In which the editor indulges in navel-gazing
I've had this thought kicking around in my head for...oh, nearly my entire career now, but a tangential post on mmaresca's blog last week hauled it back out of its shadowy corner again: Why is it that most people think they can write?
With other artistic endeavors, people are only too happy to admit when they can't do something: "Oh, I can't even draw a stick figure," "No, no, I can't dance," "Um, no, you really don't want to hear me sing." But writing? How often do you hear people say "I can't write"? Not everyone believes that they can write a novel, or a play, or even a textbook, but everyone can write...a letter, a memo, an e-mail. Except that some people are monumentally bad at it, even writing an e-mail, and they don't like to admit it. If you tell somebody (politely) they're a lousy dancer, they'll probably agree with you. Tell somebody they're a lousy writer -- however politely you do it -- and they'll probably get offended.
And this is the single biggest problem people in my profession face. Some authors -- certainly not all, but a good percentage -- regard editors as a necessary evil at best, as an impediment at worst. They wrote the book, we print the book, we send them checks; end of story. Where does this cube-dwelling, low-paid, paper-pusher with delusions of grandeur get off telling ME, an AUTHOR, that I need to make revisions? I've definitely had authors who resented me, and made it quite clear that they felt my "interference" was delaying the publication of their book -- as if I edit out of malice, or jealousy, rather than the publisher paying me to do so. I know that actors don't always get along with the director, and athletes don't always get along with the coach, but would any of those people really suggest that the director or coach is unnecessary, that they could succeed just fine without one? Probably not. Because most people don't think they can act, but they do think they can write. Which is why, although I think the role of the editor is similar to that of a director, or a coach, they don't get the same recognition, and certainly not a comparable salary -- because they're not really needed, are they?
I think the reason is that writing isn't properly grouped with other artistic endeavors. You learn to write when you're five or six, and you have to practice it, every day, in school, for the entire time you're there. Going back at least 15 years, colleges have been emphasizing writing in all majors...treatment that I don't think gets extended to, say, dance. So from that perspective, writing shifts away from arts and more toward basic academic competencies, like math. Still, you're much more likely to hear someone admit that they're "bad at math" or "terrible at history" than they're "awful at writing." Some do, to be sure, but I think it's a disproportionate percentage.
Maybe it's because it's difficult to differentiate between good writing and bad? If a dancer stumbles, or an actor flubs his lines, well, he's obviously not doing a good job. But if a writer crafts an inelegant sentence, but it still gets the point across, that's OK, right? And writing is held to a lower standard because we do it every day. Even the nastiest memo with the run-ons and the misplaced modifiers, lacking punctuation or capitalization, usually manages to cross the threshold of comprehension -- because people, by and large, are very good readers. We get that skill from a very young age, and our language is flexible enough that you can mangle it pretty badly without losing the meaning. So people don't realize they're bad writers, because they can still make themselves understood. And if it's good enough for a memo, it's good enough for a book, right?
I think that must be it -- bad writers can't distinguish that there's a difference in standards between a post-it note and a published book. Just about everybody learns to run, and just about everybody learns to write. You can even train enough to run a marathon by yourself, just like you can write a novel entirely on your own. But if you want to actually compete in a marathon, or get a novel published, you'll probably need a trainer of some kind.
Huh. Unlike most of my overly wordy, pointlessly self-reflective posts, I didn't have a conclusion in mind when I started writing this time, but I think I reached one. That's new for me. There are, I think, enough writerly people on my list to form a quorum, I think -- have I got it right?
With other artistic endeavors, people are only too happy to admit when they can't do something: "Oh, I can't even draw a stick figure," "No, no, I can't dance," "Um, no, you really don't want to hear me sing." But writing? How often do you hear people say "I can't write"? Not everyone believes that they can write a novel, or a play, or even a textbook, but everyone can write...a letter, a memo, an e-mail. Except that some people are monumentally bad at it, even writing an e-mail, and they don't like to admit it. If you tell somebody (politely) they're a lousy dancer, they'll probably agree with you. Tell somebody they're a lousy writer -- however politely you do it -- and they'll probably get offended.
And this is the single biggest problem people in my profession face. Some authors -- certainly not all, but a good percentage -- regard editors as a necessary evil at best, as an impediment at worst. They wrote the book, we print the book, we send them checks; end of story. Where does this cube-dwelling, low-paid, paper-pusher with delusions of grandeur get off telling ME, an AUTHOR, that I need to make revisions? I've definitely had authors who resented me, and made it quite clear that they felt my "interference" was delaying the publication of their book -- as if I edit out of malice, or jealousy, rather than the publisher paying me to do so. I know that actors don't always get along with the director, and athletes don't always get along with the coach, but would any of those people really suggest that the director or coach is unnecessary, that they could succeed just fine without one? Probably not. Because most people don't think they can act, but they do think they can write. Which is why, although I think the role of the editor is similar to that of a director, or a coach, they don't get the same recognition, and certainly not a comparable salary -- because they're not really needed, are they?
I think the reason is that writing isn't properly grouped with other artistic endeavors. You learn to write when you're five or six, and you have to practice it, every day, in school, for the entire time you're there. Going back at least 15 years, colleges have been emphasizing writing in all majors...treatment that I don't think gets extended to, say, dance. So from that perspective, writing shifts away from arts and more toward basic academic competencies, like math. Still, you're much more likely to hear someone admit that they're "bad at math" or "terrible at history" than they're "awful at writing." Some do, to be sure, but I think it's a disproportionate percentage.
Maybe it's because it's difficult to differentiate between good writing and bad? If a dancer stumbles, or an actor flubs his lines, well, he's obviously not doing a good job. But if a writer crafts an inelegant sentence, but it still gets the point across, that's OK, right? And writing is held to a lower standard because we do it every day. Even the nastiest memo with the run-ons and the misplaced modifiers, lacking punctuation or capitalization, usually manages to cross the threshold of comprehension -- because people, by and large, are very good readers. We get that skill from a very young age, and our language is flexible enough that you can mangle it pretty badly without losing the meaning. So people don't realize they're bad writers, because they can still make themselves understood. And if it's good enough for a memo, it's good enough for a book, right?
I think that must be it -- bad writers can't distinguish that there's a difference in standards between a post-it note and a published book. Just about everybody learns to run, and just about everybody learns to write. You can even train enough to run a marathon by yourself, just like you can write a novel entirely on your own. But if you want to actually compete in a marathon, or get a novel published, you'll probably need a trainer of some kind.
Huh. Unlike most of my overly wordy, pointlessly self-reflective posts, I didn't have a conclusion in mind when I started writing this time, but I think I reached one. That's new for me. There are, I think, enough writerly people on my list to form a quorum, I think -- have I got it right?