Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

Anyway, what I'm hearing is "it's the editor, not you."

I'm wondering, and this is probably a stretch, if the editor meant you were writing for yourself, not to tell the story to an audience (whatever or whoever that audience might be). This would be the editor's own view, of course; no idea whether it actually applies to what you wrote.

I have no idea what "writing for yourself" really means, but it's probably being so much in love with your own words they're more important to you than the story itself or the folks you want to tell it to.

That said, "Get another editor" seems like good advice. Or at least find one who can explain the first guy or gal's comment, if you can't get an explanation directly.

bb

"Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self." - Cyril Connolly (who?)

No idea who that guy is, but I agree with him totally: you are the captain of your pen, and you write what you want to write (unless you're commissioned to produce something in particular).

I was wondering if the editor meant being so wrapped up in your own words the story doesn't get told and the audience is left wondering what the hell happened. Even if you were trying to tell a story you knew the audience would love.

I was wondering if the editor meant being so wrapped up in your own words the story doesn't get told and the audience is left wondering what the hell happened. Even if you were trying to tell a story you knew the audience would love.

And a large portion of the job of editor is communications and ego soothing. Every time an editor gives advice, they need to explain their reasoning rather than giving out knee-jerk pat sayings that help no one. If an author doesn't understand your advice, it's as if you offered no advice at all. If they can't explain themselves in an understandable way, then you simply can't work together as a team. The other half of that, is that authors typically get bent out of shape over 'their' words, so editors need to put their egos aside and be able to explain why certain changes are necessary, even if the author initially rejects their arguments.

If an editor tells me something is wrong, I'll often say "No, that doesn't fit the story," but then I'll invite them to argue with me. Often, they'll come back and say "No, it should be this way because of X and Y". If I, as the author, then explain, "I understand that, but this is a personal choice for MY writing, then the editor needs to understand the author is intentionally breaking the rules for effect, rather than simply not understanding what they did wrong. That's when you back off as an editor. Mistakes made in ignorance are bad, but writing "just like everyone else" can be equally as bad. Again, authors typically know their own audiences better than editors who've never read the author's work before.

That said, the claim that authors "love the sound of their own voice" often implies that they write 'flowery prose' which doesn't add much to the plot. Even so, many readers prefer that. I'll often pick up books in a library, read random sentences on random pages, and if the language can captivate me, I'll purchase the book regardless of the content, knowing the writing alone will captivate me. So again, it's knowing your actual audience vs. the editor's desired audience. However, if an editors calls you on your use of language, it's generally time to step back and ask whether you're over doing it. However, if you strongly believe you're using it correctly, then you've got to be willing to stand your ground, to the point of firing your editor if necessary.

Unfortunately, if you fire an assigned editor, you'll end up paying for both that editors time and the time for an entirely new editor to start from scratch, so often we compromise with bad choices because we don't anticipate humongous sales. :(

And a large portion of the job of editor is communications

you bet, Jim and I have some very interesting communications about his edits. I'm still trying to work out why he changed a 'salad sandwich' to a 'tuna salad sandwich' - the story context was they had to feed the MC but didn't want to give him anything nice, thus the bland salad sandwich.

the story context was they had to feed the MC but didn't want to give him anything nice, thus the bland salad sandwich.

In that case, I'd define the context, establishing:

"they gave him some strange Salad sandwich, instead of anything recognizable as food. 'What the hell is this crap?' he demanded."

Just because an editor suggestions something, doesn't mean you have to put it in those exact terms.

Just because an editor suggestions something, doesn't mean you have to put it in those exact terms.

I realise that, I was simply using it as an example of where an editor will, unintentionally, insert their own preferences to a situation in the story because they see something as odd and needing fixing. A situation where communication is needed to keep everyone on the same page.

typo edit

I realise that, I was simply using ti as an example of where an editor will, unintentionally, insert their own preferences to a situation in the story because they see something as odd and needing fixing. A situation where communication is needed to keep everyone on the same page.

Agreed. The communication failure between my editor and I was that the only feedback we'd had over my writing style was almost two years previously, when I first sent a sample edit of 2,000 words (a small sample of my first chapter). I sent her the entire book, and rather than begin with the first chapter to get a feel for my writing style, we didn't communicate again until she delivered the entire finished book, so I never had the opportunity to define my own style, or how I wanted the book to evolve. Since she did the entire thing in one pass, I then felt there was little point in arguing over the various points, since she'd already run roughshod over the entire story, regardless of my own intentions. The fact she never respected me as an author was just a bitter icing on the already spoiled cake.

In the end, if she really thought that little of my writing, she should have turned the entire assignment down and suggest I start with another editor, as it really had little to do with how well I wrote as it did with her expectations of the type of stories that established authors are supposed to write.

I was simply using it as an example of where an editor will, unintentionally, insert their own preferences to a situation in the story

I worked with a developmental/structural editor once. She's published and really good at the structural editing (at least that's what the other authors on wattpad say).

I learned something. The developmental editor brings their own biases/values to the table. She said my heroine wouldn't do what my heroine did and therefore was unrealistic.

Her version of my heroine wouldn't act that way. But my version would. It was a core part of the character (and the plot).

Whenever I explained it, she said I was being defensive and compared me to an author who blasts someone giving them a bad review. Basically, she was right and I was wrong.

She also said one of my heroes couldn't be a hero because he was murdering people in cold blood. I asked her if she ever saw "Death Wish" and she ignored me. In her mind, a vigilante cannot be a hero so I was wrong.

Now back to the topic. She would definitely not be the audience for my novel. The heroine wasn't what she liked in a heroine and she hated one of the heroes. And not to pick on her, when the novel was rejected by Ellora's Cave, the editor said their readership doesn't want the heroine to commit adultery. So they wanted me to change it (making the wife a fiance) for their audience.

Now back to the topic. She would definitely not be the audience for my novel. The heroine wasn't what she liked in a heroine and she hated one of the heroes. And not to pick on her, when the novel was rejected by Ellora's Cave, the editor said their readership doesn't want the heroine to commit adultery. So they wanted me to change it (making the wife a fiance) for their audience.

Technically, that's not a plot hole--what you hire a structural editor to find--instead it's a value judgement, and it involves writing for an expected market (i.e. traditionally published romance novels). That's fine, if that's your explicit market (i.e. you either get published or you don't), but for many of us, we no longer play by those rules. For myself, no traditional publisher would touch my writing with a ten-foot pole simply because I don't write to their expectations (notice my circular logic?). I started writing in the first place to replicate the style of writing I missed from the early 19th century (longer, more complicated, more intelligent sentences rather than the dumbed-down writing encountered since the 1960s). So writing exclusively so I'll be published by a traditional publisher is a fool's errand on my part, and demanding I change my story based on that premise misses the point of my writing entirely.

I wouldn't mind earning a living from my writing, but frankly, it's not what motivates me to write. I'd write if I never sold a book or no one ever read my stories, and the readers who enjoy my books enjoy them because I break the rules. Hell, if everyone who wrote followed each 'rule' (i.e. publisher expectation) explicitly, there would be no point in reading at all!

In my case, if an editor isn't willing to work with you (i.e. they go off in a corner and edit your entire novel on their own, with no feedback from you at all), then run, don't walk, to the nearest exit and get as far away from them as possible! If they don't care what you, the author, thinks of their changes, then they aren't working for you, they're only working for themselves.

Technically, that's not a plot hole--what you hire a structural editor to find--instead it's a value judgement

Structural editors look for more than plot holes. Among other things, they also look to see if the characters are realistic. She said my heroine wasn't. And she said a hero cannot be a murderer.

Now if I were writing for her audience, which is what this thread is about, maybe she would be right. But I learned with my experience with Ellora's Cave that my audience is not the typical romance genre audience.

So maybe the editor referenced in the OP meant that when he said Lugh wasn't writing for an audience -- meaning his story wouldn't be liked by a certain type of reader.

There are conventions for fiction (notice I didn't say rules to avoid the ire of many). There are given ways to do section breaks and specific reasons for having a section break.

Each author's creative side can break any of those conventions. Most won't be successful doing so. Maybe that's what he meant by not writing for an audience.

one individual knew he could not participate in one meeting, so he and another character went off for a bedroom sojourn to pass the time

I understand this is a staple of time management practices.

bb

Less essential is discussing some activity in Vietnam, and subsequently observing the events in that country.

Discussing varying points of view, I'd probably restrict 'events in Vietnam' to come as Presidential status updates as events unfold, with various 'experts' to interpret the events (in accord of their perceptions of the underlying causes). That way you can play off the interdepartmental/interpersonal conflicts between the power players in the Pentagon and the White House.

As far as section breaks, for SOL a simple dividing line is usually sufficient for breaks in either perspective or time. A change in focus or themes requires a chapter break. If several chapters focus on similar themes (such as Vietnam, the election, the Pentagon, Congress, etc.), then it makes sense to break the story up into subsections, with each subsection named (use { t } for each section head, and { p } for each chapter title).

Ernest tends to use more alternate formatting (colors, etc.), but Switch, Ernest and I are all pretty knowledgeable about book formatting (I tend to go overboard with graphical chapter titles and section breaks). If you're interested in publishing options, I'd suggest contacting one of us to discuss details and options.

Of the authors here whom I read, Ernest Bywater seems to make the greatest use of "section delimiting" -- colors, headings, etc. Perhaps that's the model that I need.

This is actually moving well away from the subject of this thread, and deserves on of it's own, so I'm going to start another thread on section marking in stories.

edit to add - it's here:

https://storiesonline.net/d/s2/t1212/section-markings-in-stories-and-why-you-use-them

Self defence can be (justified) murder and if the person was already viewed as a hero..... Was the man who shot Osama bin Laden a murderer or a hero or both?

This is a vigilante. The theme of the story is revenge and he's getting his revenge. He knocks them out, ties them up, and slits their throats when they wake up and he tells them why. Not self-defense.