When I was about five or six, I was in a PE class; the teacher put on some music and made the whole class run around in circles pretending to be different animals. At that age, I had no fear of looking foolish and had a well-developed imagination I was well-used to indulging. When the call came for us to “become” beautiful butterflies, I spread my wings and soared around the room. I distinctly remember believing I could see sun-dappled gardens around me. 
Boy, did I come crashing back down to earth when an irritated voice screeched my name across the room.
I hadn’t followed instructions. Real butterflies, as it turned out, did not fly that way; I was holding my arms wrong.
The teacher was unimpressed with my “creativity”. She couldn’t see my shimmering wings. I was similarly unimpressed – I couldn’t fly with her stunted vision.
We were both dissatisfied.
When it comes to working with an editor for the first time, many writers are, understandably, nervous. Writing is an essentially solitary business, and for a lot of people this might even be the first time they have let anyone outside of close friends and family read their work. Few know what to expect. While there is always the hope that the editor is going to return the manuscript with assurances that it is word-perfect and a guaranteed best-seller; there is the much greater fear of being mocked, laughed at, told to give up this silly dream of writing and leave it to the professionals. And of course, there is the fear that the editor will take over, that they will not understand the writer’s vision, or they will rewrite the manuscript and the writer will lose control.
Writing, then, takes a certain level of courage. First you must be brave enough to let loose and pour your heart out onto the page or screen in the first place. Then you must be brave enough to hand that creation over to a stranger and trust that they will not only take care of it, but that they will treat you and your feelings with kindness and respect as well.
It can be difficult for writers not to lose confidence during the editing process, particularly the first time they receive a manuscript back full of pencilled (or track-changed) crossings out and comments and queries. Every mark can appear to be a criticism. It’s important to remember, however, why the editor is there. Ideally, the editor should help make sure that the idea that the author has in their head is the same one that ends up clearly on the page; that the story ends up being the best that it can be.
The editor is not there to give their personal vision of the author’s story; they’re there to ensure the author’s own vision is clearly conveyed. The voice, the style, the essence of the story should all remain the same. The editor is not there to interrupt the creative process or to take over but simply to ease the flow of the words across the page and smooth the edges.
The message to writers is the same as it was for six year-old me: guidance can be good, as long as it doesn’t stifle your creativity (but don’t get in trouble with the authorities).
Have you worked with an editor (or are you an editor)? What’s your experience? Do you have any horror stories? Or success stories?
Do I need to read the article to work out of the heading needs punctuation or not?
*if
Why is there an increased chance of typos when trying to correct someone else’s post?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Natalie Costa Bir. Natalie Costa Bir said: RT @BothersomeWords: Editing a writer's vision: http://bit.ly/he312R [...]
I’m an editor and this is one of the things I’ve been learning in the last couple of years, walking the line of authenticity.
I read that Michelangelo believed he ‘freed David’ from the marble rather than carved him… and I like to think that is one of my roles as editor, to help the writer free the story/their vision.
And as an editor you have to know what is negotiable and what is non-negotiable in a writer’s work. Last year I worked with a wonderful young writer who has a very clear and articulated political views. I also knew this was a story which meant a lot to him – a story he’d waited four years to tell.
So when the draft hit my desk I was caught. The story needed serious work, but I was able to base my comments and suggested changes, couched in his vision for the story. I asked him to do an almost complete rewrite and over the course of three weeks we cut, and change, altered the voice, changed the pacing. In the end the political message was clear, but subtle. I cry every time I read the story – the impact lingers – the travesty faced by that character.
I would never have asked him to change the message he wanted to convey and because he knew that, he was willing to allow me to be ruthless with his actual writing.
It is the one story in the past three years where it could have gone terribly pear-shaped… but knowing his vision and remaining authentic to it, meant we both came out of it, better for having done the hard yards. And the story remains something we’re both very proud of.
Looking forward to reading more blogs from you. Will be great to have a fellow editor (in the same time zone) putting their thoughts out there…
I love that image, Jodi, of the editor helping the writer free their story the same way an artist frees a sculpture. In many ways it can be the same – chipping away unnecessary parts to reveal the hidden vision. Some days the editor helps guide the chisel, some days they’re just a thread in the finely textured cloth that adds the final sheen to an otherwise perfect work.
I know what you mean about being moved by a piece of writing you have worked on with someone, too. Even when it is something that may not reflect your own beliefs. As an editor I become completely absorbed by the writing I am working on. I tend to take on the voice of the author and characters for the time that I am editing those pieces. While there will always be part of me functioning as “reader”, looking out for the bits that may jar or upset in some way, I will absolutely work to the voice and nature of the work. At the end of it, even if the edit was particularly tough (for both of us!), there is not one book or publication I don’t look back on without some sort of pull.
Of course, you also have to keep in mind the audience, the publisher (who may have their own ideas about what is suitable and appropriate), and the marketability of the work, and that’s the fine line you tread when the author might have some confronting views. But then, I suppose an editor’s role is to be true to the author and the work, while keeping those things in mind. And part of that role is to BE the objective outsider who can also get “inside” the work.
Thinking of sculpting… it is a great way to explain to new writers the editing process… the hard, hitting chunks which fall away during a structural edits, the more precise chiseling of the line edit and then the final spit and polish of a proof read.
Oh, I think I’m creating my own blog fodder here.
I guess I am lucky that I work for myself, so I am editing to the requirements of what I want to published. A bit of a blessed position I guess (if you don’t take into consideration the hours spent formatting, typesetting etc) because I only need to balance my needs with the needs of the writer.
I have started to look a lot closer at the thank yous in the books I read, to see just what they say about the editor. It has to be the most invisible job of all… and if our work is invisible then we have indeed done our job to the best of our abilities… we have crawled into the characters, the action, the narrative to the point where is is seamless. I guess this is why I was so disappointed and upset with the last lot of editing done on my work… it was so obvious where my writing stopped and the editing began. It felt like a hatchet rather than a thin blade.
So thumbs up to the visibility of the vision (gosh, that’s terrible!) and the invisibility of the beautiful razorblade (as my writers have dubbed my editing)
It IS a handy explanation, Jodi. A lot of new writers preparing their manuscripts for submissions do tend to start out a little defensively with: “My manuscript is x words long and I am pretty sure I need all of them…”.
I don’t blame them at all for being nervous or defensive, but it is our job to reassure them that cuts can be made to shape and reinforce, rather than damage the work.
Of course, there may be times, as you have experienced, when an editor’s vision doesn’t match with the author’s. I think it is important for both author and editor to be comfortable enough to speak up when something isn’t working. And it is very important for an author to know when they can reject an editor’s changes – which is a subject for another post.
I always find that the best pieces of work come out of a disagreement between writer and editor on what the vision is, as long, as both editor and writer are able to work through it. In the to and fro the vision seems to solidify, or the clouds clear so it can be cearly seen.
I learnt a lot in my first year editing, and mostly from the writers who were open to having a dialogue about their work.
That’s the other thing about editing – it is a dialogue between two people. It is not a writer telling an editor “this is what they want” full stop. Or an editor telling a writer “This is what they have to do” full stop. The easiest writers to work with are those who have been edited before.
[...] editor, as explained in previous posts, is there to help the author get the story in their head out on the page. Obviously the more [...]
Awesome blog, sound information, and very accurate.
Ever considered publishing for a magazine? A colleague
of mine told me that it is not so difficult to turn article writing into magazine writing.
You can find magazines on everything as of late.
No biggie, just thought I’d bring it up considering how impressed I was with your site.