![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lauraanne_gilmanProgress progresses. Having digested the global comments, and jotted down some possible fixes, I'm now working my way through the nit-picky details, page by page.
[for those of you who've been on the receiving end of one of my letters, you have your revenge, since mam'selle editrix learned from me... this letter feels awfully familiar. Ouch. *grin*)
But back to those global comments, and on deciding which ones to accept, and which to reject, as referenced in my last On Writing post.
Using myself as an Object Lesson (because vague examples, like vague disclaimers, are nobody's friend): In the revision letter, mam'selle editrix made a suggestion about world-building -- specifically, something about the political structure of the world, and would it be possible to do ABC regarding the interaction of my hero's profession and the antagonists' profession.
Well, no. Because the way the world is set up, the separation between them is what [indirectly] creates the scenario that allows for the conflict that triggers the story. So my immediate reaction was "WTF? Did you read this book?"
And that's where, I've found, a lot of beginning (and some established) writers stop. "You didn't get it, you weren't paying attention, you're wrong, I'm not changing that."
Bad writer, no Tim Tam.
After several go-rounds of revision letters (14 novels and counting, OMG) my MO is to mutter, to pace, to mark up the letter with a few pointy comments [using bright red ink is helpful]... and then sleep on it [and anything else that gave me a knee-jerk reaction]. Sometimes you [generic-you, henceforth] decide they had a valid point. More often, you decide that no, the beta/editor/reader was skimming and missed an important detail. That happens to us all, even when we're being careful*. So, you-the-author have two choices:
1. ignore the comment and move on,
2. go back and see if there was any way that you could draw the point forward more, so nobody can possibly miss it.
#1 is tempting, but for the conscientious author, #2 would seem to be the obvious answer...except sometimes making something Too Obvious is worse for the story than being too subtle. It's all case-by-case.
In this particular case, I decided to approach her thought [note: and it was a thought, not an editorial Command. She wasn't saying "this is broken" but "I wonder if you could..."] from a different angle. There were areas throughout the book where the specific issue she addressed was also addressed by the characters, building their own workaround [allies and treaties, etc). Maybe I could draw those instances forward, using how rare those exceptions are in order to emphasize the rule? Something to think about.
But let's return to the original suggestion. Did mam'selle editrix read too quickly, and miss a basic point? Or did the world-building simply not work for her? Was my construction flawed in a way that will fail for others, or am I being appropriately indirect? All possible. In fact, all four are possible at the same time, if you're writing with enough texture and tricksiness. Reader comprehension varies, and you can't nail it for everyone. All you can do is nail it to your own satisfaction.
In the end, I'm not taking her suggestion [which is my right, since it's my name on the byline and my reputation out there in the trenches]. I am, however, thinking about WHY she made that suggestion, and following those thoughts into an exploration of something other than what she originally proposed.
And that, dear readers, is part of what a good editor does. :-)
*in point of fact, mam'selle questioned a name as being of a princeling, when it was in fact identified when introduced as the name of a country. So, it happens....
[for those of you who've been on the receiving end of one of my letters, you have your revenge, since mam'selle editrix learned from me... this letter feels awfully familiar. Ouch. *grin*)
But back to those global comments, and on deciding which ones to accept, and which to reject, as referenced in my last On Writing post.
Using myself as an Object Lesson (because vague examples, like vague disclaimers, are nobody's friend): In the revision letter, mam'selle editrix made a suggestion about world-building -- specifically, something about the political structure of the world, and would it be possible to do ABC regarding the interaction of my hero's profession and the antagonists' profession.
Well, no. Because the way the world is set up, the separation between them is what [indirectly] creates the scenario that allows for the conflict that triggers the story. So my immediate reaction was "WTF? Did you read this book?"
And that's where, I've found, a lot of beginning (and some established) writers stop. "You didn't get it, you weren't paying attention, you're wrong, I'm not changing that."
Bad writer, no Tim Tam.
After several go-rounds of revision letters (14 novels and counting, OMG) my MO is to mutter, to pace, to mark up the letter with a few pointy comments [using bright red ink is helpful]... and then sleep on it [and anything else that gave me a knee-jerk reaction]. Sometimes you [generic-you, henceforth] decide they had a valid point. More often, you decide that no, the beta/editor/reader was skimming and missed an important detail. That happens to us all, even when we're being careful*. So, you-the-author have two choices:
1. ignore the comment and move on,
2. go back and see if there was any way that you could draw the point forward more, so nobody can possibly miss it.
#1 is tempting, but for the conscientious author, #2 would seem to be the obvious answer...except sometimes making something Too Obvious is worse for the story than being too subtle. It's all case-by-case.
In this particular case, I decided to approach her thought [note: and it was a thought, not an editorial Command. She wasn't saying "this is broken" but "I wonder if you could..."] from a different angle. There were areas throughout the book where the specific issue she addressed was also addressed by the characters, building their own workaround [allies and treaties, etc). Maybe I could draw those instances forward, using how rare those exceptions are in order to emphasize the rule? Something to think about.
But let's return to the original suggestion. Did mam'selle editrix read too quickly, and miss a basic point? Or did the world-building simply not work for her? Was my construction flawed in a way that will fail for others, or am I being appropriately indirect? All possible. In fact, all four are possible at the same time, if you're writing with enough texture and tricksiness. Reader comprehension varies, and you can't nail it for everyone. All you can do is nail it to your own satisfaction.
In the end, I'm not taking her suggestion [which is my right, since it's my name on the byline and my reputation out there in the trenches]. I am, however, thinking about WHY she made that suggestion, and following those thoughts into an exploration of something other than what she originally proposed.
And that, dear readers, is part of what a good editor does. :-)
*in point of fact, mam'selle questioned a name as being of a princeling, when it was in fact identified when introduced as the name of a country. So, it happens....
