e-book adventures, and Andrea K. Host
The authoress has bestowed wonderful pains upon its composition [Shirley], and she has been rewarded accordingly. It has been slowly written, carefully digested, touched and retouched, reviewed and revised, corrected in manuscript and in proof, and in this respect it is a pattern to our modern novelists, who gives their scribblings to the press with all their imperfections, as they flow from their gold pen, scarcely troubling themselves to amend defects in grammar or remedy tautologies.
I took that from a review of Charlotte Bronte's Shirley in 1849. I think it is easy to forget how new the novel is (as we understand it), and how much newer the concept of editors, copy-editors, proof-readers and the like.
The book I was reading was The Brontes: The Critical Heritage, edited by Miriam Allott. Not only reviews but discussions in private letters, both by Charlotte and others, such as Thackeray. This snapshot of early and mid-Victorian readers and reviewers as they try to deal with the question of the 'Bells' gender (some thought that line of inquiry totally irrelevant), morals, ethics, the purpose of books, and especially, what to make of that masterpiece of id-vortex, Wuthering Heights, makes absorbing reading.
But stepping out from the Brontes and taking a look at publishing, which that passage quoted above inspired me to do, caused me to think about the purpose of the editor--and how that purpose has been bypassed by much of the flood of e-book publishing appearing now.
It's too simplistic to say that self-edited e-books are automatically trash. In any discussion I've sat in, the first hands to start waving belong to those who are quick to point out that there is plenty of balderdash out there that has been edited to a fair-thee-well, and the second wave of hands want to make sure everyone knows that editors nowadays either don't have the time to edit, or don't know how to--were hired straight out of business school for their marketing training, and boo-ha boo-ha.
Then there are those who say, in effect, "Who cares about proofing and copyediting? Most Americans are so badly educated they wouldn't know a grammatical mistake, and can't spell." Anyone who has listened to some of the jaw-droppingly awful dangling modifiers tripped out by first-at-the-site newsvamps, richly caparisoned by grammatical vagaries ("Appalled and horrified, the bodies of the dead laying around . . .") might nod judiciously.
Whatevs, as a teen I was talking to the other day said. "I read what I like."
And what I have been liking lately is the work of the self-published Andrea K. Host (there should be an umlaut over the o in her last name, but I have no idea how to make one outside of Word). Her latest is And All the Stars , which I simply devoured while on the train and bus this past couple of days, and even while standing at red lights as I strolled along Broadway in New York City.
It's a YA apocalypse, very different from some of the familiar patterns appearing of late. Do I think she would benefit from an editor and copyeditor? Yes, but only in the sense of making a smashing good read even better. The best editors are able to see what the writer can't always, due to living inside the story; the danger of turning to other writers for editing is that they might assume they are editing but in fact they are trying to make the story theirs. Well, that's collaboration--and a whole nother topic, but I just got the phone call and it's time to flit to another state.
Will catch up again when I reach Martha's Vineyard. I have some nifty photos to share.
I took that from a review of Charlotte Bronte's Shirley in 1849. I think it is easy to forget how new the novel is (as we understand it), and how much newer the concept of editors, copy-editors, proof-readers and the like.
The book I was reading was The Brontes: The Critical Heritage, edited by Miriam Allott. Not only reviews but discussions in private letters, both by Charlotte and others, such as Thackeray. This snapshot of early and mid-Victorian readers and reviewers as they try to deal with the question of the 'Bells' gender (some thought that line of inquiry totally irrelevant), morals, ethics, the purpose of books, and especially, what to make of that masterpiece of id-vortex, Wuthering Heights, makes absorbing reading.
But stepping out from the Brontes and taking a look at publishing, which that passage quoted above inspired me to do, caused me to think about the purpose of the editor--and how that purpose has been bypassed by much of the flood of e-book publishing appearing now.
It's too simplistic to say that self-edited e-books are automatically trash. In any discussion I've sat in, the first hands to start waving belong to those who are quick to point out that there is plenty of balderdash out there that has been edited to a fair-thee-well, and the second wave of hands want to make sure everyone knows that editors nowadays either don't have the time to edit, or don't know how to--were hired straight out of business school for their marketing training, and boo-ha boo-ha.
Then there are those who say, in effect, "Who cares about proofing and copyediting? Most Americans are so badly educated they wouldn't know a grammatical mistake, and can't spell." Anyone who has listened to some of the jaw-droppingly awful dangling modifiers tripped out by first-at-the-site newsvamps, richly caparisoned by grammatical vagaries ("Appalled and horrified, the bodies of the dead laying around . . .") might nod judiciously.
Whatevs, as a teen I was talking to the other day said. "I read what I like."
And what I have been liking lately is the work of the self-published Andrea K. Host (there should be an umlaut over the o in her last name, but I have no idea how to make one outside of Word). Her latest is And All the Stars , which I simply devoured while on the train and bus this past couple of days, and even while standing at red lights as I strolled along Broadway in New York City.
It's a YA apocalypse, very different from some of the familiar patterns appearing of late. Do I think she would benefit from an editor and copyeditor? Yes, but only in the sense of making a smashing good read even better. The best editors are able to see what the writer can't always, due to living inside the story; the danger of turning to other writers for editing is that they might assume they are editing but in fact they are trying to make the story theirs. Well, that's collaboration--and a whole nother topic, but I just got the phone call and it's time to flit to another state.
Will catch up again when I reach Martha's Vineyard. I have some nifty photos to share.