Thoughts on Being an Editor

It's an interesting phenomenon, I think, that it is held to be universal truth that writers hate editors and editors hate writers. The belief is that writers feel editors try to stifle them and nitpick about the most trivial of details (including grammar, by golly!) and that editors feel writers don't pay enough attention to mechanics and plot in favor of going off in tangents and flowery prose.

Well now.

I can't attest to the accuracy of these perceptions in the fiction-writing industry, because I very much enjoy working with the lovely Jeigh Lynn, Eve Vaughn, Willa Okati, and Alicia Sparks, but I know there is a bit of truth to these observations from my personal experiences at the day job -- however, that's another topic altogether.

So, what does it mean for me to be an editor and what does it mean if you end up chained to my red pen (or my tracked changes, as may be)?

Livy's Approach to Editing

First and foremost, my job is to make a writer's story the best it can possibly be to the utmost of both our abilities. That means taking the tale and fine-tuning it in such a way as to bring out its very greatest qualities -- while keeping the author's voice. That's right: while keeping the author's voice. My job is not to write the story for the author but to tweak the manuscript with him/her so that it keeps its originality and maintains the writer's vision. It's a delicate balance but a very important one.

It's also my personal belief that the relationship between writer and editor should be that of a partnership, with mutual respect. We're supposed to be a team working toward a common goal, which is getting a manuscript into tiptop shape and published. To have an adversarial relationship, where we're both at daggers drawn, is not only inconducive toward that goal, but also adversely affects communication, efficiency, and organization. I can guarantee that everyone -- and the story -- suffers.

Communication is key. It sounds trite, but it happens to be true. Given that words can be misunderstood or ideas not clearly drawn when one is not aided by actual tone of voice or facial expression, clarification needs to be requested before criticism is leveled or feelings are hurt. When I am confused about a plotline or word choice, etc, I freely admit it. I'm not an egomaniac who can't admit that I don't understand something and neither should any writer or editor be afraid to do so.

As a corollary to communication being key, this means that when giving direction, be specific. If I believe something can be improved, I offer suggestions as to what I think can be changed and why. It's not particularly helpful to just make a comment without explaining why a revision should be made and/or not demonstrating how it can be made. I've found that more times than not, once you've got the wagon rolling with these explanations, you end up having to make them less and less because the author pays closer attention to other similar areas. Authors learn from editors and editors learn from authors.

And that's basically it. Pretty simple, isn't it?


As an addendum, Eve Vaughn suggested that I work for a NY publishing house... care to write Cindy Hwang at Berkeley and recommend me? She's Angela Knight and MaryJanice Davidson's editor there. :-D