To Edit or to Butcher -- That Is the Question
Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 3:19 PM
Some thoughts about the writer-editor relationship.
By
Peter P. Jacobi
Shakespeare once said: "I'll call for pen and
ink and write my mind."
Do that. Let writers write their
mind.
Remind them of their responsibility and your expectation,
of course. But let them write their mind.
On matters of
responsibility and expectation: these might well parallel what the late
William Shawn of The New Yorker said he always looked for.
"Honest writing," he called it. Writing that's more than effect, more
than manners; writing that's straightforward, accurate, clear, truthful;
writing that sees into a situation; writing of substance rather than
merely attractive surface; writing with style."
But along
with that, let your writers write their mind.
Don't Cramp Style
Fear
not a writer's personality. Encourage it.
Certainly, copy the
feel and mood of your publication. But be flexible. Permit a wider
rather than narrower range for suitability. Demand quality, but accept
variety of approach. Not all writing in a given publication should sound
alike. (All too often, it does.) No piece of writing in fact, should
sound like any other. If it does, the editor probably has gone too far,
and formula has taken hold.
Be an editor. Be not a butcher or
tinkerer. The butcher slaughters copy. The tinkerer fiddles with it
endlessly and aimlessly or pointlessly. Be an editor. Build on a
writer's strength. Pay allegiance to his ideas. And cut out stuff that
seems to get in the way of her message.
The results of the
writer-editor relationship should be an article that says what the
author wants to say and in a way that the editor believes the reader
would want it said. And as much of this with the knowledge of the
writer. Let that lonely soul feel part of the editing process, buy into
the editorial decisions being made.
A Collaborative Effort
As
someone once put it, to be a writer is to be a talker, and to be an
editor is to be a listener. That makes the writing-editing process a
dialogue. The writer, through scripted words, does most of the talking.
The editor, through reaction, does most of the listening. And if in the
listening the editor fails to grasp, fails to get pleasure, fails to be
convinced, then he has to talk back and make the writer listen. The best
magazine articles and best magazines come from the collaborative
cooperation of editors and writers.
Consider yourself the hired
help whose task is to help the writer get everything right and bright
and clear. Consider yourself a gatekeeper whose task, based on editorial
policy, tradition, and intuition, is to invite and keep out. Consider
yourself the maintainer of perspective. The writer is immersed in
subject matter. The editor must stand back at least a step or two and
consider thoughtfully what the writer's material means, what issues,
what trends, what ramifications are involved. The writer deals in the
currency of events. The editor deals in the currency of ideas.
Steven
Gittelson, when he was articles editor for Chicago magazine, once
told a class of mine that editors are "links between writers and
readers." He said he always looked for articles that were "immediate,
personable, and literate," for pieces "with a specific voice to
establish a tone, for stories that unfold at a precise pace, and prose
that unfurls with a precise cadence."
Gittelson labeled
these sought-for components as fragile. "When editing a story," he said,
"I must assume that the writer thought good and hard about each word,
sentence, and paragraph. An editor must be even more sensitive to these
elements. If you're worth your salt as an editor, you don't capriciously
delete some sentences and rewrite others just because you would have
said it differently. One of the best compliments an editor can receive
is that he has helped an author say what was intended, but in a more
clear and readable fashion."
Writer and editor collaborate
in the fight to prevent the reader's ho-hum. It's a common attitude
among those you consider your audience. They're neither pro nor con;
they're non-committed, passive. To drive away the ho-hums and ignite the
passion is the editor's grand challenge.
Perilous "P" Words
Watch
for the dangerous "P" words. Warn against them. Weed them out.
The
previous -- subject matter that suggests it was, so it shall
always be in the pages of this magazine.
The predictable
-- a lack of surprises in your publication.
The perfunctory
-- work that shows evidence of having been forced out of writers or
rather than having been there enjoy to originate and do.
The phlegmatic
-- tired work.
The pedantic -- academese.
The pompous
-- self-important boosting and boasting, phony loftiness.
The preachy
-- soapbox or pulpit sermonizing.
The prevaricating --
speak the truth as you see it; don't lie.
The piddling --
cut stuff that's unimportant or likely to be interesting to the reader,
even though it may be interesting to you.
The porous --
plug the holes in copy and coverage.
The precious --
material that’s simply too-too, that's unnatural.
The processed
-- material that seems like fodder from an assembly line, lacking
originality.
Advocate Exemplary Writing
Never
forget as you evaluate copy, the reader must be served fully with every
word, in every moment he or she agrees to share with you. Encourage
discipline, the discipline to stick to subject, the discipline to make
every word, every sentence fit, the discipline to leave out those words
and sentences that don't, the discipline to remove those ideas and those
pieces of information that prove non-essential, all this in your effort
to inform and entertain the reader.
Strive in the
evaluation/editing process for accuracy.
Strive for brevity, but
completeness, too. What you offer the reader should answer all
potentially proposed questions. Be aware of thoroughness in reporting.
Strive
for clarity. As E. B. White once commented: "When you say something,
make sure you have said it. The chances of your having said it are only
fair."
Strive for flow. From sentence to sentence and idea
to idea, let there be linkage.
Strive for structural integrity.
Determine what sort of organization or plan best unfolds the information
in each article.
Consider also the focus of the article under
your mental microscope. That focus should point toward your particular
readership and none else. It should make the article in every way
appropriate for your reader. Determine whether everything in that
manuscript is suitable for your magazine, the subject, and the reader.
Be
alert for style, meaning the writer's personality hatched in words.
It
is for you, the editor, to complete a writer's good work. That makes you
colleagues. That makes you friends. Testy ones perhaps. But friends
engaged in a common cause.
This article, first published in
Editors Only for July 1994, was the late Peter P. Jacobi's first
contribution to EO. We reprint it now in tribute to our longtime
writer. Future issues will continue the tribute with a few more of his
classic pieces.
Add
your comment.