit done on your story, will correct/will have corrected at least one of these things on you without your knowledge.
I must also disagree with you, Mary, at least in part on the "if I've accepted a story, it means that it's functionally completed and just needs a copyedit" (this is, at least, the meaning I took from your words, so feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted you).
I must also point out one final thing in agreement with the post by Voice: If you're submitting a story to an anthology, sure, that's your story, but that's THEIR anthology. If the author doesn't want X thing in their anthology, that's their full right to be able to deny your story for that reason if you stand by it. You may not like it and other authors may not like it, but it's their choice. I also wouldn't fault an editor for kicking someone out of their anthology for being a pain to work with. No one writes a perfect story, and anyone that thinks they do should find the nearest bridge to exit themselves off of.
Now, I do disagree with this for, controversially, many of my own reasons above.
For example, while it may be the editor's/publisher's anthology, it is still the author's story. If the editor is completely unreasonable with simple requests on a consistent basis, it's reasonable to think that the editor has some sort of problem, and that editor may find that others are not willing to keep their story in that anthology.
I also agree with you, Mary, in that if an anthology editor accepts a story, the main story should be pretty much completed. As one who has edited anthologies, I have no problem telling an author that a scene needs to be reworked to fit better. I do, however, have a problem with editors that accept a story but then need to change core mechanics of the story. If you need to change core mechanics post-acceptance, what were you accepting in the first place?
There's one line that James, in one of the comments above, has mentioned, and I'd like to point out: "Both editor and writer need to be mature enough not to make it personal." This is exactly right. When it comes down to it, both the editor and the writer are working to make the story the best it can be. Sometimes the writer will get stubborn because it's their baby and someone else is trying to mess with it. Sometimes the editor will get stubborn because they do (or should) have more knowledge on what does and doesn't work, and also will have the opinion of an outside reader trying to interpret words that are on paper, not in the author's head.
Neither party are arguing out of malice, and both have legitimate reasons for suggesting what they are suggesting. It's up to those two parties to communicate their reasoning.
I'd like to point out one other thing in this regard: while an editor can reject a story because the story doesn't fit within the anthology, I find it perfectly reasonable for an editor to reject (even post-reject) a story because the author has refused changes that the editor makes to keep certain aspects of a story consistent. For an obvious (to most) example, I've seen an author fighting with the editor in an anthology because they didn't think the font choice fit the style of their story. The editor is not going to make one story have a different font than the rest just because you want it. Get over it. The same can be said with sentence spacing. I've had an author specifically argue that their story used two spaces after the period and would not keep their submission active if I didn't respect it staying like that. Easiest rejection of my life. I won't fight you for submitting a story with two spaces after the period, as it's an easy fix on my end, but you can bet on your story only having that one space after their period in the finished product.
I think I covered everything.
Oh, there is one other thing. Mary, you pointed out that "Writers choose their words, punctuation, and sentence structures for a reason". I'd like to put a big asterisk on this, especially in this community, where a large portion of the writers admit to not knowing a lot of the usage rules in the English language. Sure they choose a word, a punctuation mark, or a sentence structure for a reason, but is it always correct, or does it always project the meaning they imply correctly? I wouldn't classify this as a typo, I'd classify this as ignorance, which isn't a bad thing. It just means that it will be corrected, and the author will hopefully learn something in the process, allowing them to choose these things better in future stories.
I'll try to keep my reply short and sweet since my experiences are very limited as both published author and editor.I have a good friend who prefers writing old Victorian style in many of their works. However, their stories would come with a warning, and they fully accept when such a style doesn't suit a publisher's taste. They actually grasp that just because it's their style of choice, that doesn't mean everyone will agree with it. They don't argue such decisions, and only mention it at the start as a head's up, in case it doesn't suit the person's taste. Very respectable, if you ask me.
On the flip-side, I had an ex who constantly, without fail, used this as an excuse to have painfully poor sentence structure. He made constant use of run-on sentences, and would use 'artistic freedom' as an excuse whenever it was pointed out. Anytime anyone would argue that it's a simple disregard of a common rule of grammar, he would bring up this author (can't recall her name now) who wrote an entire book with one or few sentences, as if he was on her level of competance. He was the one who made me absolutely loathe this reasoning.
So I kind of have a hot and cold relationship with this term. As James said, both writer and editor need to be mature about it. When handled well, it's not so much an excuse as a mere warning or explanation that will either be accepted or denied. When abused though, ther are no words to describe how much it can make a person want to shred the document just to relieve some anger.
That last point of Sean's, about authors choosing words incorrectly, is a good one. Not every word is chosen with intention, sometimes the author just grabs something convenient or different because they've been using x word too much. Others, they choose a word without considering the image it conveys. The editor asks them, "Is this intentional?"Recently I had an author refer to a woman's groin as "swampy". His intent was merely grabbing a word that meant hot and moist, not that it was smelly/dirty/full of mosquitos. I suggested he change the word, because the latter is what readers are going to take from it. He facepalmed and changed the word.
My impression has been for a while that furry conflates developmental editing with editorial selection in a way which isn't particularly common outside the fandom. If you hire an editor to help you with your manuscript you're hiring them for developmental editing (story critique and analysis), and if you have a novel accepted by a publisher or an agent you're likely to have some developmental editing done. But magazine and anthology editors traditionally don't do much of that kind of editing at all. They don't have time.I think this is probably a bit afield from Voice's point as I understood it, though, which I might rephrase as "writers shouldn't be so attached to their words that they reject sound advice." Your goal may be to make each of your words a precious snowflake, but they're not automatically precious snowflakes because they're yours. (And Sean's examples about authors trying to dictate typography were kind of banana crazypants.) But as a general rule, by the time an acquisitions editor sees your work, it should already be the best damn snowflake you can make.
I understand Rechan's point about furry editors having to work with a smaller submission pool. But in the long run, that simply doesn't scale. It works with 20 submissions, but it doesn't work with the 70 ROAR got. It wouldn't have worked with the dozens I got for the later issues of Mythagoras back in the day, either. Given the growth in the FWG in just the past two years, my suspicion is that we're going to be trending toward higher submission counts, not lower.
And, at risk of being a little controversial (yeah, I know), people who've sold stories to professional markets and/or taken workshop classes with Nebula winners have valuable insight into what professional editors look for that you simply don't get without that exposure. There are a small number of people in the FWG who are in that class, and when they speak up, it is perhaps best that we not reflexively look for ways to be contrarian about what they're sharing with us.
Once you undertake to write for pay, your art becomes a business. For better or for worse, business decisions need to be made by business standards. Or, to put things more bluntly, he who has the gold (or is in charge of doling out the gold, in this case) makes the rules. An editor/publishing house, as the individual/organization ultimately responsible for the end product, innately has the right to approach this issue any way they wish to. Responsibility and power _must always_ go together or else the whole world spins off its axis. As an author you have the ethical right to either accept an editor's/publishing house's preferences or withdraw your submission. You do _not_ have the ethical right to demand that they run things _your_ way when _you_ will not be the one held either financially or artistically responsible for the results. In other words, if you don't like the way Hardee's makes their burgers then you have the right to take your business to Burger King or Five Guys instead; you do _not_ have the right to either insist that Hardee's run their business to suit your personal prejudices or say Bad Personal Things about their management staff when they choose not to agree with you. The editor and his superiors (if any) have the inherent right to make their own decisions on how to approach not only "style" but many other hot-potato issues; this is and _must be_ one of the basic prerogatives that goes with being in general charge of a publication (or any other business). Their ultimate goal is to make their accountants and managers and investors (or themselves, if they're serving in these roles as well) and customers happy, not their writers. Any other approach would be akin to allowing Burger King's cooks to make the burgers any way they please and expecting the business to be a success regardless. Yes, editors should be civil and patient-- that's common human decency (and applies to fast food leadership as well). But in the end the power is all theirs, and since they bear the ultimate responsibility for their decisions it's right and proper that this should be so. After all, if the book as a whole sucks or is a financial failure, _they_ are the ones who will take the blame. Not the writers.
There are stories that require editing. However, as an editor, you need to think carefully about whether it's a level of editing that the writer is likely to accept. Just as an editor can reject a story, the writer can withdraw it. There are always more markets. A good story will find a home. So, if a story will require a significant amount of work to be suitable for an anthology that you're editing, then you need to be clear about exactly what kind of work needs to be done before accepting the story, so the writer can choose whether your vision for their story is close enough to their own for it to be worth their time to work with you.
Writers choose their words, punctuation, and sentence structures for a reason. Sure, sometimes there are typos. There are gray areas that the writing community argues over -- like the Oxford comma. But as an editor, you must assume that writers care about their words. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of submitting them to you. So, if you're faced with an overall well-written story that makes a few choices that you disagree with, you need to think very carefully about whether those choices are mistakes that need fixing or whether you simply have a different style than the writer. And when it comes down to it, the writer's style should trump the editor's. It is the writer's story.