Our friend and writer Alan Jacobs offers his thoughts on What editors think of writers, using as a taxonomy John Simon’s description of working with Auden (sloppy but easy-going), Trilling (willing to be convinced), and Barzun (don’t touch a thing, you inferior being). He describes himself as “definitely a Trilling,” but I would say, having edited him, that he’s a little on the Auden side of Trilling but with a little of the Barzun persona. Or maybe, now that I think of it, it would be more accurate to say that he begins on the Barzun side of Trilling and ends on the Auden.
This, by the way, is a description that would upset some writers — not Alan — who pride themselves on being difficult, because the difficulty they think a marker of their gifts. The real professional engages the editor, assuming he knows what he’s doing and that there’s a reason for his suggestions. The writer may not accept them (I don’t when I’m on the other side of the relation) but he responds to them.
I should add that the taxonomy is incomplete. It doesn’t include, for example, the writer who writes like Auden but acts like Barzun. There are a lot more of these than you might think. And it doesn’t include the writer who writes like Barzun and acts like Auden. Fortunately there are a lot more of these than you’d think.
February 15th, 2013 | 12:03 pm
A look into a world which I find interesting but know nothing about. Fine post.
February 15th, 2013 | 12:54 pm
This is a placeholder for the comment I will write when I figure out just exactly how David has insulted me.
February 15th, 2013 | 1:22 pm
[[ This is a placeholder for the comment I will write when I figure out just exactly how David has insulted me. ]]
Writers . . .
February 15th, 2013 | 1:46 pm
Ah-ha! Now I have a vocabulary for what I want to be when I grow up.
February 15th, 2013 | 4:50 pm
By “editor” I suppose you mean proofreader. Among these I have known limpid creatures of limitless tact and tenderness who would discuss with me a semicolon as if it were a point of honor–which, indeed, a point of art often is. But I have also come across a few pompous avuncular brutes who would attempt to “make suggestions” which I countered with a thunderous “stet!”
– Vladimir Nabokov, Strong Opinions, 1973
February 15th, 2013 | 5:32 pm
But you’re forgetting about the other half of the process or battle — somehow making the case for a writer, a proposal, a manuscript to the ed boards, editorial meetings, sales departments, publicists, and the whole obstructionist bureaucracy that existed when I worked in New York for nearly a decade. A lack of curiousity and ideological handicaps did not help. Perhaps there is a reason why Ignatius Press thrives and Image Books has reduced itself to a footnote to its former greatness (and I worked there for a couple of years). But then the writers and the era you discuss are old school indeed.
February 15th, 2013 | 10:46 pm
As Wm. Buckley once commented: When dealing with editors–especially at get-it-out-quick places like newspaper editorial pages–don’t ever make a subtle point that depends on punctuation for its meaning. The editors always think they know better than you do how you meant to punctuate it.
I would add, Try to avoid sentences that include a highly important “not.” You would be surprised at how often it can get lost. And so you end up saying, “I do believe all the rumors regarding presidential orgies.”
I guess I am realizing right now my Barzun side.
February 16th, 2013 | 5:42 am
Writers create, not unlike painters, or musicians. Would Michelangelo appreciate or resent an “editor” altering particular portions of his frescoes on the Sistine Chapel? One might forgive editors for concluding that some writers possess more than an abundance of hubris! The editor might retort that he is the real artist. After all, he’s taking a mess of words, and presenting it in readable form. The writer could retort that the editor is a mere technician, and is robotically changing a unique work of art, into a cookie cutter, dime a dozen work!
February 16th, 2013 | 5:46 am
I might add that, a writer could argue that good writing doesn’t need an editor, but an editor could argue that who needs good writing when you have a good editor…
February 17th, 2013 | 2:43 am
Craig Payne: My impression is that Buckley was wont to use commas as something like musical notation. He would sometimes sprinkle them where they were extra-grammatical, if not outright ungrammatical — to separate the elements of a compound predicate, for example (“this caused him to think, and to change his mind”). I’m told that William Shawn, for whose magazine Buckley sometimes wrote, found that objectionable and that the two would argue about it.
Bret Lythgoe: The man with vision isn’t always adept at communicating it, and the man who is adept might not, on his own, have much to communicate. Or he might. But in his role as editor, he’s all about the execution. A few writers are their own editors, but even they usually benefit from having another pair of eyes read their writing closely.
February 17th, 2013 | 6:14 pm
Hi Nicholas Frankovich,
You make good points. Editors and writers often are in tension or conflict, or even competition, but both have essential roles to play. These two species compete for the same territory, but have a symbiotic relationship. WFB, sadly no longer here, was in his own unique class! (fortunately we’re left with his great treasures: articles, books, both fiction and non-fiction).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact