Process Post: on edit letters

[mizkit]

There was a discussion going on over on Bluesky about dealing with edit letters, and this truth came up: "Editors aren’t always right about the solutions, but they’re nearly always right about the problems."

That thread went on to discuss how the person quoting it, who happens to be KJ Charles whose books I read all of last year and who is also an editor, approaches edit letters; her approach involves suggesting ideas to fix the problems, because it opens the writer's mind to the possiblity that the book could have something different happen in that moment, and also it gives them something to reject/bounce off/spitefully correct. Which, like: that seems very valid.

That said, I have recently watched friends get SUPER LONG, to my mind, edit letters, 70%+ of which are ideas & suggestions as how to tackle problems, and I honestly think my brain would explode. My editors have VERY MUCH been of the "this is a problem, pls fix" approach, rather than the "let us brainstorm!" approach, and I think that works for me.

Like, I've talked about my two worst revision requests: the short letter that said "these 6 things are wrong, pls fix," which required forcibly inserting a plot into the book (HOUSE OF CARDS), which had previously lacked one, & the phone call which said "can you cut the hero's POV (40% of the book!) & revise the book to make that work" (TRUTHSEEKER & subsequently WAYFINDER bc hoo boy were there knock-on effects on that one).

Neither editor had any particular suggestions on how to do either of those things; the second one literally told me it was her job to see the problems and mine to figure out how to fix them.

For HOUSE OF CARDS, tbh, I'm not sure the editor saw the "this book has no plot" problem per se, but the 6 things that didn't work for her were things that didn't work BECAUSE there was no plot. It was really well written and drew the reader along, but it didn't feel quite right, and the elements she picked up on were what should have been plot points but didn't really support anything.

The "cut the hero's POV" was bc the book, in the editor's opinion, fell too perfectly between romance & fantasy & would satisfy neither audience (so it would have been PERFECT for the red-hot "romantasy" subgenre right now ahahah go me 15 years ahead of the curve for once instead of 5 years behind 😵‍💫)

That book, tbh, she was like, "I will send this to the romance line if you don't want to do this bc this is a HUGE ask, so go think about that" & I thought about it & decided to do it (one of my friends got so upset on my behalf I had to talk HER off the ledge about MY revisions 😅), BUT!

In neither case did they really offer much solution, which is my preference, BUT ALSO: they weren't wrong.

Editors are rarely wrong, or are wrong about the thing they've pointed out but not about SOMETHING in that thing's support system, so fixing THAT will fix what they actually pointed out.

If I REALLY STRONGLY with them on a point I either discuss it with them or don't do it, but...personally I prefer the freedom of "this doesn't work, pls fix" with minimal other editorial input. Mind you, if I need the brainstorming, then my experience has been they'll do that, which is great!

Which is all very much "ymmv" and "this is me" and not to say that the "here's an idea so you can reject it" isn't a totally valid approach that clearly must work for a lot of writers. :)

(The "cut the POV" editor once also asked, about SEAMASTER, which she wasn't editing but I was having a hard time selling, if I could age up the characters to around 16 & I said, "NO!" indignantly, because I felt that their cusp-of-teenhood ages were very important to the story. Then, as the conversation progressed and I thought about it, I sullenly said, "i GUESS i could and it'd probably be FINE, but i don't WANT to."

She laughed at me for about ten minutes. :))

Comments

[jreynoldsward]

I am so with you. Most of the time I want "this doesn't work, pls fix" rather than detailed suggestions because far too often the brainstorming approach goes in directions that aren't my story (but often may be the editor's story). Brainstorming requires a certain degree of trust on my part that the suggester respects what the story is doing.

[mizkit]

I once sent a proposal to an agent who sent me back a really long, thoughtful, considered response that amounted to "write a different book," and I thought, "but that's not the book I want to write. Why dont' YOU write that one, since you seem quite involved with the idea?"

[jreynoldsward]

I haven't had that happen (the agent proposal piece) but one review of my Netwalk books (about the struggle for control of a technology and political hijinks involving powerful women) took me to task for not showing the impact of the tech on the ordinary person.

THE. STORY. WAS. NOT. ABOUT. THE. TECH.

But yeah, the reviewer was very much into how this tech would affect the person on the street and my inner response was "Write that damn story yourself, then."

[green_knight]

The thing that surprised me, time and time again, was the process of 'this doesn't work' and seeing the mss come back nailing the problem completely... and the change was something along the lines of two inserted sentences.

That definitely taught me to lighten my suggestions, because often the solutions were already there, they just didn't quite stick the landing yet. (As a writer, I have almost the opposite problem – if something doesn't work, it often needs drastic changes rather than polishing).

[jreynoldsward]

Yeah, I usually don't have the "drastic changes required" in my work anymore, unless I've really gone down a major problematic rabbit hole. That tends to happen less often these days. On the other hand, my latest process also makes it easier to correct those situations and avoid them with easy references back (I draft a chapter in Word, paste it into Scrivener, outline and all my notes live in Scriv). It also helps to see it in the slightly different layouts between Word and Scrivener.

[mizkit]

One of my cozy mysteries had a weak end, which I knew when I turned it in, and the editor commented on it. I knew what I had to do to fix it to my satisfaction, which was what I planned to do regardless of whether the editor had commentary, so I did it, and it mostly involved rewriting and possibly adding a chapter, I forget.

Editor was STUNNED! It *could* have been fixed by a couple of lines...but not to *my* satisfaction. She was ASTONISHED at how much work I put into it! (Although I didn't really feel like it was that much, it was just what it required to meet my standards...) :)