Previous | Memories | Tell a Friend | Next
 
Minisinoo
minisinoo
19 June 2003 @ 12:35 am
Editing (or Beta Reading)  
The mark of a good editor is to improve the story the writer wants to tell -- not to force the writer to compose a story that the editor wants to read.

If I had any single bit of advice for editors and beta readers, it would be to keep the above in mind. (And no, that doesn't stem from any feedback I recently received or any frustration with Naomi. Naomi is, in fact, a good editor by the above definition.)

Writing and editing are two different skills. A strong-willed writer can be so subjective that he or she can't BE a good editor! I've known me a few authors who I wouldn't trust editing my stuff if they were the last person on earth. Why? They'd try to turn it into their story, not my story.

It's a fine line to walk, and requires two talents that aren't necessarily essential to writing one's own fiction. First, one must be able to recognize what the author is trying to do (whether or not they're succeeding). And second, one must be able to coherently explain how to do it better, if there's a problem. In fact, an editor may not always recognize what an author IS trying to do, and even a good structural editor can be baffled. The writer may have done such a poor job at conveying his/her goals that it's not clear. Nonetheless ...

A good structural editor will 1) tell what s/he thinks the author is doing, and 2) tell precisely why it works (or doesn't work).

I've had the great good fortune to have some excellent editors, and every single one of them could offer a reason for their critique -- why something did, or didn't, work in a story. This is important to FIXING it, after all. Yet not all authors will listen. Some are too close to their stories. One of the first things any writer must learn is not to take it personally. It's not about YOU. ('You' used quite deliberately.) It's about the story. Even the best author is going to screw up. The trick IS figuring out how to fix it. I love my husband, and he does have a knack for spotting problems in a story -- but he's a crappy editor. Why? Because he can't offer an alternative.

Critique without a constructive alternative is just criticism. It's not editing.

And that leads me to Editor Talent number two ... the ability to explain how to improve a story. It requires an ability to be objective about the subjective, and a flare for teaching itself. There's an old saw, "Those who can't do, teach." That's silly. We may as well say, "Those who can't write, edit." Well, gee -- where would writers be WITHOUT editors? In pretty sad shape, actually.

The plain fact is that both teaching and editing are unique (related) talents, and require clarity in explanation and a gift for dynamic analogy. Most of all, they require an ability to "get out of one's self" in order to see the world as others might. People who are overly subjective are -- frankly -- bad teachers (and bad editors). Those who say teachers teach because they can't do are usually too self-centered, and too subjective, to teach (or edit) in the first place. ;>

The plain truth is this ... if you want to learn to write well, find a good editor or good teacher -- which may or may not be a good writer.
-----------

Incidently, some funny little observations about gender and publishing ... the best editors are often women, and the best agents are often men (even though there are more women agents). Ironically, I happen to have gender reversals on both. My pro editor is male and my agent is female. But (and I can say this because she's never going to see it), as much as I love Linn ... she's not a great agent. My best friend's agent is male, and Russ is GOOD. In editors? Well, I'll probably never desert Peter unless I have to because we mesh so well -- and he's a good editor -- but honestly, the majority of better editors I've met are women. And gents, speaking from long experience in workshops, classes, and groups ... men often take critique less well than ladies. Why? They argue. ;> It becomes a pissing contest, which is tiresome. Remember, it's not about you. It's about the story. Good editing isn't a BATTLE, it's cooperation. (Women can be just as bad, and some men aren't a problem at all, but yeah, on average, men are more likely to give grief than women.)

In writing -- whether male or female -- the wuwei of Taoism applies. To win, you must yield.
 
 
Current Mood: determined
 
9 observations | Muse a Little
 
( Post a new comment )
Ensign McRandom the Swedish Redshirt[info]rebootfromstart on June 19th, 2003 04:27 am (UTC)
okay, it's off-topic, but still...
I wanted to say, I've read the stuff on your site and I love it. You characterise so well, even the characters that most people tend to make two-dimensional or shallow. Some writers don't take the time to get to know the characters they write about, and the stories suffer for it. You do, and it's clear in your work. They're full of emotion and meaning, and the characters live through the words and images that your brilliant work evoke in your readers. You write masterpieces, and you write believable and lifelike characters.
Please keep up your great work; I frequent this site as much as I can, and even when there's nothing new I read over the old stuff. I just love your style of writing, and the way that you portray the people in your stories, even the smallest, unnamed ones.
I've come across a lot of writers, and you are undeniably one of the best I've read.
Minisinoo: peace[info]minisinoo on June 19th, 2003 11:52 am (UTC)
Re: okay, it's off-topic, but still...
(blush, blush) Thank you very much. :-)
BrenK[info]brenk on June 19th, 2003 08:43 am (UTC)
Yes. (Short comment)

On men as editors, I particularly agree. My own husband tends to think that editing's a thing that virtually anybody can do, including himself. Actually, he can't. First, he doesn't know the basics and second, he always has to be right and is weirdly insistant about it all. Dialogue? Nope. I have a male proofreader for some translations, and he also needs to be right all the time and needs to fix, to control, but isn't interested in my reasons *why* I've translated something like I have. In fact every male editor/proofreader I've had tends to look down on translators, particularly female ones. Sad but true. And as for taking critique, same applies to male writers and translators I edit and correct for: they take it all WAY more personally than most female ones. In fact some men (yes, including my husband) are downright rude and can't believe anyone dare correct them or their stuff. They just go indignant and into denial about anything I question rather than looking at something and discussing it. Basically, men seem to think they're as superior in this profession as, for example, the great chefs. Maybe they just shout louder and intimidate (equally talented) women?

Just been gardening and about about to ramble about other editing-type stuff on my own LJ.
Minisinoo: ihatemorning[info]minisinoo on June 19th, 2003 12:38 pm (UTC)
Guys
I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that about male editors. :-) Actually, I have discussed it with other (female) writer friends, and we've all generally agreed that male editors and male writers can be a real pain. (GGG) Maybe it's just the battle of the sexes taken into publishing, but we actually had a joke a workshop a couple years ago. There were these three guys, and they were ALL just driving us crazy and we were cracking jokes about who got stuck with so-and-so that day. I don't know if I notice it more because there are fewer male writers in the first place, so the annoying ones stand out more ... but I don't think so. Percentage-wise, they're more trouble. I asked Mike about it once and (after frowning (g)), he said he thought it was probably a competition thing. Men are taught young to SUCCEED, and getting critique implies you're not succeeding. Kinda like asking for directions when lost. LOL! Men like to be the experts, not the students. At workshops, there's (sometimes) the advantage of being the "instructor" and the guys are (sometimes) younger than me. I can sorta point to my gray hair and my publications and fall back on, "Look, I've been doing this longer than you, I have stories published and you don't, so I think I know what I'm talking about it. If you don't think so, then why are you here in the first place?" I usually put it more politely, but that's what it boils down to. (g)

But with editors, you can't do that. Peter and I get along pretty well because we're used to each other, but when I first started with him, we had some knock-down, drag-outs. I think we finally managed to settle because he DOES do very well what's my weak area -- grammar. He's got that lovely British private school education, though he puts commas all over my manuscripts. (g) (As a Brit, you should get a kick out of that.) But he's also come to respect my ability at structure, which ISN'T his forte. He can do it, and Lord knows, he's saved me from some dumb things, but generally speaking, if he points to something and I give him a good reason for it, he tends to let it be these days. So we've worked it out, and I think he's a good example of an exception to the "male editor" stereotype, but I've heard horror stories about others, and in fact, Peter is the ONLY male editor I've every had that I thought was particularly good. The *worst* editing experience I ever had was from a guy who wanted to turn my story into his story. Extremely annoying. It was for a Review that shall remain nameless. (Short fiction, not my regular publisher, obviously.) But he did NOT understand what I was trying to do with my story and just made hash of it. Totally useless. And I'm not saying that because it was a heavy critique. I'm USED to red all over a manuscript and tend to be suspicious if it comes back too clean. (g) Naomi can tell you I take critique pretty well. But this was just a BAD job, and thank heavens I'd worked with good editors before that, or I'd have been even more upset than I was.

Incidently, I read your own comments on gardening and editing and got a kick out of it. Although I have to say, you would no doubt cringe over my own pathetic attempts to garden. I love to get my hands in the dirt and plant things, but then I tend to take a "fend for yourselves!" attitude. LOL! Poor things. My sister-in-law has the green thumb in the family.
Thorn[info]thornsilver on June 19th, 2003 11:27 am (UTC)
The reason I have raised the question in the first place, is I suspect that I suck as an editor. I cannot read some things (and I would not care to even try to edit them), but, mostly, I really get cought up on the rythm of language. There does not seem to be a point in changing word choice, spelling and punctuation if the story does not flow.

I suspect that most authors would not just go and say that "you suck", which leaves me with a problem. They say, you cannot improve a write, if you do not critique. Can you become a decent beta, if no one critiques you?
Minisinoo: Dani[info]minisinoo on June 19th, 2003 12:16 pm (UTC)
questions
I wasn't sure what question you meant, so I ran off to check your journal. :-)

So, dear writers, I have questions for you.

What does it take to make a good beta? I am not talking about picking out grammar and punctuation mistakes, or demystifying "breath" vs. "breathe". What kind of feedback does beta have to provide to be effective?

To continue the discussion, what kind of feedback do the authors prefer from random readers? Would you say there is a format you find more useful/acceptable?

Hmmm -- I think it varies from writer to writer, depending on what the writer does well. What I tend to need from my editors is grammar. I'm better than average at grammar, just by dint of having been doing it for a long time and having learned several other languages (which DOES help one learn grammar), but compared to a good copy editor, I'm a mess. (g) Yet one of my good friends was a Latin professor for years, and her grammar is better than 98% of most professional copy editors. She corrects them. But structure? She used to send me her manuscripts with a sticky note on the top that said, "Tell me my theme, please." LOL!

I'm a structural editor. I take manuscripts apart and put them back together. Thus, I don't need that kind of editing from others as much. I usually know exactly what I'm trying to do. (Whether I succeed is another matter. (g)) But EVERY author, even the best structural editor in the world, can use another pair of eyes. Sometimes it's just hard to edit yourself.

What IS structural editing? Basically, it's checking the functionality of a story. Does the story work? Plot, characterization? Is the story longer than it needs to be (and what can be axed), or is it too short (has the author 'outlined' as exposition when she should have created a scene)? Does the plot fall down at the end or does it resolve itself well? Are there untucked plot threads? Would a different resolution work better? Etc., etc. And you do it for scenes, too. Sometimes a scene just *bugs* you and you have to sit down and think about what's wrong with it. It could be any number of things: the scene was entered too soon or went on too long, the scene doesn't belong in the place it is and should be moved elsewhere, there's no point to it (it doesn't need to be there at all), or the point-of-view is off, or something about character actions are off ... etc., etc.

As for readers, I like to get feedback of all kinds, so I hate to sound picky: 'Give me this or else!' But in terms of what kind of feedback is MOST useful to me? When a reader tells me what s/he likes about a story, what works for her/him -- or, conversely, what didn't. If a reader was rudely kicked out of a story at some point, it's useful for me to know where, and why.

The biggest help that beta readers (or regular readers) can give to an author is to explain the 'why.' Occasionally people send me feedback that's lengthy and apologize for the length. I don't mind! It may take me a bit longer to get back to the person (since answering short email is always easier than answering long), but long feedback often tells me something about a readers reaction to the story, why it worked for her/him. And even if I don't have anything to say beyond a smilie or a grin, it's still very useful information. A story's author can't always predict reader reactions to it. Sometimes things catch you by surprise. For instance, I never really expected Climb the Wind to become as popular as it did, nor did I foresee (joke intended) the popularity of Frank Placido. So when readers started writing to me about how they loved Frank, I was (pleasantly) surprised.

So what a reader likes about a story (or doesn't like) are important to a writer. :-)
Taz[info]tazical on June 20th, 2003 03:30 pm (UTC)
Just passing through...
Hi! Journal hopping here, but I had to say I totally agree with just about everything you said. I write in the Invisible Man fandom and I actually sought out my beta reader because I knew she was just about the only person that I would trust with my stuff. Not because she could do the job but because she could tell me when I wasn't doing it. She's one of the few that has the confidence to tell me when I'm doing something wrong without being worried about offending me.

I know too many other people that volunteer as betas but either a) try to shape it into their fic (one guy I had once re-wrote entire paragraphs for me and still remains offended that I disregarded his comments) or b) go to the opposite end of the scale and just tell authors that their stuff is 'great' and allow them to post work with glaring grammar or characterization problems because they're too scared of hurting an author's feelings.

I think the trick is communication, as is everything in the writing biz. If you're lucky enough to find a beta that operates on the same level as you regarding how far both of you are willing to accept critiscism then hang on for dear life!
Minisinoo: phoenix[info]minisinoo on June 20th, 2003 08:18 pm (UTC)
Re: Just passing through...
one guy I had once re-wrote entire paragraphs for me and still remains offended that I disregarded his comments

Oh, my god! That's a line in the sand, at least among professional authors. You don't rewrite someone else's story. Now, that said, there are times when something is awkwardly phrased and you may offer a suggestion of how to reword it for clarity. This is more necessary when teaching writing, but everybody can be guilty of the occasional sentence or two that's as clear as mud. :-) Nonetheless, it's usually considered bad form to do major rewrites. The one exception to that is with professional publishing when an editor has been told to do it because the story idea is good, but the execution is poor, in terms of writing skill. Level 3 editing. But that's a rather different ball of wax, and in the professional arena.
Taz[info]tazical on June 21st, 2003 06:21 am (UTC)
Re: Just passing through...
Re-wording I totally agree with. It only becomes a problem when you and your editor are on different levels of sophistication with regards to writing ability. Not that I float around in a ballgown or anything. :o)

The incident I mentioned with the other guy occurred when I wanted something happening but didn't want to spell it out for people. I left it to their imaginations because as a reader, I love it when an author gives me at least some kind of credit for having a brain. I love working things out and I think that's a sign of a confident author, when they know they can get a point across without explicitly stating it.

My editor obviously didn't agree. I got the chapter back and he had completely re-written it for 'clarity' and, yeah, it was terrible. Full of unwanted exposition and bad dialogue that I would have been embarrassed to show anyone. He had filled in the bit that I had intentionally missed out and reading it was pretty much like being slapped in the face with a wet fish. It left no room at all for readers to form their own interpretations and for me, that means a very dull book.

Clarity is one thing, destroying the suspense is another. Sometimes, things can be made a little too clear. I adore my current beta because she doesn't hesitate to kick me when I mix things up (which in my brain, happens frequently ) but she is also aware that I write an awful lot of things that don't make sense until later chapters. When she's not sure if she's meant to understand, she simply writes her immediate reaction on the copy so I can judge if I achieved the effect I was aiming for. That's invaluable for me because I need to know if something that I introduce for a later chapter was noticed or not.

I figure the whole reason most people write fic is so they can tell a story in the way they want. If all we wanted was someone to come along and demand changes then we'd all be getting paid by now ;o)

Taz