What Writers and Editors Do | Hacker News Reader

What Writers and Editors Do

theparisreview.org

102 pointssamclemens22 comments

I spent a lot of time doing technical editing professionally – checking that docs met their stated objectives, that they were logically structured, that they satisfied house styles, etc, etc. Recently a friend of mine has written their first novel and I offered to have a look as an editor. They can actually write well, spell correctly, etc, so the ‘technical’ aspects were very easy – there were very few typos, ungrammatical sentences, etc. Instead, I found myself looking for things like

* situations where the PoV character knew things that were actually hidden from them in the plot (e.g. something happening simultaneously in a different location)

* situations where characters acted unexpectedly out-of-character for no obvious reason

* places where the timeline or scene jumped unexpectedly (e.g. in successive paragraphs in the same chapter)

* phrases that were overused

* whether something that was supposed to be a surprise for the reader had actually been signposted.

I’d love to know if there is a checklist of issues for fiction writing in general: not standard plots / characters / etc, but mistakes like those above to look out for. (I certainly didn’t find it in the article).

As a writer, I can tell you you're doing very valuable work for your friend. The vast majority of people can't tell you when something's wrong with the writing even if they want to, let alone point a finger at it.

I don't have a list, but here's something that I dealt with recently:

* Is everything sufficiently described/explained?

    - Environment descriptions: Is it clear where the scene is set?

    - Character motivation: Does the reader understand why they decided to do <x>?

    - Are there enough clues for the conclusion / reveal / twist to make sense?

    - What day is it?

Whenever a reader finds something confusing, it's usually a matter of that thing not having been described enough.

* Are the characters distinctive enough?

    - Have I described each in a non-perfunctory way?
 
    - Could I tell who's saying which line if I removed the dialogue tags?

    - Is someone just a background character when they ought to be a person?

* Can a paragraph be cut down into a sentence without losing anything?

Edit:

* Is there enough tension throughout the story? Is the main character lacking personal stakes in the plot?

Thank you! Your last point - about tension - is an interesting one - it's the one where I found it hardest to comment. I think this was because the genre wasn't one that I normally read, and I didn't really know whether the degree of tension was appropriate for the anticipated readership. Someone else who looked at the same book said "He doesn't suffer enough" and I found myself agreeing. I guess this is an example of the difference between me - who was in effect looking for technical plot consistency - and a professional editor who is aware of the genre conventions and reader expectations.

That last point was something neither I nor my dozen readers had noticed, but the editor I hired did. It was such a major point that I decided the book needed a near-complete rewrite to fix. The editor was worth the money just for that one thing!

You're definitely right about genre conventions playing a big role. That said, you can still say "I think the character hasn't suffered enough, but maybe that's normal in this genre". What I said about my own editor is actually interesting because they don't normally edit my genre, which was obvious in some aspects, but they could still point out the pacing / tension issue.

Phrases that are overused: in regular speech that is quite normal. Also in other languages with less borrowing there are way more stock phrases that are used over and over and it's normal.

So being exposed to example French or Chinese you learn that the perception of overuse of a phrase is mostly an English language thing of the upper classes —middle and lower classes don’t observe this aversion as much.

I was thinking of phrases that are overused by the author. In this case, they said multiple times that characters 'screamed with laughter'. On about the 5th time this became somewhat jarring.

You are right that in reported speech a specific character might repeat the same thing over and over. And that in stylised writing there may be stock phrases that are always used without problem. A good example here is the The Iliad by Homer, which uses multiple stock phrases to support oral presentation by a story-teller to an audience. Children's literature may use similar conventions (e.g. "Once upon a time...", "And they all lived Happily ever-after")

There are plenty of phrases used commonly in English too; that's usually not a problem. But it can make writing less effective if e.g. several unrelated situations are described by the same weak metaphor, or if the author's personal speech tics leak into dialog and several characters use the same unusual phrase.

Yeah over-stretching can be an issue or multiple characters using the same phrases. However, in other languages it’s more normal to have these situations as they don’t have as many options to choose from. One interesting thing is when you begin learn one of those languages, initially, one might feel that speech is filled with overused phrases, but when you think about it, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with using the same phrase to describe the same situation. In English there’s a linguistic tug to use one phrase at beginning of a sentence and to end it with a synonymous phrase at the end: “Be deliberate in your speech, avoid uhhms and ahhs; people notice those things and ding your speech, so avoid fillers, meaningless utterances distract listeners. Your audience will perceive it and will discount your oration”

Ok oration is overwrought but you get my pint.

I was in a writing group at one point and one of the members of the group happened to have studied Gordon Lish extensively; I think studied under him directly for a bit and more or less worshiped the guy as a guru. It was kind of an interesting dynamic--here was an aspiring writer whose hero was an editor, but it shows Lish's impact on American letters.

From what I've understood from others, Lish was (again, this is just hearsay) kind of a dick. The guy in the writing group that loved him was definitely a dick (no hearsay). It was a small group formed with the intention of taking a more positive, but still honest, tack to critiquing each other's works, since it can often be such a harsh experience and the passion, scrutiny, and energy of people's critiques often outweigh the passion, scrutiny, and energy they put into their writing--this guy did not want to buy into the rest of the group's philosophy.

Now, whenever I read anything Lish has touched I can't help but feel it comes off sort of dickish and he is the embodiment of the cruel, unrepentant editor/critic to me, though undeservedly so.

I've been a member of a writing group a couple of times very early in my career. My spouse was in one quite recently. I have very mixed feelings about your comment.

In my experience in the arts, specifically music, photography, and writing, good artists are good artists because they know all of the detail and nuance of their work and they continue to be dicks to themselves. A good artist is never happy no matter what they create or what the reaction is, otherwise they would stop improving. Beethoven once famously played a piano recital so poignant that many in the audience were weeping. When finished, he stood up and laughed at them for being so simple-minded and easily manipulated.

Of course, that's just a broad generalization, and there's no excuse for being a dick to others. (Unless they ask for it). I think, however, it draws in stark relief the central question in your comment: are writers' groups for encouragement or improvement? You mentioned a bit of both, but to my untrained ear that sounds like a recipe for mediocrity. Being just motivated enough to produce various works of art that most people in your social group would never criticize to your face? That's not a personal goal.

So I think we're back to the topic of this essay, editors. Editors are there to negotiate what the author wants to do with how the world at large can consume it. They're not there to create or give their own voice. They're there to assume the role of author and advise them what needs to happen for others to better consume the art they make.

I had a friend once who loved taking pictures, as I do. We were mods on a local forum and both of us loved sharing our pictures. (This was in the early blogger days) Eventually news and politics started taking over, so we both left. He went on to do his own thing. I'll never forget what a mutual friend said about him: he just wants people to praise his pictures. Nothing else really matters. He ended up making a bit of a living doing just that. He never became famous but he understood that it was the social praise he was chasing and not the art. I consider a lot of the stuff he did cartoonish but it worked for him. To your point, he became good enough for his social group to be praised and talked about, but no more.

My best editors have always been both inside my head and brutal. They knew where I was going and they weren't shy about redlining the shit out of my text to help me get there. That hurt my feelings a lot and another person might have given up. I found it transformative. ymmv

Thanks for your comment! You have some great points.

>In my experience in the arts, specifically music, photography, and writing, good artists are good artists because they know all of the detail and nuance of their work and they continue to be dicks to themselves. A good artist is never happy no matter what they create or what the reaction is, otherwise they would stop improving. > are writers' groups for encouragement or improvement? You mentioned a bit of both, but to my untrained ear that sounds like a recipe for mediocrity. Being just motivated enough to produce various works of art that most people in your social group would never criticize to your face? That's not a personal goal.

Totally, that's where the "but honest" part comes in. I still have the drafts this group looked at and they are well decorated with both comments and proofreading/editorial marks. I think the distinction come in in how you communicate these things.

There's this sort of mythos around "the artist" which stems from this "artist as genius/artist as madman" figure that people tend to use as justification/an excuse for a lot of bs and bad behavior in the arts. For example, a lot of artists tend to ape other artists when they first start out. One could and should call them out on this, but it's about how you go about it. You could be a total asshole and tell them their art is worthless, it's just an imitation of X, maybe they should go home, etc. etc. Or you could express the same thing while giving them some kind of encouragement, such as "it mostly seems to pull a lot of elements from X, but I want to see more of you in the piece, perhaps take another look at aspect Y of your work, as it seems more genuine--can you amplify it, can you go deeper on it?" etc.

When I'm critiquing someone's work, I try to constantly keep in mind that my job is to basically do what you are saying the duty of a good editor is--I have to see where the person is going not where they are at, and I have to do whatever best helps them get there. For some people that might be negative reinforcement, "this is worthless, etc." but in my experience for the vast majority of people that isn't the best way. Most people do much better if you tell them what's wrong in a neutral way and help keep them eager by letting them know what's actually working in their piece. Sure, that may mean they don't have the character of a Beethoven, but most of us aren't going to be epoch-defining artists--and I think you should always try to measure an artist in the context of pushing their own oevure forward instead of holding them up to some ridiculous detached standard of "the greats" you happen to admire (which will result in cheaply imitative art anyway, and which is what this individual was doing w/ Gordon Lish).

Spot on. Some of the best teachers I've had never stopped being positive and encouraging, even when I was making a lot of mistakes. The goal was for me to see those mistakes, not the teacher. You're also spot on about the "asshole artist" myth. It takes a special person to spend four or six hours a day practicing the piano. I am not that person. The people I have met who are like that tend to be quite severe on themselves, otherwise they'd give up. That doesn't make them a jerk to others, though!

Put another way, I've seen a lot of bad writers. Every one of them is replete with self-encouragement and self-congratulation. (I am reminded of that little kid Ralphie writing his theme in the movie A Christmas Story) For the good writers I've seen, they don't carry that kind of self-reassured exuberance around. At best it's a measured competence.

Now that I've gotten older I've mostly given up on excelling at any kind of art. I still love and enjoy creating things, and I'm still aware of the myriad number of problem each of my works have. I just don't care as much. Instead I'm much more interested in creating things I personally find interesting or intriguing. When you catch a great picture, come up with a piece of music you love, or write an essay where it all comes together? You get a feeling of "Well hell. That's really interesting! I haven't seen those pieces like that arranged in that way. I wonder why it makes me curious and happy to contemplate?"

I joined a FB group that shared photos. I had to no-follow them. They were all really good photographers and they all took really good pictures. But how many times can you tell somebody they're good and you like their work? What I'm interested in when I look at a picture is conflict and tension. Why is that shadow there? Did you mean for the model to be in that awkward position? Those kinds of comments can easily be construed as cutting, but all I'm doing is just looking inside and riffing off the feelings I get. I don't know where the person is going, and I really don't know what they found in this image, so unless they're able to handle all of this tension, there's nothing for me to offer.

Great chat. Thanks!

An anecdote from a more modest realm on the unrepayable value of editors:

I recently volunteered to write my first couple of articles for the always-excellent LWN.net. As expected, I went through several rounds of editing with them. This was after several of my own "look again on a fresh morning" rounds of private editing. The process was quite instructive.

I benefited from a range of "bug fixes" from the fine editors—suggestions to make the lede paragraph more robust; small rephrasings that greatly improve readability; and seemingly minor edits that contribute to the overall structure and coherency. The value of an experienced and judicious editor is hard to describe well. (Thanks Jake, et al!)

I relished the back-and-forth review rounds, good-natured arguments, and "nitpicks" that greatly benefited the end product. As William Zinsser puts it, "Rewriting is where the game is won or lost; rewriting is the essence of writing."

        - - -

For those who're curious, I did this as part of KVM Forum[1] conference round-up for LWN. Here's[2] one of the two articles; it should be accessible without login. If you're the patient kind, I certainly recommend contributing to LWN.

[1] https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kvm-forum/

[2] Challenges in protecting virtual machines from untrusted entities — https://lwn.net/Articles/838488/

As a fan of good technical writing, I’ve entertained the thought that technical editing could be interesting. Is that a viable career choice?

I would expect not, in that a viable career needs to have enough of a range of workplaces that you can move between of varying sizes, responsibilities, and pay. I would expect only big technical publishers would actually have 'technical editors' and there would not be many of those positions available. So a thousand positions available as English language technical editor is the most I would expect. That's not a career to shoot for (in the way editor, programmer or technical writer can be)

I would think a technical editor job would be limited to a relatively few large technical publishers, and in my readings on the subject I understand an editor there would be a normal editor who sends out books and articles to technical experts (in book's subject matter) for review of technical quality.

Well, there is a massive increase in new authors, and the enlightened ones among them realise that their work needs editing to help it stand out from the crowd. As a result there is an emerging market for author support, including editing, acquiring an agent, knowing how to submit manuscripts to a publisher if you are not self-publishing, etc, etc. The people supplying these services generally sit outside the big publishing organisations themselves.

I doubt even big technical publishers have much if anything in the way of technical editors on staff. For one thing, the same person is probably not going to be able to technical edit a book on Linux internals and Javascript. More typical is they'll reach out to people in their Rolodex and offer them a few hundred dollars to do a technical edit on a book in their area of expertise.

ADDED: Of course, larger vendors do have documentation departments and there are people in those departments who manage technical writers, review docs, etc. But that may or may not be what's of interest.

>I doubt even big technical publishers have much if anything in the way of technical editors

hence my second paragraph. I figured the first paragraph shot down the idea of technical editor as a career instead of a position that one just lucked into, and the second paragraph explained that by understanding the one type of company you might expect to find the most technical editors actually doesn't use technical editors but instead normal editors.

As important as technical editing is, I would liken it more to code review than traditional journalistic/literary editing. Someone good at reviewing code/editing technical texts is highly valued in any reasonable workplace, but you won't find job listings for "code reviewer" only.

I agree with that. At work, when I and others write an article/blog post/etc. with technical content we'll often send it to one or two other people to get some more eyes on it, especially if it's a topic at the edge of my experience.

I'm also sometimes asked to review book proposals by publishers. And I know a publisher will enlist a technical editor to check out that code in a book works and to give a sanity check to the technical content overall.

But these are all enlisting something between a few minutes and a few days work from someone familiar with a topic. And they're either just part of the job internally or they're some very modest payment from a publisher. Any given person is probably also only qualified to do technical editing on a limited number of topics, especially if the technical info is relatively deep.

I'm sorry, his book is called My Struggle? What?

The Norwegian title is Min Kamp. Clearly an intentional choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Struggle_(Knausgård_novels)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com