By which I mean what are their core responsibilities?
I ask because I assumed that ensuring correct use of English (inconsistencies of spelling and matching tenses for example) was a given.
And although I would hesitate to claim that they ‘ought’ to impose a minimum level of ‘good’ writing – for example, by suggesting that sentences flow smoothly or that switching to third from first person and back again in a single paragraph was eradicated – I can see that some might be reluctant to impose (put the work in??)
For a novel I would hope that a nod towards veracity was deemed essential, along with an ironing out of any jerky illogicalities which confound the plot, even if only to uphold their own status in supporting the premise that writer is one worth promoting.
So when I read a book by a writer who highly praises her editor and has seven published books (and a contract for more) and I find it barely readable because of what I deem is its poor writing, is that because I’m picky, or that the editor has failed to do her job?
And further undermining my certainty are the tributes from two non-red top newspapers, and the fact that a friend and librarian said that the writer ‘wasn’t bad’, that she had two of her and had looked to buy a third - even given that reading is subjective, surely there’s a bottom line beyond which one would suppose any competent editor would not sink?
Hi Sandra, I can feel your prickles from here. What constitutes good writing is a thorny subject and sometimes 'bad writing' is justified on the basis of style and subverting convention. Literary fiction seems especially prone to that malady.
ReplyDeleteUndoubtedly there is an element of that - 'style and subverting convention' - in the book which so awoke my ire, gritty north east realism and all that,but And 'literary' it most definitely ain't
DeleteBut thanks for reading and commenting, much appreciated.
As you know I'm a bit of a stickler for correct use of English. I'll forgive a few errors as long as I'm being told a good tale, but if I'm bored as well I get very angry.
ReplyDeleteI hate the way some people get to the top by writing derivative tales in badly constructed language.
Personally I think it's the writer's job to get it pretty close to correct before the editor gets his/her hands on it. A little tightening is fine - a total rewrite is unforgivable.
I'm inclined to agree with you - in fact I assumed one had to have reached a certain level before any editor would even look at a ms. I'm thinking, in this case, the editor maybe did do a lot of work already, but then her final standards have to be seen as low ...
DeleteI am with you on this all the way. When I come upon a book that is badly written, and/or not properly edited, I think there is nepotism or insider relationships at play. How else to explain the thousands of marvelous writers who tell great stories, and the hundreds who carefully vet their work before posting, and don't get published in the traditional manner, versus the those that don't seem to care about their readers and do get published?
ReplyDeleteSometimes, most of the time, I'm happy to write for myself and have the reactions of a few friends, but there days when I think it would be a treat to walk into a bookstore and see one of my titles on the shelf among the philistines.
I like the tone of your voice when you're annoyed. It has power.
Thanks Michael - have to say I hadn't thought about seeing my books in a bookshop - a powerful image - but it does give me pleasure to see them on my bookshelf.
DeletePlease note that it is only my written voice that has power when annoyed - in real life it is more inclined to be an impotent silence.