• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

When to reject an editor's advice

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
Keep in mind that this is a rant. I need to vent and appreciate the opportunity to do so :)

I've always heard about those authors who think of their work as untouchable art and thought I'd never be like that. Overall, I've learned to take criticism well. My attitude is that I should learn everything I can from any critiques or comments.

I've found, however, that I do have lines that I will not cross.

The story is mine. It's the reason I'm writing in the first place - to share with everyone these characters in these situations and what happens to them. I am highly resistant to fundamental changes to character or plot.

At some point, if I change those, the story isn't mine anymore.

To a lesser extent, I also have these issues:

1. Just because an editor prefers that I change a story line or character does not necessarily mean the story will be better, especially if that editor doesn't seem to "get" what I'm trying to convey.
2. I prefer a particular type of story. If the comments tell me to change from that type, I'm not going to like it as much. Additionally, since I'll probably write the same type stories my entire career, it seems silly to try to write something different now. I think it's in my best long term interests to have my debut novel herald the kind of stories I want to write, even if (if the editor is in fact correct) I could possibly make the novel more successful now by incorporating the comments.
3. The changes seem to advocate taking what I consider interesting choices and making them mundane/expected. That does not seem to be a winning formula: hey, create what everyone else is creating. That's how you stand out?

/rant

Thanks for reading.

Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guy

CupofJoe

Myth Weaver
Fairly measured and restrained for a rant...:p
But to answer the question you didn't ask...
When to reject an editor's advice?
When it's wrong... the trick is to know when that is...
 

ThinkerX

Myth Weaver
Having read a fair bit of your work - or at least the posted drafts - I will make the following comment:

Much of your work does appear fairly formulaic. You are (slavishly?) following the 'Heroes Path' and your characters follow paths not too far from the norm. Therefor I agree...

...with you!

The last thing you need is more formulaic material.

(By the way, do the barbarian Cloak Wielding magicians appear in book 2 or book 3?)
 
There are two parts to the rejection:

1): The part you're supposed to change and the parts of the story impacted by that part must successfully produce the feelings you want them to produce.

2): The change must reduce the impact of those feelings.

Rejecting a change at that juncture may prevent a great story from getting even better, but it's unlikely to cause any actual flaws to stay in the story, assuming you've made good decisions as to what feelings you want to invoke.

2 is an easy one to determine. If, for instance, you're writing a doom-and-gloom story, a suggestion to add a dash of humor might break 2. 1 is much trickier, particularly the part in italics, for two reasons:

a): You may not be qualified to determine whether the part in question produces the emotion successfully.

b): Even if that part, on its own, produces the emotion, it must be considered in context with another part. Let's take the doom-and-gloom story again--you may need to have comic relief somewhere to prevent the reader from being completely overwhelmed, even if this ruins a specific moment.

As you can see, rejecting an editor's advice can be a tricky business.

Alternately, they might want you to add ninjas to your fantasy story set in southern Africa, in which case just find another editor.

Edit: I should note that I personally disagree with the idea that the stories I write are mine. Because they're all ground-up remixes of other people's ideas, I necessarily rely on the idea that those ideas can be improved, so I'm willing to take any suggestions that improve them, even if they change what I'm doing with the stories. If you're really super original, I guess this may not apply to you, though.
 
Last edited:

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
My thoughts on this:

To assume that you have submitted to an editor or have hired one means that you're interested in improving your story in some way. This could mean content, mechanics, or whatever. If you are sold that your position is the right one, you have two options:

a. Ignore the editor's advice and do it your way (assuming your self-publishing). I don't find ignoring editors works for traditional publishing unless you really fight for your ideas being the right ones.
b. Concede that maybe you are wrong in certain instances and take the editor's advice into consideration since you hired this person to help you.

Like any relationship, many writers may struggle with editors. Maybe they have different aesthetics, different goals, etc. Preferably, you'd want an editor that can fine tune and hone your writing to make it work better. Make your characters stand out more, take care of inconsistencies of plot or world-building. That's an editor's job. If a particular editor's vision doesn't match up with yours that may just mean you weren't meant for each other.

Addressing these other points:

1. Just because an editor prefers that I change a story line or character does not necessarily mean the story will be better, especially if that editor doesn't seem to "get" what I'm trying to convey.

If the editor doesn't "get" what you're trying to convey, then you have to decide if that is you being misunderstood or a flaw with what you've written. It's ultimately up to the writer to convey his or her story. If an editor or reader doesn't get it, it's not always her fault.

But your point is also true. Maybe the changes being suggested won't make it better, but maybe they will. From knowing what you've posted on the forum, you've had several beta readers. Did your beta readers notice the same things the editor is pointing out? If so, maybe it's time to think more about what is being suggested to you.

2. I prefer a particular type of story. If the comments tell me to change from that type, I'm not going to like it as much. Additionally, since I'll probably write the same type stories my entire career, it seems silly to try to write something different now. I think it's in my best long term interests to have my debut novel herald the kind of stories I want to write, even if (if the editor is in fact correct) I could possibly make the novel more successful now by incorporating the comments.

This seems a tricky situation. It sounds a bit like you're set in your ways when it comes to how you want to tell stories. That is fine obviously. However, if you're asking for a beta reader or an editor's feedback, you have to bend a little when it comes to what people point out to you. Without knowing what the editor suggested and not having read the book in question, it's hard to say who I would agree with. Many writers have to make the decision if their original vision is the best one or that what the editor says to them is true and something needs more work. I think it's harder to accept that a novel needs more work if you've been working on it for a long time and are reading for publication. Writing is the patient person's game though. I wouldn't rush something or ignore good advice if you think it's going to help you in the long haul.

3. The changes seem to advocate taking what I consider interesting choices and making them mundane/expected. That does not seem to be a winning formula: hey, create what everyone else is creating. That's how you stand out?

Another difficult situation. I think readers do expect a certain amount of the expected in fiction. This doesn't mean that you have to follow some kind of formula to tell your story, but sometimes when a reader figures something out and it happens to be true, it gives them a sense of satisfaction. The same goes for the unexpected though. If a reader says "Wow, I didn't see that coming but it totally makes sense" you've also done a good job. So in my view, a combination of expected and unexpected developments in a story make it more interesting to me rather than just everything being unexpected. Weigh your options and see if any of the new solutions work for you. If none of them don't, then you're taking the risk of ignoring some potentially helpful advice.

I have to say having never dealt with an editor when it comes to a book, I can't say what I would do in this situation. My general feeling is that if I'm dealing with an editor whose judgment I trust, then I'm going to probably take the advice more seriously. If it's someone who I don't entirely feel comfortable with (differing philosophies, vision, etc.) then I may be more inclined to push forward with what I originally wrote.

Tricky, very tricky. Good luck anyway!
 
Last edited:

Jamber

Sage
Hi Brian,

I think rejecting a professional editor's advice is always risky, but so is accepting it. lol

Sometimes (just like anyone), editors can get stuck on a tack. They can get so caught up in exploring what they've perceived to be 'wrong' with a work that they get hung up on expecting you (the writer) to follow through on exactly the changes they set out. If you slavishly follow all the suggested changes you can end up with a book that doesn't work at all. This is where nodding, smiling and going away to think are handy tactics.

On the other hand, it's even more risky to declare that there can't be a problem in the first place. Whatever trips an editor up will probably trip up a variety of readers, whether or not that editor's suggested fix suits you. There's an art to having an open enough mind without it being too open (in which case, as you rightly point out, the work wouldn't be yours).

For the above reasons I think you've taken the right tack overall: you've listened to the advice, you've given it some thought, and you've realised you want to do it the way you want to.

Just as a personal suggestion though, I'd be careful of using 'it wouldn't be my story' as the reason not to make a fundamental change — that argument could be used against making any kind of change at all. If you must defend something, make sure you defend it in terms of the work itself, e.g. your choices connect to theme, or they're indispensable in terms of plot or your overarching ideas.

Best wishes,
Jennie
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
(By the way, do the barbarian Cloak Wielding magicians appear in book 2 or book 3?)

More like 6.
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
Just as a personal suggestion though, I'd be careful of using 'it wouldn't be my story' as the reason not to make a fundamental change — that argument could be used against making any kind of change at all.

I think this attitude is an outgrowth of my method. I start with a character and a situation. As I write, I learn more about both. If I go back to the core motivation or situation and change it, it changes completely the story I want to tell.

If my goal is to tell the story in the best way possible, changing the story's core seems contrary to what I want to accomplish.

Am I making any sense?
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
Like any relationship, many writers may struggle with editors. Maybe they have different aesthetics, different goals, etc. Preferably, you'd want an editor that can fine tune and hone your writing to make it work better. Make your characters stand out more, take care of inconsistencies of plot or world-building. That's an editor's job. If a particular editor's vision doesn't match up with yours that may just mean you weren't meant for each other.

Don't misunderstand. I'm getting a ton of good stuff out of this editor. I'm making some hard decisions and changing structure, etc. The story is much better, so far, now than it was when I gave it to her.

She just seems fixated on a couple of particular changes that I don't believe work, and she kinda presented the changes to me as, "you have to do this and make these hard choices." She combined those views with some comments that made it seem like she had completely misread portions of the book, including a couple of places that were crystal clear: the characters knock out some guards where the use of a knockout potion is mentioned several times; she goes: when they killed the guards... I'm like, "Huh?"

But your point is also true. Maybe the changes being suggested won't make it better, but maybe they will. From knowing what you've posted on the forum, you've had several beta readers. Did your beta readers notice the same things the editor is pointing out? If so, maybe it's time to think more about what is being suggested to you.

The beta readers didn't, but I'm not sure I can make any conclusion from that. The editor is much better at finding things that need to be changed than my beta readers in general.

Many writers have to make the decision if their original vision is the best one or that what the editor says to them is true and something needs more work. I think it's harder to accept that a novel needs more work if you've been working on it for a long time and are reading for publication. Writing is the patient person's game though. I wouldn't rush something or ignore good advice if you think it's going to help you in the long haul.

I think my best bet is a compromise: changing the sections she most has a problem with but not changing it in the way she suggested...

Thanks!
 

A. E. Lowan

Forum Mom
Leadership
It sounds like you have hired an editor who isn't familiar with the genre. Is that a fair conclusion to draw?
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
I've read any number of forum discussions more or less on this topic (the relationship between editor and writer). I draw parallels with other art forms.

Painters never have to deal with this nonsense, unless they are working on spec. Painters may rework their paintings endlessly, but almost never in response to an editor's comments.

OTOH, musicians deal with this often, at least if they get into a recording studio. Both the engineer and the producer will have a say, ranging from advising on a re-take to actually manipulating the music themselves independently from the musician.

I see writing as closer to music than to painting or sculpture. With the latter, the relationship between artist and audience is direct (so also with live music). With writing as with recorded music, though, there is an intermediary who helps the artist shape the final product.

Perhaps it is because we invest so many, many hours into a single work that we feel so proprietary and protective of it. For myself, I try to view the editor as a partner. My challenge is not so much to accept or reject advice as it is to find a way to use it. In some cases I can, in some cases I cannot. In only rare instances does the advice cut so deep that I wrestle with the issues Brian raised.
 

Nihal

Vala
FYI about painting: Only "gallery artists" have this kind of freedom. The majority of illustrators, painters and designers in general aren't gallery artists. They have editors (if it's a comic) or client or art director dictating where the work should go and unlike a writer, who can chose to not take the advice an illustrator doesn't have all this freedom. Once I've reworked the same illustration for a whole week because the art director couldn't understand that what she wanted was simply impossible. Concept art in special is closer to writing than you could ever imagine.
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
I haven't read all the replies but I consider the choice of editor akin to the choices on beta readers.

So my question to you Brian:
How did you select an editor?

If I'm going to have someone edit my work....I'm talking after all the beta reading & crit groups. It needs to be someone that I trust with my story. Someone that understands my vision. If I've chosen my editor well, then it would be foolish to ignore their advice.

At that point, you don't have to follow every point of advice. However, you should get some value from an editors feedback. If not, I'd question my choice. Since we're talking about content editors, I think it's important to share a vision of style and story telling.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
When to reject an editor's advice, or anyone else's for that matter: when you've given it due consideration and you don't agree with it :)

Yep, this is my thinking too.

1. Just because an editor prefers that I change a story line or character does not necessarily mean the story will be better, especially if that editor doesn't seem to "get" what I'm trying to convey.

If the editor doesn't get what you're trying to convey, then you have to ask yourself if you're doing a good job conveying it. If you are, then ignore the editor.


2. I prefer a particular type of story. If the comments tell me to change from that type, I'm not going to like it as much. Additionally, since I'll probably write the same type stories my entire career, it seems silly to try to write something different now. I think it's in my best long term interests to have my debut novel herald the kind of stories I want to write, even if (if the editor is in fact correct) I could possibly make the novel more successful now by incorporating the comments.

If a comment tells you to change a story drastically, you're going to have to decide if it's for the better or not. If not, then ignore. But one thing though, beware of getting stuck writing the same thing over. IMHO writing different things makes you a better writer and lets you find what you're really good at. Sometimes it's not what you think. If memory serves, Dan Wells says that he started writing Epic Fantasy, but got nowhere, then he tried horror and that worked out better for him.

3. The changes seem to advocate taking what I consider interesting choices and making them mundane/expected. That does not seem to be a winning formula: hey, create what everyone else is creating. That's how you stand out?

When my choices are challenged, I ask myself if my choices are as interesting as I think they are. If they are, then I ask myself if I've set them up well enough. Also sometimes doing the expected can open up more interesting paths. It's like sometimes a revealed secret is better than a kept one.

Again, give criticisms due though and if you disagree, ignore them.
 
It is said, go not to the editors for advice...for they will say both no and yes.

I have worked with numerous editors over my three published books (all published by small publishers) and I simply refuse to make fundamental structural or character changes. This is not to say I wouldn't be open to making changes on the basis of a superb suggestion - in fact, I made two pretty big changes to my latest book on the basis of suggestions from beta readers - but the instant I suspect that the editor doesn't 'get' the book then that's it. I can't work with someone who hasn't paid enough attention to my precious work to appreciate what I'm trying to convey.

Having said all that, I've been writing 20 years and am now completely relaxed in my style. I know people like what I do (not huge numbers yet) so I'm happy to continue doing that. I just want editors to point out obvious errors, repeated use of words/phrases, over-explaining and anything else that can be cut because it just isn't need.

To give an example, when my first book was accepted, it was 230k words and the publisher said: I really like it, but I'm only publishing 160k words. So the main task I had (working with two different editors) was cutting it down. Anything that departed fom the spine of the story was cut, and we got it down to 190k.

The story was much tighter, but nothing important was changed.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
At some point, if I change those, the story isn't mine anymore.

I've only had relatively brief experiences with editors. But they pretty much play out the same way. Editor wants to change A to B, and if I think hard enough I can see why. Instead of fighting for A, I change it to C and everyone's happy.

It's your story. Make it your story. Don't just stop working on it just because your editor's looking at it too.
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
I haven't read all the replies but I consider the choice of editor akin to the choices on beta readers.

So my question to you Brian:
How did you select an editor?

If I'm going to have someone edit my work....I'm talking after all the beta reading & crit groups. It needs to be someone that I trust with my story. Someone that understands my vision. If I've chosen my editor well, then it would be foolish to ignore their advice.

At that point, you don't have to follow every point of advice. However, you should get some value from an editors feedback. If not, I'd question my choice. Since we're talking about content editors, I think it's important to share a vision of style and story telling.

I agree with this as well. Speaking generally, if you're going with a traditional publisher, you may get an idea of the kind of fiction they publish by reading their books. It may be that you bump heads with an editor more in this case. However, if you chose this editor, then you must have chosen him or her based on some type of criteria you had.

It sounds like the experience has been positive for you for the most part, so I think you made the right choice. At the end of the day, if you're self-publishing especially, it's your choice what you put out there.
 
Top