Jennifer Crusie's Blog: Argh Ink

Karen B asked some questions about editing and self-publishing in the comments to Part One of the Crusie-Samuel chat, and Barbara and I have answers. Maybe not THE answers, but good answers none-the-less.

What is it that makes a good editor? or a bad one?

Jenny: A good editor is a good reader, somebody who loves story and can tell when something’s going wrong in it. She’ll tell you what’s wrong with it without offering a solution. Saying, “This story is slow” is good, especially if she points out the particular places it’s slow. Saying, “This story is slow so you should cut the second act and add a car chase” is bad. She’s invading your story to rewrite it. That’s your job.

Barbara: A good editor has a way of uncovering a writer’s gifts and flaws, and figuring out ways to help her maximize the first and minimize the second. She understands structure and pacing and can spot when you’re out of rhythm with either. She also knows enough to say there’s a problem, but respects you enough to let you figure out how to fix it.

A bad editor can’t tell the difference between the way she would tell the story and the way you want to tell it. She thinks her way is right and your way is wrong, and doesn’t allow for discussion. A bad editor might also be unable to tell when things are not working, or doesn’t know enough to say what the problem is.

How can you tell as a new writer?

Jenny: You can’t. You can develop a feel for when somebody is making your story stronger and when somebody’s just meddling in it, but until you know what your story is, until you understand your work well enough to protect it, it’s very hard to tell what’s improving your story and what’s violating it.

Can a good critique group substitute for an editor for someone going for e-publishing?

Barbara: I wouldn’t say it’s impossible for a critique group to perform that function. I absolutely trust my friend Christie Ridgway when she reads for me, and in fact I trust her so much that I try to lean on her sparingly. That is one trouble with a critique group–most of them would not have the time to deal with manuscript after manuscript in the way an editor would do it. I also worry about “group mind,” which is the danger in any critique group.

Jenny: No. A good beta reader can come very close, though. A critique group is multiple voices with multiple approaches. It can be very useful for getting a global view or your story, for pinpointing where the big flaws are. But a good editor is focused both on the individual elements and the story as a whole. She understands who you are as a writer and respects that. She’s not just critiquing your work, she’s conceptualizing it, seeing it a single idea, thinking how she can present that single concept to a reader. She synthesizes things. The best beta readers can do that (beta readers being individual readers you trust to give you unsparing feedback while respecting your voice and vision). The best beta I know is Molly Haselhorst, who should do it for money, she’s that good. She can see relationships among story elements while keeping a visceral reaction to the story itself. But pretty much every beta reader I go to is a great reader first; that’s the most important feedback: Is this a good read?