Things to do and things I shouldn't do
| Things to do: Foremost, send in the donations to Gai Écoute. Yes, as of midnight tonight, my royalty donations to Gai Écoute comes to a close. I'll be getting with Marci on that. After she gives me the sales figures from the last quarter to this point, I'll send in a payment to the charity. I'll post the results here as soon as I have them. I have five manuscripts to edit, one of which is the mm anthology. I'm hoping to have one novella released this month. As soon as it goes up, I can take another manuscript for editing, and I need to because I have a waiting list. For my own writing, can't seem to get anything new done. Lately, I get burned out very easily. I don't think authors, at least not all of them, really know just how much thought and time goes into editing. And when you have to go over a manuscript many, many times, the process can be extra draining, to the point that I haven't written anything new for my I/P series for over a year. I did write that wee story for Faith's fairy anthology, though. That was good. Quickly written and it has a definite end. No worries about continuing the story with a sequel (although I did think of one). What I shouldn't do: I'm going to digress a bit. What I thought I should do, or what I thought editors should do, back before I became one for Freya's Bower and Wild Child, was to insert words in a manuscript for the writer. You know: writer uses the same word ten times in a page, so editor inserts other options. Or writer neglects using commas, capitals, periods where definite rules of punctuation exist, writer does this multiple times every page--I put the punctuation in. Right? Wrong. Very wrong. Think about it. If you fix punctuation screw ups that are littered throughout a novel--same errors, over and over--what are you doing as an editor? You're letting that writer know he or she can continue to be sloppy the next time they submit. You're letting them know you think being unprofessional is fine. You're signing yourself up for headaches because you'll get a manuscript designed to give them. Change the words around too often, fix up the passive voice, the repetitive syntax, the repeats, entire sentences that twist a reader into mental knots, and you've started doing the author's job, which is writing, isn't it? When did editing become writing? This actually gets worse if you let it. Here's how: point out common writing errors, after having pointed them out multiple times already, and then point them out all over the manuscript. Leave a patchwork quilt of comments, highlights and color-changed font. What have you done? You've become the brain, the mind. You're this wonderful pointer, a smart lazer beam that leaves a visible trail so that the author doesn't actually have to look, really look at his/her writing. And what does the author really learn if he/she doesn't really look? Nothing. Once again, next manuscript you get from that author will be littered with the same stuff you discussed many times before. Author never learned to look for him/herself. Don't get the wrong impression here. I like working with new authors. I like teaching them how to get their writing smoothed out and more finished. But at some point in the editing process, I have to pull back and let the author use his/her eyes to find the flaws. And after the author sees, really sees, what has to be fixed, then I hope to find improvement in that manuscript that had nothing to do with me dabbling in it personally. Sounds harsh? Maybe. But this is how it is. Do the revision and you're still the author. Let someone else do it and what are you? A co-author. Sure, you started the story, but when you let someone else polish it to the point it no longer resembles the original, then that someone else finished the story, didn't they? Editors are not supposed to finish your story. They're supposed to guide you, fix the occasional screw up, prod you when they see a repeated screw up, and point out plot holes and character incongruity. They should give advice and, ultimately, make sure that story is readable and understandable. They should not revise it for you. Absolutely not. I get burned out, you know, not just from working on a manuscript that comes back with the same mistakes, but because I worry how to explain this stuff to the author again, how to encourage the author to get the revision done right. I don't always succeed. Sometimes I do. The end result of success is well worth the effort. I love it when I see improvement in someone's writing. I really love it. Ok, so this post seems to have become another whiny lecture on the travails of editing. Not how I meant it, but I guess I needed to let that out. If any of you wonder how an editor can get behind on editing, bogged down on a manuscript, burned out, now you know at least one reason. Editing is really tough on the noggin. Hey, want to hear the opposite problem, what happens when the author does write well? I friggin forget to edit and start reading like a reader. You wouldn't believe how many small goofs I've missed, how many small goofs a proofreader will miss, when your writing is good already. (I'm pointing at you, Debbie, lol. How's the next story in the Sorcha series coming along?) I have to whomp my mental butt when I catch myself reading a manuscripts for fun. It's a compliment to the writer, but it's disaster when it comes to properly editing and proofreading. But it's a good disaster. :-) Here's hoping for a lot more of those this coming year. I'm raising a glass to all writers. Happy writing. |
















