 |
| photo Chris Ayres |
Okay, I might alienate some folk with this post. But here it is.
Painters, sculptors and artists don't have editors.
Composers don’t have editors.
So why do authors?
Are we incapable of critically assessing our own work? What does that say about our faith in our abilities and creative spirit?
I'm not attacking the profession of editors, by the way. Or saying editing isn't important - writers are constantly editing. It's part of the writing process. There are different kinds of editing, and different reasons for it. It involves re-creation and selection. It can be subjective and political. So I'm curious. It seems to be accepted as fact that when it comes to writing, other people are more qualified to edit our work than ourselves. Why? Where did this idea originate? How many visual artists would happily pay someone to add a splash of paint here, a brushstroke there, to enhance the canvas? I don't know any concert composers who would invite opinions on how to structure a dramatic passage or score their finale.
Just putting it out there......
To read what I was saying about editing back in 2012 go to: http://janeayres.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/patchwork-quilts-and-writing-novels.html
Are we incapable of critically assessing our own work? What does that say about our faith in our abilities and creative spirit?
I'm not attacking the profession of editors, by the way. Or saying editing isn't important - writers are constantly editing. It's part of the writing process. There are different kinds of editing, and different reasons for it. It involves re-creation and selection. It can be subjective and political. So I'm curious. It seems to be accepted as fact that when it comes to writing, other people are more qualified to edit our work than ourselves. Why? Where did this idea originate? How many visual artists would happily pay someone to add a splash of paint here, a brushstroke there, to enhance the canvas? I don't know any concert composers who would invite opinions on how to structure a dramatic passage or score their finale.
Just putting it out there......
 |
| photo Jane Ayres |
That's a really interesting comparison. I have no idea - it never occurred to me before now.
ReplyDeleteIt's concerned me for a long time. I can see how another eye on a piece of creative work can bring suggestions, ideas and advice and a different perspective.But what intrigues me is the way that writers especially have come to accept, particularly more recently, that an editor is absolutely essential and integral in a way that does not happen with other art forms.
DeleteI've pondered this question myself - while I appreciate the feedback I receive from my writer's group and beta readers (who often point out things I had missed in terms of timeline, plot threads that weren't quite clear, procedural errors etc.) I actually resent the convention that tells me that an editor knows better how to tell my story than I do.
ReplyDeleteIt's MY plot and I think I'm best qualified to tell the tale as I conceived it.
I know that's not a popular view, but my novels are selling well and getting good reviews, so I'm guessing that readers are happy with my work.
Anyone else feel the same?
I share your view, Deborah, and it probably isn't popular, as you say; that is probably why I have hesitated to express it publicly. But it has been burning a hole in my (metaphorical) pocket, so decided to go for it.
DeleteThat's an interesting question. As far as I'm aware, and now being an editor myself, it's a process of making the final piece fit the medium to which it will be displayed. For example, the painter may create the picture but the curator (or whoever) will usually frame and display the piece. A composer may write the music but the musician/s, rather than the composer, would usually play it. There is also a technical side to writing that follows rules (or breaks them) in a way that other artistic mediums don't - language is not held as a 'self-creating' or 'self referencing' art form in the way, say, sculpture is. Words are used to count, to give directions, to evoke feelings or create a story. The difference between the way we say this and write it is in my view the difference between a painting or a sculpture. But a sculpture will always be a sculpture. Finally, there are many types of writing. I've read that a newspaper copy editor say that journalists can be really lazy and send them pieces that need to be worked on to make publishable. Then there are literary writers that balk at the suggestions editors make. As far as I understand, poetry is not edited. How could it be? (Although translated poetry may be different).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteApologies for how that was written. I need an editor!
DeleteHi Clare - thanks for joining the discussion! Although a curator may have a creative role, they don't change the painting itself, and musicians will interpret the composer's instructions but will not rewrite the music. (As a classically trained musician and composer, I would venture that music is the most technical of all the art forms). Of course, writing is a craft and as such has "rules" but it is interesting the way that language (written and spoken) continues to develop and evolve. Your point about the newspaper copy editor is very pertinent and I think there is a danger that writers who rely and depend too much on editors can become complacent, giving the editor a bigger role than ever. Editing is a creative process and if editorial involvement in a novel, for example, is so significant, it would raise the question for me of whose work it was - the writer or the editor? Lots of interesting issues here!
Delete