I think that a good, strong content editor is worth their weight in gold. These people can look at a book and immediately see what bits are working, what bits aren't and can guide the author in such a way that they turn what is a good book into something extraordinary. I have the highest respect for a good editor.
Having said that, there are many m/m books out there which are not edited well. I'm not talking about typos or name switches or spelling errors - although those can be very annoying for the reader. I'm talking about the lack of a decent editor who can take a critical eye to the author's manuscript, cover it in metaphorical red pen and send it back to the author, who then cries for a while but eventually, through the suggestions of the editor, whips their book into shape. Many m/m authors do not have the luxury of getting an editor like this. Many authors do not get a content editor at all.
Just recently I've read a few books where I've got to a section and found the writing a little clumsy, or something wasn't working quite right, or the hero did something out of character, or there was an awkwardness about the situation. Each time this has happened I've been pulled out of the book with the thought that a good editor should really have picked up on that and helped the author to sort out the bit that wasn't flowing, or picked up that the character is suddenly behaving in an odd way. When I've come to write the review of these books, there's a part of me that wants to put across my disappointment about the lack of decent editing in the book. I don't though, I hold back and stick to general statements about the lack of cohesion, or inconsistent characterisation.
I've read reviews by other reviewers who have picked up on the lack of decent editing and the author has been upset that their editor has been criticised in the review. They claim that any failings in a book should be attributed to them as the author and not to their editor. It's this that has made me hold back from mentioning my concerns about the editing in my reviews. But a book is not just the responsibility of the author is it? It's in the three way relationship between author, editor and publisher that a book becomes published in the first place. Yes, the author writes the book, but the publisher buys it and the editor works on it for the publisher. Therefore any failings are not just the responsibility of the author - especially when, in my view, the failings could have been so easily resolved by an editor firm enough to steer the author in the right direction, no matter how much of a hissy fit the author may have as a result. Surely it's better for both the author and publisher that good content editors are employed for not only the sake of sales, but also the publisher's reputation as a fine producer of m/m romance?
Anyway, back to my original point. Should I, as a reviewer, mention my frustrations with bad editing in a review or should I keep the blame solely on the author? Part of me wants to be able to hold publishers to account for bad editing, but I can also see the author's point of view here. Their name is on the cover, not the editor's (unless it's an anthology) so they should be the one to take the flak.
I'd be interested to know what you think.
Although editors are often included in the front matter for the book... I think that if the editing detracts from the book, it should be mentioned. I would be quite disappointed to read a good review, then read the book and discover that it had significant editing issues that were not mentioned in the review.
ReplyDeleteOMFG, my post vanished. Arrgghh. It was long and wordy too. LOL
ReplyDeleteOkay, may answer to the question was .... uuuuuuh. I likely wouldn't mention it because a) maybe that publisher doesn't even use professional editors (you'd hope so but who knows), b) maybe the editor did say 'Fix Y' and the author refused (and no one wanted to take it to the mat) or it's significantly better now than it was before so got through that way.
Now if there is an editor of an anthology I think that's different. Lily just reviewed that cowboy (?) anthology and she didn't notice while reading but in writing the review, the last three stories all had a character named Matt. As someone just reading a shorty review I caught that, I think the editor should have went back and said "Hey, a couple of you need to change this guys name." Otherwise you could start thinking it's like Chase in Petit Morts, a character who crops up in every story (which is a cool concept in and of itself). But not the case here.
But for a novel, I'd likely not say anything just because I don't know the whole story, didn't see the edits recommended or the author's response.
I see what you mean, Chris. I suppose this depends on what could be considered significant editing issues. I'll give you an example. When I reviewed a book for Wave's site last year, I really wanted to say that the problems with the sometimes clunky dialogue could have easily been resolved by a good editor. In the end I didn't say that but just pointed out that the dialogue was a clunky in places and went onto explain why. To me, the book in question could have been much better had it had a more thorough editing. Did I need to put that, or was what I actually wrote sufficient for the reader? Do you see what I mean?
ReplyDeleteHmm, I see what you mean, Jen. What you wrote works, too. :)
ReplyDeleteTam makes a good point about not knowing whether the author refused edits - I've heard that some publishers allow authors to do this.
I'm trying out a new way of putting in the comments which lets you subscribe after you've posted your comment. It's so that people like Chris who forget, don't have to post another comment to subscribe :). The downside being that it may not be as reliable as the previous way of posting comments.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good point, Tam. We don't know what goes on behind the scenes and I have to admit I've had some editor friends who have been frustrated when they've tried to offer advice and it's been ignored. After all, editors must also take some pride in the books they've edited and it must be very disheartening to find the book has a bad review for the very thing they tried and failed to get the author to change.
Hey! Not forgetting! But you can't sign in to blogger and subscribe to comments at the same time with the standard blogger comment form. :)
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely Jen. You're not criticizing the editor (which I agree you shouldn't do) but you're rightly calling out shoddy editing. This I'm not afraid to say and routinely will say that the editing is not very good. Now this can be anything from spelling mistakes to plot holes to what have you.
ReplyDeleteI think the editing is just as much on the author as it is on the publishing house and editor. Some authors can self edit to amazing degrees. Whatever process or team they have internally is wonderful and can submit a clean mss to the publisher. However it's on the author to either trust the publisher and let them worry about spelling mistakes and other problems or not trust the publisher and seek help elsewhere. Likewise sometimes author refuse to accept edits and thus the lack of editing is on them just as much as the great amount of editing.
I realize this may be frustrating and difficult process but it's part of the process. As a reader you're not criticizing people. You're analyzing a product. Part of that product is the cover art and the editing just as much as the writing. The book is meant to appeal to the reader on all levels. If not then you wouldn't see such success with Anne Cain cover art.
To that end a review is meant to be helpful to readers in its entirety. If the editing bothers you, it's likely to bother other readers. You're not criticizing particular people, you're analyzing the full product. If that includes editing, then you should say so. If the author wants to take the credit (or blame) then that's perfectly fine.
As long as you're not saying "the editor is an idiot" I think it's perfectly ok to say "the story needed much tighter, better editing." I personally have said that before - well and got chewed out from the publisher but I do believe it was a totally valid and correct statement. Regardless of the publisher feelings, I still stand by such statements.
I do on occasion mention that a story needed a bit more editing. I'm always careful to point out what bothered me, which is usually as you mentioned typos or name switches or spelling errors. As a reader I'm pretty easy to please so if it's bad enough to bother me I think it might bother others as well.
ReplyDelete@Chris... It might help if you "preview" your comment which always first ask you to sign in then shows you the comment. At that point click "edit" and it brings you back to the original page so you can click "subscribe" without having to do another comment.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tip, Lily!
ReplyDeleteI do like the comment style that Jen's switched to (and which Tam and Val use) - make the whole thing easier, at least if you're commenting on the post page, not on the comment page. :)
I would mention if a book has bad or questionable editing. That's something a reader may want to know.
ReplyDeleteJen, definitely mention the editing. Once the contract is signed on the accepted manuscript, there is usually an agreement in force that the author can argue against the changes suggested by an editor, but ultimately a senior editor is going to make the final decision.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the author is going to have to compromise on some reasonable efforts from the editing staff to maintain the house style and produce a quality book. The author can't just yank her book back and break the contract without a lot of hassle.
I've been really lucky with both of my editors. Very thorough editing in back-and-forth rounds with all changes tracked. At least one other editor besides me and my editor has read the final produce, there have proofreaders, and I've proofread the galleys.
Even in a process that thorough, the occasional typo slips through. However, I've reviewed books from other publishers (not mine, ha,ha!) where it seemed that no editing happened. I'm not sure how to explain that, except to chalk it up to them trying to meet a crazy schedule based on their perception of reader demand.
Great topic, Jen!
I don't think there is any harm in mentioning that there's a mistake that *someone* should have caught; but since you can't know if it was the editor or author, you can't assign direct blame.
ReplyDeleteMy editors will send the manuscript back with changes I can either accept or reject (which I, for the most part, accept, especially with comma issues, as commas and I are *not* friends). The editors go over everything: grammar, characterization, fact-checking, and so on. A good editor will make the writer defend every rejection of editorial suggestion with convincing reasons. I have defended or produced the necessary research to support my decision to reject a suggested change. I don't believe the editors I've worked with would accept anything less (I hope not.)
For me, the primary responsibility, in the end, falls with the author to get it right. Even if she has to write a dozen or more drafts and proofread it until she can nearly recite it word for word, she needs to be the one to make sure her ideas are on the page in the clearest, most effective and compelling manner. This was her story to tell; if it fails in some regard, she has to have the integrity to say it was her mistake, learn from it, and move on.
I think a critique of anything should contain specifics. If someone says "this had bad characterization," they should explain how. If they said "there were a lot of errors," list some. Same with clunky writing, etc. And the same thing goes for positives. I respect a reviewer more both as a reader and a writer when assertions are backed up.
ReplyDeleteEditing in general in the ebook world is sticky. Many, many of the editors are also writers. I'm not yet sure of my full opinion on this, but I think it would be better if we were one or the other. That said, I'm a content-sort-of and copy editor for a house. Their policy is that I'm anonymous and there's no back and forth between me and the author. As an author, I've decided I don't want that kind of editing. I want a relationship with my editor. As an editor, it makes it very easy for me, though yes, I'd edit differently if I were asking questions and having a dialog.
To me the greatest issue is editors editing work they did not contract. That means someone can be editing you whose style you don't agree with and who may not like yours. That happens in several houses. Is it good? Is it bad? That's a personal opinion. As an author, I can no longer do it. But I suspect some authors very much like it. And to a degree? It might even be good. With most editors having no formal training (yes, you can get a degree in it!) and only beta reading for their friends or journalistic experience, maybe it's good to have more flexibility in the editing. If we were only edited by professional, experienced editors, there wouldn't be very many books out there.
What will be interesting is what happens as the Big Six publishers continue to lay off staff. I would assume some of them will end up in epubs. What will that change in our genre?
In all I think this is a ride and an experience. I think reviewers do a service when they respectfully call our writing--but they must be careful about how they do so, or they do nothing more than talk trash. And I gave the above information hoping to shed some light: this isn't New York publishing. And there are good and bad things about that. Mostly this genre is its own animal. It's young, and it's still forming. I believe strongly that all constructive, respectful input only helps us grow.
And I think all catfights suck, so less of those is great! Which has nothing to do with your post at all. But goddamn, it can't be said enough.
I agree with Mara: "I don't think there is any harm in mentioning that there's a mistake that *someone* should have caught; but since you can't know if it was the editor or author, you can't assign direct blame."
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, the editing and the writing are intertwined. Given that the reader doesn't really know what was involved in the process of getting a particular book on the shelf (so to speak), it seems a bad choice to me to try to
critique the editing.
Isn't it just as easy to say "there were a number of spelling errors" as it is to say "the editing of the spelling was sloppy"? Or "the hero's actions were out of character when he..." instead of going the route of saying "a good editor would have fixed this"?
And from Heidi: "I think a critique of anything should contain specifics."
As a reader, and also as an author, I much prefer the reviews that give a little support for their opinions. It doesn't need to be a doctoral thesis, just a reason why.
Kassa: I'm not likely to say that the editor is an idiot - or the author either :). But I am often tempted to say that something could have benefited from an editor's guidance. I agree with you though that the editing and the cover are part and parcel of the finished product and that we only have that finished product to judge.
ReplyDeleteLily: I think that with things like spelling mistakes or typos, then it's pretty safe to say that they should have been picked up in the editing process. Most publishers have copy editors for this job - although I do understand that even with the most conscientious copy editor some mistakes do slip through. This is why I only ever make comment on typos etc when there have been a fair number - enough to annoy even me :).
ReplyDeleteHi KB
ReplyDeleteThe question arises as to what is the difference between bad editing and just plain bad writing? Certainly a number of typos indicates poor editing, but maybe, as has been suggested, some authors are just so bad that the finished product is tonnes better than the original. Although if that is the case then maybe the book shouldn't have been published after all. The fact that it is would show that the publisher saw the potential in it.
Val: I can see why that clause is included in the contract because otherwise an editor has overall control over an author's work and that would be a very scary thing for an author. Having said that, it also means that authors have to be willing to compromise on some issues. If you trust your editor, then that's not going to be a problem, but what if you don't? What if you don't even know your editor, as Heidi says in her comment? How can you trust that the editor is making the best decisions for your book then? I can see why some authors might then become entrenched and be unwilling to make changes.
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly food for thought.
Mara: I have a love/hate relationship with commas. It's a good job I don't write books because my editor would be tearing her hair out over my overuse of commas :).
ReplyDeleteA good editor will make the writer defend every rejection of editorial suggestion with convincing reasons.
Yes, that's true. It's just that I get the impression that doesn't happen with all epubs, or even that good editorial suggestions are made at all.
You are right, an author shouldn't hide behind their editor. In fact I don't think I've ever come across an author who has blamed their editor for a bad review - and a good thing too! But by drawing attention to what I see as bad editing, aren't I making a statement about that publisher, that they have somehow let this author down, and failed to get her/him to achieve their potential?
But as you say, how am I to know that what I see as bad editing is actually that, rather than a poor decision on the author's part to reject good advice?
These comments are certainly making me think!
Heidi: Thanks for that insight into the editing world, and your role in that.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that the anonymous editing worries me a little, especially as these editors are other m/m authors. These are not only your peers but also in many ways your competition. If you know that your anonymous editor is likely a fellow author, then does that mean you take their advice less seriously than someone who isn't an author? As you say, styles of writing vary and what one author likes another doesn't. If I were an author I don't think I would be happy with that at all. I would need to have the open and honest discussion with one person I knew I could trust rather than a faceless person. But that's just me. It must work fine for some authors.
this isn't New York publishing
No it isn't but I do sometime pay as much for an m/m romance ebook as I would a discounted paperback copy from a NY publishing house - or even an ebook from paperback publishers such as Harlequin or Berkeley Romance - so is it really so unreasonable for me to expect a similar quality in the editing?
Wren: Isn't it just as easy to say "there were a number of spelling errors" as it is to say "the editing of the spelling was sloppy"? Or "the hero's actions were out of character when he..." instead of going the route of saying "a good editor would have fixed this"?
ReplyDeleteThat's basically what I've been doing so far. This post is just me mulling over whether I should take it a step further than that.
It seems that opinion is a little divided between reviewers and authors, which to be honest is what I expected. Interesting :).
Not unreasonable, no. Unrealistic at this point, probably. Though that said, NYC isn't sainted. I know NYT bestsellers who had huge continuity errors pass through beta readers and copy editors, and I also have heard that the copy editing quality is going down with budgets. Sometimes it's just unfortunate slips. Sometimes it is oversight that should have been corrected.
ReplyDeleteWith the smaller presses, the problem is a lower readership means a lower body of buyers, which means less money. Even with m/m growing, it's still very small for market share. The best thing in the world that can happen to m/m is that more people read it. Which will bring better coffers to the publishing houses, which will mean better writers will flock to the better publishers for better money and treatment, etc.
Or something else will happen entirely. Hard to say.
I've also seen authors come racing to the defense of editors when they have been criticised in reviews. Perhaps the defense was justified if the author refused to make the suggested changes, etc; however, that doesn't negate the point the editting was of issue enough for the reviewer to take notice of it in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI think this again comes down to the fact that reviews are for readers. A reader would definitely want to know if there significant enough problems with editting that a reviewer was unable to connect with a story. They can then decide for themselves whether thy are willing to take the risk with their purchase or not.
No great or deep thoughts here, but I do believe that editors are like gold - I don't think any of us could exist without them. It's like the theatre - I once watched a play where the actors were experimenting with doing their job without a director (due to costs mainly), and it was a complete nightmare. The play just didn't come together and desperately needed a director to keep to the inner vision and keep the actors under control!
ReplyDeleteI think an editor is like that. In terms of writing, I just feel way too close to the dang thing (like those actors) and need an outside observer to whip it into some kind (any kind!) of shape. They're also brilliant at spotting my complete idiocies (change a character's hair colour? mix up your town names? in one traumatic moment alter a minor character's gender? Yup, that's me ...) so I definitely need them. :)
But I do feel that once the beast is published and anyone spots an oddity then that's definitely my fault - it feels wrong to let the editor take the blame. But on the other hand, with my reviewer's hat on, I have criticised editors myself in cases where I think the author ought to have been brought under stricter control by a firmer hand, much like those actors ...
So maybe the answer is: I don't know!!! Arrgghh!!! :))
Anne
xxx
I'm chipping in too here, just to agree that a good editor is like gold. Or sometimes, "like hen's teeth" as Hubby would say i.e. rare as well as amazing LOL.
ReplyDeleteAnd what's a "good" editor? As an author, to me it's someone who enthuses about the story and (sorry for implied arrogance) also my writing, reads the book as thoroughly as I do myself, but can take an overall critical view on the structure and style, also on the potential reader and publisher response. Who understands and applies good industry practice for both plot and characterisation, who doesn't cramp my unique writing style but suggests - firmly, when needed - parts of the book where it should be tightened up, abandoned as superfluous, and/or strengthened with word count or extra scenes. Suggestions where parts are inconsistent or unclear because, hey, the reader isn't inside my mind at all times to know what I meant...
Basically, they become part of the team for producing the very best final product. On my side, but making me a better writer.
As a reader, I do like to hear if proofreading was poor, or there are errors. I also like to hear if the reviewer felt the structure or style was clunky or jarring. That's useful and relevant, and I'll often agree, even if I still buy/enjoy the book.
My only hesitation would be in saying the editing was "poor" for these latter items. I'm not an editor so I don't know how much of an editor's input is subjective i.e. they may have followed common practices and considered the book well done, but it still reads as clunky to someone else who prefers tight, differently-balanced editing. (does that make sense?) Also, as others have said, some authors are less amenable to being strictly edited in the first place *g*. I'm not sure how much influence editors are given over that, either. This may be exaggerated in the fast-growing, lower-capitalised m/m epublisher industry. And that's not intended to apply to any specific publishers/editors/authors, I hasten to add.
I think you should keep mentioning it. Esp people like you Jen who are established reviewers and have a good name.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that one day it will sink in that our kind of books need good editing too
Heidi: Yes it would be a very good thing if m/m gained a wider readership. I can't see that happening soon though - although the genre is growing so who knows? :)
ReplyDeleteKris: Good point. Lapses in editing are important to the reader and so ought to be picked up by reviewers.
Anne: It's OK to sit on the fence, dear :).
ReplyDeleteI like your analogy with the actors. I think authors do need guidance and a good editor will provide that. What I'm never sure about though is whether that advice has been offered or not and promptly ignored by the author.
Clare: Basically, they become part of the team for producing the very best final product. On my side, but making me a better writer.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's exactly right. My concerns are if the finished product isn't the best the writer can produce. If only a lowly reader/reviewer like myself can see how the author could have made the story better why hasn't that been picked up in the editing stage? But as you say, maybe it was and the author ignored it. It's a tough one to call.
Ingrid: That's my thinking in a way. If all us reviewers pussy-foot around and don't mention editing problems then publishers aren't going to pick up that readers aren't happy about it.
ReplyDeleteReading through these comments has made me very grateful for an editor who pointed out style problems and could say,"Why is that here and not there?" or "Please don't do this." Having seen what a marked up page looks like after an NY editor has taken a look (over on Anne Mini's blog), even that was getting off lightly.
ReplyDeleteI've seen disclaimers on some submissions pages along the lines of "If you think your every word is golden and should remain untouched, the editing process is going to be very uncomfortable here." That's good news if they have editors who can make that discomfort pay off in the final product.
Clare is absolutely right about the writer and editor being a team, and that the book should be the best reading experience they can produce.
Hi PD
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you had a really good editor - and to be honest it shows in your books.
It must be hard for editors in a way because editorial errors are very apparent but when everything goes smoothly and works in the editing process then no-one notices and thinks it's all down to the author's brilliance :).
As someone who has worked as editor for two different publishers and been published with a third, I can tell you that not all publishers are created equal with regards to their editing process. One of them straight-up forbade (notice the past tense) me to edit anything related to the content (unless it was a continuity error) or the style. All I was allowed to do was technical editing, and I was the primary editor! (And you can see why I'm posting this anonymously and not naming names.)
ReplyDeleteAnd even that, authors were allowed to NOT take my suggestions, and I never had a chance to defend my reasoning. And for some authors, who think the only purpose of an editor is to tell them that they're perfect! and they don't need any corrections!, that was not a great arrangement.
And some things that people think are editing problems are, sometimes, a matter of taste. I've seen books that I've edited end up on my "love 'em or hate 'em" scale, and mostly for the same reasons! Someone says, "God, X sucked in this book. Where was the editor?" and someone else says, "OMG, I loved X!"
I mean, that happens all the time. I can name at least three blockbuster movies off the top of my head that I thought were boring, poorly written, and dismally directed... but notice I said blockbuster. A lot of people liked them. Some of them even won multiple Academy Awards. *coughAvatarcough*
Honestly, some people love James Joyce, and some people (ie, me) can't stand him. So some things that get blamed on editors are just taste. Others... could be a whole range of things. Editor error (because we're not perfect), author stubbornness, publisher policy...
Honestly, in my opinion, I would rather see someone point out "X didn't work for me, and here's why" on subjective (ie, non-technical) issues than just say, "Honestly, the editing on this sucked." Because while you're not saying the EDITOR sucked, you're criticizing how well they did their job, and while that may be fair, it also may not be. Better just to stick with the neutral "final product" analysis than to attribute blame when there's very little way of knowing to whom the blame actually belongs. *grin* But I don't think anyone can argue with you saying "X didn't work for me because."
But that's just my two cents. Possibly more with inflation and the fact that I rambled. Sorry!