I have noticed a number of articles lately which are extoling the virtues of breaking writing conventions and grammatical 'rules' and I think a lot of them make a good point. Some of the best, or most lasting, writing can contain elements that strict grammar nazis or staunch followers of story development codes would find terrifying. But is that reason enough to throw the rules away? Can writers just toss these guidelines aside and be the better for it?
I would argue that there are few writers who should aim to break the rules - at least until they already know that they can follow them. This may be a contraversial statement, but a consious decision to subvert a rule is far more effective than simply ignoring them all for the sake of your 'style'. Problems that arise from the blatant disregard of these rules are usually far larger than the stylistic impact they may have on the whole. Unless you can justify each and every one, you should seriously think about tweaking that style of yours.
The rules are there because they are grounded in a massive amount of truth. You should not jump between tenses in quick succession. You should use dynamic language and active verbs to engage your reader. You should not use conventions that purposefully confuse or mislead your readers.
And yes, styles change. Conventions change. But the current 'rules' are usually there for a reason. They do not produce cookie cutter books or indestinguishable prose. They provide support and guidance for your unique story. And if you are determined to do away with some of them, at least make sure that you can stick to them before you throw them out the window. You never know, some of them might actually grow on you!
Showing posts with label Thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thoughts. Show all posts
December 27, 2012
September 17, 2012
Long Live Books!
There are so many discussions out there about the changing state of the publishing world. Some of them are looking at the flailing traditional publishing market and some are focused on the digital revolution of the industry.
What is good to see, though, is the debate. One of the best articles I have come across lately is this one about drowning in indie books. It shows a balance in its proofs that is often missing. It highlights major successes of both tracks as well as pointing out that neither avenue should be judged by the extreme successes alone.
The stigma attached to self-publishing or "Indie" publishing has always been that it removes the sieve from the market and allows a higher proportion of "bad" books to be produced. There is an assumption against the quality of the books and the care that may (or may not) have been put into them before publication. And to some degree, this is right.
What is forgotten, though, is the number of traditionally published books that no one ever hears about.
Unless you have a specific author or book in mind, how often do you actually find your next book by randomly searching through the shelves of the bookstore? More often, it is the books that are prominently displayed and showing their cover (which the majority of books in a bookstore are not) that will grab your eye and entice you to pick them up.
So what happens to all the short print run books or the ones that didn't have the huge marketing budgets? Or even just the books that have a very specific market that doesn't seem to be present in that store location? They are placed on the shelves for a month or two until they are returned to the publisher. Does that mean that they are any less worth reading? They did make it through the initial sieve. And what about the books that contain the same tired formulas peddled by the name of the author or character alone? The quality may not be there, but the power to draw an audience is - does that make them inherently "good" books? They have been published, after all.
The problem with print runs and traditional publishing as it has always been before now, is simply that the upfront costs prevent every book getting its fair chance. Publishers need to choose books that have a huge market appeal - sometimes even turning down great books which simply don't have the scope they are looking for. Like many other arts based industries, it is not always about the talent or the capability but rather who can fit the costume that already exists or what colour painting is going to suit the room.
The introduction of digital publishing has brought a wider range to the consumer. It has removed the barriers to public consumption. Therefore the influx of manuscripts of all kinds and qualities is inevitable. But instead of viewing this as a negative, I see it as something that shows that we are now the gatekeepers. We now decide what we want to read and what we don't. It allows a broader and more inventive market to be nurtured and developed. And instead of being the death of publishing, as many have claimed e-books would be, it is giving new life to readers and authors alike.
Long Live Books!
What is good to see, though, is the debate. One of the best articles I have come across lately is this one about drowning in indie books. It shows a balance in its proofs that is often missing. It highlights major successes of both tracks as well as pointing out that neither avenue should be judged by the extreme successes alone.
The stigma attached to self-publishing or "Indie" publishing has always been that it removes the sieve from the market and allows a higher proportion of "bad" books to be produced. There is an assumption against the quality of the books and the care that may (or may not) have been put into them before publication. And to some degree, this is right.
What is forgotten, though, is the number of traditionally published books that no one ever hears about.
Unless you have a specific author or book in mind, how often do you actually find your next book by randomly searching through the shelves of the bookstore? More often, it is the books that are prominently displayed and showing their cover (which the majority of books in a bookstore are not) that will grab your eye and entice you to pick them up.
So what happens to all the short print run books or the ones that didn't have the huge marketing budgets? Or even just the books that have a very specific market that doesn't seem to be present in that store location? They are placed on the shelves for a month or two until they are returned to the publisher. Does that mean that they are any less worth reading? They did make it through the initial sieve. And what about the books that contain the same tired formulas peddled by the name of the author or character alone? The quality may not be there, but the power to draw an audience is - does that make them inherently "good" books? They have been published, after all.
The problem with print runs and traditional publishing as it has always been before now, is simply that the upfront costs prevent every book getting its fair chance. Publishers need to choose books that have a huge market appeal - sometimes even turning down great books which simply don't have the scope they are looking for. Like many other arts based industries, it is not always about the talent or the capability but rather who can fit the costume that already exists or what colour painting is going to suit the room.
The introduction of digital publishing has brought a wider range to the consumer. It has removed the barriers to public consumption. Therefore the influx of manuscripts of all kinds and qualities is inevitable. But instead of viewing this as a negative, I see it as something that shows that we are now the gatekeepers. We now decide what we want to read and what we don't. It allows a broader and more inventive market to be nurtured and developed. And instead of being the death of publishing, as many have claimed e-books would be, it is giving new life to readers and authors alike.
Long Live Books!
December 12, 2011
"There is but one art...
...to omit."
- Robert Louis Stevenson
I have been thinking about this very statement a lot lately in reference to how an Editor should ammend/cut an Author's work.
Of course, an Editor should never cut or change for the sake of cutting or changing. I know that full well. Personally, I am not the kind of Editor that immediately goes looking to strip a manuscript to its core in order to facilitate 'clarity' or 'correctness' but there are times that I do wonder if that is what is expected of me. (Positively or negatively, I am not entirely sure.... there seem to be some mixed ideas about Editors out there!)
There are lots of different arguments that I have had with myself about this, but I think I have settled on the fact that ultimately my job is to facilitate the Writer in creating the best product that the Author can. So if there are serious issues in character development, or structural flaws, etc., I should point them out and allow the writer to take that feedback and do with it what they will. Some will take it and bring back a MS that is stronger and more dynamic and I can start polishing again. Others will take the feedback on, but struggle to see ways around the issues. And then a few will simply dismiss the feedback in general.
It is a difficult thing, sometimes, to see a problem and then have to leave it alone for someone else to solve. (I am told it is one of the reasons that men struggle with upset women - who really just want to get everything inside their heads out in the open - as the natural male response is apparently to try to fix the problem somehow, not talk about it. )
But the discussion about how much to change is also dependent on being in a position to actually feel I can comment to the author about such things.
It is very important to me to have a respectful and open relationship with the Writers I work with. We need to understand where each other is coming from and, on some level at least, get on with each other. The more understanding there is that we are both human beings with feelings and a unique personality, the easier it will be for both of us to move forward and, together, make the work as strong as possible.
And whilst I can offer suggestions or a place to bounce ideas, the responsibility is essentially on the Writer to be open and willing to take as much as possible from the process both for this MS and future ones. We are all constantly learning and growing - making the effort to do it consciously in some situations just speeds the whole process up a little!
So, do I cut people's manuscripts? Yes, when I have to.
Do I change things in people's manuscripts? Yes, when I have to. (Only little things usually!)
Do I try to give them the tools to go back and make things better? All the time. And they do the same for me when they bring me better and better books to edit.
Hopefully, that is enough for us both.
- Robert Louis Stevenson
I have been thinking about this very statement a lot lately in reference to how an Editor should ammend/cut an Author's work.
Of course, an Editor should never cut or change for the sake of cutting or changing. I know that full well. Personally, I am not the kind of Editor that immediately goes looking to strip a manuscript to its core in order to facilitate 'clarity' or 'correctness' but there are times that I do wonder if that is what is expected of me. (Positively or negatively, I am not entirely sure.... there seem to be some mixed ideas about Editors out there!)
There are lots of different arguments that I have had with myself about this, but I think I have settled on the fact that ultimately my job is to facilitate the Writer in creating the best product that the Author can. So if there are serious issues in character development, or structural flaws, etc., I should point them out and allow the writer to take that feedback and do with it what they will. Some will take it and bring back a MS that is stronger and more dynamic and I can start polishing again. Others will take the feedback on, but struggle to see ways around the issues. And then a few will simply dismiss the feedback in general.
It is a difficult thing, sometimes, to see a problem and then have to leave it alone for someone else to solve. (I am told it is one of the reasons that men struggle with upset women - who really just want to get everything inside their heads out in the open - as the natural male response is apparently to try to fix the problem somehow, not talk about it. )
But the discussion about how much to change is also dependent on being in a position to actually feel I can comment to the author about such things.
It is very important to me to have a respectful and open relationship with the Writers I work with. We need to understand where each other is coming from and, on some level at least, get on with each other. The more understanding there is that we are both human beings with feelings and a unique personality, the easier it will be for both of us to move forward and, together, make the work as strong as possible.
And whilst I can offer suggestions or a place to bounce ideas, the responsibility is essentially on the Writer to be open and willing to take as much as possible from the process both for this MS and future ones. We are all constantly learning and growing - making the effort to do it consciously in some situations just speeds the whole process up a little!
So, do I cut people's manuscripts? Yes, when I have to.
Do I change things in people's manuscripts? Yes, when I have to. (Only little things usually!)
Do I try to give them the tools to go back and make things better? All the time. And they do the same for me when they bring me better and better books to edit.
Hopefully, that is enough for us both.
November 28, 2011
Your Diamond in the Rough
When you ask someone what an Editor does, you can get a lot of varying responses.
The most common seems to be, "An Editor finds the errors in the book before it is published." Which, while not wrong, is also not entirely right. What most people are thinking of when they say this is actually the function of the Proofreader.
The Proofreader is usually the last person to get the book before it goes to print/gets published. They are the final set of eyes looking for typing errors, bad formatting, or other mistakes that may have crept into the manuscript. Whilst an Editor does look for errors throughout their interaction with the Writer, they actually have so much more to contribute to the process.
It doesnt help, when trying to pin an Editor's job down, that there are many different names for (and variations on) the roles that Editors play in the process. Without getting into all of those, I will simply say that an Editor is there to help make the book the best that it can be.
Think of it like a diamond.
A Writer brings the diamond to the Editor. The Editor has a look, notices the brightest facets of the stone, and suggests ways that the stone should be shaped. The writer then takes the stone away and refines it. When the Editor next sees the diamond, it has much of its final shape but needs a bit of cutting to make every face shine. The Editor cuts, polishes, and suggests any further refinements before giving the diamond back to the Writer. This process continues until both the Writer and Editor are happy that the diamond is in the best shape it can possibly be to catch the light and sparkle. At which point, it is placed in its setting and sent to the Proofreader for a final polish before going off to the store to be sold.
Although this is a highly simplified explanation of the Editor/Writer relationship, I think that it depicts it fairly well. There may be many more exchanges between the pair, other people involved, or sometimes the Editor and Proofreader are the same person - but there is definitely more to the relationship than simply catching errors before they go to print.
(Which is not to say proofreaders are not wonderfully important people too! Who would want to buy a diamond with dirt on it? ...There is a reason jewellry store clerks clean the merchandise before you try it on!)
The most common seems to be, "An Editor finds the errors in the book before it is published." Which, while not wrong, is also not entirely right. What most people are thinking of when they say this is actually the function of the Proofreader.
The Proofreader is usually the last person to get the book before it goes to print/gets published. They are the final set of eyes looking for typing errors, bad formatting, or other mistakes that may have crept into the manuscript. Whilst an Editor does look for errors throughout their interaction with the Writer, they actually have so much more to contribute to the process.
It doesnt help, when trying to pin an Editor's job down, that there are many different names for (and variations on) the roles that Editors play in the process. Without getting into all of those, I will simply say that an Editor is there to help make the book the best that it can be.
Think of it like a diamond.
A Writer brings the diamond to the Editor. The Editor has a look, notices the brightest facets of the stone, and suggests ways that the stone should be shaped. The writer then takes the stone away and refines it. When the Editor next sees the diamond, it has much of its final shape but needs a bit of cutting to make every face shine. The Editor cuts, polishes, and suggests any further refinements before giving the diamond back to the Writer. This process continues until both the Writer and Editor are happy that the diamond is in the best shape it can possibly be to catch the light and sparkle. At which point, it is placed in its setting and sent to the Proofreader for a final polish before going off to the store to be sold.
Although this is a highly simplified explanation of the Editor/Writer relationship, I think that it depicts it fairly well. There may be many more exchanges between the pair, other people involved, or sometimes the Editor and Proofreader are the same person - but there is definitely more to the relationship than simply catching errors before they go to print.
(Which is not to say proofreaders are not wonderfully important people too! Who would want to buy a diamond with dirt on it? ...There is a reason jewellry store clerks clean the merchandise before you try it on!)
November 23, 2011
"No passion in the world ...
...is equal to the passion to alter someone else's draft."
- H.G. Wells
The world of editing is one filled with hurdles, hazzards, and hephalumps.
Whether you are an Editor yourself or a Writer who uses self-editing to refine your work, I am sure you know what Mr. Wells is talking about. You feel it. The desire when you see someone else's work and know that you can do something to make it better.
For editors, I think that is both a driving force and a passion to keep in check. We must never forget that we are facilitators for the writers' voices and inspirations but we must also maintain the love for another's script which enables us to help shape it into the best it can be.
- H.G. Wells
The world of editing is one filled with hurdles, hazzards, and hephalumps.
Whether you are an Editor yourself or a Writer who uses self-editing to refine your work, I am sure you know what Mr. Wells is talking about. You feel it. The desire when you see someone else's work and know that you can do something to make it better.
For editors, I think that is both a driving force and a passion to keep in check. We must never forget that we are facilitators for the writers' voices and inspirations but we must also maintain the love for another's script which enables us to help shape it into the best it can be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)