In a lovely case of synchronicity, the Smart Bitches Who Read Trashy Books have a post on the same topic I was puzzling over on the bus this morning: How much creative freedom should an author have? At what point should the editor have the right to say no? Herewith, my thoughts:
The public wants unique, brave and insightful books. We do not want pandering crap.
An author can only create a unique, brave and insightful book if they are given the freedom and authority to write whatever they wish.
However, the public also does not want self-serving drivel.
This is a bit of a subtle issue, but I've decided where I think the editor has to step in.
A writer can write exclusively for themselves; that's fine. However, if a writer wants to be published, then they have to be writing something other people will enjoy reading. Everything else stays in the box under the bed, nice and private.
The writer uses their own talent and instinct to create those wonderful, accessible books, so they have a right to both their ego and to bulldoggishness regarding their vision. However, the writer is still applying their skills to the problem of giving others what they want, and that's not a selfish endeavour.
It's like the difference between sex and masturbation. The former entails caring about the other person's pleasure also. The latter can be completely selfish.
I think the editor's job is to tell the author when they've stopped making love and started masturbating.
What do you think? Where, on the spectrum that has editor-eschewing egomaniacs on one end and spineless critique-group-junkies on the other, should the editor's experience trump the writer's artistic vision?
7 comments:
... I think the editor's job is to tell the author when they've stopped making love and started masturbating ...
Great analogy and line.
I agree by the way, but once an auther becomes so big there are very few editors who are going to risk offending them and driving them to another house.
Ultimately the reader has to police super egos, by not buying more books. But unfortunately a lot of people are unwilling to take the time to search out new auhtors so they just keep buying the name brands.
And luckily there are some authors who toss the ego aside and continue to create great works.
I like your analogy, but I think the editor's job is multi leveled... often the problems an editor needs to help the author iron out are less about being self serving and more about not allowing the reader to own the story.
Of course, every writer has their own brand of mistakes and you often can't see them in your own ms, though you'd be quick to point them out in someone else's.
Remember, too, editors don't change a word of an author's novel - they 'suggest' the changes that will make the book better - some authors need to remember that the editor is on their side. Perhaps, from the editor's standpoint there's more of a bottom line, as in how many copies the final can sell... but in essence, you're both trying to make the best book possible.
Of course, the publishing house can decline publishing the ms if the author refuses to make the suggested changes, so the author should really pick their battles as far as what they will and won't allow to be changed.
Had to comment because your editor masturbation comment cracked me up. No two editors are alike so I think your question is interesting in that it depends upon making the right match between a writer and an editor that believes in the writer's vision. If they are mismatched, it can result in artistic difference, whereas if they are both committed to the work, then they will achieve a mutually satisfying critique that will only better the work. But I think this is why it's important to have an editor who really loves and believes in your work.
I don't know where I stand on this, but what an interesting conversation!
And Jen, I love the title of this post.
Well, you've certainly created a quotable tagline there. I'd say I agree with you on a very overarching level, but when a specific writer and editor get down to it on a specific project, the norms can go out the window and issues beyond simply ego vs. art often crop up.
Hmm, editors masturbating...
Oh! You meant writers! Editors have a right to reject self-serving drivel from the get-go. I know I do. As for books, I suspect editors and agents have an eye for this from the start. My experience is that folks who write in this style generally don't do well writing for others, and they aren't generally the type of folks who "play well with others" either.
Hmm, editors masturbating...
Snort! The ambiguity of that sentence hadn't jumped out at me until you said that. :-D
[F]olks who write in this style generally don't do well writing for others, and they aren't generally the type of folks who "play well with others" either.
I can totally see that being the case.
Post a Comment