Shady Thoughts: Another Look at "On Being Edited, A Reaction"
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Another Look at "On Being Edited, A Reaction" |
| Creator: | Wanda Lybarger |
| Date(s): | Spring 1984 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Shady Thoughts: Another Look at "On Being Edited, A Reaction" is a 1984 essay by Wanda Lybarger.
It was printed in Shadowstar #14 and is part of the Shady Thoughts essay series.
It is a direct response Shady Thoughts: On Being Edited, A Reaction by Roberta Stuemke.
From the Essay
I would like to address a response to some of the points raised in Roberta Stuemke's article in SHADOWSTAR #13. She scorns the notion of authors having final approval of their stories as expensive, time-consuming, and an unrealistically unprofessional assumption by fan writers. In support of her view, she uses the example of Hemingway as an author who had, routinely, to be virtually rewritten, the implication being that, if a pro like Hemingway accepted the editor as final authority, fan writers would be unprofessional to expect otherwise.
Now, of course, I'm not arguing with the need for fan writers to develop a more detached and reasonable attitude toward being edited. It's juvenile and limiting to take offense at every sign of blue pencil, and yes, indeed, an editor who has to wrestle a writer to the ground over every story is going to quit even provisionally accepting that writer's work. Pandora hasn't the resources to pamper prima donnas. But cooperating objectively and intelligently with an editor is not indistinguishable from giving him/her a blank check.
I take exception to the apparent assertion that the editor is strictly the final authority (like Roberta's school instructor) and that the writer basically surrenders the fate of his/her story to the editor when he/she submits it. It's supposed to be an informed partnership, working toward the common goal of making the work better than it started.
Unquestioning concurrence is an abdication of part of the writer's responsibility, an especially acute one where plenty of 'zines are put out by editors with little training or experience, and very few — the exception to the rule — by editors who have the seasoning to confine themselves to their specific function. To that end, the writer needs to see the finalized manuscript at least once, and have the right to pull it rather than accede to truly unacceptable changes, simply with the idea of not submitting to that 'zine in the future.
If the editor has a reputation to protect, so does the writer. In my earlier example, there was a writer whose work was diminished, and who shouldered the blame from readers and reviewers. Editors may speak at length in editorials, but writers generally have no forum for defense. Even more than the editor, their reputations rest on the published work. And, if an editor's reputation helps determine whether the 'zine is a sought-after product, the writer's determines the welcome his/her next story receives at another publication.
By no means am I advocating that a writer be argumentative, or that all 'zine editors are incompetent; some are remarkably skilled at that separate-from-writing discipline. But rather than merely cultivate a philosophical acceptance of the editing process, the writer might spend some honest study of strong suits in his own work to be aware of where a fan editor (not a pro) has strayed into the other area of responsibility. No, writers aren't perfect by a long shot. Neither are editors, which is why writers need to learn to dispassionately examine their own work in order to determine its best interests — and exercise the right to protect it.