|
Post by laura on Mar 9, 2011 23:22:43 GMT -5
As far as I know (which is nothing from experience, just what I've heard other authors say), the author has to make all of the edits themselves. The editor sends back the manuscript all marked up in red (or whatever color, lol!), and the author goes through, point by point, making all the changes. So in the end, it's always the author who accepts or rejects the editor's marks. Now, if an author refused to accept some deal-breaking change that an editor insisted on, the contract could be broken and the author pays back their advance and walks. But as far as I know, the editor never actually makes changes in the manuscript itself. And I really doubt that dialogue tags would ever be one of those deal-breaking things
|
|
dinuriel
Full Member
Torturing characters? Me? Nooo...
Posts: 374
|
Post by dinuriel on Mar 9, 2011 23:43:03 GMT -5
That is definitely a relief to hear I haven't looked into publishing anything yet--I always have way too many projects on the go at once and therefore have trouble finishing things--but good to hear that the editors don't have Word of God power. Just out of curiosity... what sort of things do you think would be a deal-breaker?
|
|
|
Post by laura on Mar 10, 2011 0:22:54 GMT -5
Hmmm, I know I heard a story recently, but I can't remember the specifics of it. I'll come back to this if I do remember. But basically, if the author had a good argument for why she wanted to do something a certain way, she'd probably get her way in the end. Unless she was just being a diva, lol! <-- but yes, that does happen too.
|
|
|
Post by sjoisan on Mar 10, 2011 17:18:43 GMT -5
I haven't read the entire thread, but I think editing and editors are generally a good thing. In dealing with editors authors need to know themselves and their stories enough to know when to listen to the editor and when to put their foot dow.
|
|
|
Post by celebkiriedhel on Mar 10, 2011 22:19:35 GMT -5
Yup - with my friend who is the published author - he definitely had to make all the changes himself. Editors just mark it up, much like a school teacher marks up your essays.
Personally - I have no problem with editors or editting as long as they add value to the process.
I've seen some books out there, where the spelling and grammar was so bad , AND was overly full of Deus ex Machina's, that I wish the editor had been more draconian.
|
|
|
Post by hrootbeer on Mar 13, 2011 13:18:24 GMT -5
As an extensive reader, I value the job of an editor. No one, NO ONE, writes perfectly the first time. Also, NO ONE, catches all of their own mistakes (I never do). Also, sometimes it's nice to have a fresh pair of eyes, look at your work for clarity and content and offer advice to improve it. I know a lot of authors use critique groups, but I think sometimes when you have to critique someone face to face, you often leave out the harsher criticism. Personally, I'd want someone to look at my dialogue and give me advice about it--tell me what I could do to make it come across more realistically. A good editor would do that.
If I ever publish, I want to have a ruthless editor who makes my pages bleed. When I'm done, I want to thank that editor in the forward of my book. I think really talented authors make friends with their editors and end up respecting them.
|
|