Some thoughts from recent experience with editors

I recent had a professional editor go through one of my novels, send me notes on it, and work it into a final product.

He also flipped out on me out of stupid egotism and blew the deal, but that's not my point here.

What struck me was that other than making some good points and corrections (and some I'm not sure I go along with--like "don't have three sentences in a paragraph start with "I' or "she" or "the"--but accepted because it doesn't matter that much) he was death on abreviations and acronyms.

Okay, you're writing an article for the NY Times, yeah, you spell everything out fhe first time, then use inititals. (Or do you...do you see them doing that with MTV, FBI, CIA, IRA, DVD?)

I feel pretty strongly that such crap has no place in fiction, however. For one thing...much of it is dialogue. Do you really do such nonsense in quotes?

Part of his objections were the use of Mexican political party names, like PRI, PAN, PRD..which since it's a political novel set in Mexico, there were plenty of.

So he had some automatic googler that stuck in the full names. So a guy ends up saying, "That's just like the Partido Revolutionario Instucional"
Well, I don't think so.

In fact, I don't think it makes a shit. I've said many times that you can use things the readers don't understand, or haven't been shown yet without driving them in babbling confusion, throwing your book into the fire and running into the night screaming.

But check this out... I'm think somebody says, "The PRD stole that election and most non-idiots will know that it refers to a political party. Writing it out in Spanish on the other hand, makes them LESS LIKELY to get it, doesn't it?

What I did was use words like priistas and panistas throughout: I think that gets it across without freaking out this asshole with his nose buried in a style manual.

My favorite was, UPI. He changed it, wriing it out. So you'd have a group of journalists and correspondents in their usual watering hole, talking and one of them says, "If he'd just shot her first, I could more it to the United Press International in a hot second."
Well, naturally, he says no such thing.

(He was also freaking out on baseball terminology. I mentioned that I regularly read Brit authors who go on about cricket and not knowing what "carried his bat" or "twisters" are doesn't affect my reading in the slightest. He grumped about it.)

I'm making two points here. One...you can't edit fiction by the same standards you edit journalistic prose, but most of the style manuals are based on it.

Two...the cagy old bearded editor can very, very possibly be totally full of shit. The fact that he might get his say over that of the author himself is disgusting, but there it is.

And I guess a third would be, like the "priista" change, there is often a way to compromise without being made to look like a jackass by some doofus whose name doesn't even go on the book.

In fact, at one point in the book...the first time I used PRD, which I delightedly pointed out to old tweedy-butt, was something like, "He certainly wouldn't belong to a lefter-than-thou party like the PRD, all hammer/sickle and no rudder."

At that point, I'd say, anybody who is going to be confused is beyond help.

Lin, I've had a couple of problems with editorial changes over the years but for the most part editors do a fine job. Imagine having to read some of the stuff they do and remain sane. However, if I understand correctly, you were dealing with a freelance editor, not one employed by a book or magazine publisher. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.

I agree with some of your points about acronyms, but not all. What you should include in your book is a glossary, a common practice in fiction. I know what UPI stands for but many people would not. I wouldn't have a clue about PRD, but if I was reading the book I'd want to know.

As for those commonplace acronyms, every paper I've worked for would require first spelling it out with the initials in parenthesis. What matters most is making the story clear to even the most uninformed reader. In fiction, a glossary solves the dialogue problem unless in text you have explained what it is. For example, pristas and panistas leave me wondering what you are talking about.

As for starting three sentences in the same paragraph with "I" or "She" or "The" I have to agree with the editor, although aware that in rare circumstances it would be OK. It has to do with rhythm more than anything else.

Lin, I hope you remain cordial and do not use profanity when discussing changes or anything else with editors. In more than half a century of dealing with them I have found that you can't go wrong by thinking the editor is always right and then in a pleasant manner trying to convince them to see it your way. Many years ago a new editor at Alfred Hitchcock called me and tried urgently to have me make a change in a story already bought and paid for. I refused and had good cause for doing so. In time I came to realize she had been right and regretted not following her suggestion.

I tend to agree with Dick's comments here. It seems fairly easy to spell things out the first time, then go to the acronyms, especially the ones most Americans aren't going to know.

UPI is a shadow of its former self, so spelling it out is more important now than it would have been 30 years ago. FBI, well, maybe no need to spell that out. But the Mexican political parties, almost no American will know.

Starting multiple sentences in a graph with the same word tends to create an annoying kind of repetition; read it out loud and the oddness of it is more apparent.

My writing is stylistic, so I'm going to ignore what a freelance editor says about, say, purposeful comma splices, but hopefully most of the comments will be worthwhile.

Malcolm

It seems fairly easy to spell things out the first time,

Yes, that's way things are done in NEWSPAPERS, as he and I both mentioned. It's absolutely crazy to expect it in a novel and almost no novelist does that.

Note my comments on that.

Yes, "I" or "she" thing is a rhythm...doesn't have to be annoying at all. Can be used for effect. That Hemingway guy used to dabble in it.

I think it's funny you would go along with this Malarky from an editor, then say you'd ignore his voice because YOUR writing is stylistic, Malcolm.

By, freelance, by the way, I mean that he is not an employee of BeWrite, but paid by them to do their editing for them. He otherwise works as an editor for some other lucky suckers. The point is, a company let their deal get shafted based on the tastes of somebody who doesn't even work for them...and paid for the privilege.

But to get back to my main point: it's really important for fiction writers to sort this stuff out. People cite "rules", then it turns out they are NEWSPAPER rules, or from Strunk.

Spelling out does not, as I demonstrated, always add to understanding. ANd is so awkward that nobody in their right mind would actually do it in their novel (just advise others to)

The solution to "everybody understanding everything" is twofold..the sort of seamless explication I demonstrate above and realizing that, in fact, in a novel it is NOT necessary for readers to follow every single word.

The larger issue: the writer's relationship with editors. Complex and requiring some messing around. But mindless acceptance cheats not only the writer, but the reader.

I also agree with the editor over starting sentences with "I", "She" or "The". In fact my proof reader/editor took it one step further and said that no three consecutive sentences should start with the same letter.

no three consecutive sentences should start with the same letter.


Well, that is pretty obviously insane. And supports the idea that a LOT of what they say is not particularly real.

It tends to come out of an environment where principles are taught by non-writers, then practiced in an environment where there is no feedback by which editors can learn whether ideas are good or bad.

While writers cringe at the idea of losing sales over not doing the way somebody says they should, editors have virtually no feedback on their work. Nobody comes along and says, "No, you're editing is wrong."

Again, you have to be REALLY careful about just accepting this stuff.

And I think your "no same letters" thing is an excellent example of that.

You seem to have a large chip on your shoulder, Lin. Let's try to keep it civil. While it is true that some readers won't understand every word you write, it is important that you make everything you have written as understandable as possible, hence the glossary for your examples. Newspapers make things as clear as possible for readers and therefore use stylebooks. Should writers of fiction be less conscientious?

Editors employed by publishing houses, magazines and newspapers do have someone looking over their shoulder - more senior editors and the publisher.

I don't see any evidence of chips or incivility here, actually. To whom have I been incivil?

Yes. The purpose of newspapers is to carry information.

That is not the primary reason for novels.
Almost none of which use glossaries. The idea of having a glossary to explain what UPI means is an odd one.

The important point is this: it's NOT IMPORTANT that everybody know what UPI or PRD stands for. All they have to do is that it's a policitcal party or somewhere the guy can sell a story.

The fact that editors have superiors is not the same as their having a feedback system. In the case I mentioned, I was told that the publisher was not interested in being a third opinion, that the editor's word would be final and if he said to put everybody in pink tutus, that is the way it would go.

Those above editors in the hierarchy are not about to go back and say, gee maybe it's not all THAT bad to have three sentences start with the same letter, or whatever. In most cases they don't even see changes, just the MS as the editor sends it up to them.


What I would say here, after a lifetime of freelance writing, editing, and publishing, is that trying to apply rulebooks to fiction is a mistake, a crippling influence on a novel.

Apropos of civility on the boards, it is noticeable Lin that you never use smileys. Your wit and humour is generally obvious but sometimes your sarcasm is hard to take. Smileys may seem a poor substitute for the written word but they do make it easier to understand the tone of posted comments.

We like to keep things friendly around here.

About twenty years ago when I first started reading suspense/police
procedurals, I saw BOLO used regularly. I had no clue, but it was
written exactly the way I'd expect when one cop talks to another. I
didn't throw down the book in disgust, but I wondered what it meant. I
think a little later in the story one cop explained it to a civilian.
After that I started seeing other initials printed in dialogue simply
as initials. It read naturally, the way one official would speak to
another.

Since BOLO and others, such as NCAVC and VICAP are 'cop speak,' I'm
sure foreign languages have their initials and phrases as well, which
reminds me of the historicals I read about the antebelum South. Mon
Dieu is one phrase a character often said to another and there were
many others. And reading a while, you catch on, especially if it's used
repeatedly.

Tom Clancy uses technical jargon in his novels and I understand very
little of it, but I get the gist of what he's saying and still enjoy
the story.

Varying sentences is a matter of style, but I'd certainly recommend it
as repetition tends to dull the text and put the reader to sleep.
Doesn't mean it's an absolute rule, however. The absolute rule in
writing is:

Never Bore Your Reader.

Lin,

I have to disagree with your post.

The guy who proofread my novel, is not only a qualified proofreader and editor, but also a published author of non-fiction books. As someone with many years of the publishing industry I'm inclinde to accept his advice. Had the comment been made by someone other in the writing/publishing industry I wouldnot have made the post.

If an editor suggested that I made changes to my novel and I disagreed strongly, I wouldn't hesitate in putting forward my reasons for keeping the manuscript as it stood. However, there are times when we have to make compromises and accept advice from those who have more experience than us.

Respect your editor, Jenny, but never forget novels are a totally different breed from newspapers and non-fiction books.

I guess I don't see why it's a problem to spell out the names of political parties 99% of your readers aren't going to have heard of. Or, if they first come up in dialogue where it would sound silly to say the whole name, especially if the people on both sides of the conversation know what the acronym stands for, then footnote it, or include a glossary, or mention it in a foreword.

Malcolm

If it's dialogue, you must write it realistically. Unless someone is
explaining the meaning to someone else, it'll sound stilted. It's also
called 'info dump,' something that'll make an in-house editor
cringe.

What if...you spell it out a couple of times early on, then abbreviate from that point forward?

I've had a similar problem with certain "southernisms". The editor suggested I try to explain them somewhere in the dialogue or text. Down the line, if I used the same one again, I trusted the memory and sensiblility of the reader to follow my lead.

Seems to work for me.

To add to that post...
an example...
(elderly aunt speaking) "I had to move in with Evelyn and Joe. I've taken to fallin' out."

(reply by her neice) "Evelyn told me you had been having problems with your balance lately. Sorry to hear that."

Clear as mud.

That's great, Rhett, and an excellent example. In reply to your earlier post, I was just typing:

It all depends, Rhett, whether it’s in dialogue or narration. If it’s dialogue, you should incorporate info the way your character would speak. But in narration, you have more room for explanations.

Your example above is perfect.

I recently had an editor look over my latest manuscript. She did a
great job and I agreed with most of her suggestions, except for dislike
of contractions. I could see where I may have used too many in
narrative, but within dialogue, my characters wouldn't talk that way.
(My characters are also Suthun, Rhett).

An extreme example would be changing "ain't" to "am not", in which case
the only time a good ol' boy would choose to not say ain't would be for
emphasis... "I am not going there, and that's final."

Good for you that you stuck to your guns, Brew. Some freelance editors still do not realize that narration is still in the character’s point of view and should use language he/she would use—unless you slip out of his/her POV and drift into omniscient, which isn’t a good idea.

I recently edited the first chapter—way too busy now to edit entire manuscripts—of a highly educated woman who was writing about a seventeen-year-old boy. She did very well on the dialogue, but blew it in her narration. She wrote it in her language and that didn’t mesh with the boy’s.

So use those contractions if your character would, even in narration. You can’t have lines of dialogue using words like 'ain’t' and then write narration sounding like a Harvard graduate--unless the scene is in another character's POV.

Actually a glossary can be found in many thrillers as well as some other fiction novels. I own a dozen or more with a glossary. Without one the acronyms would often be overwhelming.

Dialogue should be realistic in the sense that it is the way people should speak, not the way they frequently do speak. Dialogue that included every well, uh, you know, like and so forth would quickly become tedious for a reader.

Publishers and senior editors seldom correct or overrule a junior editor in the presence of a writer. Other than that they do it frequently.

If Lin is right about rules having a crippling effect on novels, there are many successful writers of fiction who would disagree. There are times when breaking a rule is fine. Do it all the time and you're in for trouble unless you are writing for your own entertainment. I sold a story to Hitchcock last week that broke the rule for mysteries that in the end, justice should be served. If I tried it very often I wouldn't get away with it.

I see you use your head on such matters, Brenda.

Jenny, it doesn't matter what credentials an editor has...it he says there is something wrong with having sentences start with the same letter he's full of it and there just isn't any way around it.

You can't think of any reason why that would matter because there isn't one. Therefore I'd suggest that you keep your own counsel, rather than falling in line with somebody else's corrections if they don't make sense.

If there are people out there who need a glossary to figure out what UPI is, I don't want to have anything to do with them.

I keep trying to imagine a situation where two editors would be "in front of" a writer and just can't come up with it.
My point is that editors do what they want to writers work and get no feeback on whether or not their corrections were good or not. So they get more full of it as time goes on.
And end up saying you shouldn't use "ain't" or similar letters or adverbs or should write out MTV or whatever.
It's sad...but that doesn't make it helpful

This mania for trying to make every little thing so crystal clear that no conceivable moron would not throw up his hands in horrow and run screaming into the night is just absurd.

Most writers, in fact do NOT write that way. Many of the greatest writers use words and terms with no explanation at all. People don't have any trouble with it.

It's not a newspaper or textbook it's a novel. (Yes, a fiction novel)

That's really all I'm going to say about this.

Me too, Lin, although I don't believe you would mind if someone who didn't know what UPI meant buys your books. There was a time when it was familiar to far more people than it is today. Even though you see AP in most newspapers and on nearly all Internet news sites, there are people who don't know what it stands for.

Even though you have an outlook quite different than other writers of fiction I know, I'm sure it must work for you. That's all that really matters.

Actually, I'd say my outlook on that matter is exactly like most writers of fiction.

I have NEVER seen UPI or FBI or, for that matter PRI spelled out in fiction. Ever.

It's not something writer instincts lead one to do. It's something editor reflexes lead to.

Rhett, have you ever heard of southern writer, Ronda Rich? I discovered
her via an article in the Opinions section of our local newspaper.
She's a regular at Gwinnett Daily Post, and frequently she is picked up
by Clayton News Daily (mine).

I susscribe to her newsletter and the latest contained a piece that is
perfect for this thread on editors. The pertinent part follows:

Ronda Rich says:

*******

Now, the top questions that folks ask me about publishing books are:

Will it be out in a few weeks?
Are you finished with it completely?

The
answer to both is "no". The book is scheduled for release in the Spring
of 2009. There's a lot of work to do between now and then. First, my
editor and agent will read the first draft of the manuscript and give
me feedback. The editor, for instance, might say, "I'd like to see you
expound more on your faith during the most difficult periods of your
life." Or he might say, "I think that chapter 6 and Chapter 13 are a
bit redundant. Let's take some of this material out." One thing, for
certain, that he's not going to say is, "This is absolutely fantastic.
No changes needed." And if he did, I'd be worried. The best part about
publishing with a big publisher is that they have loads of experience
and insight. Every book editor I have ever had has helped to make my
books much better than they would have been without their insight. We
will go through at least two sets of edits. The editor and I will
confer and make the initial, more extensive changes, then it will go to
the grammatical editor who will tell me not to use "aggravate" but to
use "annoy" instead. Then, I'll step up on my self-righteous soapbox
and announce defiantly, "In the South, we aggravate. We don't annoy."
But she'll also find some important things like a lot of commas that
are in the wrong place or question marks that should be periods. All
said, I will read it diligently about three more times before we go to
galleys (that's the promotional book that is done in paper - without a
hardcover - and sent to bookstores and used for publicity purposes).
That's the last chance to make any changes. Then, it'll go to the final
printing.

Also, the book cover will have to be designed, the
sales force will go out and start selling this book to bookstores using
the company's spring catalog - probably somewhere around November or
December - and there'll be extensive strategizing on marketing and
publicity. In August, I'll fly up to have meetings with my publishing
folks and work on the plans for publicity and an author's tour. When
the manuscript is finished and if we decide to do an audio book on this
- which is the plan at this point - I will go into the studio to read -
again - the entire book for the audio version. This will wear a person
slab dab out. I recorded my first book and it's tough. By this point,
I'll swear that I'm never going to read that book again. And you know
what? Chances are that I won't!

When I started this newsletter,
I didn't plan to go through all that but I have found that folks are
very interested in the process. It's much more elaborate and more
labor-intensive that most people ever imagined.

*******

Dang, I LOVE southern women!