The Singer? Or The Song?

One of the things that bugs the hell out of me about the newspaper business -- and I have ranted about this at writer's workshops and all -- is that newspapers do a lousy damn job training editors. What a lot of them do is take a good writer and then make him an editor, like it's a promotion or something. Listen, exceutive foofs, IT'S A DIFFERENT SKILL SET!. It's like promoting a plumber to be a gardener. I can't edit. Not a lick. Everything I edit comes out sounding like I wrote it. The skill that I don't have is getting my ego out of the way to work within the writer's own voice. I have been immeasurably lucky to have at least four editors in my life who could do that. One of them, scarily, as I have told people, writes more like me than I do.
I also married one of the best editors in the world.

 

A couple of years ago, a writer I greatly admire scoffed when I told him that one of our columnists had a hard "no edit" rule, thanks to his close personal friendship with our wannabe sports dork of a managing editor. This writer, who worked at local major metro for years, mentioned that when he was a desker as a younger dude, Uber Legendary Sports Columnist at his paper was edited, and seldom started a fight about it.

So if Jim Murray can be edited, anyone can be.

Based on my own experiences:

The best writers are also good self editors, though. Critical thinking when it comes to one's own work can be very beneficial.

The worst editors are the ones who treat every story saying, "Well, I wouldn't have done it this way! I think I'll change it to the way I think it should be!"

The best editors work with writers to make sure that as a story is whipped into shape, the writer understand why those changes were made, so that they won't have to be made in the future.

The worst writers are the one who piss and moan about being edited. The desk is not there to feed their own egos, they are there to help. Their names do not go on the story; yours does. So relax and respect the editing process.

Just like writers, some deskers are superior to others, yes. And I also have been lucky enough to work with some high-quality guys, who did what they could to help me get better.

 

Excellent post, Piotr.
I'd just add that there is editing and there is EDITING. At my shop, editors ask factual questions, try to make sure the stuff is clear, grammatical, etc. But questioning whether a section of a column about the Wire "worked," -- that probably would not happen where I work. For better or worse.

 

In theory true, but in reality no. I was at a paper once that had a retired major league ball player as a guest columnist. I was not allowed to cut or edit his copy, even though he often had grammer errors. I was told by my publisher not to touch his stuff. I was told the readers liked his "slack grammer" and it was part of his personality. I couldn't wait to get out of the place. (For ThreeBagsFull, it was a BOONE newspaper. [blue] God, Boone is Great![/blue])

 

In reality? It's understood when someone's personality shows in one's writing. That's not the editing I'm talking about.

The fact that your publisher allowed garbage like that in print is pretty ugly. The fact that it's a Boone paper, though, makes perfect sense. Boone is far from the sharpest chain out there to say the least.

 

I would be scared shitless to write without my editor. It would be like walking the proverbial tightrope without the proverbial net, but worse, it would also be windy, and I would be naked, and that wind would be cold, so my penis would look smaller than it looks after I get out of warm bath, say, and people on the ground would stop and point at me, not just because I was walking a fucking tightrope, but more because my penis would look like the ass-end of a mouse trying to disappear back inside its hole.

 

A good editor would remove "proverbial" from your post. ;D

 

I will always accept an edit. I don't care who from. My editor, my mother, my asshole neighbor. I want to hear from everyone. My only problem is with those who start typing over my copy on the first read. I hate that. If I give it to you 5-15 minutes before deadline, absolutely. But other than that, you should read the story one time through. That's my opinion. I can't tell you how many times an editor asks me a question and I have to tell them to read the next paragraph.

 

That drives me nuts. When I read my copy the next morning and think to myself, "I've never phrased something like that in my life," it totally deflates me as a writer.

 

I also hate it. Especially if, for example, you write a story without snark and your editor writes a snarky lede for your story. All of a sudden, you look like you have an axe to grind when you're just trying to report a story.

 

Most places I've worked really aren't conducive to writer/editor collaboration. The writer writes. The editors come in later, deal with meetings, administrative bs, etc., etc. then get to the stories, usually hours after writer is done for the day, or the writer must hang out on his or her own time with the editor, or get a phone call later. I imagine the staffing at most papers is fairly similar with editors juggling myriad duties and several writers. But the writers owe it to themselves when working on a piece that has a shot at being part of their clips to put it the extra time to work with the editors, even if the time is your own.