It’s the Editor, Stupid
- Posted by: Anne Trubek
- on September 14, 2009 at 6:00 am
While we rethink the future of writing, let’s not forget the people behind the scenes.
Last week I opined about some ways publishers might market themselves during these uncertain times of print. I proposed building brand loyalty, but others believe getting rid of publishers entirely is a better way to go. According to this logic, publishers are simply middlemen who have been rendered unnecessary during these self-publishing, self-promoting times.
The question of whether we need publishers to serve a gatekeeping function misses the mark. Publishing houses are not gatekeepers. They do more than act as a shuttle between the genius an author writes on her laptop and an eager reader. And whether a review is published on paper or in pixels is irrelevant.
What does matter, and matters very much, is editing. Good writing is, more often than not, produced through a collaboration between writer and editor. Many good editors work for online sites. Many poor editors work for print publications. The question is not platform. The question is: Who has good editors?
As I read stories about the death (and future) of print (and writing), it always amazes me how rarely editors are mentioned. Perhaps the paucity of discussion of editing has to do with our conception of editors as invisible enablers. Perhaps it is because good editors are being laid off in horrifying droves. Perhaps it is because currently employed editors worry any such case would be seen as self-serving. Whatever the reason, I wish we would discuss editing more, lauding those who do it well.
A recent controversy over the works of Raymond Carver is instructive. Carver is known as a minimalist, writing in a spare style that helped create the “dirty realism” of the 1980s. His editor was Gordon Lish, a well-known, much respected writer and editor whose work with Carver—as well as Richard Ford, Amy Hempel, Tobias Wolf and others—undoubtedly influenced contemporary American literature. Some claim that Lish wielded his red pen too severely, and against the wishes of Carver. Whichever side you take, the debate highlights the role editing plays in shaping writing. (To see editing in action, read this New Yorker comparison of the first and final version of a story here.)
Sometimes overzealous editing may delete to the detriment of literature, but that is the exception. The rule is that no matter how great a wordsmith you fancy yourself to be, your writing will be improved by a knowing, adept editor.
There are few courses one can take in editing, and few adolescents grow up hoping to become a great editor. Those who have mastered the art of editing, then, are uncommon creatures. I envy them their skill and am enormously grateful for their gifts: I am never more relieved than when my writing lands in the hands of a competent and caring editor, someone who shows me how to rethink ideas and restructure prose. The writings I have published as a result of a strong writer/editor collaboration are my best work, measured both by my satisfaction with them and by reader interest.
So I do not give a whit whether we go all e-booky and internetty with words. I do care, however, that we cultivate and value editors. (Not to mention employ and pay them). For this reason, I am wary of self-publishing and internet start-ups that throw content up on the site willy-nilly.
Writing is too much with us right now. There are too many sites, too many small publications, too many comments upon comments. We did the growing of the web; now we need to do the pruning. The time has come to cull and to prioritize our sites, our publishing, our venues for smart writing. Dare I say our moment is one crying out for editing? To enter the Age of the Edit, we need, well, editors. Now more than ever.
DISCUSSION: 11 Comments
With thanks to Siobahn O’Connor, Andrew Price and Nikhil Swamination.
I whole-heartedly agree. Writers can write to their hearts content, but it’s the editors that get their point across without typos, grammar problems and strange phrasing.I’ve had wonderful and terrible editor. I’d hope that I’m a decent editor myself, since I strive to be supportive and caring as the editors I’ve loved.It’s about more than the words, too. Editors are the last line of defense between the “business” and the writer. They defend what the writer was trying to say and why the story is important.
correction: Swaminathan.
oh golly: let me start over: with thanks to Siobhan O’Connor, Andrew Price and Nikhil Swaminathan
Anne,Your make an excellent point. Editors are so valuable, and being a piece of a multi-person team needed to create worthwhile content, I can’t see how written content could ever be completely free. But that’s another article
I recently did a presentation on my layman’s approach to writing called, “Professional Writing for the Unprofessional Writer” (you can watch it on Slideshare). My fourth ‘discipline’ of writing was to find a good editor- particularly one who knows you well enough to understand what you want to say, and where you’re not quite saying it. This has made all the difference in my own writing. I’ll definitely mention your article in future posts/talks about writing.- Chris
Ahh, another correction: “You make an excellent point.”Unintentional, but another point for editors.
Thank you for singing praise to the editors out there Anne! Indeed great editors have the keen ability to hold the hands of others, never making it awkward or weird so that the person’s hand starts sweating or they avoid your calls. Editors can break your heart while somehow lifting you up. They are
swift and decisive, cutting with no remorse. Yet they delicately
cultivate with great length in order to bring out the best in an
author. Editors are great at hiding things, yet are incredibly honest. Most important, they understand diversity and how to speak to all types of readers, allowing the writer to truly connect with an audience. And they fuel the eyeglass industry, tirelessly damaging their eyes in
the name of great writing.*Also, we MUST give overdue credit to the Copy Editor! Who doesn’t give
a damn about genius advice to the writer or crucial corrections to the flow of an article, but
is the person who knows how to spell every single word, takes pride in finding errors, and makes every editor look good…
Whoa, wonky spacing for some reason above. Which reminds me to praise all the WEB editors out there, who make the letters come together on-screen and understand how to interact with us… A different beast though every bit as talented and important!
As First Reader, an editor is friend of all readers to follow — and there in time to actually do something to improve the reading experience. But first, do no harm!
[...] creativity. Still others argue that creativity has had its heyday; it’s time now to trim the fat: Writing is too much with us right now. There are too many sites, too many small publications, too [...]
To me, that’s the difference between a printed publication – a magazine, especially – and the Web. There are not editors on the Web who identify the best writing, gather the best pieces, and aim to enlighted a particular audience. It’s just everything all over the place. A magazine, on the other hand, is a selection of thoughtfully chosen articles, presented in a compelling and informative way, that an editor hopes will enlighten and entertain the reader in a way that gets her to rush from the mailbox to a quiet place in the house to spend some quality time with the new issue, breathless. I suppose there are good Web sites that do this, and they’re the ones that will survive and thrive. And I work on a digital magazine that tries to do this – tries to make each page of the PDF surprise and delight.But I think creating that experience for the reader – something beyond a database of information – is the way to go. And only editors can make it happen.