Tag Archives: writers

Observations of a new editor

Posted on by Sherri
13

So I have this editing job. I haven’t decided yet if it’s a good idea to associate my writer persona with my editing persona, so I won’t be linking to or mentioning the company by name in this post. I’ve learned some things that would benefit my author friends, so I thought I’d share in a vague, generic way.

First of all, it’s not like a critique. In a critique you can say things like, “I can’t follow the action in this scene,” and then leave it up to the author to figure out why. That’s perfectly acceptable, because as the critic you’re doing the author a favor, and they’ll take what you have to offer. As an editor, I have to figure out exactly what confuses me about the action, and then say that. Saying it is the hard part. If I do my job right, the solution will be obvious to the author, even if I haven’t suggested a solution. Which ties in with my next point.

Editing is a balance of telling the author what to do and letting her decide how to do it. Except in the case of punctuation, where there is a right way and a wrong way, but even then if she feels strongly about leaving out a specific comma, that’s ultimately her decision. I have to be very careful about rewriting anything. If I can’t move around phrases she’s already used to fix it, I leave a suggested fix in a comment, then she can either take my advice as is, change it another way, or tell me to take a flying leap. Although the last one on that list might be counter-productive, since I’m an impartial observer (or at least as impartial as anyone can be), and I’m only here to make her look better. Which leads to…

The editor is there to correct mistakes, no doubt. But among some authors there’s this attitude of, “So I don’t know how to punctuate a sentence correctly, that’s what editors are for.” Let me take a moment to point out I’ve not yet edited an author with this attitude, but I’ve seen it around in the blogosphere. But let me tell you something, dear authors, this attitude is stupid. STUPID. If my harsh words pull one author away from this abyss, they will be worth it. Not only is it good to know your craft inside and out for your craft’s sake, but there’s a practical purpose for knowing the nuts and bolts, and then putting them into practice BEFORE sending it to your editor.

If I have your manuscript for 20 days, and I spend the full 20 helping you polish your words, you are going to have one tight, well-written book. A tight, well-written book will increase your reputation, generate better word-of-mouth, ergo selling more books and creating more fans. However, if I have to spend seven of those days correcting hundreds or even thousands of typos which could easily have been found before the ms came to me, then you are getting only 13 days of word polishing. We might only have time for plot and eliminating confusion, and very little time for word choices and flow.

So those are the observations I have so far. I’m sure I’ll have more as I go along, and maybe even change my mind about some of those up there. (Except for the last one. Since I basically called everyone who doesn’t agree with me an idiot I’ll have to stick by it. It’s true anyway.) I’m getting the education of a lifetime, being on this side of things.

Re-working the About Me

Posted on by Sherri
10

The boy’s home sick today, one of those borderline illnesses where he’s not feeling terrible, but he’s contagious too. Since today’s the last day befor Fall Break, I decided to keep him home. You’re welcome, classmates.

I’m working on bringing some maturity and professionalism to the blog. Not a lot, mind you, just enough so when editors come here they don’t shriek and click away. I think I need to re-do my “about”, including bio and contact info. I came across this post about author websites from the point of view of an unpaid intern, and it reminded me that professionals who visit my site looking for information about me as an author don’t want to wade through posts about my sinuses, nor do they want to read my sad attempts at political diatribe. They want to know about my books, my experience, how to contact me, and how to contact my agent (though if they’re here it’s probably because she contacted them first).

I thought about creating two pages, one for editors and one for regular folks, the thought being that the info relevant to a visiting professional wouldn’t be buried within the site, but visible on the front page. Under each page would be sub-pages, the editor page having the professional info–contact, book descriptions, links to relevant posts, etc–and the regular folks page having the talky traditional About Me, and all the social media contact stuff. There may be some overlap.

Another thought is to have one About Me that everyone would visit, and on that page have a link for editors to click if they want. The goal is to make it easy for everybody to find what they want.

What do you think? I haven’t seen much besides the single About Me, with a vague outline of the blogger’s interests and location. I’d be grateful for a link to examples of other types.

Internet privacy? Ain’t no such thing.

Posted on by Sherri
9

So cleaning up the old posts on the blog got me to thinking about privacy on the Internet. Basically, there is none. Right? Google knows your every search and much turn that data over to authorities if presented with a court order. The ghost of the blog you deleted 3 years ago still lurks on its servers, and possibly other places like another individual’s computer–Google Reader is web-based, but FeedReader stores the files on the reader’s computer. Pedophiles troll the Internet looking for pictures of your children. You’re a celebrity, you just don’t know it.

And there is why I’m streamlining and culling this blog. When I started it I was a budding writer, rosy-cheeked and wide-eyed, finishing up my first book. I absolutely knew nobody in the world would read my blog. I imagined a cloak of invisibility based on my self-perceived importance in the blogisphere, which was no importance whatsoever. It was fine and dandy for me to shout out my writer’s angst, the struggles of finishing a manuscript, and following that, the struggles of form rejections from agents. Then I got an agent, and while I had the feeling things should change, I wasn’t sure what, exactly.

And no, I haven’t had huge rants about the inanity of any certain industry professional, nor have I given scathing reviews of any books. But I’m starting to get uncomfortable talking about the process at all. I find myself reluctant to mention anything about my writing, yet sometimes I still force myself to, because this is a writer’s blog… But I’m going to stop that. I will talk about writing in more general terms, which in the long run will probably snag more readers anyway.

The general idea in the comments yesterday was that a blog represents the road you’ve walked, and it’s nice to have that history for people to peruse. Only thing is, if I look at someone’s archives and find in January ’07 a rant against stay-at-home moms, that’s going to affect how I see that person’s present personality, even if they made peace with the SAHM who was giving them problems in January ’07 and that rant no longer applies.

I’m not the wide-eyed, over-sharing, timid person I was 3 1/2 years ago. This is my career blog, with my name on it for all the world to see. At this point, I want the blog to reflect what I’ve learned, not how I learned it.

The artist behind the art

Posted on by Sherri
18

I enjoyed reading everyone’s opinions on yesterday’s post. I’m not a debater, but I’m fascinated so please continue.

My husband and I had a rare day off together with the kids in school. We visited the Mabee-Gerrer Museum in Shawnee, an eclectic collection of art and artifacts donated by a worldly a Catholic monk, who was an artist himself.

I realized something while examining the exhibits: I love seeing the evidence of the artist in the art. The brush strokes, the finger prints, the globs of paint, crooked lines you can only see up close…Those are the things that I love to find. I noticed several years ago that when watching a scene with an actor incidentally reflected in a background mirror, I will watch the mirror instead of the foreground. I feel like the person rather than the actor is revealed in the reflection. The actor is presenting his face, a mask for the scene, and the back side is the real him. Guess that’s weird, but I guess it’s along the same lines of loving an artist’s mistakes. It’s about revealing the person underneath the art.

And the same can be said of writers. All of them, published novelists, wannabes, bloggers…If a piece of writing interests me, I want to know all about the author. Figure out how the particular piece germinated. Don’t you?