15 December 2025

Awk. Strike. Huh? Underline. Check.


When I was a kid, there was a daily aphorism published alongside the  funny papers in The Philadelphia Inquirer.  I involuntarily read hundreds of them, but only one stuck in my mind:  “A good father is priceless. Nobody needs a bad father.”

            One could debate the absolute validity of the second half of that, but not if you substitute “editor” for “father”.  I might even substitute “A bad editor is worse than no editor at all.”  This is particularly true when a writer is just starting out, filled with confusion and uncertainty.  The editor in this case is usually someone older, more confident and experienced, at least on paper (so to speak).  It’s the classic power imbalance, where the junior party is highly vulnerable, and the consequences of poor advice can be devastating, even fatal to the nascent creative spirit.

            A good editor, on the other hand, can change your life.  Learning to write is a lot like searching for your contacts in the dark, sailing with a broken compass, fixing a watch wearing oven mitts, or any combination thereof.  Poignantly, the novice writer is aching to improve herself, while her heart is laid bare by the dueling forces of ambition and raging insecurity.  What she needs more than anything is encouragement, any excuse to plow ahead despite the constant threat of embarrassment, or worse, loss of nerve.  A good editor knows this, and guides gently, carefully, instilling knowledge and craft without shattering her fragile emotional state.

            If you think that’s all a bit too precious, you haven’t worked with professional writers, some with years of hard-won experience, yeomanlike work ethic, awards on the shelf, etc.  If you want to get the best work out of them, you first tell them what you like, before telling them what’s missing, what needs to be improved.  A capable writer will know how to listen, how to take direction seriously, but not if you’ve undermined their confidence in what they’re doing.      

            Ultimately, you can’t teach a person to be a good writer.  The same goes for editors, though I think it’s easier for the less capable to hide behind their implicit authority, academic credentials, or the pretense of fashionable standards, and standard practices. 

     

        Editing is not engineering, it’s an art form.  It is not to impose your own preferences on matters of style or subject matter.  It is not to write the book for the writer.  You need a baseline of technical expertise, but the real work is understanding what the author is intending, and helping her achieve that goal. 

            I’ve found that cutting out words, sentences, even paragraphs, is almost always a good idea, but I once had an editor who cut so much I thought she was beguiled by that slashing motion with the red pen.  Lucky for me, I was able to put a lot of it back in again.  Often less is more, but occasionally less is just less.

            I’ve known a few copywriters who failed miserably as creative directors (essentially editors in the advertising business.)  The problem was they wanted to be a player-coach, but always hogged the ball.  The better creative leaders made you do it yourself, as many times as you could stand, until they were satisfied.

            A word about writers groups.  They can be quite useful, and even enriching, if composed of the right people.  I’m in one myself and get a lot out of it.  The members have widely varying levels of experience, but they’re all naturally capable practitioners.  I take everything they say seriously, jumping on the good stuff and letting the rest just drift on by.  But I think these arrangements can be treacherous for inexperienced people –  writers and commentators.  Amateur editors are often either too harsh or too lenient, since they have some notion of the role of editor without the requisite skills to actually ply the craft.  Rookie writers are like survivors of a shipwreck, lurching for any passing debris, without knowing if they’ve glommed onto a sinking mattress or inflatable raft. 

            I have no solution for this, except to advise caution and broaden the field of people examining your work.  Over time, you might learn who to listen to.

            I’ve come to understand that editing, or any form of comment on another person’s work, is an awesome responsibility, for all the reasons touched on above.  It’s not to be taken lightly, but rather humbly, with advice and caution in equal measure.

14 comments:

  1. It's fascinating how the role of a good editor is likened to guiding a novice writer through the darkness. Encouragement and gentle guidance truly make a difference in nurturing creativity. This insightful piece reminds me of the importance of constructive feedback.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have had, thankfully, mostly very good editors, including our own Michael Bracken, Janice Law, and Elizabeth Zelvin. I have had one very bad editor for an anthology, who kept trying to rewrite my work, including "Drifts", which had already been published in AHMM and is one of my favorite stories of all time. So I withdrew from THAT project.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Eve. For the editor, the pleasure is reciprocal with a writer like you: you have your vision, you know your craft, and you trust a good editor not to mess with what doesn't need fixing; at the same time, you're open to suggestions that might strengthen the work in progress. The ideal relationship between writer and editor is a dialogue.

      Delete
    2. I feel that the only person qualified to edit my work into oblivion is me.

      Delete
  3. Chris and Eve, I've had bad editors too....one sounding very much like the one you mentioned, Eve. When you've already had 60 short stories published, and 20 novels, you usually don't need much editing. I think some editors just starting out hope to make a name by saying they edited such and such's short story - when actually it didn't need it at all! And then there is the editor who really wants to be a writer, and takes your story and rewrites it in their style (which they think is better, but is really only different.) That said, good professional editors made me a better writer in my early years, 30 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Melodie, there is no place for the types of bad editors you meniton, unles Dante has some ideas.

      Delete
  4. Yes to everything you say here, Chris. I've been very lucky with editors, working with Michael Bracken, John Bettancourt, and Barb Goffman, among others. I worked with one editor (I later discovered he was a serious drunk) who wouldn't answer questions or send drafts and I eventually lodged a complaint with MWA. He was the lone exception.

    Writing groups are tricky. You need people who respect what you're trying to do, MAYBE writing in your particular genre, but are not easily impressed. I was in one that was a disaster, and another that was excellent. That one finally dissolved through a series of divorces, downsizes, and health issues. The hardest part of being in a writing group is the same as being an editor. Knowing when to leave it alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leaving it alone is a two-edged weapon. Another of our own, John Floyd, won my heart at first contact by not touching so much as a comma in my contribution to the Xmas anthology The Gift of Murder, which he edited. (Remember that one, anyone?) On the other hand, the legendary editor of my first novel, with a Big Five publisher, didn't touch the manuscript, and ye gods, it needed it. I could name well known writers who swear she taught them everything they know, but she was over ninety when I came along. On the other hand, copyeditors and proofreaders committed crimes against that novel after I'd signed off on it that I still haven't quite gotten over almost twenty years later. (You can tell, because I'm like the Ancient Mariner with this story.)

      Delete
    2. Liz, the crucial part of leaving it alone is KNOWING WHEN to do it. As editors and beta readers, our first impulse is to tinker with it.

      Delete
    3. The only book of mine that dissatisfies me is when they made me change the ending. Reviewers didn't seem to notice, so they might have been right. But like Liz, I carry that one around (not too heavily, mind you.)

      Delete
  5. Wonderful post, Chris. It strikes a chord with a helluva lotta harmonics. And to riff on Steve's comment, much has been written about alcoholic writers, but alcoholic editors is an unploughed field. Could be interesting...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Liz. If eroding handwriting of marginal comments and attention to detail over the course of the manuscript is any indicator, I might be able to nominate at least one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I appreciate my fiction editors: Janet, Linda, John, Josh, Barb, Michael. But I wrote a short article for a technical periodical. To my shock, the editor chopped so much, s/he altered the meaning virtually to the opposite of what I'd written. That takes… skill… and chutzpah.

    ReplyDelete

Welcome. Please feel free to comment.

Our corporate secretary is notoriously lax when it comes to comments trapped in the spam folder. It may take Velma a few days to notice, usually after digging in a bottom drawer for a packet of seamed hose, a .38, her flask, or a cigarette.

She’s also sarcastically flip-lipped, but where else can a P.I. find a gal who can wield a candlestick phone, a typewriter, and a gat all at the same time? So bear with us, we value your comment. Once she finishes her Fatima Long Gold.

You can format HTML codes of <b>bold</b>, <i>italics</i>, and links: <a href="https://about.me/SleuthSayers">SleuthSayers</a>