There was a time when there were no editors. That time produced great writers. It was the time that goes up to the late XIX, early XX centuries.
Who edited Shakespeare? Who edited Sir Walter Scott? Dumas? Hugo? Zola? Chrétien de Troies? Cervantes? Mendes Pinto? Homer? Doyle? Queiroz? Kafka? I could go on.
The bottom line is that before they got editors, writers needed three things: Good ideas for stories. To know how to write properly. And work, work and work; and revise, revise and revise. Ok, there was a fourth optional thing: A circle of friends that knew a lot about language, writing, literature; friends that would give an informed opinion on drafts of the literary work.
Then they published.
Hellas, then came the editor. Since then all that is asked from a writer are three things: Ideas for stories; know how to adress the public in public meetings; know how to appear smart and profound on tv.
Thus we have been flooded with standardized, sanitized, formulaic works of fiction and so-called literature where the looks of the "writer" are more important than the substance of his writings.
Don't take me wrong, the editor is needed. For technical manuals. For do-it-yourself books. For self-improve pamphlets.
Since rpg books are closer to the last category than to literary works, rpg books need editors. But, as you state, in the current context the economics go against editors. It's less expensive and more effective to go to the pre-editors age: Learn how to write, and rewrite, rewrite, rewrite. And don't forget your friends.
(This small entry was self-edited and revised some ten times.)
I think the point is that more people are publishing without bothering too much about the whole craft thing. If only writers wrote, there would indeed be less need for editors.
__________________ SILVER BRANCH GAMES Jaws of the Six Serpents - sword and sorcery and darker fantasy for the PDQ system. Out now! Legends Walk! - superheroes empowered by the gods, heroes and monsters of mythology, in Original and Truth & Justice editions. Questers of the Middle Realms - The lighter side of fantasy gaming. In less than 80 pages. For the PDQ system. www.silverbranch.co.uk
I can't even begin to express my disagreement with smascrns' claim that editors are the bane.
I'm a professional writer. I know my craft and although I'm not great, I am decently good. Good editors have notably improved my writing. The mediocre ones haven't. Actually, they've usually just passed my work through with no changes.
But if you're a writer--of any type--and you think a good editor is something to be avoided, then you need to learn to step back and look at your work from a more dispassionate point of view.
I am an editor and I do it for a living. I have also been a writer, and I know the value of a good editor. Having worn both hats I can say that a good writer/editor relationship can produce very good work. It can produce bad work too, but my point is, I can easily tell the difference between a published work that had a good editor, and one that had a bad editor or no editor at all. I think most people can too.
I second the "editors are a good thing." But, there are different levels of editing, and I'd like to know which one(s) Sandy is talking about (and these names are not industry standard -- I'd look them up, but my editing textbook is still in a box, probably marked "Miscellaneous Stuff" or "Heavy Things").
1. Line edit -- checking punctuation, grammar, spelling.
2. Substantive edit -- checking structure, plot, flow.
3. Reference edit -- checking to make sure facts are correct, quotes are properly cited and accurate.
4. Conformity edit -- checking to make sure the article matches the structure of the rest of the articles, meets the layout guidelines.
5. Gateway edit -- checking to make sure the article has enough merit to be published.
It's pretty obvious when the editor has dropped the ball on any of these edits, albeit obvious in different ways. And I'll push it back to RPG.net -- should there be an editing process for articles / reviews?
Maybe the future of this is that editors, rather than being paid per word or page, receive a cut of net sales? I know that many writers operate with almost no margin to begin with, so we're talking about a tiny piece of a tiny pie in many cases.... although a percentage of upwards of 25% of what the writer gets isn't out of line for what a quality editor adds to a project. I also like the idea that everyone involved in a project has a vested interest in its success- including the editor.
I second the "editors are a good thing." But, there are different levels of editing, and I'd like to know which one(s) Sandy is talking about (and these names are not industry standard -- I'd look them up, but my editing textbook is still in a box, probably marked "Miscellaneous Stuff" or "Heavy Things").
1. Line edit -- checking punctuation, grammar, spelling.
2. Substantive edit -- checking structure, plot, flow.
3. Reference edit -- checking to make sure facts are correct, quotes are properly cited and accurate.
4. Conformity edit -- checking to make sure the article matches the structure of the rest of the articles, meets the layout guidelines.
5. Gateway edit -- checking to make sure the article has enough merit to be published.
It's pretty obvious when the editor has dropped the ball on any of these edits, albeit obvious in different ways. And I'll push it back to RPG.net -- should there be an editing process for articles / reviews?
I tend to go with 3 categories, based on roles people get hired to do. In the order you encounter them as a writer....
I) Line or Chief editor: Receives or assigns pitches to author, acts as gatekeeper. Once they agree with a given pitch and assign a writer, they hand off to the...
II) Editor: Works closely with the author on the piece, giving feedback and content and context suggestions for the writer to revise. Their goal is to make sure what the writer wants to say actually comes out the way they intended to the reader. They usually also enforce the house style guide.
III) Copy editing, fact checking, and proofing: what most people define as 'editing'. Assumes the writer's work is done and makes sure there aren't errors.
The middle step is the most time consuming, but also (I think) the most necessary to make a good work great. The Chief editor makes the call on whether the work has merit. The copy editing team makes sure there aren't embarassing errors. These are necessary steps, but not as relevant for blogging (which is a more forgiving medium than books).
It takes a good Writer/Editor relationship to ensure that the writer's vision actually comes out clearly on paper, to cut out the crap and get the piece tight and focused.
Bad editors, IMHO, just change stuff because they think their instincts are stronger than the writer (leading the writer to wonder why they bothered bringing the writer in at all). Instead of making it a dialog, they assert ownership over the piece. And the work then suffers-- it aims for middle of the road, it has a mismatch of style, it ends up lacking a distinct voice.
Most editors I have worked with do a good job ensuring the writer's voice remains intact. That's not to say the process of being editing isn't painful-- it's hard to be told "hey, I have no idea what you mean here". But it's necessary.
That said, it doesn't have to be a huge effort, especially for blogging. Even handing a copy of your blog post to a friend to get markups and feedbacks is handy. This is the stage where someone can flag stuff with 'huh?' and other bits with 'brilliant-- expand on this!' It's the part where any writer with craft can still benefit.
Instead, with blogging, what you get is people making comments and then stuff that really should be in the original piece (like, oh, this post) get tacked on as appendices. Blogging, alas, doesn't have revisions of the work. It's always first drafts.
You could probably rename my 3 stages as I) Insight, II) Craft, and III) Precision.
Linear Mode
