Natalie Browning Prompt #1 My Stewardship: Thinking of the Thoughts of Others An editor is not simply a critic. An editor holds a stewardship that is special and monumental in influence. All types of companies rely on editors to have an immensely detailoriented brain and an extensive knowledge of their language to help their publications be as high quality as possible. While the job can be tedious at times, the skills of an editor are vital in creating a polished piece of writing that is easy to understand and that is effective in conveying the intended messages to its targeted audience. However, the red pencil does not rule all; editors are very much subject to their own field’s system of checks and balances. This is where understanding the seriousness of the stewardship editors hold is crucial. Editors hold the responsibility of showing integrity for themselves and for others at all times, sometimes necessitating some very difficult decisions. An editor plays a key role in helping an author maintain his or her reputation; however, an editor is not the author and is not solely responsible for the reputation an author receives. If an author chooses to write on a controversial topic for a magazine I’m working on, I know I must balance respecting the author’s intentions for his or her article with upholding the reputation of the magazine as well. Ultimately, that author chose to write that article. It is my job as editor and as an expert of the English language to make sure it comes across the way the author intends. An author’s reputation comes from many factors including the content and subjects of that author’s writing, the style of the writing, and the quality of the writing. Editors typically do a majority of work on the quality of writing, but their spheres of influence definitely include the style and content of the writing as well. Without changing the author’s style, editors must ensure that the
Browning 2
quality of the writing fits the place of publication as well as the targeted audience—even as simple a thing as word choice must be taken into deliberate consideration by both editor and author together. Sometimes issues of integrity arise when an editor is involved in substantive editing. Substantive editing deals with more than just the grammar and punctuation of a written work; it involves all three components that influence an author’s reputation—the content, style, and quality of the writing. There are times when an editor may feel that changing how an article is written (or even what is written) would greatly enhance the clarity and logic of an article. How much is okay to change with or without author permission? When is substantive editing overstepping one’s bounds as an editor? Patience is a much needed characteristic of an editor. As M. Lincoln Schuster says, “Don’t pass judgment on a manuscript as it is, but as it can be made to be” (Gross 24). And making it become a great manuscript is not just the job of the editor. The process of helping someone make their own treasure something great is a very special experience. I feel that substantive editing ceases to be simply “editing” when the work is no longer the author’s. Substantive editing does not justify rewriting the paper. While everyone has different opinions of what makes quality writing, when I am editing a paper I know I am the editor, not the author. Editors are to help the author create the best work possible. “Gray area” in substantive editing can trouble editors when writers do not meet deadlines. Deadlines are crucial, especially if an editor is working for a publishing company rather than just freelancing. The tardiness of one article can throw off the success of an entire magazine when editors, copy fitters, and designers are all waiting to make that one article fit perfectly within that issue of the magazine by a sensitive deadline. What if an author hasn’t made deadlines in the past? Would that reputation as a working partner be tainted, preventing an editor from accepting
Browning 3
a future job? I could definitely see that being the case. However, say an author is accepted for an article in a magazine, and it’s looking like he or she won’t make an important deadline. What does the editor do? It’s too late to ask another author to write an article to fit in the old one’s place, yet the current article is not ready for publication. As an editor, what would I do? It would probably be a little bit tempting to just revise the article myself and make it work how I think it should work. Yet, would that be right to do? Ultimately, I reiterate my previous statement: an editor plays a key role in helping an author maintain his or her reputation; however, an editor is not solely responsible for the reputation an author receives. The editor is not the author. If there were substantive revisions to be made that the author could approve of before publication, then I believe such substantive editing would be acceptable as long as it was revising, not completely rewriting the article. I would set up a timeline with the deadlines and make sure the author was aware of them. Then, I’d work with the author to suggest changes, perhaps proposing a polished and detailed outline, and we’d work together to get the needed changes finished. The editor must take care to not make someone else’s work his or her own. So what if an author is having a difficult time revising an article and you suggest several ideas for a new version of the current approach. The author simply does not have time to revise that heavily and replies, “You know, that’s a great idea. I’m pretty swamped, though. Could you just revise the whole thing for me and send me whatever you come up with? I trust you.” What then? Would that be honest for an editor to comply with? “Gray area” also creeps up when an author may ask for more help than the editor feels responsible for. I’m reminded of an experience I had with a niece of mine who’d struggled to learn a particular concept (such as a puzzle or a mathematical equation) and who turned to me in a plea of desperation, “You do it! Can you? I don’t know how!” This relationship between a child and
Browning 4
an older family member is similar to the author/editor relationship in that the editor, like the older family member, acts the part of the advisor or coach in how to accomplish the task at hand. To my niece, I remember telling her, “It’s okay to not know how. That’s how we learn—by doing, not having other people do it for us. Try something else and see if that works!” I believe in a work setting I would reply with a similar response. I would be encouraging and supply as many suggestions as I could to be helpful, possibly including a thorough outline of a proposed new version, while politely making the point that I could not just rewrite the article for the author. An author is free and encouraged to ask an editor for ideas. However, the editor’s responsibility is not to write the article for the author (unless contracted otherwise in a co-author or ghost writer type of relationship). If I were to basically re-write someone else’s article and then slap their name under the title, that wouldn’t be honest. Likewise, if I were an author, I would not feel comfortable asking someone else to rewrite my article and have my name tagged as the author when it truly was no longer my work. Substantive editing is a delicate process of suggestion and revision that must rely heavily on deepest principles of honesty. Without honesty, an editor’s job is in some ways pointless. Gordon B. Hinckley said, “It is possible to be honest every day. It is possible to live so that others can trust us—can trust our words, our motives, and our actions. Our examples are vital to those who sit at our feet as well as those who watch from a distance. Our own constant self-improvement will become as a polar star to those within our individual spheres of influence. They will remember longer what they saw in us than what they heard from us. Our attitude, our point of view, can make a difference” (Hinckley 33).
Browning 5
This is surely a quote I want in my future office. It rings so true with the nature of editing. What an editor does not only affects a manuscript but also the author, the publisher for which the editor works, the readers of that manuscript, and future editors as well (including coworkers). Whether or not the name of the editor is displayed across the front cover, people will know who worked on that manuscript, and the work of that editor will have an impact on someone for good or for worse. So while editing may or may not be a job with much glory, it is an essential part of writing and publishing that will ever be needed in the world. Knowing one’s job and doing it brings a feeling of self satisfaction and accomplishment. And the editor only improves as an editor. As well, taking care to help an author create the best manuscript possible while not overstepping important bounds will add security to the author-editor relationship and will aid in preserving an author’s (and the editor’s) reputation honestly. Not only this, but performing the editing job with integrity will enhance reader trust and will only promote good things among future editors and their works. When I edit a book, I will not be editing for myself—it will be for others. If I stand for integrity in editing, I will be respecting the thoughts of others, and that is a noble career.
Browning 6
Works Cited Ed. Gerald Gross. Editors on Editing: What Writers Need to Know About What Editors Do, 3rd ed. New York: Grove Press, 1993. Print. Hinckley, Gordon B.. Standing for Something. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2000. Print.