word craft


What makes a great editor?

With the pass­ing of edi­tor Richard Jack­son, and amidst the talk about him, the ques­tion quite nat­u­ral­ly came up: What makes for a great editor?

My own response is high­ly sub­jec­tive. I think every writer would say so. The per­son who is a good edi­tor for writer X is not nec­es­sar­i­ly a good edi­tor for writer Y. And writer X’s good edi­tor does not nec­es­sar­i­ly work well for writer Y. In say­ing that, we answer part of the orig­i­nal ques­tion: a good edi­tor-writer work­ing rela­tion­ship has mul­ti­ple emo­tion­al fac­tors. Thus, can author and edi­tor com­mu­ni­cate well with each oth­er? Do they share the same sense of humor, tragedy, and so forth? Do they share atti­tudes about gen­der, race? These things (and there are many more) tru­ly mat­ter, and they are, as I began this essay, high­ly sub­jec­tive. The writer/editor writ­ing rela­tion­ship is a high­ly per­son­al one, but it is also a busi­ness rela­tion­ship. Prof­it and loss is a real fac­tor. Does that seem com­pli­cat­ed? It is.

But there are—in my experience—other fac­tors. One of the key skills of a good edi­tor is the abil­i­ty to dis­cern the poten­tial qual­i­ties in what has to be an unfin­ished man­u­script. That potential—as seen by the editor—needs to match what the writer hopes (wants) to achieve.

Remem­ber, it is a roman­tic myth that writ­ers cre­ate books alone.

In my expe­ri­ence, good edi­tors nev­er just say, “We can pub­lish that.” They will say, “I can see you doing this, that, and the oth­er thing to make this a suc­cess­ful book,” what­ev­er the genre.

If you agree, fine. If you don’t, say “Thank you, no.” Not long ago I pitched a nov­el to edi­tor 1. The idea was liked, but the response was “you should need to tell the sto­ry this way.” I said “No, thanks,” and took the same pitch to edi­tor 2, who accept­ed it as I pre­sent­ed it. The annals of children’s lit­er­a­ture are full of tales of books turned away, only to go else­where and win a New­bery Award. Mind, that which was turned away was not a New­bery book. It became so as edi­tor and writer worked together.

And acknowl­edge this painful truth: You, the author, may be wrong. And, yes, edi­tors can be wrong.

A good edi­tor (in my expe­ri­ence) makes you see your work in a clear­er, sharp­er light. That edi­tor makes you want to get back to the book and revise. Repeat­ed­ly. If an edi­tor sug­gests some­thing alien to the writer’s goal, it’s a poor fit. That’s not to say the edi­tor is wrong, it’s that, I repeat, it’s a poor fit. But it is painful to work with an edi­tor who doesn’t share your vision. Revis­ing a book to fit some­one else’s vision is not much fun.

Indeed, the most dif­fi­cult kind of edi­tor is the one who sees in your work some­thing that they would like to see, and tries to bend your work accord­ing­ly. They are try­ing to cre­ate some­thing for their own pur­pos­es. Again they may be right, (it might be for com­mer­cial rea­sons) and if the writer is will­ing to aim for that, so be it. But if edi­tor and writer are mov­ing in oppo­site ways, it’s hard. Leave Push-Me-Pull-Yous to Dr. Dolittle.

Meeting with your editor

I have always felt the best part of writer/editor moments occur when tex­tu­al prob­lems are solved togeth­er by talk. That’s when the edi­to­r­i­al process is tru­ly excit­ing. Then it’s all about ideas, and cre­at­ing excit­ing lit­er­a­ture to reveal them.

The best editors—and Dick Jack­son was one of the rare great ones—bring the author’s vision to full fruition. Great edi­tors may be invis­i­ble, but it doesn’t say they aren’t there. They are.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Posts