Editor Horror stories or how NOT to critique someone else's work

I've said before and I'll say again that you've got to be able to take criticism to be a writer unless you want to leave your work in a (virtual or otherwise) drawer forever. You're never going to write something that everyone loves. However, if you're beta reading/critiquing or professionally editing someone else' work, there are certain things you just shouldn't do. Top of the list should be patronizing.

I've been writing a long time. I was asked to join a group and contribute to an anthology. Sent in a story and had it accepted (won't say which one). A month later, I get my "edited" story with a snarky comment to fix it because it's "all over the place." When I opened it up, one of three editors had almost blanket commented every line in the thing. Among the critiques:

"Exposition" - that's the whole line. Because one can't have so much as a paragraph of exposition in a short story set on a totally different world? Over-exposition, where you do nothing but tell what people think and feel and who they are and never show anything or going on for pages on the history of this and that--obviously too much for a short story and probably a novel. But that's not what we were talking about here.

And then this one: THESAURUS ABUSE! Please, please, please, do yourself a favor and read the dictionary entries on words that I point out thesaurus abuse. Some words are interchangeable and make sense, while others don't. This was over the use of "fret" in a situation where it was meant to discuss someone being vexed, which happens to be the second definition you can find in the dictionary my editor should have picked up. Now, I HATE thesaurus abuse where someone clearly picked up a thesaurus and used a word in a context where it doesn't actually fit or is redundant: "verdant green grass" or a friend "ogling his friend in astonishment" - verdant MEANS green and ogling has a very specific connotation. But I probably haven't used a thesaurus but five times in as many years. So, to be called out for it, especially when the editor is WRONG, is more than infuriating. Other words called out as thesaurus abuse included "fiction," "quit," and "forced affection." The latter is indeed a clumsy term but intended to describe the plight of unwilling prostitutes. Her suggested alternate of "some 'fun'" is NOT the same.

Here's another gem: "thesaurus abuse here. yes, technically it works, but really you're using a 50 dollar word when the 25 cent words would do better." Except that isn't necessarily so. Using precise and evocative language adds texture to prose, helps us define things more clearly, make some parts more specific to a particular character. I can use walk, but tripping, marching, stumbling, trudging all add additional information that walk alone doesn't have and, by using them, I don't have to explain it. I get visuals that walk doesn't have. Sometimes walk is enough. Sometimes it isn't. An editor should know enough extensive vocabulary to know the difference.

And this charmer: "I feel Lofar is supposed to be arrogant, and this is a good chance to show that off, but it's just not jiving well with the rest of his characterization. He's not quite two-dimensional, he's what I call 2.5 dimensional. He has depth... but it's not readily apparent." Y'all are free to provide suggestions as to what a character having 2.5 dimensions is like.

The point isn't that she didn't have anything useful to say. Several of her suggestions were perfectly reasonable changes I'd have no trouble making. But, as in writing, how you say it matters. There are people who critique and edit who use that position to bully and patronize. Speak in absolutes, inflict one's own idea of what's ideal on a writer with a different style. None of that is good.

I'm pretty resilient and I have a good set of self-assurance when it comes to my writing, so I was mostly hacked off at the tone and HER mistakes that she tried to treat as mine (and believe me, you don't want to get patronizing if you're not actually correct). Imagine if I had been a writer just starting out or one that is still very self-conscious (and this anthology was geared to "support" emerging authors) I could readily be crushed or, even worse, feel the urge to cut all my own personality out of my writing in favor of someone else. I don't think I need to tell you how unlikely that is to lead to a good result.
Critiquing and editing are positions of power. Abusing that power gives people who are really helpful, even critically necessary a bad name. And it makes you look hateful and/or stupid. Not a good way to further a career. 

But more than that, this is a writer's work, not yours. You don't get to shape it into your vision, but only help them realize her own. By all means point out problems, even note things you (personally) don't like, but don't confuse that with thinking you are the only arbiter of taste that exists. It has his or her name it; he or she must decide. 

It could lead to responses like my first knee jerk response:

I'm out. Hell no. I will not be accused MULTIPLE times of thesaurus abuse (which is my pet peeve and does NOT mean using descriptive but exact language but rather means looking up similar terms and using words that have subtle meanings at odds with their context or that are redundant). If I had called for running over the verdant green grass or had a friend ogle his buddy in astonishment, such an accusation would fit. Using a precise word that means exactly what I want (as opposed to the alternates you handed me) does not suit me at all. And I don't need to be in your anthology. I have withstood and grown from much more useful criticism than you have to offer; I will not be crushed. I can only marvel at the damage you are inflicting on those more sensitive and not yet self-assured where writing is concerned.

I did not write a story for a sixth grade primer, more's the pity, and my use of language is hardly extraordinary. Or out of keeping with my speaking vocabulary, both of which are the result of years of reading great books. Given that I still have to look up about every tenth word Poe wrote. I suppose you'd tell him not to quit his day job.

But I'm not going to have my story included in a collection where one of the editor's chief complaints is that we didn't dumb down the language enough to suit her.

I'm out. I have no trouble, actually, placing my stories in other anthologies and will find a home for this where, hopefully, they won't be interested it in simplifying the charm out of it.

I didn't send it because I'm a professional, but I did remove my story from the anthology and, believe me, that's just as bad.

Also, as an FYI, if you're looking to get started as a professional editor, spamming prospective clients via PM every few days is a good way to get yourself blocked.

Read more...

Not In the Mood to Edit

Editing is one of those inevitable things with writing, where you go back and fix and polish your work. I've talked about reading things out loud and about letting it set a bit. What I haven't done is tell you when you shouldn't be editing.

See, when writing is ready to come out, you can't stop it. And, at least in my case, when it's not in me, I can't write. There's no right or wrong time. I write because I have to.

But editing is something else. It's hard to look at your own work with fresh eyes and try to figure out what's wrong with it. Even if you've managed to detach yourself enough to be (fairly) objective, you know what you were trying to convey, why the characters act the way they do, what you meant to say. Many times I miss whole words I'd forgotten to write in the heat of writing it down the first time and my mind automatically supplies them when I edit. Very embarrassing, some of those slips are.

It's necessary, time-consuming, and rarely fun, at least for me. But, no matter the urge to get it over with, I've discovered there are two times I should leave it be a bit longer:

(a) When it sounds perfect
(b) When it sounds like unadulterated crap

If I feel either way when I start, where everything is perfect or everything sucks royally, I'll know I'm too close to it for whatever reason. I'll need perspective or what editing I do will be warped.

'Cause, in the end, it's not about feeling good about it; it's about making something good.

Read more...

Keep Your Details Straight

When I write a short story, I frequently write it in one sitting. Maybe a couple. If I can't remember the color of a character's eyes or what I called her pet tiger, it's only a few "page ups" away. Keeping track of characteristics and familiars and skills, etc. generally isn't that difficult.

That can change when you write a book, especially if, like me, you have large casts of characters. I can remember their characteristics, of course, what makes them characters. But, over the course of the weeks, months, even years it takes me to write them down, I can forget eye colors or ages or even names. Actually, I have a real problem with names. It's a considerable failing.

Few things jar an interested reader like having a familiar change from Wistful to Weapon (or worse, back again) before the book is over. Someone left-handed should bloody well stay left handed. Scars and limps should stay where first described. Short people should stay short and old people should stay old.

With my first novel, which had a substantial ensemble cast, I actually wrote up a who's who, which kept familiar names straight and who was married to whom - very important when having a group of mates off to rescue their other halves. I'm including it with the book because, on the very few times I've run into things like that in a book, I've appreciated it, especially if, as I did with Curse of the Jenri, the book bounces from one character's part of the story to the other.

With only a few characters, of course, it's less important. But I have cheat sheets for the ones with big casts, including height, gender, talents and alter animal for my shapechangers in Beast Within and special skill in the group of characters in The Guardian.

I suspect, for those who favor plot-driven books, rather than character oriented novels, especially those with a tight plot, similar notes might be used to keep all the threads carefully groomed, leaving no strands dangling in the end.

Details matter.

Read more...

Holding Pattern

On the last post, many commented on the fact they also include a waiting period from the time they stop writing to the time they start revising.

I could not agree more.

Too many times, I've seen writers far more interested in "getting published" than in doing great work. They have their friends look it over, make changes on the fly, and send it out the following day. OK, you can do that if you've got someone looking for typos or a few poorly chosen words when it's otherwise "finished." But, if you're making major revisions and then hustling it out the door, you'd better be the Mozart of the spoken word or you're in for an ugly surprise.

Perhaps my attitude on this is influenced by the fact that I never read anything that sounded anywhere near finished and/or good that someone was in a hurry to send off to agents and/or publishers. I'd be slogging through an MS (back when I was in "writer's groups" on-line), thinking, "When she does the next revision, she so needs to fix the dialog," or "This makes no sense. I hope he fixes this during the next revision." I'd make comments, as encouragingly as I could, but they'd boil down to, "Seriously, read this dialog out loud because it's stilted and clumsy," and "What possible motivation would someone have to do this?" Why would I say that? Because, if you review something without being honest, it's worse than no review at all. But that's another post.

Sometimes, one of my talented friends will send me something where my reaction is, "Damn, send it!" But it's because they're sending me something that's effectively (if not already) finished.

The thing is, I feel strongly that one shouldn't rush writing. That doesn't always apply. Journalists have to get something in by a date. College students, perhaps some freelancers and, of course, people who have already agreed in advance to write book(s). Heck, I've got a paper for a conference I need to be kicking out yesterday.

But, when I'm trying to get my foot in the door, there's no advantage to becoming memorable because of the slipshod incoherent ramblings often found in early drafts. I want to put my best foot forward and it's better to send one thing late in the game but have it one's best work than to try to wear someone down by sending one piece of crap after another. In fact, that's a good way to get someone tossing one's stuff unread so that, if you ever do get to writing well, no one is willing to read it.

What does that have to do with a waiting period? It's a matter of perspective. When I'm writing furiously (because I tend to write furiously or not at all), I'm either in the white-hot phase of inspiration where everything comes out sounding like ambrosia to me or I'm slogging through something challenging that I'm sick to death of. Either way, if I turn around and start revising right then, my perspective will be skewed. If my baby's still beautiful, I'll be finding excuses on why an awkward phrasing is hilariously worth the confusion or wanting to add more flowing passages to areas that would do better to be made leaner rather than more eloquent. If, however, I've say been reading a master and therefore have decided I'm a lame hack who shouldn't be wasting her time writing, everything will sound terrible. I'll be tempted to chuck the whole thing.

I know. I've been there.

What I need is time, time to get excited about either other writing projects or life, time to forget why I did some things in this novel. That way, when I pick it back up, I can tell that I've glossed over some logical leaps or failed to explain something because it was obvious to me (since I already know all). I stand a much better chance of appreciating what actually works and becoming ruthless with what doesn't. It's still painful, of course, but I've gained enough distance that it's not like tearing myself apart.

And I'd tell anyone writing the same thing. Get some distance. How long? I say two weeks is the barest minimum. Two months is better. I take longer if I can manage.

Read more...

The Ultimate Editing Tool

Over the years, I have done a lot of editing, revising, rewriting, and all. It's a great deal of work and sometimes very frustrating. It doesn't have the same appeal, at least for me, than creating the world in the first place. But it's absolutely necessary if one strives for excellence.

Having said that, it's always nice to fix something and make it better. Over time, I'm likely to go over it multiple times. And I have some fantastic people who take the time to read over it and give me comments - I've had my eyes opened to many things from thoughtful reviewers.

Still, of all the tricks and methods I use to clean up and polish my work, nothing helps me find typos and grammatical errors, nothing highlights out an awkward sentence, nothing ensures dialog that sounds real like taking the effort to read it out loud.

I've always read my work out loud. It's essential when you write rhyme/rhythm poetry, as I did in high school, to read it out loud. That kind of poetry (and, in my opinion, all poetry) is best when read aloud...or it probably isn't very good poetry.

When I moved on to short stories, I found that reading aloud was just as helpful. My husband of the time wasn't fond of listening, so I didn't write much, but, when I did, I'd hole up somewhere and read it out loud. Always.

My relationship with Lee has really changed things. He not only lets me read it out loud, he likes it. He listens. Reading things out loud to someone receptive and listening, someone interested, someone brilliant (and opinionated), is far more useful than reading to oneself. The humorous parts stand out, of course, but the reaction, the interplay, makes polishing not only more effective, but far more fun.

I wouldn't want to edit any other way.

Read more...