The other side of the editorial fence (Anne Rooney)

A woman who became an editor later in life: not to be messed with
(Photo of Jackie Kennedy  ©  Victor King, 1963)

 Writers grumble about their editors all the time, yet editors are the people who make our OK books good and our good books great. I have worked with some annoying editors in my time, but most have been fantastic, talented people who just want to create a great book. They do a difficult job, as managing writers is like the proverbial herding of cats, or trying to persuade water to come back out of the plughole.

Bad editors largely fall into three categories:

1. People who would really like to be writers and would rather write the book themselves, making changes just to make their mark or because they think something would be 'better' their way. Often, they can't explain why another way is better and it's just a matter of voice or taste, or their way is actually worse. Also in this category are copy editors and proof-readers who change things because they feel they haven't earned their money if they don't make any changes, though their intentions are benign.
2. People who will one day be good editors but are still learning their trade — and that's fine, we all have to start somewhere. You should be helpful and patient with these people.
3. People who don't have a sufficiently good grasp of English grammar to be editors at all and just go through the book making things worse. There's no excuse for a publisher employing these people as editors, but unless you complain about them they will carry on blighting books. Best to suggest that they do any large-scale editing they are good at and employ a copy editor to do the rest.

Good editors, like unhappy families, are all good in their own ways. And superlative editors are worth their weight in gold. I've been writing professionally for 30 years and writing children's books for 20 and I've had about four or five superlative editors in that time. All but one are still editing and I still work with them given the chance. (Of course, more of them might be superlative, but you only find out over extended contact. Some editors I just do one or two or a few books with and then the editor leaves, or the series ends and we don't work together again for years.)

Good editors help a book to self-actualize. They don't ride rough-shod over the author's vision, but they do steer the book in the right direction when their overview and slightly less partisan position allow them to see that it could be better if a little different. A good editor cuts out dross, unnecessary verbiage, self-indulgence, showing off, over-explication and a million other ills that books are prey to.

A good editor is the reader's advocate: the reader needs space within a book to feel themselves grow, to make their own discoveries and to feel they own their response to the text, that they have built it together with the writer by bringing their unique experience, views and knowledge to bear on it. (This is true of any type of book except perhaps a textbook for a particular exam or an instruction manual on an entirely physical process, such as changing an engine.) By all means argue with your editor if you think they are suggesting something that will make a book worse. But don't argue just because they are reducing your presence or ownership in the book without examining whether that will be to the reader's detriment or benefit. You should not be arguing against your own future readers just for the opportunity for self-aggrandizement.

Yesterday I was talking to a friend who is editing a book with many contributors (I'm not one of them) and she was bemoaning dealing with a particularly difficult author. He is dodging parts of the job he doesn't like, expecting her to pick up tasks that are his (because he is a man and too busy/senior to do these boring bits). It's interesting occasionally to see the view from the other side. And valuable to have friends the other side of the fence, too. She sometimes says things that give me new insight into how my editors might be feeling or behaving that helps my relationship with them. And I am advising her to be brutal with this thoughtless and arrogant writer. Today we will spend some time shrinking his contribution and giving more space to another contributor's work so that she doesn't have to do the parts of his work he won't do. And — with luck — he will learn that an editor is someone you work with cooperatively and respectfully, and your published work will suffer if you don't do your job as a writer properly.

As a reader, maybe look on the imprint page to find out who edited the book. Spare a thought for them: they have helped to shape the book, acted on your behalf during its production, and yet you don't know who they are. You don't choose books on the basis of who edited them, and editors often live in the shadows. Yet they also live in the space between the words and lines, in the hollows between the central pages of a perfect-bound quire and in the glue that binds the quires to the spine.

Anne Rooney
website

Dinosaur Atlas, Lonely Planet
edited by Joe Fullman