Back in the Dark Ages, probably only in the 1980s though it feels like it was that long ago, I was hired to edit the manuscript of a visiting scholar at MIT who was considered “very important.” As a result, another academic had already taken a pass over his ms before it was sent to the press and then to me. I don’t know why they did this, but they did. It was probably a warning, akin to carrots are good for you, and so is liver.
The ms was pretty clean, as we say, and I settled down for what I considered an easy job. My biggest decision was how to style certain topic titles that he used throughout the book. I scanned the pages, saw no consistent choice had been made, and picked a format that wouldn’t clutter up the page visually and yet be clear for the reader. I chugged along happily, with few other editorial issues to slow me down, and turned in the ms on time. Piece of cake.
About a week later I heard from the helpful academic who had read the ms first and, unknown to me (and not evident to me or anyone else), had made some stylistic choices that, in my drive for consistency, I had reversed, and instead imposed another stylistic choice, mine. To this day I still wonder that he thought he had sent over a completely edited ms.
I rarely edited fiction, but when we first set up the Larcom Review, in 1998, that changed, and I learned that writers of fiction have a different attitude to editing compared to writers of nonfiction, and I don’t argue with it most of the time. In one short story, the only change I made was to remove a single comma. The author restored it. The story was not, I hasten to explain, a mystery but a literary story, so perhaps that explains it.
Editing is always on my mind, but especially now because the editors at Crime Spell Books are editing the sixth anthology this summer. Death Camas will be out in the fall, in October, but the work is done in the summer. The other editors have turned in their changes, and I’m adding mine. So far the editors fall into two camps, those who take out commas, and those who put them in. My job is to integrate my edits and approve the ms changes overall.
At this point in a discussion about editing someone always pops up with the infamous quote: “Consistency—the hobgoblin of small minds.” At which point I used to send them to some poorly edited books so they could enjoy a text free of consistency and even coherence sometimes.
The trouble with editing is we all need it, no one wants to admit they need it, and amateurs aren’t really clear on what it is or entails. But it’s good for all of us, like veggies. One or two of my Beta readers have also been editors and I always looked forward to what I could learn from their reports and responses. Good editing is like a healthy dessert, an oatmeal cookie instead of a chocolate torte, after a healthy main course of composing the ms.
I’ve stretched the food metaphor till it’s ready to snap, if I can mix metaphors here (and I can because I’m the author), but we all come up against editing. How we feel about it is key to how much we’ll benefit from it. I try to tell other writers that it doesn’t mean they have to take every suggestion (and each editorial change should be considered a suggestion), but they should care enough about their work to think about why the editor made the change. Is the editor following a strict grammatical rule that offers no flexibility? Does the change take a light-hearted verbal twist and reduce it to a pedestrian phrase? Does the editorial change erase an allusion to another story or author, something to entertain the well-read mystery fan? Is the editor’s change clarifying an idea the author struggled with but couldn’t quite express satisfactorily?
Editing is work. If you love working with words, as I do, it can also be fun. Done with respect for the work and the author, editing can steady a ms, an overarching idea, strengthen the work’s best qualities. Editor and author always have the same goal: to take a good book and make it better.
Ladies of Mystery 