Barb Caffrey's Blog

While continuing to recover from the latest sinus infection (nastier than most), I thought I’d blog about something I know a great deal about: editing, and editors.

See, some writers tend to think that editors “have it in” for them.  That couldn’t be further from the truth, but you wouldn’t know it by what little tends to get said about editors — most of it being unflattering in the extreme.

Editors work hard to make sure manuscripts make as much sense as they possibly can before they get turned in.  This can mean anything from fixing minor errors to asking questions about important plot points — though some places split the editing job up into three parts (proofreading, copy editing, and “straight editing,” the latter being more about the “macro-edit” of any given piece, while the first two deal with the more mundane particulars), other places don’t.  I tend to call all three things “editing” even though if I’m asked merely to proofread, I don’t tend to bring my skills of “macro-editing” (looking at the piece of writing overall as a gestalt, then trying to improve it to the best piece of writing of which I can conceive), while if I’m being asked to copy-edit, it’s more likely that the “macro-edit” has been done by someone else.

But because all three of these things can be called for on one job (this happens quite often with one of the places I regularly edit for), it helps to get the particulars of any given job narrowed down.  Do not feel silly if you ask questions, because without being willing to look silly at times, you cannot learn.

All that being said, editors often have last-minute changes from a writer (or, in the case of an anthology, writers) to incorporate.  Sometimes, these changes come in after the layout process has started; that can be a particular challenge, one that makes you want to tear your hair out as an editor, but seems to be par for the course in our new, hyped-up digital age.  Writers expect editors to just “go with the flow” and mostly, we do — but when we perform heroic actions to get a book to market despite delays on the writing end, it can get old.

So the next time you think about your editor (or editors), try to remember that editing skills are every bit as important as those a writer employs — and that many editors (if not most) are (or were) writers first.  Editors have a really good understanding of what makes a writer tick, and we’re completely uninterested in stopping the creative process cold — what questions we ask are meant to spur something from you, the writer, that may not be in your manuscript as it stands but that you, the writer, may have thought was there.  In short, editors are there to help you, and most if not all will work with you to improve your manuscript because any editor being employed has the best interests of the manuscript (story, novel, you name it) at heart.  Period.

So if you were one of those I referenced above who thought that editors were “out to get you,” please do yourself a favor and think again.  Because refusing to work with editors is not only counterproductive, it’s unprofessional, and will mark you out as a neophyte sooner than just about anything else.  So do yourself a favor, and work with your editor rather than insisting your manuscript is so wonderful it needs no oversight whatsoever.  (Please?)

——-

Edited to add:  My late husband Michael was one of the best editors I’ve ever been around.  I learned a great deal from him — what to do, what not to do — and it improved my writing immensely because I listened to him and didn’t automatically throw his suggestions out.  I knew Michael was more accomplished than I was when I first started showing him my work — this was before we started dating, much less got married, mind — and from the beginning I was impressed by the depth and breadth of his knowledge and expertise.

You see, editing does not need to be a “zero sum game.”  You don’t need “scorched earth tactics” to get the point across; you can instead use wit and humor, which is what Michael did with anyone he ever edited for — and it worked amazingly well.

Me, I am much more blunt than Michael ever was.  But I try to use some humor as well as pointing out the good points of a manuscript when I edit; this is my ideal.  But when time is short, sometimes the good points don’t get discussed — and that’s when writers get frustrated.

I can see any individual writer’s point, for the most part; he or she has worked very hard on a manuscript (whether it’s a story, novelette, novel, etc.) and here comes Ms. Editor to mark it all up in red.  Then there are the balloons to the side if you’re using MS Word, and if you don’t see any words of encouragement from Ms. Editor, it can seem extremely disheartening and make writers go, “Now, why did I take up this profession again?”

But you must persevere and listen to your editor.  If you have questions regarding an edit, ask your editor — I can’t say this often enough.  Most if not all of us are glad to explain what we’re asking for — we may do it in a blunt way if we’re pressed for time, but we will explain it, and we will not be rude.  (There’s a big difference between “rude” and “blunt.”)

Remember what my late husband Michael did, if you’re editing and can employ this strategy.  It’s not only good manners, but it makes the maximum amount of sense — approaching someone’s manuscript gently, if you have enough time that you can do so, is almost assuredly the best way to go.  (But even Michael, if he were pressed for time, would not explain as much or crack as many jokes during the explanation of his edit.  Because that’s the nature of the job; you need to first get everything taken care of, then you can frame it a little bit so the writer can understand.  But without first taking care of all of the problems, framing is impossible . . . does this make sense?)