A really good question: · 8:38pm Mar 31st, 2015
I have picked up JawJoe's I Want To Take These Wings Off, But I Can't to review, and it came with a link a staggeringly complete breakdown of How Magical Mystery Cure ruined everything. If you've harboured some resentment about that episode and couldn't quite put it into words, this is the catharsis you didn't know you needed.
Now back to your scheduled programming.
Last Monday I had a guest post up on One Man's Pony Ramblings. It seemed to go over pretty well; it certainly gives me pause to think about all the things I take for granted that might be useful for other people to see written out in a (semi) cohesive format. The piece itself was about handling advice and suggestions as an author, rather than a writer, but Soge posited a really good question that I've been pondering how to reply to for a week.
I guess it's time to throw a dart and see what we hit.
However, what is your take on the opposite situation? Should the editor limit his suggestions for fear of, in a way, taking over the story?
It's not often I see matters of reviewing or editing etiquette up for discussion, and what interests me most is that the answer to this questions is probably as useful for authors as it is editors.
The first thing I want to address what we mean by editor. I am sure it's no surprise to anyone reading this that our terminology in this fandom (and I assume any other, but I wouldn't know) is often loose, and we generally put to use whatever skills we have offered to us. So rather than try and build on sand, let's use a more formal structure for the process of editing:
Editor: Someone who provides feedback and advice on the composition of a work, style choices, and overall effectiveness. This could be before an author has even started a draft, or it could be after a few draft revisions and the core of the story is complete. For stories, an editor will analyse everything from construction of prose to characterisations, plot, conflicts, mood, pacing, voice, perspective, proportions, dialogue mechanics, show vs. tell, redundancy, sophistication, continuity... basically every aspect of writing a story that is not correcting grammar. His job is to make sure the story works as best as it can.
Copy-Editor: This is a guy who takes a red pen and reminds you of all those niggling errors that make you want to stab yourself with a fork. Everything from tense shifts to comma usage is the domain of the grammar kings, but minding your p's and q's has to come after the actual story in in it's finalised form, otherwise both parties may be wasting a lot of time.
Proofreader: Once a work is completed, a proofreader views it as the final reader would. This allows for addressing any grammar errors that snuck through and any new problems that arose when transferring from a writing format into a presentation format. Layouts, font sizes, spacing, colour co-ordination and overall presentation quality are the focus here.
Though we dispense with many of these distinctions in an informal setting, we can still appreciate the reason for the order: efficiency. And so the first, and easiest, answer to Soge's question, is to know when your time is in danger of being wasted. You don't want to be correcting grammar and suggesting alternative sentences if you have reservations about whether the story given to you even works on a mechanical level. As an editor, you cannot assume that the author knows what the best way to approach editing is, so the onus is you on to gather that information upfront.
This is something I quickly learned from Chris, Present Perfect, and Pascoite. Each of them, when asked for editing or reviewing assistance, will first ask me what kind of feedback I am looking for. Sometimes I want to know if the story works, but sometimes I'm happy with it, warts and all, and I just want a pair of eyes to help me nit-pick all my missing commas. Personally, I made a choice to perform each editing step in sequence unless directed otherwise. I read the story as is and provide feedback on style choices, characterisations, plot, etc., and make any suggestions regarding revision. Once the author has responded, and revised if necessary, I can start picking grammar and sentence structure apart. As a matter of personal pride and professionalism, I will usually do one last pass one the story is posted to Fimfiction, since the change in format often allows me to see issues that I may have missed before, but that is above and beyond what any author should assume of an editor – I simply have too much time on my hands.
Safeguarding against time-wasting isn't a direct answer to Soge's question, but here's where I think it becomes relevant: if you have taken the time to assess what the author is looking for, you are already halfway to knowing what is 'too much' when it comes to editing. Essentially, we're talking about how many assumption we can safely make, and heading off the need to make some of those assumptions it's a pretty spiffing start.
The bulk of the answer can be built on this framework of simply putting our ducks in a row. The first of these is that we have to base the depth and quality of our editing on the skill level of the writer. There's a massive gulf of difference between helping someone not feel like a bit of a twat when they post their first story and someone with core proficiency that looking to to eek every last ounce of quality out of his finely-honed horse words. Most people doing editing seriously will quickly get the measure of a writers underlying ability. An author who is having trouble stringing together complete sentences probably doesn't need to get snowed under by the finer points of using varied punctuation to reduce structural redundancy, but one who has flashes of real talent is probably keen to hone that skill. Assess the author's competence and confidence and adjust your editing standards to be a grade higher in all respects. I think we all know this on some level, but turning it into a conscious series of decisions will help safeguard the time and effort of both writer and editor.
Our second duck is to assess what the writer's aim is for himself. This one we probably don't do so innately, but the principle is the same, and here is where I think the point of Soge's question comes into focus. Not only would it be a waste of the editor's time to suggest things that the author is not ready to understand, but it could be seen to compound the problem of an author who isn't willing to try. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with taking the path of least resistance as a writer, but the effort of an editor shouldn't ever be more than the effort of the the author. I'll grant that it is much easier to assess a writer you have worked with before, but even for a first time you can quickly familiarise yourself with how many stories the author has on Fimfiction, what period of time those stories span, and whether there has been a significant advancement in core skills. If his story from a year ago looks much the same as what they have presented you to edit, it's probably best for everyone involved that you keep things relatively simple. As I said above, pitch one grade higher that their perceived ability to bat. Push them to do better, but don't devalue your time or risk confusing the author. If an author asks you to either root out his writing flaws (like an on-the-fly critic) or help him make the story the best it can be, it is reasonable to raise the bar a little.
Duck three is almost the same, except it is to assess the author's aims for the story. Just because you see a light comedy or a slightly wonky tragedy, you can't know for sure what the goal actually was. Maybe you grossly misunderstood something because a character is written badly; maybe you missed an important plot point that utterly warped your perception of the story; either way, this is an assumption you can do without making. The more you know about the author's aims, the more efficient your invested time will be in improving the end result. Maybe he wants to keep the reading level lower than usual, or maybe he wants some sloppy grammar to represent narrative voice; only by knowing the intent can you spare yourself from wasting much time.
This is all well and good, but it's a lot of guesswork and reliance in intuition – hardly a useful guide to what to suggest when editing. Well, now that we have a framework for what we need to know, we can move on to the important bit: stop being a bunch of pansies and bloody well ask!. People who have seen me wax lyrical about this kind of thing can probably see a pattern in my thought process by now; most problems can be addressed by turning off the autopilot and asking some questions where you would have made assumptions. I'm not saying that to be derogatory; we all do this in so many ways throughout our lives that sometimes we forget we ever went on autopilot in the first place. So, once you know what you need to know about an author and his story, don't hesitate to ask them to meet you part way and answer some basic questions. Don't get bent out of shape over having the position of authority in the relationship (it may be the author's story, but they're coming to you for a reason); just as I said that authors need to ask more questions, so do I say that editors concerned with over or under doing it need to ask more questions, too.
For a part of the fandom centred around reading and writing, I am frequently stunned by the lack of communication ability. Yet, I can appreciate how it is difficult to get into the habit of asking questions without some idea of what to ask and why; hence I hope that laying out the advantages of at least thinking in an ordered way (lord knows that half the time we just dive right in anyway) will help to promote good habits that are to everybody's benefit. There really isn't anything wrong in asking if an author wants the full beans or a quick touch up.
Hey, FudgeFace!
Sure, I'd be happy to take a look at your story. Before I do, though, I'd like to know what you're looking to get out of this. I tend to fall into a teacher-esque role, so if you're looking to a boat-load of tips and suggestions on how to improve your writing as well as the story itself, we'll probably get on fine. If you'd rather I just stuck to giving it a bit of a polish, just say the word – it'll probably mean I can get to it faster.
Also, would you mind telling me how your perfect reader would react to the major points in your story? That way, I can focus my time and feedback in a way that will be most useful to you. The more you can tell me up front, the more I can help. Your call.
Oh, and are there are weaknesses that you know of that you want me to keep a special eye out for?
-Scott
P.S. I'll keep the rhetoric to a minimum in the edit, but be sure to ask me lots of questions if there is anything that isn't completely clear to you.
I've written several similar email responses to feedback requests; after all, the logic holds up just as well for any kind of feedback.
So while my initial reply on the guest post was that it has to come down to intuition, the full answer is that we can take steps to safeguard our time and the author's independence with just a little planning. It may seem obvious in hindsight, but the answer is really just 'Ask the author'. What we're really afraid of is usually one of two things: the author getting overwhelmed by piles of advice, or the author blindly using suggestions instead of actually learning anything. Both of these are bad, but both of these can be addressed by a few conscious decisions about the feedback we provide.
For starters, you can limit yourself to one detailed explanation/suggestion, and pick up on additional instances of the same problem with a reference back to the first example. I'm sure people do this to some degree anyway, but the idea is to intentionally invest some time in a detailed explanation that is meant to coax the author into showing whether he understand it or not. I'm sure some people will balk at what seems like predatory trap laying, but I think we need to get comfortable with the power dynamic of an editor–author relationship. If we're working with people we know well, the question is probably moot anyway, so we only need have concerns where we feel the power disparity, and it is right for us to be concerned. Concern just means we're aware of the problem; it does not mean that we need to fear it or show hesitance.
Treat it as any other power imbalance: assert confidence and request feedback. An inexperienced author will only get overwhelmed if he thinks he can't express his own concerns freely. End any long explanations with, 'Does that make sense?', or follow up any suggestions with 'this is why I wrote it the way that I did: Blah, blah, blah'. Again, this was the purpose of nudging authors to ask more questions in the first place, because it isn't the editor's job to think for the author. That's why you'd be afraid of 'taking over' a story, right?
Another way you can test the waters is to use the first stage of editing – that of overall plot and style – to gather information about the author's attitude. If they're looking for quick fixes for things, you're probably not going to help them by providing cut-and-paste replacements for flawed sentences. If he straight up asks when he should do, that's probably another red flag; someone who asks for suggestions on what he can do (for himself, that is) is someone significantly less likely to be overwhelmed or slack off.
Lastly, and this may sound asinine, consider supplying multiple suggestions based on what the author intended. Sometimes we just need to be sure that the author is still the one exercising final control over the story, so offering alternatives that focus on different storytelling strategies – like close, medium or distant perspective, or one sentence versus splitting into two – will promote (even force) some executive decision making.
The only other thing I can think of that directly relates to the 'fear of taking over' is 'don't be afraid of taking over'. Don't conflate exercising confidence and leadership with subjugation. Author and editor work as a team – if that's not happening it's almost always down to communication. What changes most often is how much of that communication is conveyed without words, or how much gets set-up in beforehand. Keep the lines of communication open and you can't go far wrong. Let's face it, the biggest danger comes from the least experienced authors, and these are the same authors that are probably most looking for someone to take the lead. And don't stand down from your personal styles, either, because that style is often part of what makes us good writers or editors, and that's why people come to us at all. Most authors would do well to gain experience from the preferences and styles of a range of different editors. Does anyone think for a second that I'm not just as picky over dialogue mechanics when I am editing as when I am reviewing? Of course I'm not; the author has come to me because of who I am and I would be doing a disservice not to bring all of who I am to the table. Anything I am going to cut back on can be established through communication with a petitioner.
So before you worry about whether you are 'taking over' a story, consider carefully whether you are actually 'taking over' responsibility for the story and denying the author a place in that dialogue. Who are you to decide that is too much without consultation? We all make assumptions every day because we could not function without them; they are only dangerous to us when we fail to notice that we are making them. Try re-framing the question as: how can I promote more decision making by the author? You'll probably find the problem solves itself more often than not.
Anyway, that's my rambling thoughts on the subject. It all seems a bit egg-suckingly simple to me, but like I said, I probably need to get into the habit of talking about what I find 'obvious' more frequently.
Opinions greatly appreciated, as always.
-Scott
Hmm, a good breakdown. Communications IS the most important part of a relationship; if you're not communicating, it's not a relationship, and understanding what the relationship is is the first step in understanding how to communicate, so communication should start there.
This bit confused me, though:
That when seems wrong. And you seem to be implying a green flag, instead of a red flag. Shouldn't asking for suggestions be a good thing?
2928472 No, just not written as well as it could have been. The red flag is for someone what asks what they should do – that's neuro-linguistic programming for 'please tell me what the one true method for doing this correctly is, thus relieving me of the need to put too much effort into it myself'.
Someone who is asking what he can do is likely expressing a willingness that requires some direction from an external party. More like 'please meet me halfway' or 'help me help myself'.
I failed to make the distinction clear, so thank you for asking. And I'm not saying that anyone should make these assumption by rote – only that these are reasonable ways of being alert to the mindset of the author. It's always a good jumping off point to ask a pertinent question, at a minimum.
I've actually found that just being blunt when confronted with such things gets very positive results. Perhaps it's because it is undeniably responding to the words a person has used, and it's hard not to feel heard when someone is responding to you that way. Everybody wins.
I really don't understand why someone can have so much resentment over MMC that they write a blog post that long about it. I suppose as someone who is primarily a reader on this site and not a writer I simply have that much of a different perspective.
Admittedly, I only read a little of it and skimmed the rest, but frankly, I am still enjoying the show as much as I ever have, and I really don't want to catch not liking it.
Huh, very interesting points. Will keep in mind, especially in light of my own recent musing on the topic.
I ask that? :O I'm glad I do. Sometimes I forget.
2928751
It's not about writing, it's about storytelling. Bad storytelling, whether it's done in writing, comics, tv shows, movies, poetry, etc. has a way of harming all the other pieces of a creative endeavor. (Think of the last movie you saw that had a huge special effects budget but either the story or the characters just didn't interest you.) MMC is bad storytelling, and that upsets plenty of people who aren't writers, even if they enjoyed watching the episode.
As for the blog post, sure it's long, but it's not long because the writer just hates the episode that much. It's an over analysis that stretches very long, as does happen on the internet. In my opinion (having read it) it's only as long as it is because the writer wanted to examine the episode from many, many angles.
2929028 I meant a different perspective in terms of being willing to spend that much ink on the subject, nothing more. I'm here to read, and while I leave plenty of long comments I can't quite imagine writing something like that, even on a story I dislike and wanted to leave a comment on carefully picking apart why.
2932000 It does no good to assume that you should be able to provide a perfect service for every author. Sometimes you just have to be you and accept that authors will just have to find someone who works for them. It's not like you're getting paid!
Besides, I bet the ones that didn't leave in a bewildered haze come back again, right? And I bet some of them recommend you to others.
Interesting blog post. It makes me remember the great editing you did for me. "Show, don't tell", perspective, word choices, so much stuff to keep track off... and I still ended up with something that didn't work. When you then laid your finger into a wound I didn't know I had and said something to the effect of: "I don't think you know how your character works"... this, along with the long discussions about psychology that enabled me to actually fix that problem, made all the difference. Thank you again for spending that time, this wouldn't have been possibly if we hadn't communicated so much.
Hey, I almost grabbed that story to read, but I passed it because of the linked blog post. It made me fear it would be some kind of "venting fic", and I am unable to be impartial about that kind of thing.
Anyway, amazing response here. Even if I already thought the same way on most of those points, you managed put things in such a way that made certain things click, specially on the communication front. It is such a small thing, you can forget it is even an option.
Just to give some context, the main reason I asked this was because of a fic I edited a couple of months back. It was a multi-chapter story, and the author was very green, so even from my inexperience the power imbalance was enormous. After a couple of chapters, I got a distinct feeling that the final version was too much a product of my own contributions, specially when I would suggest an alternative wording and he would accept it. Eventually, I simply started not offering suggestions, which slowed editing a lot.
Of course, I kept doing it while the author kept writing, since his growth was interesting to see, and it helped me get some much needed editing experience. I wish I had these insights back then, but at least I can keep that in mind in the future.
Again, thank you very much. This was a great post.
2933589 To paint a wider picture, I had a back and forth with another author recently where I couldn't simplify my thoughts enough to communicate effectively with someone so much younger than me. Even in trying to say that it was my problem to figure out he managed to take offence at something I said and I just had to wipe my hands of the thing. No-one can work effectively with someone that can't communicate with.
Thing is, that doesn't bother me for a minute. I have no need to try and be some faultless repository of wisdom. We didn't get on, so we went out separate ways – no harm no foul.
2934695 Yeah, that was part of the reason that I wanted to take it, though. I was so absolutely in love with Queen of Queens that I relished the chance to break a sweat hammering Joe's formal writing ability. If the concept didn't hold up, his writing was going to have to carry the load.
As for the editing stuff: I think a lot of the stress comes from people having a feeling that there is a right or wrong way to approach something. It's a side-effect of the dogma-heavy society we live in that people aren't comfortable with the kind of suck-it-and-see attitude that actually gets most of us through life. The way I see it, as long as you can look back and say that you took the time to weigh what the best course was (and you evidently did since you altered your behaviours based on observation), you can't go far wrong. Any lingering doubts about whether you did the right thing are just learning experiences. Being in the command-chair side of an interaction doesn't exclude you from learning things.
If the subject isn't taking the chance to learn from those suggestions, that's his loss. You can't go burdening yourself with that. Conversely, if you take the chance to try and drag him up to speed, that's fine too. Don't sweat the details.