She was a good editor. She delved so deeply into manuscripts that she could write revisions seamlessly: linguistically, no-one would be able to tell the author's original words and her extra phrase, or sometimes whole sentences or paragraphs. It was a talent for mimicry perhaps. When she was finished editing a book, it was an indissoluble whole, with her words etched in like tape, like patches, like embroidery over the holes in the arguments, the lack of logical connectives sewn over, conclusions woven clearly from the evidence of the material, the indisputable truth of the argument, she sewed and sewed, using invisible thread, using thread that exactly matched the original, so that nothing appeared amiss, it didn't sound like two voices had written the book, the author and the editor, but only one, improved on, and the other, hidden, and whose invisible mending is ultimately forgotten.
Writing in someone else's voice depleted her. She worked on non fiction books, and many of them were tedious and dull. It was up to her to spruce them up. To make the language shine in its simplicity without letting her movement through the text become visible. And working on other people's writing blocked her own. She couldn't leave "so and so's" style in his or her manuscript when she closed it for the night and turn to her own writing. It was as if her entire vocabulary was being used in the service of someone else's writing, being used to make someone else's writing better than it really was, and there was nothing left over for her. They wrung every ounce out of her, those manuscripts, those managing editors demanding a good job be done with what was often a mess. You'd be surprised at how many educated people can't write. She was one of those editors, among millions of helpers, who come, and comb through your book, rewriting it, so that it becomes the gleaming tome you are proud of, but who are forgotten, while perhaps mentioned on the copyright page, remain largely unacknowledged.
©Brenda Clews 2006
___
This is from my first NaNoWriMo novel, and it's directly from my own experiences as an editor for the decade that I did it in College and University texts for large publishers (though I have done private editing assignments nearly every year since). 'Minor classics,' that's what I aimed for. If a book remained on reading lists, considered the best in its field 'still,' then I thought my editing successful. Became burnt out, though...
technorati tags: editors, editing books, publishers, burn out.
Sheath of feeling. Words groping to touch air.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Woman with Flowers 7.1
(7th sketch in series, first iteration of this one) Woman with Flowers Flowers, props upholding the woman. The flowers, fragrant, imaginar...
-
The Buddha says: “ You cannot travel the path until you have become the path itself .” The path is uncertain. Uncertainty is the guiding for...
-
What if relationships are the primary ordering principle? What if the way relationships are ordered clarify, explain, and instruct us on th...
-
direct link: Tones of Noir music: Alex Bailey, ' Piano Improvisation No 7 .' Do poems wait to be born? A poem whittled out of t...
I don't think this needs editing at all. A knowledgeable and insightful portrait, and true to my experience editors.
ReplyDelete:) Richard (who's been on the other end only, I hope, the authorial one). It really helped when the metaphor of mending, stitching, sewing, embroidering came to hold it all together.
ReplyDeleteIf the mms came from someone teaching in a discipline where the way it's said is as important as what's said, like English Literature, or Philosophy, the editing was definitely easier, grammar and composition books in particular. But then you had to edit for consistency, level, easily understandable examples (often a problem, reworking these), what would go in 'boxes' in text. As a developmental editor, I generally did country-wide in-depth phone surveys, talking to all the teachers in a relevant area about what texts they were using, what they liked and didn't like about them, what they'd like to see in a new text, and all that had to be incorporated into the editing. It made for a way better book ultimately, of course.
Teachers in the Social Sciences, Sociology, Political Science, etc., tended to use a lot of jargon and to write sentences that weren't 'thought out,' and their writing could be nearly incomprehensible at times. Those mms's were a lot of work, but the authors also tended to be easier to work with, allowing you much leeway to mend, patch, stitch, rewrite.
I can't imagine an editor would have much work to do on your manuscripts, though, Richard!
There's little I've ever seen worse than the writing in Education. yikes. Everybody at Michigan State could clearly use your talents. But whether they'd admit it or not... who knows? Anyway, let a few more chunks of this slip out as the weeks go by.
ReplyDeleteI make part of my living from freelance corporate writing and editing -- what used to be a "value added" component of a glorified secretarial position. Deliverables written by multiple authors could be especially dicey.
ReplyDeleteOh, Education! The books were so vapid, stylistically and often with New Agey kinds of ideas (which don't work in an academic text without a huge amount of rewriting) it stunned & worried me - after all, these were our educators. And yet I've also met some incredible creative writers in Education, you among them now, and so whatever it does, it doesn't kill the creative spirit as seems to happen in some other disciplines (note how few of the 'great' writers actually have PhDs in English- if they do, it's usually some other discipline).
ReplyDeleteKeep letting the chunks slip out!
Melissa, I wish I could do that because I do miss the income but I really found it interferred with my inner word stream and I wasn't able to write at all, not even in journals. I have much admiration for people like you who can give in this way to the corporate world and maintain your own writing...
And multiple authors! Oh, tears out hair. Yes, enormous rewriting for consistency in level was a big one... if it was a 2nd year text, it had to be that in all the articles. Twasn't fun. The end of a project like that was always the best part... :)
I don't even know what to say. Reverberates too much like the editing I do for work sometimes.
ReplyDelete