Editing Communication

[Rilbur]

There is doubt it is often hard to find a good and (more importantly) a compatible editor.

 

... typo?

 

However, a great editor for one author might be a mediocreeditor for another author - it's not just technical skills that make agreat editor, it's also how much he/she is compatible.

 

True. And the reverse is true, also, some authors don't work for some readers / editors.

 

Also, three mediocre editors will still not be as good as onegood one. Are three mediocre novels as good as one great novel? If youput a lot of work into writing your story, don't you think that it'sworth the time and effort to search for the right editor foryou?]/quote]

 

Three mediocre editors are better than one mediocre editor... if youhaven't found the 'right' editor, making it up with numbers while yousearch is reasonable, especially if you like the people involved.

 

However.as for other more serious 'mistakes' (e.g. plot flaws, continuityerrors) I'd be very surprised if a good editor or beta/zeta readermissed those. Actually, the author should try to make sure there arenone of those serious mistakes even before sending them to an editor orbeta reader. It is lazy and inconsiderate for an author to sendsomething to an editor or beta reader unless he/she has first properlychecked through it himself.

 

True; my only flaw in that direction is I forgot to actually run spellcheck when I transfer back and forth from handheld / desktop. I doread through it at least once after finished, either on the handheld ofcomputer. (Lack of a decent spell check on my handheld causes...fun... when I forget to run the computer's spell check).

 

Asfor getting feedback on whether they like a story... if your editorsand beta readers read it in the same way as a 'normal' reader then theyit's not surprising they miss mistakes.

 

Who said they do that? They read it as editors... and that, all tooften, is all the response I get. I know people are reading -- I'vegotten e-mails in the past, I've had reviews, and when I ranted aboutnot receiving any the reader responses come out of the woodwork.

 

The idea that more viewpoints might find more flaws in the storyseems odd to me. If the flaws are spelling, grammar, typos, word usage,and that sort of thing, then a good editor and a small number of betareaders should find those. The idea of sending out a story to betareaders which has so many flaws that it needs lots of viewpoints tofind them is pretty shocking.

 

I'm a computer scientist by training; I'm going to notice anythingwrong with the use of computers, and their programming, and the like. I know a guy who is an engineer, who'll catch engineering flaws. Apsychologist will notice psychological things...

 

And more importantly, a different viewpoint will pull out things evenon levels you don't have training for. A person with experience withkids might notice that my 12 year old is acting 8; someone whoremembers visual details might catch that I accidentally turned mybrunette blonde (I don't remember visual details, and have a hard timeremembering to include stuff like that. I have a notes filespecifically to keep track of those details, but I do slip up sometimes.

 

Saying that having multiple viewpoints helps catch more flaws doesn'tmean that it's full of them, just that different people readdifferently, catch different things.

 

If the 'flaws' arewhether they like a story or not then because different readers likedifferent things you will always end up either with 'flaws' that somepeople won't like or a very bland story that no one will actuallydislike. From that 'liking' point of view, I personally would find thatany story dealing with vampires or magic, no matter how technicallywell written, would be 'flawed'. Unless the author is writing to makemoney, when it comes to plot and story line the only thing that reallymatters is whether or not it is satisfying and coherent for the author.

 

I think you were the one who commented on finding 'compatable' editors, aren't you? This sounds like compatability

 

Asothers have said, authors should employ whatever system works best forthem. However, they should always ask themselves, "doses this systemreally work best or is it just the best system I've tried so far?"

 

Kit

 

Hence: Curious!

[Graeme]

The idea that more viewpoints might find more flaws in the story seems odd to me. If the flaws are spelling, grammar, typos, word usage, and that sort of thing, then a good editor and a small number of beta readers should find those. The idea of sending out a story to beta readers which has so many flaws that it needs lots of viewpoints to find them is pretty shocking.

Sorry to come in late I've been reading this thread with interest but I haven't had anything to contribute until now.

 

If the flaws are the ones that Kit mentions, then he's correct.

 

However, the main benefit beta-readers give me are in the area of the story itself, and that's where multiple viewpoints is very useful. For example, in one short story I wrote, one beta reader commented on how something I had written was unrealistic (in that case, they pointed out that most teens commit suicide when they are alone, not with others). Another beta reader said my treatment of the father in the story was too sparse. Another beta reader asked questions about why something had happened the way it had. Each of their comments was fed back into the story and it became much richer as a consequence. Indeed, I now rate that particular short story as one of my best, and that wouldn't be the case if I hadn't had multiple people point out the things that they felt were wrong or missing from the story. I didn't include all their comments in the end result, but if I didn't it was because of a conscious choice to leave it out, not an accidental omission which it would have been if they hadn't read it and mentioned it.

 

Another area where multiple sequential beta readers is useful is when I have a plot twist that changes the nature of the story. If I'm too heavy handed, readers will pick it up too early in the story. However, once that's done it's very difficult to know if I've fixed that correctly because those beta-readers who told me that will already know the twist. Thus, I need additional beta readers to see if the fix I've made has addressed that concern. This is not something that occurs all the time, but I've also had it happen in novels. In that case, I've told one or two beta readers something that I've deliberately kept from others. That way I have some beta-readers who can tell me if I'm being consistent based on a future revelation. The other beta readers can then give me feedback as if they were readers who don't know about that revelation (essentially, a control group).

Edited August 7, 2009 by Graeme

[kitten]

(in that case, they pointed out that most teens commit suicide when they are alone, not with others)

 

Graeme, you're one of my favourite online people as well as my favourite authors, so I'm sure you realise this is a bit tongue-in-cheek...

But are you saying that beta readers are useful for when an author can't be bothered to do proper research? If an author is writing about teen suicide shouldn't he have known that statistic? (Actually, I would have thought that was pretty obvious even without research.) Yes, occasionally a piece of factual information is wrong and it's nice when it gets spotted by the editor and beta, but if they don't spot it then it can hardly be crucial to the plot of the story.

 

I wouldn't dream of setting my story in an unfamiliar situation or location without doing lots of research and checking. So if I set my story in Australia, I'd make sure I was correct if I mention the eucalyptus blossom in June. Actually, the fact I'm incredibly lazy accounts for the fact that I rarely write a story involving an unfamiliar situation or location! There are exceptions, however. When I wrote Tapping I spent hours checking what regiments a WW1 Northumberland lad might join and what battles that regiment was involved in that might have led to him being killed on a particular date. All that for one line on the village war memorial! Few if any readers would have noticed even if the regiment/battle combination had been impossible.

 

Also, just because most teen suicides are when they are alone doesn't mean that all are. So you can write about the exception rather than the rule. For example, most relationships fail and disappointment is almost certain in most aspects of life, yet authors continue to have happy endings in their stories.

 

Another beta reader said my treatment of the father in the story was too sparse. Another beta reader asked questions about why something had happened the way it had.

 

Obviously, it just depends on individual definitions of 'jobs' but I find my editor does that for me and hopefully that sort of problem is resolved before it's passed on to a beta reader. Also, whether or not a certain treatment is 'too' sparse will be a matter of opinion. Some readers may disagree. If my one editor and my one beta both agree with the way I've done something (or both agree that I've done something wrong) then what would be the benefit of getting the opinion of yet another beta?

 

If you really care whether most of your readers agree with the treatment given to a character or situation, why not just put out the story, wait until lots of readers have given feedback, the re-write it to please them? That sort of situation would get dangerously close to having your story written by committee. Democracy in government is a least-worst option, but democracy in writing is anathema. Yes, I know I'm pushing your example to an extreme, but it serves to underline the point.

 

My stories are very personal to me. They reflect my experience. How can anyone else possibly know if my experience is valid or if my treatment of it is too 'sparse'? I write what feels right to me, not something that will please lots of readers. Obviously, there are times when I don't communicate my intentions adequately, and if my editor and beta don't see what I'm trying to do then I need to do it better. However, I trust my editor and beta, so if they do understand what I'm trying to do and how I do it, then if others don't understand it's not my problem.

 

I don't intend to write down to a 'lowest common denominator' just to become more popular with readers. Sorry if that sounds arrogant or elitist, but it reflects the fact that I write because I enjoy writing, not for the reward of either money or popularity.

 

Each of their comments was fed back into the story and it became much richer as a consequence. Indeed, I now rate that particular short story as one of my best, and that wouldn't be the case if I hadn't had multiple people point out the things that they felt were wrong or missing from the story. I didn't include all their comments in the end result, but if I didn't it was because of a conscious choice to leave it out, not an accidental omission which it would have been if they hadn't read it and mentioned it.

 

Were any of those 'multiple people' not your editor or main beta reader? If they were, and if one or both spotted the things wrong or missing, why would you need multiple people to back up their opinion? Didn't you trust them? If the editor and main beta didn't spot those things, maybe they weren't really or important. If they were important and they didn't spot them then maybe you need to replace the editor and beta. Again, if one good editor and one good beta don't find those things wrong or missing and if you hadn't thought they were wrong or missing when you wrote it, and a third or fourth beta has a different opinion, whose opinion do you trust?

 

Finally, would that story still not have been one of your best (however you want to define 'best') even without the input of multiple people?

 

Another area where multiple sequential beta readers is useful is when I have a plot twist that changes the nature of the story. If I'm too heavy handed, readers will pick it up too early in the story. However, once that's done it's very difficult to know if I've fixed that correctly because those beta-readers who told me that will already know the twist. Thus, I need additional beta readers to see if the fix I've made has addressed that concern. This is not something that occurs all the time, but I've also had it happen in novels. In that case, I've told one or two beta readers something that I've deliberately kept from others. That way I have some beta-readers who can tell me if I'm being consistent based on a future revelation. The other beta readers can then give me feedback as if they were readers who don't know about that revelation (essentially, a control group).

 

This is a case where I think that you quickly reach the situation of rapidly diminishing returns. Plot twists are just like stage magic; you try to keep the audience distracted but those who are savvy will always guess what is happening. Readers vary widely both in intelligence and their exposure to stories with plot twists. Those who read lots of detective novels will constantly be on the lookout for clues even in romance novels. Those who never read mysteries or detective novels probably wouldn't spot the clues even if you printed the in bold. There is no way you will ever get the right balance of clues and subterfuge to keep them all unaware of the upcoming twist.

 

With plot twists, the more betas you have the more different views you will have on how obvious or unpredictable it was, but none will be 'representative'. So, yet again, I say that you should trust your good editor and a couple of good betas. If you and they think the balance is right then it's probably the best you can do.

 

Finally (if anyone has actually got this far!) it is in my nature to be a little cynical about human behaviour and I have a suspicion that some authors (not all, and certainly not Graeme!) may be tempted to take rather less care in their writing if they feel that a team of editors or beta readers will be there to catch their errors and spot the story flaws. People without a safety net tend to behave more carefully. IMNSHO an author should check everything as carefully as if there was no backup team before sending a story or chapter to beta readers. Otherwise he is wasting their time and treating them with disrespect.

 

Kit

[David McLeod]

I've often wondered why some authors had more than one editor, when one good one is all they need.

 

IMHO, the more sets of eyes on a piece, the more likely errors will be found. I urge everyone for whom I edit to have at least one other person look at their work.

[Graeme]

Graeme, you're one of my favourite online people as well as my favourite authors, so I'm sure you realise this is a bit tongue-in-cheek...

Thanks for the compliment.

 

But are you saying that beta readers are useful for when an author can't be bothered to do proper research? If an author is writing about teen suicide shouldn't he have known that statistic? (Actually, I would have thought that was pretty obvious even without research.) Yes, occasionally a piece of factual information is wrong and it's nice when it gets spotted by the editor and beta, but if they don't spot it then it can hardly be crucial to the plot of the story.

You're right in that better research would have meant I would have found that problem first. But not only am I limited in the amount of time I can spend on doing research (especially for something that, in this particular case, was merely setting up the story -- it was a background event), and sometimes I don't know I need to do research because I think something is reasonable. As you've mentioned, that particular suicide could have been an exception to the general rule... but doing so didn't add anything to the story and also distracted from what I had intended to be the main purpose of the story (exploring the effects on friends and family of a suicide). Okay, I was lazy, but I honestly don't research everything I write. Some things I'll research (I picked the year for Falls Creek Lessons based on historical snowfall records), but a lot I just use my own judgement on how I think people will act... and sometimes it turns out that I don't really know enough, and didn't know that I didn't know enough

 

Obviously, it just depends on individual definitions of 'jobs' but I find my editor does that for me and hopefully that sort of problem is resolved before it's passed on to a beta reader. Also, whether or not a certain treatment is 'too' sparse will be a matter of opinion. Some readers may disagree. If my one editor and my one beta both agree with the way I've done something (or both agree that I've done something wrong) then what would be the benefit of getting the opinion of yet another beta?

My process may be different from most people. My editor is the last person in the process. All my beta readers get to look at the story before the editing process starts. The reason for this is because my editor was a high school student with a lot of demands on his time. He didn't want to go through multiple versions (he's now a college student, with even more demands on his time, so he's been helping one of his friends, another college student, to edit for me instead).

 

Similarly, my beta readers have real-life demands on their time and aren't always available to respond in a timely manner. Thus, I send the first draft to three or four people so I can be hopefully to get one or two people to reply I view what they do for me as a gift and I absolutely refuse to harass them (or my editors) to get something back quickly unless there is a strong reason to do so (such as an anthology deadline).

 

In addition my editors (Aaron and Rain from the Mail Crew) are part of a group, and that group also act as a final round of beta readers before the actually editing starts. So, in effect, I have over a dozen beta readers One or two main beta readers, and then my editors and their friends as a final backup. As each person looks at the story from a different perspective (my main beta readers are all 30+, my editors and their friends are college aged), I get a broad set of feedback.

 

As for multiple editors, I don't actually see that part of it. Aaron and Rain have been working together to edit my stories and all I see if the final result of their work. I'm not sending it to two editors separately and then having to reconcile any difference, Aaron and Rain have been doing that themselves.

 

If you really care whether most of your readers agree with the treatment given to a character or situation, why not just put out the story, wait until lots of readers have given feedback, the re-write it to please them? That sort of situation would get dangerously close to having your story written by committee. Democracy in government is a least-worst option, but democracy in writing is anathema. Yes, I know I'm pushing your example to an extreme, but it serves to underline the point.

I hate doing rewrites I won't rewrite something to please a reader, I'll only do so to please myself. When I get comments from someone whose opinion I trust, then I look at those comments seriously. I don't always agree with them, but I won't ignore their comments because they are always legitimate points of view.

 

I don't intend to write down to a 'lowest common denominator' just to become more popular with readers. Sorry if that sounds arrogant or elitist, but it reflects the fact that I write because I enjoy writing, not for the reward of either money or popularity.

I agree with you. However, taking your government analogy further, even dictators are allowed to get advice. They don't have to follow it, but they can't be expected to know everything (even if they think they do ) so receiving trusted opinions on a story is a very useful thing to have. Trusted opinions are used to help make something better, not to appeal to a lowest common denominator.

 

You've mentioned you trust your editor and beta-reader. That's the same situation I'm in with my editor(s) and beta-readers. I've found multiple people who I trust to tell me if there's a problem with something I've written, and I take their feedback very seriously. It's still my story, but I'm not going to ignore comments from them without thinking about it.

 

 

Were any of those 'multiple people' not your editor or main beta reader? If they were, and if one or both spotted the things wrong or missing, why would you need multiple people to back up their opinion? Didn't you trust them? If the editor and main beta didn't spot those things, maybe they weren't really or important. If they were important and they didn't spot them then maybe you need to replace the editor and beta. Again, if one good editor and one good beta don't find those things wrong or missing and if you hadn't thought they were wrong or missing when you wrote it, and a third or fourth beta has a different opinion, whose opinion do you trust?

Most of the time, I only use my main team of beta readers. Occasionally, though, I'll send a copy of a story to someone who has expertise in a particular area. For example, I wrote one short story that was set in the world of amateur theatre. I have a little knowledge of what goes on because I have friends who do amateur theatre, but I don't know all the behind-the-scene stuff. Unfortunately, I'm not out to any of those friends, so I couldn't send them a copy for comment, but I knew someone else online who has been involved in amateur theatre, so I sent them a copy. They told me that they found a lot of it very realistic, but there was one point which (once it was pointed out and explained, it was obvious) I needed to change. But I needed that 'expert' or 'experienced' viewpoint to make the story more realistic. Would it have worked without that change? Yes, I think it would have, but making the change didn't affect the overall story for most people, and it meant that those readers who do theatre would find it that much more realistic.

 

Finally, would that story still not have been one of your best (however you want to define 'best') even without the input of multiple people?

In that particular case, without a doubt the story would not have been as good without that input. The story grew by a good 20% as a consequence of their feedback. That's the most extreme example I've experienced, but there is really no comparison between the original and final versions. I've still got both versions and I can email them to you, if you like, so you can compare them

 

This is a case where I think that you quickly reach the situation of rapidly diminishing returns. Plot twists are just like stage magic; you try to keep the audience distracted but those who are savvy will always guess what is happening. Readers vary widely both in intelligence and their exposure to stories with plot twists. Those who read lots of detective novels will constantly be on the lookout for clues even in romance novels. Those who never read mysteries or detective novels probably wouldn't spot the clues even if you printed the in bold. There is no way you will ever get the right balance of clues and subterfuge to keep them all unaware of the upcoming twist.

 

With plot twists, the more betas you have the more different views you will have on how obvious or unpredictable it was, but none will be 'representative'. So, yet again, I say that you should trust your good editor and a couple of good betas. If you and they think the balance is right then it's probably the best you can do.

I agree. However, when I've made a complete stuff up of the first version, I needed an opinion on the second version to see if I've made a better job of hitting the target. This is not something that I need to do very often, but it happens from time to time. I'm not good with mysteries -- I tend to be too obvious with my clues -- so I need that extra help to try to get that balance better.

 

Finally (if anyone has actually got this far!) it is in my nature to be a little cynical about human behaviour and I have a suspicion that some authors (not all, and certainly not Graeme!) may be tempted to take rather less care in their writing if they feel that a team of editors or beta readers will be there to catch their errors and spot the story flaws. People without a safety net tend to behave more carefully. IMNSHO an author should check everything as carefully as if there was no backup team before sending a story or chapter to beta readers. Otherwise he is wasting their time and treating them with disrespect.

 

Kit

LOL -- but I'm guilty

 

Aaron and Rain are such great editors that I know that I can concentrate on the story and pay less attention to grammar and word construction. I like to try to find the typos before them, but they are both brilliant at taking a sentence I've written and making it tighter through alternative word choice and sentence structure.

 

I hope they won't mind if I give you an example. In one of last years anthology entries, there is the following paragraph:

 

While awaiting the sun

[KJames]

Because it's easier to find three mediocre editors than one good one?

 

Because even the best of editors can miss things and make mistakes?

 

Because sometimes, I swear, the only people who bother to tell me anything about how they liked my story is my beta readers / editors? (Moreover, by having more people, I have more viewpoints to find flaws in the story)

 

Rilbur, don't discount a lack of reviews as a lack of want. I took to waiting for a whole story to post, to the ending, because the system would only allow one review per user at the time. Now, with our latest update, we are finally able to post reviews for each chapter of a story.

[Rilbur]

Rilbur, don't discount a lack of reviews as a lack of want.

 

I'm not, but having commentary is nice, is it not?

[KJames]

I'm not, but having commentary is nice, is it not?

 

As I said, until recently you were only allowed one review for an entire story.

[kitten]

 

Same essential content, but the edited version is a lot neater.

 

I try to learn from what they've done in the past, but I know I'm not succeeding. I'm yet to have a page of text returned by them without at least one editing change on it. A few years ago, I was really happy when I found five consecutive paragraphs without any changes!

 

That style of editing doesn't suit everyone, but I'm not enamoured with my own words (most of the time). My focus is on the story and their changes helps to tighten the story and make it easier to read. As such, I am extremely happy with the editing that they provide and would hate to change.

 

Of course, as usual, you write a lot of sense, and I accept your points. By now you must realise I have a tendency to be rather opinionated and prescriptive.

 

Yes, I agree that it depends both on the way you write and the sort of interaction/relationship you have with your editor(s). It's not really about how good or 'skilled' an editor is, it's more about whether the editor and author are matched. That's why I'd always say that it is worthwhile for a serious writer to spend time looking for the right editor for him/her and then fine-tune that relationship to suit both of them.

 

Thus, the roles of editor/beta-reader can be defined in any way that suits both parties. For example, my editor is involved in my stories right from the beginning when I discuss ideas for stories and right from the first draft, as well as doing the final checking for typos etc. Often a story is revised substantially at least once between the first version and the final version, so there is no point in checking minor details of typos, spelling, punctuation in the first version. Before sending a version to my beta reader, however, I check everything myself very carefully. Then my editor and the zeta-reader check for typos in the final version.

 

Also, it depends on the way the author writes. Even in my first drafts I spend at least as much time choosing the right wording and sentence structure as I do getting down the storyline. I take great pleasure in trying to craft the best way to say something and for me it is a major part of the creative process. Sometimes it takes several minutes to get a couple of sentences as unambiguous or as elegant as I'd like. Maybe that's why it takes me so long to write my stories! I guess that, unlike you, I am enamoured with my own words!

 

Obviously, I don't always succeed in getting things just right and occasionally my editor will tell me that a certain section seems a little clumsy, but then, based on their comments, I'd re-write that section myself to improve choice of words and sentence structure. That is a part of my creative pleasure that I wouldn't want to delegate to anyone else, so I wouldn't want them to actually suggest specific alternative wording.

 

Anyway, I admit that I was being rather too didactic and prescriptive in my earlier posts; every author/editor/beta-reader relationship is different. However, I still maintain that the single best thing that an author can do (apart from actually writing!) is to find a compatible editor/beta-reader combination, and that one or two compatible editors/beta-readers are worth a dozen picked more-or-less at random.

 

Kit