Authors and Editors Together - Synergy or Failure? Part 3 of 3

Synergy results when multiple elements come together and produce a result greater than the sum of all the parts individually. If you’ve ever heard the saying, “We can do more together than we can apart,” that’s what is meant by synergy.

When an author and editor work together, they create synergy. The author writes, the editor edits, and together, they pull the best out of each other and create a story that neither could have created on their own. Or rather, they should be able to do that.

Unfortunately, at least from what I’m seeing in indie circles, this relationship has suffered a severe breakdown. “Authors” (and if you’ve been following my posts the past couple of days, you understand what I mean by “authors” vs. authors and "editors" vs. editors) bash editors everywhere—in Facebook groups, on blogs, in chats, on walls. They gripe about such-and-such an editor’s too-harsh comments or lack of knowledge and make terrible comments about editors. And “editors” aren’t doing themselves or authors any favors when they don’t know the most basic of grammar rules. But in an “editor’s” defense, some of them probably aren’t speaking up for fear of an "author’s" reaction. Because it has been my personal experience that “authors” are pretty nasty about vocalizing when they aren’t pleased with an editor’s or “editor’s” comments.

As a result, good editors are walking away from editing for indie authors. I know. I’m one of them. My editor is another. I got tired of dealing with the arguments and backtalk, as well as the snide back-stabbing and public, passive-aggressive hissy fits some of these “authors” threw on their Facebook walls after they asked for my feedback, got it, and got pissed off because I didn’t just say, “This is awesome. Good job.” And I know if these “authors” are throwing public hissy fits, they’re in their private chats with their friends cussing my name up and down. I don’t need that crap. No good editor does. And as more good editors walk away from editing for indie authors, what does that leave indies to choose from? “Editors” who have no business performing an edit. So it's a lose-lose.

In yesterday’s post, I mentioned that authors need to get out of their own way. And the above is a perfect example of what I mean. When working with an editor, an author needs to check her ego and pride at the door and refrain from throwing temper tantrums when she doesn't get your way or hear anything but praise, because it’s an editor’s job to make her better than she already is by shedding light on her shortcomings. Yes, good editors will point out where an author needs to work (and all authors need to work on something). They will cut up her manuscript. They will slice open its belly and poke around its organs, and they’ll tell her what she needs to do to get those organs where they’re supposed to be so the story can live and breathe, and then they will leave her with the responsibility of sewing the belly back up once she's fixed everything. At least, that’s what a good editor will do.

That. Is. Their. Job.

And it's the author's job to fix what the editor points out. There are grey areas where an author can overrule an editor, but those are usually in small, subjective areas such as whether to write the possessive of Jonas as Jonas' or Jonas's.

If all an author wants to be told is how awesome she is and how perfect her story is, she needs to hang up her typewriter, because that is not how it works. She’s just wasting everyone’s time, including her own, because she’s not writing for the right reasons or with the right expectations and frame of mind. Writing is painful. It hurts. It wounds the pride as well as the ego at times.

Even so, when it comes to the writer/editor relationship, without doubt, the editor draws the shorter stick. I’ve been on both sides of this coin, and as painful as it is for the author to receive a negative critique, it is much easier to be on the author end than the editor end.

Why is that?

As an author, it is my job to write. I love writing. I take an editor’s comments as a challenge and look forward to the ensuing chaos of fixing what an editor tells me to fix. Authors should embrace this phase, because it is at the very heart of what they supposedly love doing—writing. Right? If the author doesn't want to write, why are they writing in the first place?

On the other hand, when I was editing, when I returned an edit, I felt the hate fly at me from all angles. It takes a thicker skin to edit than write, because I know from experience that I’ve been bashed about twenty ways to Sunday over what I’ve suggested and pointed out in my edits and/or critiques. I know I’ve been cussed and spit at and flipped off every which way. It seems that the majority of indie authors only want to hear, "This is awesome!" when they ask for feedback, but I won't sacrifice my integrity and lie, and I certainly won't try to "not hurt an author's feelings" by lying, or lie simply to "keep the peace." That's not fair to anyone and doesn't do the author any good to hear lies like that. However, I would say 90% of the indie authors who have asked for my feedback, in one form or another, threw a fit when I had anything but positive things to say. Even when I voiced both positives and negatives about a piece, the reaction in at least two cases I can think of was for the author to go into a passive-aggressive meltdown on their Facebook wall. There are certain author circles I don't even participate in anymore because of the reactions I've received to my editing comments. All because I did my job...well.

In fact, editing feels like the one job that the better you are at it, the more pain it causes. At least that's been my experience.

And that’s why I no longer edit except in special circumstances.

Here’s what I think needs to happen to bring the synergy back into this crucial relationship:

First: “Authors” need to learn how to write, and “editors” need to learn how to edit. Without that, this relationship is doomed to failure.

Second: Authors and editors need to perform their respective jobs. Authors are supposed to write. Editors are supposed to edit. Editors should not be expected to rewrite poorly written work or ghostwrite for free, and authors should not be telling editors how to do their job, which leads to…

Third: Authors and editors need to listen to one another, but authors especially need to listen to what educated editors have to say and not argue with them, blow up, call them names behind their backs, go passive-aggressive against them on their Facebook walls, and otherwise act like two-year-olds badly in need of a nap. As an editor, I'm over being argued with and treated like shit, which is why I quit.

When an author argues with an educated editor, she is more-or-less wasting the editor’s time and hers. As an editor, I wouldn’t be pointing something out in the manuscript if it didn’t need to be addressed, and I always wanted to say, “Why did you ask me to edit if you’re just going to argue everything I suggest or point out and tell me how you want me to edit your work? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose?”

And what's really funny is when someone argues with me and tells me I'm being too harsh in my edits then turns around and betas one of my scenes and says, "Take out that stupid comment." Really? I'm too harsh? I may be harsh, but I'm always professional and objective, and I certainly never sling personal insults or call any part of an author's work "stupid."

“Authors” need to quit arguing and get out of their own way as well as their editor's, and they need to learn that there's more to writing than just writing a story—a lot more (I'll talk about that in my next post). And "editors" need to realize they don't know everything. I just learned something new yesterday. That's the beauty of continually studying and listening to others regarding the crafts of writing and editing: You learn more and can correct old habits. :)

In yesterday's post, I said that if an author isn't feeling pain and discomfort after receiving an edit back from their editor, then the edit wasn't good enough. A good editor, especially at the indie level where writers have been shown not to have the best grasp of story structure and grammar, should be finding tons of things that need to be sliced and diced. TONS! And that means that an author should have tons of work to do when she gets her edit back. If that's not happening, then she's not getting her money's worth, even if the edit was free.

Now, before I get rotten tomatoes thrown at me for saying authors at the indie level have been shown not to have the best grasp of writing, let me explain that I'm not saying that to be derogatory. I'm saying that because it's true. Indie writing is not at the same level as professional writing. It just isn't. Why lie and say it is? So, I'm just stating a fact.

But the greater point to be noted here is that the field of indie authors is RICH with coal just waiting to be pressurized into diamonds, and then cut, molded, and polished further into beautiful gemstones. But a lump of coal can't become a raw diamond without a LOT of pressure being applied to it first, and and a raw diamond can't become a beautiful gemstone without being cut, filed, and polished. But for the process to be a success, the lump of coal (writer) can't fight the process, and the editor has to know how to apply pressure, cut, and polish.

Of course, all of this is contingent on the author actually wanting to put out the best and highest quality story possible. It that isn't the goal, then my posts of the last three days can be disregarded.

To summarize my last three posts, "editors" need to become editors, "authors" need to become authors, and the two need to begin working harmoniously with one another, allowing and expecting each to do their respective jobs. And that is critical. Authors need to expect editors to edit, and editors need to expect authors to write. And both need to allow the other the room and respect to operate in their roles, which means editors need to be allowed to give negative feedback without repercussions, and writers need to be allowed to rewrite their own work without editors feeling they need to do it for them for free. If authors and editors are just going to bitch, sling insults, and call names, they should get out of the business, because they're pissing away one of the most powerful tools in their arsenal that could propel them to the next level: Synergy.

Comments?

I plan on getting back to my writing tip posts in the next couple of weeks, because I have a mission to help as many authors as I can improve their abilities. If you have suggestions for writing tips, please let me know what they are so I can add them to my list.

Thank you.

Editor or "Editor"? Part 2 of 3

Yesterday, I talked about “authors.” Today, I focus on “editors.” And right now, I'm a little upset about a particular incident involving two "editors," so bear with me.

I recently helped out a friend with an edit. I know, I know...I've said before that I no longer do edits because most indie writers don't have a thick enough skin for my kind of edit, because yes, I'm tough. Thorough, knowledgeable, professional, but tough. I have found that my slicing open the bellies of some authors' manuscripts to check that all the organs are where they're supposed to be is just too much for them to bear, so I saved everyone a lot of pain (including myself) and pulled out of the editing business. However, I will make the occasional exception, and in this case, I did.

See, my friend paid two editors on previous stories to edit his work. He is admittedly dyslexic and has challenges with homonyms, and he wanted to make sure the stories were as clean as they could be and was willing to pay people he thought knew what they were doing to make sure they were publish-ready.

Long story short, he got ripped off, and I have to wonder, was he conned? Or did these editors really think they knew what they were doing? Because, apparently, a couple of reviewers were not so nice about telling him he needed to pay an editor to edit his work.

Umm, he did pay an editor. Or, should I say an "editor." An editor knows what they're doing. An "editor" is someone who likes to call themselves an editor but who really has no credentials, education, and certainly no business conducting an edit. In other words, they charge authors to mess up their work. And in some cases, they charge A LOT.

Now, now, Donya. You're being a little harsh, aren't you? And you're getting upset over nothing, you might be saying.

Well, one thing's right. I'm upset. And rightfully so. Why? Because it is an editor's primary responsibility to make sure an author's story is published with as few errors as possible and is reader-worthy. In other words, an editor's job is to make sure an author never receives a review that says, "Pay for a real editor." For an "editor" to charge for her services and not deliver those services is a breach of contract. It is a legal offense, and I think it's just a matter of time before one of these "editors" is sued in small claims court for not providing the services she was paid to provide. So, yeah, I think some harsh words fit here, because I can be harsh now and possibly save an "editor" a lawsuit, or said "editor" might end up in court someday and have to pay back more than just her editing fee. Which choice do you think is more harsh?

It is also the job of an editor to make sure the readers are taken care of. The readers deserve a story free of errors, as well as a story that flows well and makes sense. By taking care of the reader, an editor automatically takes care of the author. Unfortunately, I think too many "editors" are scared to piss "authors" off with negative feedback. Those "editors" aren't doing those "authors" any favors when they do that, and if "authors" (yes, the same rule between editors and "editors" applies between authors and "authors") get uppity and cop attitudes over negative feedback, oh well. Their problem. They need to grow a thicker skin, because NEWSFLASH! It's not all about them. It's ultimately about the reader.

But I digress…and we’ll talk about the relationship between authors and editors tomorrow.

I've had some pretty shitty things said to me, about me, and done to me because of my "harsh edits." But I'll tell you one thing: A story I edit will never get a review that says the author needs to hire a real editor (as long as the author heeds my advice and suggestions). Cuss my name, spit on my image, flip me off, and call me every name in the book, but I will never leave an author hanging out to the vultures or a reader scratching their head over what they just read. I take the role of editor very seriously, because I know what's at stake...for both the author and the reader. Unfortunately, too many indie "editors" don't. And that ticks me off.

Editing is an important job. It should be taken seriously and done right. And if an "editor" can't get the job done, he shouldn't charge...or should be forced to return his fee if an author receives a review that says, "Hire an editor." Because if an author has a reader telling him that, then the "editor" did not do his job and doesn't deserve payment. Period. Actually, if an "editor" can't get the job done, he shouldn't be editing.

As a writer and an editor myself, I've seen a lot of interesting things "editors" try to pass off as English grammar and punctuation: Using a semicolon instead of a period or em dash; overall improper semicolon usage; using ellipses instead of em dashes or periods; throwing commas into the middle of an independent clause (O.O Say what?); automatically using a comma to set off a prepositional phrase. I even had an "editor" tell me that, according to North American English (because grammar rules for North American English differ from other regions of the world who speak English), there are times when a period or comma go outside a quotation mark. No. According to my two grammar references, a period or comma never, without exception, goes outside a quotation mark. Never. Ever. Period. Not in the United States, anyway.

This "editor," who is allegedly an editor in chief of a U.S. e-publishing house, should know that. That is basic Editing 101 type stuff right there, and yet I was told I was wrong. No. I'm not wrong. I know I'm not. But this "editor" is charging authors to edit their work. If she doesn't even know one of the most basic of punctuation rules, or is too lazy to look it up, what else doesn't she know? Does she even own a grammar guide?

You know, I see this stuff or am privy to these conversations and muffed edits, but I normally sit back, sigh, shake my head, and move on. But it pains me to do so, because I want to help these well-meaning, yet unknowing writers who are putting their precious babies into the hands of clueless, uneducated hacks who have no business picking up the proverbial red pen and marking up these authors' manuscripts.

Strong words? Damn straight. Because I've taken severe heat for being as good as I am at editing when the people these authors should be mad at — and whose names they should be cussing up one side and down the other — are the "editors" who cheat them, rob them blind, perform lackluster and lousy edits, and blow smoke up an author's ass about how great his story is and that it needs no editing when, in fact, it needs major work in the editing department. Indeed, the actual story might be great, but the presentation needs to be fixed.

That's where an editor comes in...to help pull that great story out of the mire of content errors, misspelled words, poor punctuation, poor flow, and lackluster dialogue. An editor is the diamond polisher — the one who gets the story to sing on key, whereas it previously sang flat and sharp.

That’s not to say an editor’s job is to rewrite the story for the author. No. An editor’s job is to correct what they can, and then put the author back to work to correct the content, flow, and structure. Yes, the author should have to work—HARD—after getting their edit back (and for the record, a proofread is not an edit). Nine out of ten times, if an author isn’t working hard and feeling some pain after getting back an edit, the edit wasn’t good enough.

Let me repeat that: Nine out of ten times, if an author isn't working hard and feeling some pain after getting back an edit, the edit wasn't good enough.

In that respect, authors need to get out of their own way and let capable editors do their jobs. I’ll talk more about that in tomorrow’s post.

At any rate, what's the solution? How do authors find themselves a good editor? I've worked with a couple who are good (mine and the gal at Silver Publishing — she impressed me, which is hard to do). The rest of the "editors" I've been exposed to lacked. I mean, when I can go through their edits and disregard 95% of their corrections as mistakes, there's a problem.

I don’t really know the answer as to how to resolve this other than to tell “editors” to take some heavy duty editing, writing, and grammar classes, but if anyone knows of a good editor, or if you’ve got resources where authors can find quality editors, please provide the links and information in the comments. Perhaps we can start building a database of editors and I can add their links to my blog.

[NOTE: Even I struggle to call myself an editor, because my editing skills come primarily from writing courses I've taken and from self-teaching myself how to edit by reading and studying independently. True, my writing courses were extensive and discussed editing, but they were not editing courses, and I've studied straight from my grammar guides and from the books of Big Six editors who have written on the topic of how to edit, but I don't have formal training. I plan on rectifying that by signing up for actual copy editing programs and courses so I can earn the credentials, but I know "editors" who haven't even taken a writing class, let alone an entire course or even basic grammar, and they don't even own a reference manual...and it shows.]

Tomorrow I put the previous two posts together and talk about the relationship between authors and editors, because from what I’ve seen, this relationship has broken down to a destructive state.