Can we blow the budget on a hit man, instead?
Most of the time I just want to slap stupid authors, but today the word "fuckwittery" has crossed my lips too often in respect to one author.
Author sends in Word document. Editor reads it, says, "Er, there's rather a lot of repetition here. I'm going to cut about 40 pages, 'k?" Editor prints out manuscript and gets to editing.
Edited manuscript goes to copyeditor. Copyeditor is directed to line-edit as well as copyedit, because repetitious crap is still present on a line-by-line basis (editor took out repetitious scenes).
Copyedited ms goes to author. Author stets most of what copyeditor did; that's okay, it happens all the time. Author also rewrites huges swathes of manuscript--about 20% of it. Author prints out the changed pages, but does not indicate what the changes are; that is, we have a "Chapter 3" old version, and several middle pages of "Chapter 3" new version, and author has not bothered to indicate which text is being replaced, or where this new text should be inserted.
To further complicate the issue, the author sent us an all-new electronic file. We have no idea if all the author's changes in this new file are reflected in the insert pages, or if there are delicate little gifts of minor word-changes embedded in sections where the author didn't do wholesale rewriting. And, of course, does this electronic file contain the editor's scene-edits or the copyeditor's work? Why no, it does not.
So we have two electronic versions, neither of which is correct. We have a paper version that is a mess, and still may not contain everything the author wanted to contain.
Options? Here:
1. Ditch electronic files, try to figure out where inserts go, and just keyboard the whole thing. Proofreader will be paid extra for having to copyedit a fifth of the book (the inserts) that never got c/e'd in the first place. However, this might mean we've left out little correx the author didn't put on the manuscript.
2. Use author's revised file, and if it's still full of repetitious crap and is uncopyedited, too fucking bad. It's the author's name on the cover, and s/he can put whatever idiocy they like on the inside. At least when an ignorant reader says, "This is boring and full of misspellings--what was the author thinking?" the blame will be going to the right place.
We're taking option 1. I, in case you couldn't guess, am in favor of option 2. [evil grin]
The best option, option 3, would go like this: Take author's revised file, re-do all the work that was already done (cutting, copyediting), and start clean. This would cost money and time, but we can't possibly hate this author more than we all do already, and at least the book wouldn't be full of errors and a nightmare to deal with through the whole typesetting process (I predict the author rewrites substantially in first pass).
Unfortunately, if we want to make the scheduled bound book date, we should have started work on it two months ago. And if we'd had a manuscript in our hands, I'm sure we would have. But my point is, the time crunch makes the "rewind, start again" option impossible.
It's a good thing that I have so many smart, responsible author buddies to counteract the effects of this fuckwit on my psyche.