posted
I just made my second fiction sale contingent on some editing. The editor and I have already gone through one editing pass in which he pointed out a few flaws, I fixed them, learned from them, and there was much rejoicing.
I have just received the second editing pass. The editor has, again, pointed out a couple of good things, but has also changed some of my style and what I consider to be an important plot point.
I recognize that it's likely the editor has a different vision/conception of what the story is about. I also recognize that he's trying to make the story as accessible to the reader as possible. And that's fine.
This is my concern: At what point, if the author believes in the story and feels such things as style and plot point are essential, does the author fight for such things? When does the author say, "Whatever you say," and accept all the editor's changes? When one is a new writer, just starting out, is it more important to stick by one's guns, or is it more important to stack up the writing credits?
I know that a lot of this is personal preference, but I still wanted to know what you all thought.
posted
If it were me, as long as it wasn't a moral sticking point, I'd cooperate, on a short story. You got a publication offer! Whoo-hoo! Getting a publication credit would matter a lot more to me than having one particular story go the way I meant for it to.
Posts: 2830 | Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted
It is bad for a new writer to "stick to his guns". That said, no one else can write the story. If by major plot point, you mean the ending has to be rewritten because of a deleted scene, then you might ask for more information as to why they want such-and-such done. Then you might agree or have a reason to disagree, perhaps something they overlooked. If you are going to push back on something make sure you have logical, not emotional, reasons to make your point. Posts: 233 | Registered: Jul 2005
|
So far I agree with you. Pesonally, I know my story still has flaws (and probably still will upon publication -- I'm still learning) and that what the editor is suggesting is probably best for his anthology and even my story.
At what point would you dig in your heels, as it were, and stand by what you'd written? Morals have been mentioned, but what morals? Language? Sex? Violence?
I'm excited to read the article on editing, and some EXCELLENT points have been made. I am particularly keen on the whole making an argument based on logical reasons, not emotional ones.
[This message has been edited by electricgrandmother (edited August 25, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by electricgrandmother (edited August 25, 2005).]
posted
I was asked by an editor to change my story so the main character did something not only contrary to her personality, but also very stupid (which was why it was contrary to her personality). I'm not a fan of what have been called idiot plots (where the author has a character do something stupid in order to add conflict or adventure or whatever), so I said I couldn't do that and withdrew the story.
I sold it later to editor Kathy Ice (for a MAGIC:THE GATHERING anthology). She asked me to add things to make it more a part of the MAGIC:THE GATHERING universe, and I was happy to do so.
You make changes that don't hurt the story the editor liked in the first place, and you try to solve the problems that make an editor want you to change something in a way that will hurt the story. You don't necessarily have to make the change an editor asks for as long as you make some change, and that change fixes whatever the editor had a problem with. (Does that make sense?)
posted
Go ahead and explain your concern to the editor. Be as clear as possible, but there is no need to draw lines just then.
You could get back one of several responses. For instance, the editor might not have thought that the plot point was very important, or that the style was identifiable. In that case, you probably just need to beef up your text.
The editor might have a specific reason to eliminate the style or plot point in question. If the "style" in question were switching to present tense whenever an emotional confrontation happens, for instance, an editor might see very clearly what you're doing but just not like it. Or if you have a plot point that mainly serves to set up a sequel but there isn't going to be one, the story might be stronger without that anyway.
In those cases, you have to use your judgment about whether the change is a good thing or a bad thing. If it's not something you want to do, but you don't have a problem with someone else doing it, then offer to use a pseudonym. That tips the editor off to the fact that you really don't want your name associated with the changes being suggested, but you're willing to cooperate nonetheless.
If it's just something where you would feel uncomfortable contributing in any way to the publication of something containing the suggested changes, weasel your way out of it. You don't have to start a fight, just say that your writer's group has helped you grow a lot in the past little while and right now you'd be embarrassed to put out something like the story currently being considered (that's true, right?). And then avoid that editor in the future.
The most likely case is that your editor is suggesting beneficial changes, ones that will make your story more interesting to readers and a better reflection of the story you had in mind when you wrote it. But it could be the first case I mentioned. Just talking about your concern with the editor will reveal all pretty quickly.
When do I dig in my heels and defend what I've written? Never. If your goals in writing and the editor's goals are not compatible, then you retract your work from consideration. As a novice, I'll retreat as non-confrontationally as possible, as a more established writer I'd make no bones about disliking that editor's attitude and suggestions. But really, pulling your work from consideration is the only option you have if the editor isn't helping you.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
.
