Shady Thoughts: On Being Edited, A Reaction
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | "Shady Thoughts: On Being Edited, A Reaction" |
| Creator: | Roberta Stuemke |
| Date(s): | Winter 1984 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Shady Thoughts: On Being Edited, A Reaction is a 1984 essay by Roberta Stuemke.
It was printed in Shadowstar #13 and is part of the Shady Thoughts essay series.
There was a direct response to this essay in the next issue of Shadowstar. See Shady Thoughts: Another Look at "On Being Edited, A Reaction" by Wanda Lybarger.
From the Essay
... the editor selects material which is not only well-written to begin with, but also fits the general slant of the fanzine as a whole. For example: if the zine features a certain character from a TV show or a movie, the editor s responsibility is to sort out those stories which primarily involve this character. Then, the editor must prepare that story for final publication, correcting any flaws in grammar, structure or style, making sure the story will be as good and as understandable to the zine's readers as it was to the writer and his or her friends. Again, this is to protect the editor's and the publication's reputation. After perusing several huckster's rooms at a variety of conventions, I realized that many readers buy a fanzine on the reputation of the editor and the publication in general, not because a certain writer has a story in it. When someone does buy one issue of a zine because of a specific story, and the publication turns out to be sloppy and poorly presented, that reader will probably not buy future issues, regard less of who appears in them. Let's face it: fanzines are expensive. Few fans can afford to repeatedly purchase poor quality zines. It makes no matter that these are not professional publications; if it is worth doing at all, it is worth doing well, and so, the rules for publication as a whole are just as valid when applied to fanzines as to anything else.
Finally, it is the editor (and, on those rare occasions in fandom when they are not one and the same, the publisher) who must assemble the final product, complete with illustrations, fillers, and the occasional editorial. As this is a large responsibility, no editor can afford to take time coddling writers who are so immature as to take editorial changes personally, and to argue and fight about such changes. Being a hobby rather than a career, both time and money are precious. Should a writer make such a fuss about this routine fact of life, you can be sure that the editor will think twice about accepting any other ma terial from that writer, however good it may be. The headache isn't worth it.
Admittedly, this is a coldly logical way of looking at it, and it is hard to be coldly logical about something you sweat to create, and therefore cannot help but care about. I have suffered some pangs from editorial changes, and have complained about them to friends, but deep down, I recognize that it was partially my fault. In the case in question, I should have been more careful in selecting my market. A closer glance at the zine would have told me how they liked their stories slanted, how regularly they published, all Che things that disappointed me. Still, I let them keep my first submission, because, after all, I had given it to them freely. But when they asked me if I wanted the second one back, I took it, having decided that ray work simply did not suit their zine, nor their policies. Thac was my final responsibili ty as a writer: deciding to never send them anything else.
I suppose my training in journalism and English may help me accept this situation better than many fan writers, who write only as a hobby. Certainly, it is that training which makes me realize that my work benefits from good editing. Like everyone else, I have certain bad writing habits, and am prone to certain mistakes. The editor's responsibility is to correct these, and I fail to see why he or she must ask my permission to correct them; I already did so when I sent in the story. Also, like all writers I get very close, very involved with what I write. This closeness in effect blinds the author. In mv case, I usually end up hating what I write; I am blind to the good in the story and can only see what I believe could be much better. This can work in the opposite direction, as well, and frequently does, by blinding the writer to a story's faults. I can sympathize with these feelings — but sympathy does not
always indicate agreement. Everyone's work can benefit from good editing, from an impartial eye if only to me sure everything is explained clearly, logically, and to its best potential. After all, the author may know why something happens, because he or she thought it up in the first place, but the reader may not be able to understand it as well if, in the presentation, the writer fails to point out some significant Item he or she has taken for granted.