Authors: The editing process?

do not go in expecting max perkins: he's dead, figuratively as well as literally. i have as well-respected a literary editor as there is the business, but even with him i can't get past the idea that ny publishers want these manuscripts finished, polished and ready to go. my rule of thumb is simple: get three or four people, each with different -- literary, reportorial, knowledge of the subject matter, coldly disinterested -- assets they bring to the manuscript, have them read after you've written but BEFORE you submit. anywhere they all agree there should be a change? change it. less of a consensus? think hard about what you've got. one? stick to your guns if you love what you've got. my editor did make some strong changes, and one question he had really altered one book's structure, so i'm not saying they're useless. but to be sure these days that they're not just shoveling me along to get something on the shelf -- it's your name alone on that book, after all -- i make sure to get it to people i trust will read it hard and be ruthlessly critical.

 

I wonder how many authors here share this view, and have willingly (and successfully) shown early chapters to their editors.

I find that most authors will cling to those pages until the last possible moment: you have so much material, you're not sure where it's all going, you're writing the book out of sequence, you plan to go back for more interviews, you won't know until the end if you really like the beginning...so many reasons to not give it up until you really have to.

From an agent's view, I tell my clients they have zero obligation to deliver one page until the deadline. Nothing screws up a writer's head worse than a lukewarm or (God forbid) negative reaction to early and unfinished pages delivered out of context. And nothing messes up an editor more than shaky early pages. Now you're all off to a bad start, everyone is worried, and when the editor's boss asks how the book is, he has to say, "umm, well, umm, we're working on it."

The exception would be the rare case where there's great history and trust between author and editor, in which case you are completely blessed beyond description.

Best bet is to hammer out a detailed outline, let your editor rip it apart, work out your differences, and then write that book, in its entirety, before submitting it in its final form. Don't send a "rough draft" on your delivery date, send your best effort. You'll undoubtedly have more work to do, but at least you'll have it in a form you feel good about.

Also, read AD's excellent post above, that's some great advice.

 

Very few editors these days are line editors - these days most are acquisition editors. That being said, the amount of editing an editor will do can vary wildly. I've had books the editor wanted to turn inside out and upside down, and others that have hardly been changed at all. I'll disagree with Swenk about sharing chapters. With a new editor, in particular, I think it's always a good idea to share the book partway through - from 1/3 to 2/3, because the worst experience I ever had was a book the editor claimed to have been reading as I wrote (and insisted I send in chapter by chapter), but had not, and then wanted a 100% rewrite, top to bottom, tear apart and start over. But I agree that a relationship with an editor is key, as are a few trusted friends who have also written books to share pages and discuss your project along the way - they are better than any editor.

And at the end of the day I remember what David Halberstam said to me one day: "It's your f-ing book." Trust your instincts. You have to look yourself in mirror afterwards, and for the rest of your life. Your editor, meanwhile, will already be working on someone else's book, and just because they have that job title does not guarantee they really know what they are doing.

 

And, just to be clear, not that anyone said this, but I didn't ask the question in anticipation of some hatchet job. I really like the guy editing my book. He was tremendous in the early stages in helping me crystallize the vision for the finished product. I'm actually really looking forward to sending it off to him later this week and getting his input.

And also not having to look at the mother$$%&*er again for a few months.

 

here's my basic word of advice on books: you'd better love the project. you can't count on reviews, editing, promotional support or, god knows, back-end money, so only take on something that gives you great satisfaction, that you learn from, that keeps you going when the day-to-day job doesn't. this doesn't apply to those who only write books for a living; sometimes you've got to take something on to pay the rent. but if it's a side-project, love it like hell and treat it like a treasure. nothing will bring you greater satisfaction -- but only if you count on getting nothing else from but the sublime satisfaction of writing well, telling it true, and being able to say, 'i didn't just talk about it. i wrote a book, damnit, and there it is on the shelf at last.

 

Well said, AD.

 

Ms Swenk,

Three times I've worked that way and it was necessary with crushing deadlines (90,000 words start to finish in six weeks) and writing about events unfolding in real time. Each time was at least satisfactory or better. Not ideal, but like I say, necessary.

o-<

 

90,000 words in six weeks???!!!

 

No wonder the little guy at the end of your posts is laying down.

 

Friend:
I agree---it's often beyond the writer's control. No questions. However, I don't believe my earlier post implied that writers have a whole lot of control in the first place. I was merely saying that if you do have the same editor from start to finish who is familiar with a sports title, and that isn't a novelty, even then there will be a lot of work and brainstorming early in the process (to include some hand-wringing as well) and it should smooth itself out once you start producing chapters.

Such a scenario isn't unheard of, provided you have gone with a publisher in the first place who knows what the heck they are doing. If you sign up with the first publisher who offers you a contract and you really don't have a clue if they really know what they're doing, too bad. In such instances, crap happens.

 

Ms Swenk

The funny thing is, in the middle of that six weeks I researched and wrote a 3,000 magazine feature as well. At the end of it Mrs Friendless said that she hadn't really noticed me working on the book that much.

(Just one book was on that deadline. Another signed Dec 15 for March 31 delivery. The last one had its own difficulties, the first 70,000 words were across a hockey season but the last 20,000 were about the events of one week and I had three days after the conclusion of that week to submit another 20,000+ words.

I have to imagine that a lot of folks have to write on such tight deadlines that incremental submission is not an inconvenience but rather a godsend.

o-<

o-<

 

Mr Cargo,

Your points are well-taken. I thought by signing to do a second book with the same publisher I'd be working with the same editor who worked out very well on this first trip--but after I signed up, that editor left and I was passed on to the English fellow whose speciality is celebrity/platform spin-offs. Stuff can still conspire against you.

o-<