I was talking to a friend not long ago about the editing process. He writes academic papers and was bemoaning the fact that a few simple edits can completely change his work. I was saying that it's never been that way for me with fiction magazines. The most editing I ever had done merely involved some fine-tuning for clarity. All the same, though the editor taught me much, he couldn't seem to hear my voice. I spend a lot of time thinking about metre -- rhythm, sound of language, assonance etc. -- and the edits didn't often acknowledge this. They lacked continuity of voice.
Fortunately, the editors at this particular mag were wonderful people who listened to their writers. As soon as I gave alternative suggestions, explaining my reasons, I was fully accepted. But it got me to thinking whether, for an editor, it helps if you really know your authors. For instance, my writing group know me well. They're aware of my voice, of its shifts and rhythms. This becomes clear because, generally speaking, the edits they suggest are sensitive to this. I'm not even sure if this is conscious on their part (though they're sharply perceptive, so I wouldn't be surprised). Thing is, they're used to the sound of me and that's extremely helpful.
Here's my opinion. When our work is professionally edited it should always be a negotiated process. We need to take responsibility as writers for making sure the final piece feels like ours. A good editor will try to tune in, but also expect us to flag things up. And a good writer will be grateful for the learning, but also try their hardest to own their work.
Comments