For betas: Highlights from "What Good Is an Editor?" Panel at WorldCon

[Lisa]

I found this panel extremely interesting on many levels. First, bear in mind that the panel was made up of authors and editors who definitely are not involved in the indie world.

Considering that these are folks presumably working in traditional publishing, there were a couple of points made I want to point out (these have less to do with what might be helpful to betas):

• If an editor is working with a published author who is not particularly successful and comes across as "difficult," the suggestion was that the editor should dump the author.
• "Good" editors draw a balance between respect for the author's work and the potential that the author's work will bring money into the publishing house. (Of course, if an editor doesn't work for a publishing house, the latter point is irrelevant. Hmmmm.)
• "Good" editors know what the fans want, suggesting that a good editor will direct the author in that direction. (Making me wonder how the hell anything "new" winds up getting published and trying to figure out how the hell fans "know" this.)

What the authors on the panel say they want:

• for the editor to "fall in love" with some aspect of their work
• for the editor to believe he or she has the same vision of the work as the author
• for the editor to talk more about what the problems are, not potential solutions (although other authors say that sometimes the ideas provided by editors are extremely helpful)
• creative help, not just mechanical help
• for the editor to "push" the author

Key phrase here was "author's vision."

Other points/observations:

• Best-case scenario: To the author, the editor feels more like a collaborator than, say, just one who offers criticism.
• Some authors look to their editors for career advice: "What do we do next?"
• There was quite a bit of discussion on how an author deals with the emotional reaction to editorial criticism. One author said, "It bothers me, but I don't let the editor know." There seemed to be an assumption that editorial commentary and suggestions invariably lead to a negative emotional reaction by the author. My aside: I used to think that played a larger role in the author/editor relationship than I do now; what seems more prevalent--or perhaps more worthy of note--is how such commentary and suggestions can lead an author to feeling excited about his or her work all over again.
• Editors should realize that there are many reasons authors may seem resistant to commentary/suggestions: for example, young authors may not yet have the knowledge/skill to implement suggested changes.
• On the flip side, authors may not realize how much freedom they have to (a) make changes in ways other than what the editor might suggest or (b) make no changes at all.
• Great quote: "Never put your pen to paper unless you're sure you're going to improve the work."

[ThomasCardin]

Editors know what I want to read? Wow. I really need that filter I guess. Perhaps thats why my greatest finds within the last few years have been among indy authors.

I also want to point out that it was the stunning work of indie authors that inspired me to try writing...I am sure the wealth of reading I grew up with did as well...but the real catalyst for me has been authors like High Howey.

[Deb R]

Very interesting stuff, Lisa, some of it possibly useful.

It really comes through that the traditional publishers are focused on profit, not creativity. Knowing what "the fans want" really means knowing what sold well last year. I get the idea they don't think a lot of the readers' intelligence. Some probably think the same about the authors.

There are some good thoughts in there, too.

That quote is an excellent one.

[Lisa]

Here are some conclusions I drew after talking with/corresponding with indie authors and after sitting through this panel:

1. No one knows exactly what a "beta reader" is nor what an "editor" is. Note how abstract the authors' expectations are for editors. Now: this is what authors also say they want from betas!
2. One audience member asked about programs to be trained as an editor, and the reply was this (paraphrasing from my notes): "Most editors start out as apprentices to more senior editors; over time, they develop their own editorial style." Agree with the development of style--it's a very personal process. But I don't think that merely working alongside experienced "successful" editors means that osmosis will result in the development of a competent editor--too much was not said about this process. One of the panelists complained about a "bad editor" who "made authors promises and then never answered another of their calls." That's not about being an editor! That's about being a shitty employee!

[Lisa]

Very interesting stuff, Lisa, some of it possibly useful.

Deb, I figured betas might find it useful to get a bit of a sense of how authors think about their works, including the words and phrases they use...especially since based on what indie authors have told me, they want the same damned thing from betas!

[Deb R]

Nothing like high expectations. Quite a challenge.

PS - You'd think the "reader" part of beta reader would be a big hint. Reader first; editing is secondary. I can read and relate what I'm thinking about what I'm reading, and how it's written.

Does that make sense?

[ThomasCardin]

<mind blown> I had an excuse for not knowing fully what a beta reader did. At least we all know that editors exist to finish the book for the author.










<titter>

[Lisa]

One audience member asked about programs to be trained as an editor, and the reply was this (paraphrasing from my notes): "Most editors start out as apprentices to more senior editors; over time, they develop their own editorial style." Agree with the development of style--it's a very personal process. But I don't think that merely working alongside experienced "successful" editors means that osmosis will result in the development of a competent editor--too much was not said about this process.

More on this, and note, I'm just guessing. My guess is that there are stated or unstated rules within each publishing house (and perhaps within each "arm" of each house) related to what the house/arm expects regarding each work and its potential profitability. They've had plenty of time and plenty of higher-ups to develop and implement business plans that influence how an editor approaches a work (as opposed to, say, how I would approach a work).

[Deb R]

More on this, and note, I'm just guessing. My guess is that there are stated or unstated rules within each publishing house (and perhaps within each "arm" of each house) related to what the house/arm expects regarding each work and its potential profitability. They've had plenty of time and plenty of higher-ups to develop and implement business plans that influence how an editor approaches a work (as opposed to, say, how I would approach a work).

That sounds entirely logical. It also goes a long way toward explaining why there are no formal training courses for editing. Which sucks, pretty much.

[Lisa]

That sounds entirely logical. It also goes a long way toward explaining why there are no formal training courses for editing. Which sucks, pretty much.

Mmm, not really. There are many avenues to become trained on the technical aspect of writing. All the more "abstract" stuff? That's not about training. That's about being a life-long reader--i.e., it's about experience. Granted, the experience of editing is different from the experience of reading, but the background of reading--the ability to discern issues with, say, the way the passage of time is handled--isn't teachable. At that point, I think the notion of apprenticeship is appropriate...my experience with the betas with whom I've worked so far bolsters that.

Here was my one major light-bulb moment during the WorldCon panel: "Editors need to be meta-writers."

That sure would parallel what I have seen in over 20 years in the software industry...things turn into extreme conservatism interrupted by rare bouts of lucky genius when it slips through the cracks and manages to get out the door.

I see marketing people deciding the bottom line, what to sell, what to make, what development to invest in. But the truth I get from watching these marketing gurus is that they themselves don't seem know when a new, innovative property will be successful so the bet against it over and over for the tried and true, whatever made their numbers the previous year...and worse whatever made the competitors numbers the previous year.

From a business standpoint it makes perfect sense. From a creative standpoint I can see the detrimental effect this would have on an author going the big publishing route.

Which is another reason we're seeing this shift toward indie publishing. How cool is that for those of us involved in any way?