The Writer’s Life
By John Vorhaus | November 29, 2010 |
WRITERS AND EDITORS
“Good, but needs work.” That’s the only note my first writing teacher ever gave to anyone, and man it pissed me off. Wasn’t he paying attention? Then I realized that, for a young writer trying to improve, “Good, but needs work” was pretty much all the edit I needed because my work was always good if it was growing, and it always needed work till it was grown.
Beyond “good, but needs work,” though, a writer needs a clear-eyed, forceful, well-informed and articulate editor to help her hone her skills. Of course, needing this thing and wanting this thing are two different things. What we want as writers is someone to tell us that every word we’ve written is brilliant, perfect, pure gold. What we need is someone to tell us just the opposite, for the indispensable purpose of moving the work, closer by degrees and agonizing steps, to something approximating gold.
From working with editors and also working as an editor, I have found that, like a writing partnership, the writer/editor relationship requires honesty, vulnerability, openness and devout service to the work. I believe you can grow by being this kind of writer. I know you can make a living being this kind of editor.
So here’s a little writer/editor reference guide, some things to think about as you and your editor get involved. “Good, but needs work” is only the beginning.
THE WRITER/EDITOR RELATIONSHIP
This relationship can trigger approach/avoidance conflict in both the writer and the editor. The writer wants and needs an editor’s input, but fears rejection. The editor wants to help, but dreads being the bearer of bad news.
THE WRITER’S ROLE
Writers do the heavy lifting. They take the material as far as they can on their own, and then turn to an editor for help. The work should be far enough along that the editor can comment meaningfully upon it, but not so far along that everything is set in stone in the writer’s mind.
THE EDITOR’S ROLE
Editors find problems. That’s their job. Problems in outline, manuscript, characters, jokes, structure, dialogue, thought, intent, clarity, marketability, whatever. Editors tell writers what’s working, but mostly they tell them what’s not. And editor with nothing but good news is not much use to a writer.
WHEN THE EDITOR IS NOT THE BUYER
When the editor is a writer’s (paid or unpaid) advisor, then the writer has the freedom to accept or reject the editor’s suggestions. It’s important for writers and editors in this relationship to remember that the writer has the final say.
WHEN THE EDITOR IS THE BUYER
When the editor is also the buyer, the situation changes. A writer for hire must be prepared to yield authority with grace. Many writers do not understand this, or resist it for reasons of fear and ego. This can be counter-productive to a writer’s career. Not to put too fine a point on it, some of the most valid writing is the signature on the check.
WHAT A WRITER LOOKS FOR IN AN EDITOR
The perfect writer’s editor is someone who gives fast, complete, articulate and detailed notes. Writers need editors who can go beyond “I like this” or “that doesn’t work” and really get into the specifics of the material. Writers also like editors who can give bad news gently, but this should not be a requisite.
WHAT AN EDITOR LOOKS FOR IN A WRITER
Editors need writers who are flexible, creative, willing to listen, and eager for new ideas. Editors like writers who understand that there’s more than one right answer. Above all, editors want writers who serve the work.
GOAL OF THE EDITING PROCESS
At every step, the goal of the editing process should be to improve the material. This is not about judging the work and declaring it good or bad. It’s about taking it from where it is to where it potentially can go. Another goal of the process is to improve the process, so that the next edit is easier, more informed and more effective than the last.
WHY WRITERS RESIST
Good editors come in with fresh perspective and give their writers a clear sense of where the material is working and where it’s not. Many writers want and need their editor’s input, but resist rewriting just the same. Ego is part of it, but a strong desire to just move on is probably the controlling emotion. If you’re ready to let yourself off the hook before your editor is, listen to your editor and stay on the hook a while longer. Your work will be glad you did.
DEALING WITH CRITICISM
Writers taking criticism have a choice of two filters. The “judgment” filter asks, “How does this criticism make me feel?” The “process” filter asks, “How can I use this information to improve what I’m trying to write?” Writers deal effectively with criticism when they absorb information through the process filter, and give the judgment filter the afternoon off.
GIVING NOTES EFFECTIVELY
Editors give effective notes by being detailed, complete and precise, by offering the thoughts behind and the reasons for their opinions. Editors help writers by always making it clear that their mission is simply to help the work reach its best destination.
RECEIVING NOTES PRODUCTIVELY
Writers take notes effectively when they… listen. Simply listen. Never argue or explain, just listen. Take the notes on board, and deal with them as a source of information, data and possible solutions to the problems at hand. Never forget that your editor is there to help, not hurt.
SERVING THE WORK VERSUS SERVING THE EGO
For reasons of focus and clarity, it’s more productive to serve the work than to defend the ego. Paradoxically, the more a writer serves the work, the better the work becomes. Later, when the work has improved, you feel good. Thus you can actually serve your ego by ignoring it.
Around here we have a saying, “Save your ego for the awards ceremony. ” That’s the second-most powerful key to the writer/editor relationship. Here’s the first most powerful one: “Every level of development is merely a platform upon which we stand to reach the next level.” Bearing this truth in mind, you can hold onto what works, surrender what needs surrendering, and use the writer/editor relationship to help close the gap between the writer you are and the writer you want to be.
John Vorhaus has written seven novels, including Lucy in the Sky, The California Roll, The Albuquerque Turkey and The Texas Twist, plus the Killer Poker series and (with Annie Duke) Decide to Play Great Poker. His books on writing include The Comic Toolbox, How to Write Good and Creativity Rules!
This is the best post I have seen on the writer/editor relationship. Well done!
One issue I see missing from this list is to take the time to put yourself in the hands of an editor that is in synch with your temperment and the goals of your work. It should be a collaboration, not a test of wills. Although I have read of successful pairings of writer/editor that were contentious, I think that is a hard way to live your writing life. I relate completely to your point titled ‘Review notes productively’ as the sub-theme is that respect and serious hearing and understanding must be given to comments but not ALL need be slavishly accepted. It is, after all, the writer’s work and the essence must be preserved or it becomes, simply, someone else’s work.
I agree this is the best description of the editor/writer relationship I’ve seen.
Well done. I only wish the extent of this list could be followed by both parties during the process and not deviated by either to serve personal agendas.
I’ve heard horror stories.
Just saying…
Thanks,
Daryl
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Todd Rutherford, Daryl Sedore, AnaD, 40k, Rusty Fischer and others. Rusty Fischer said: RT @PublishingGuru: THE WRITER’S LIFE https://bit.ly/eOnrq6 […]
I have learned so much from my first experience working with an editor and have been fortunate to have someone who can both encourage me and push my work until the story improves. The book is no longer mine alone. It’s better because of this.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jordan Deen, Riley Carney and George Angus, Riley Carney. Riley Carney said: Helpful Post: The Writer's Life – a reference guide on the writer/editor relationship https://ow.ly/3gNRj […]
I’ve heard the anecdote before of the writer who stubbornly refuses to heed the editor’s advice, so I guess it must really happen. Frankly, I don’t get that. There’s one line I see over and over again on authors’ acknowledgment pages and it’s this: “Thank you to [editor] for helping me make my story better than I ever imagined it could be.”
I hope and pray I have the good fortune to use that line some day.
Excellent – I’ve worked with several editors, and have been fortunate that we’ve had an excellent give-and-take relationship. I’ve got a new project being farmed out at the moment, and should it fly, there will be another editor to work with. Thanks for these reminders.
Terry
Terry’s Place
Romance with a Twist–of Mystery
Excellent post. If you’re going to be a working writer (read: paid writer) then working with an editor is crucial. The only thing I’d add is listen to what the editor wants… sometimes an editor will make a suggestion illustrating what she’s looking for, but the example she gives of how that might work won’t actually work in practice. Like “I need to see the stakes for your protagonist. How about giving him a family member who’s dying (or whatever)?” I need to make sure I don’t just grab the first suggestion, but work at something that best serves the story. Her job is the blueprint: my job is the construction.
Your comment reminds me of some wisdom I once heard, in the realm of film script editing: “When a producer identifies a problem, he’s almost always right. When he proposes a solution, he’s almost always wrong.” But what you’re really talking about is emotional detective work: hearing what the editor THINKS the issue is, and deducing from that what the problem REALLY is.
Thanks to all for your kind comments. You’re making my day here in my Nicaraguan outpost where I’m building a social-action TV drama for a political action non-profit group. -jv
“For reasons of focus and clarity, it’s more productive to serve the work than to defend the ego. Paradoxically, the more a writer serves the work, the better the work becomes. Later, when the work has improved, you feel good. Thus you can actually serve your ego by ignoring it.”
This reminds me of the work done in recent psychology identifying the root causes of optimism. At its heart is competency. I think it speaks to the parable about teaching a man to fish.
I agree that the goal is to improve the material. “Good” and “bad” are too broad to be of use, so specific information about what works or what is “close but not quite there”. . .that’s the kind of feedback that we can all benefit from.
I also wholeheartedly agree with learning from the process, so that it is streamlined the next time around. I’d rather make new mistakes than keep repeating the previous ones! LOL
Great breakdown, and I love how this presents both sides of each coin. Thanks!
Love this. I agree wholeheartedly.
This is great advice not only for (aspiring or actual) professional writers and editors, but also for writers to use when critiquing each other. Detailed, specific, and well-delivered criticism is good for helping each other out, and well, “do unto others…”
It’s just important to remember that editors have subjective taste, too. You don’t have to like everything they say to you, but just shutting up and listening will help you learn, with time, which feedback is really beneficial and will help you improve. I think John Vorhaus summed it up really well with his producer analogy: editors are good at identifying problems, but the first solution they offer might not be the best. It’s ultimately up to the writer to figure out how to fix them.
Terrific! As an editor, I absolutely agree with your points and description of what the process ought to be like. Thanks.
This is a great post and it really explains things thoroughly. It’s is a keeper. Thanks so much for spending the time to put together a great writer reference.
There’s also such a thing as a bad editor. Don’t get me started!
For example, the editor my publisher allocated to work with my novel wanted my characters to speak grammatically at all times. She even changed a 10-year-old’s “Mum asked me who I saw” to “Mum asked me whom I had seen”.
And when it came to the punctuation… There, I said not to get me started…
Thank you, John, for the great post and reminder. Earlier this year I received an editor’s critiques on my historical fiction. Although they were difficult to hear, they have been invaluable in my revision process. I also had to step away from my novel for at least six months before I could begin the arduous revisions that entailed changing the voice from third person to first person.
So true about what you wrote:
At every step, the goal of the editing process should be to improve the material. This is not about judging the work and declaring it good or bad. It’s about taking it from where it is to where it potentially can go. Another goal of the process is to improve the process, so that the next edit is easier, more informed and more effective than the last.
-Mia
Great post – it always mystifies me when i come upon writers who are not open to feedback. I adore criticism and feedback – i recognize that constructive criticism is hard to give but it’s always done with an eye towards helping the writer improve.
“Editors want writers who serve the work.”
Serve or service, that language is extreme.
I wholeheartedly believe that editors and writers must collaborate to strengthen the vision – blending to meld.