Editors and their genre knowledge

[Mad Swede]

In a thread elsewhere on the forums pmmg expressed surrpise when I wrote that editors shouldn't be readers or writers of the genre the author is writing in. I based that comment on my own experience as a published author, but I'm aware that this seems to be a minority view. My view is that using an editor not immersed in the genre means that I as an author get a more open and potentially more critical examination of my books, something which I as the author benefit from. I know there is an argument that an editor who isn't familiar with the genre won't know what makes a book in that genre successful and hence won't give a good edit. My counter-argument is that the basics of good storytelling don't change with genre, and that if we are to develop both the genre and as authors we should encourage critical examinations of our work. But maybe I'm wrong. What do the rest of you think?

 

[pmmg]

I can see the benefit of what you are saying. It actually makes me feel better about my own editor

I can also see the benefit of one in the genre as they will know more the trends and the special language of it.

I think to really get a winner, you have to get more than one and compare, and that will get expensive. Without that, recommendations from those already using them is probably the best approach.

I used Reedsy to find one. I got some samples, but what do I know? I am not happy or unhappy yet. Still in progress.


I should add, since the topic is editors, there are actually several types of edits. It may be useful to have them all in one editor (cheaper that way), or one for each purpose. A developmental editor is for fixing story errors, like plot, prose, characterization and such. A copy editor is just for finding all the typos.

And there are some others, like a researcher who may verify all your facts (non-fiction mostly), and an editorial assessment, which is to point you towards the type of editors you need.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I actively look out for beta readers who have no specific genre knowledge so I appreciate the advantage that this perspective gives. But while that's a useful opinion, I think that an editor is too central to the development of the work to not have any understanding of where it sits within the genre. There's also the practical problem that to maintain ignorance of my writing (or type of writing), I'd have to fire my editor every time they started to get an understanding of what I was doing. Leaving aside the fact that I can't just fire my editor, I'd burn through a lot of editors, which wouldn't really help with continuity.

 

[Finchbearer]

I’m not there yet, but if I were to get to the point of working with an editor I would want them to be at least invested in my story regardless of genre. I’d want an unbiased view, and someone with an open mind. My dream publishing house would be Penguin Random House, which as the name suggests, publishes across a wide range of genres, as long as a. The book is written well and b. They think is saleable.

 

[Mad Swede]

Maybe I'm being a little unclear. I'm thinking primarily of developmental editing, and I am not suggesting that you should keep changing your editor.

My editor still doesn't read fantasy or noir literature, nor does she write it. But she is familiar with the way I write and my style of story telling, which makes the editing process a lot more constructive for us both. My argument really is that an editor should be helping the author produce a well written story. I'm not convinced that this means knowing where a story sits in the genre, because for me that isn't relevant to what makes a well-written and readable story. But that might also be because my books don't fit into one genre, at least not according to others.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I wouldn’t say you’re being unclear. I guess I’m just thinking about what I value in my relationship with my editor and you’re doing the same. What I write at the moment is very particular and needs to fill a very specific niche and suit a very specific audience (and has a furious schedule that sees us working together weekly). While I want to chuck my editor out of a window from time-to-time, they are crucial to dragging me back on point. If I moved to a more ‘freestyle’ type of writing, I’d still value that type of input because it’s what I’m used to. Any good editor should be able to fix spismelling and errorrs. They should also be able to talk about bad dialogue, poor structure, unsatisfying payoffs, etc. etc. But a genre-fluent one should be able to understand when you’re using an established trope that readers will likely understand and need less set up for, or be able to warn you if you’re doing something that’s incongruous or that’s been overdone.

An alternate way to think about it might be to ask what you would miss as a writer if you suddenly changed to a genre you had no experience in. What would you mess up? What would readers pick up on? What would get better as you learned more about your genre? Not everything, possibly not even most things. But definitely a significant amount IMHO. If that’s true for the writer, why not the editor?

 

[Mad Swede]

I don't know. I think Slartibartfast that I'd turn your question round and ask why you write in a given genre? It's been said to me that a good writer can work in any genre, but that it is their personal interest which determines which genre they write in. Edith Pargeter (also known as Ellis Peters) would be an example, as would Sir Terry Pratchett.

I'd also argue that as writers we shouldn't be making assumptions about our readers familiarity with a given genre. Sure, those who recognise a given trope might not need as much of a set up, but I think we're being lazy and sloppy if we use that sort of assumed familiarity as an excuse for skimping on the set up. But maybe I'm still too much of a soldier at heart?

My editor would argue that you don't need to be genre-fluent to pick up something incongruous. Her view is that such incongruities arise when an author hasn't thought the setting through properly, and that this is a sign of poor story development. As fgor overused tropes, does that matter? I never give any thought to which tropes I'm using when I write. I don't even check later on. That's because I think it's irrelevant to writing a good story. It isn't what tropes you use, it's how you use them which matters.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I'm not even sure why people think in tropes, heh heh. I don't even bother to know tropes or what the hell they are.

I do think some people's brains kink in certain genre directions, which could be a bit of a chicken or egg question.

 

[skip.knox]

Well, editors themselves seem to think it matters. They work in particular genres. I don't know the trad publishing world, but I think that publishers likewise retain editors specific to genres.

This likely varies across genres. Romance, as has been pointed out elsewhere, encompasses numerous sub-genres, each with very specific expectations and conventions. Violate those and the readers will not like it. Those expectations and conventions are likely to be very different over in horror. Or epic fantasy.

One way to look at this is to think of it in layers. At bedrock, sure, there are elements of story telling that are universal. Any editor ought to be able to call those out. Genre constitutes a second layer. Much fuzzier, sure. I imagine some genres are closer cousins than others--SF and fantasy, for example--while others are distant. A third layer might be sub-genres, but perhaps I'm pushing the metaphor off a cliff here.

Another way of looking at it is to keep in mind there are different kinds of editing. At the most mundane, surely proofreading is something that doesn't change much across genres. But with developmental editing, the genre might matter quite a bit. So, it depends on what sort of editorial help the author is seeking.

See, kids? We can take any question and turn it into "it depends!"

 

[The Dark One]

My first editor was pushed onto me by my first ever publisher. The book was a crime novel with an English football backdrop, and the publisher said X is great... she loves football. Imagine then my horror when I saw her first round of edits. If left alone it would have absolutely ruined my story - with her main problem being that she had to impose herself on every single sentence. I showed it to the publisher and said: I can't work with someone who quite obviously doesn't get what I'm trying to do. Fortunately he gave me a new editor - one who knew nothing about football - and she was great. She got (and enjoyed) the story and limited her suggestions to a few queries about exactly what I intended in places and alerted me to some overused words. That book was quite successful.

After two reasonably successful crime novels, I decided to have a go at an historical novel (much to my agent's alarm). She gave it to her favourite reader and his report started with the words - I don't know anything about historical writing so bearing that in mind... he then produced a three page report that savaged my story and completely misunderstood it. He clearly thought it was a Game of Thrones ripoff and did not seem to understand the difference between history and fantasy. I was utterly frustrated by this and produced a five page report in response addressing all of his criticisms and explaining how he'd totally misinterpreted my story (which bizarrely, he'd said he'd enjoyed). My agent wouldn't sell the book unless I addressed the reader's suggestions so we agreed to terminate. That book was reasonably successful and remains my highest rated book on GR.

So I guess the moral to my two stories - an editor who knows a lot and an editor who knows nothing about your genre can be either good or bad. It all comes down to whether they actually get what you're trying to do in the first place.

 

[Mad Swede]

So I guess the moral to my two stories - an editor who knows a lot and an editor who knows nothing about your genre can be either good or bad. It all comes down to whether they actually get what you're trying to do in the first place.

I agree. It's that personal relationship you build with your editor that makes the process work. That might be why both I and my editor don't think that an editor has to be genre-fluent.

 

[Mad Swede]

Well, editors themselves seem to think it matters. They work in particular genres. I don't know the trad publishing world, but I think that publishers likewise retain editors specific to genres.

In my experience (albeit not from the US) that depends on both the editor and the publisher.

This likely varies across genres. Romance, as has been pointed out elsewhere, encompasses numerous sub-genres, each with very specific expectations and conventions. Violate those and the readers will not like it. Those expectations and conventions are likely to be very different over in horror. Or epic fantasy.

My editor defines this as the difference between hack work and novel writing. Her view (here expressed politely) is that readers who put a book down just because it defies some convention they were expecting are lazy and undemanding. Sure, they may buy a lot of books and that could push me into the best seller list, but my editor's question is whether that is the sort of writer I want to be?

Put another way, do we just want to turn out book after book with roughly the same plot conventions and the same sorts of situations, or do we want to do more with our writing? Do we want to write books which challenge genre conventions and expectations, do we dare to be different?

If you as writers want to produce hack work then sure, hire an editor who only works in your genre of choice, who will keep you on the straight and narrow turning out books which are readable but not much more. Otherwise maybe you should look for an editor who is open to other ideas in a genre.

One way to look at this is to think of it in layers. At bedrock, sure, there are elements of story telling that are universal. Any editor ought to be able to call those out. Genre constitutes a second layer. Much fuzzier, sure. I imagine some genres are closer cousins than others--SF and fantasy, for example--while others are distant. A third layer might be sub-genres, but perhaps I'm pushing the metaphor off a cliff here.

Another way of looking at it is to keep in mind there are different kinds of editing. At the most mundane, surely proofreading is something that doesn't change much across genres. But with developmental editing, the genre might matter quite a bit. So, it depends on what sort of editorial help the author is seeking.

I sometimes wonder why we get so focussed on genre. Yes, it's one way of classifiying what sort of story we've written. So is the length of the story. But at the end of the day, all fiction is speculative, it isn't real. We put our characters into situations and settings which can be close to reality (low speculative fiction) or very far from reality (high speculative fiction, like fantasy or SF). But the basics of a good story don't change irrespective of whether our focus was on a romatic relationship or saving the galaxy.

So I'm not sure genre matters all that much when we talk about developmental editing. But maybe I'm just lucky in having a good editor with whom I have a good relationship.

 

[Slartibartfast]

If you as writers want to produce hack work then sure, hire an editor who only works in your genre of choice, who will keep you on the straight and narrow turning out books which are readable but not much more. Otherwise maybe you should look for an editor who is open to other ideas in a genre.

This seems to be an extreme and uncharitable response. I (and others) posted our preferences in response to your question and we have given our reasons - that’s the point of a forum. What with being different people, some of us have different preferences, this should not be a problem. Nobody has said they prefer editors who are not ’open to other ideas in a genre’. It seems weird to dismiss most of us as hacks who produce barely readable work just because we collaborate with editors who understand the genre we work in. As has been pointed out, this is the normal approach. Anyway, I’m going to hack off before this gets any more unpleasant.

 

[pmmg]

MR Swede is sometimes a little narrow about the possibilities, but looking past that, I find the point still one to consider.

If writing is a formula and a template, then how does it expand? And if the editor is pushing for formulas and templates, are they really going to help us grow. A perspective form outside ought to have some advantages we would not get in the genre.

Just going to say, I think the editor who is working with me if more of a romance type. What she suggests does have some bleed over. I am just not sure how much. But it dont hurt me to pick up skill from another genre. One of the secrets to life is building skill stacks. If you can do one thing well, that is great, and you may have much success with it. If you can do two things well, and combine them, their benefit multiplies. I think its important to look a little beyond the field and see if there is something else we can pick up. Specially if we are already having success where we are.

 

[skip.knox]

Extreme? Narrow? Well, he didn't choose "Moderate Swede" as his handle, did he? <grin>

For myself, I'm content to write conventionally. I chose what I wanted to write. I looked around and decided the closest sub-genre was historical fantasy, or maybe alternate historical fantasy (an uncomfortable and unlovely phrase). I chose a genre in part because metadata is happier with that and in part because people (being metadata-ists at heart) like to know into which bucket to place a person. In short, it facilitates communication with both machines and humans.

So, with that as a starting point, I have no interest in trying to overturn conventions, nor to innovate, nor to avoid being conventional. I have lots of story ideas. Once I decide to turn one of those into a story, my only interest is to tell a good story--which I define as one that I like well enough to show to others. If a reader wants to tag it as this or that genre, that's fine. If a reader wants to consider it conventional or unconventional, I'm fine. I just want them to enjoy it. Now, maybe if a reader comes to one of my stories with certain expectations that it will be ground-breaking, only to find it isn't, and therefore dislikes the story, I'm fine with that as well. I played the tune as best I could; the rest is up to someone else.

To be deliberately innovative, to write something genuinely great, requires me to be a better writer than I am. Just getting a story into coherent shape is a huge challenge for me. Making it readable and enjoyable is an additional challenge. By that time, it's far too late for any sort of breaking of ground. By that time, I'm content just to sit on the ground and have a drink.

 

[Mad Swede]

This seems to be an extreme and uncharitable response. I (and others) posted our preferences in response to your question and we have given our reasons - that’s the point of a forum. What with being different people, some of us have different preferences, this should not be a problem. Nobody has said they prefer editors who are not ’open to other ideas in a genre’. It seems weird to dismiss most of us as hacks who produce barely readable work just because we collaborate with editors who understand the genre we work in. As has been pointed out, this is the normal approach. Anyway, I’m going to hack off before this gets any more unpleasant.

Not really. Sadly, there is far too much formulaic, derivative fantasy writing out there. It's not as bad as it seems to be in the romance genre, far from it, but it is there and it does the rest of us no favours at all. We all get tarred with the same brush.

Don't get me wrong, formulaic, derivative and trope laden stories can be a great read if done well. The Belgariad is perhaps the best example out there, and I really enjoyed those books. But when you compare it to The Hand Maid's Tale...

My editor is quite clear that the difference between what she calls hack work and what she calls a novel is how the author uses and challenges conventions to get some form of meaning across. She doesn't regard a formulaic and derivative book as a serious novel. She admits that such books can be bestsellers, but she feels authors should aim for more. Yes, that can be seen as a somewhat arrogant view - but is she wrong?

I think that this is partly about how we see ourselves, and about how ambitious we are. I don't claim to write profound novels, nor do I set out to do so. But my editor and my publisher do consider my books to be fairly serious novels with a very definite underlying meaning. That's very flattering but also a little worrying. What happens the day I screw it up?

 

[skip.knox]

I'm curious. Does your editor define for you what constitutes "more"? Are there clear measures? You don't need to get into specifics; I'm just wondering if she sets the bar or if she also gives you guidelines on how to do the run up and the jump.

 

[Mad Swede]

I'm curious. Does your editor define for you what constitutes "more"? Are there clear measures? You don't need to get into specifics; I'm just wondering if she sets the bar or if she also gives you guidelines on how to do the run up and the jump.

You know, I had to think about that. Leaving aside her comments about structure, characterisation etc (and there's always some), what she does is to ask questions about what I've written, and they're sort of indirect questions. Things like "have you thought about...?" or "was there any reason you wrote <it> like that?" Things like that. She doesn't give guidelines or definitions, she just gently challenges and nudges me. It tends to turn into a discussion over several cups of coffee (this is Sweden, after all).

 

[The Dark One]

I think that this is partly about how we see ourselves, and about how ambitious we are. I don't claim to write profound novels, nor do I set out to do so. But my editor and my publisher do consider my books to be fairly serious novels with a very definite underlying meaning. That's very flattering but also a little worrying. What happens the day I screw it up?

That's probably the day you become a best seller...

 

[Foxkeyes]

Editors outside your genre won't know what sells in that genre.