FUCK EDITORS

IT'S WHAT WE LIVE FOR!!

seriously trife you will probably never quite escape from this, *whoever* you are writing for — at this stage yr only real recourse may be to walk (i only write for places which will let me see galleys of a v.close-to-final edit: i'm not particularly precious abt my deathless prose, and actually i sometimes prefer what's been introduced via rewrite or misunderstanding and go with it, but yes, i still prefer my name to be appended to something non-lame that i more or less agree with)

(in my review of THE FILTH AND THE FURY they cut something at the last minute — to save a line — and left me describing Jethro Tull as a DINOSAUR grrrrr!! I *hate* Jethro Tull but dinosaurs are fab)

Trife I think I still owe you a CD or two!

Unbelievable.

I am currently (also constantly) at war with my, uh, superior here. He's not my editor, but sort of thinks he is, as he is the chief music writer or whatever. But he doesn't do any editing, and he never sees my copy until he reads it in print (the actual editor, I like, he's a nice guy).
But my, uh, supervisor just asked me when the hell am I going to write reviews again, since I've done only two or three since May. I said that I don't get anything to review. Because all the promos get sent to him and all he passes on to me are Klezmer reissues and sub-indie folk releases. And I've reviewed those, and whatever other releases he deems "NEED" to be reviewed the same week that he's reviewing something else that "NEEDS" to be reviewed. I've essentially been his bitch for two years now, and fuckit. I'm three times the writer he'll ever be (and that's not saying much, but, y'know, I AM competent, I've been doing this for 6 years) and I deserve at least the pretense of respect.

Howev, he is in tight with The Brass 'round here, so there isn't even anyone I could talk to about this and sort of say "hey, this guy is being a fuckwad. I still want to write for your paper [=I like the way your cheques clear], but this guy is making it impossible."

Tasini v. New York Times.

Editors that I haven't worked with enough, but who have treated me very well: Matos, Chuck Eddy

i have no idea what i was talking about upthread, i dont think id ever been published at that point

my advice: never read the garbage they print. it is always fucked up in some way. get someone else to make your cuttings.

my advice: man up

FUCK AD REPS

this thread deserves bumping now and again -- it can be frustrating!

― nabisco, Friday, February 27, 2009 8:54 AM (5 years ago)

Preach.

"Every reporter is a hope, and every editor is a disappointment."
— Joseph Pulitzer

I get the progression in that, but it should nevertheless be "Every reporter is a disappointment, and every editor is still a disappointment."

Help: I write for a half-dozen publications around the country, mostly for fun and to write about bands I like. The money is a small but nice bonus.

The biggest (by far) and (consensus, I think) best of these publications butchers my stories regularly. I write 400-800 word articles for them a couple times per month. Pretty much every time, they (and I say they bc I don't think it's just the editor I work with, I think there are people down the line from him) make sloppy edits, insert grammar/punctuation errors, and generally make the copy a choppier read than what I turned in. (I realize that's a judgment call, but in this case, my judgment is right.)

I'm not some diva who can't handle changes to my precious word choices. Far from it. I'm happy to be edited, have been for years. But this is driving my crazy.

I've written a 15 articles for this place and when I flip through them to try to choose one to use as a clip, I have trouble finding one I'm happy with!

Again, biggest/best outlet I have. I don't want to lose it. But I'm also not going to ask the editor why they keep butchering my stories.

So ... I just grit my teeth and live with it? Any other clever ideas?

If nothing else, thanks for listening, pixel-buds.

This is very frustrating. Could you not use the OG draft as a clipping?

I don't know? If I'm pitching a story to a new place that doesn't know me and I send 'em, like, a word document with my original, I guess I don't know what that communicates. Seems weird / red flag-y to me. Seems like published anything would >>>> draft.doc in the eyes of an editor unfamiliar with me/my work. And there's no way any editor out there cares about any explanation I'd send along.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I have plenty of published clips from other places that I'm happy with. I'd just like to get something usable from this place, obviously. There are a few that are close enough, I guess. (Needless to say, tonight I checked out my newest story and it is a mess, thus the venting.)

Could you not put up all your writing on your website/blog (with links to the published pieces)? So you send new places the link to the piece as you want it edited, but they can also see it's been published elsewhere.

I agree with Eyeball. I re-publish all my stuff on my press archive blog, with a credit or link to the original publication, once a suitable period has elapsed. If a piece has been significantly chopped or badly subbed, I'll publish the original version, prefaced with "an edited version of this piece was originally published in....". Then, if I'm approaching a new editor, I point them towards the blog.

Blog is here, BTW: http://mikeatkinson.wordpress.com/

mc fuckin hammer!!

Good ideas, all. And thanks for the link, t-diva. Appreciate it very much.

some advice from an editor:

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/686/Deal_with_it_dog_gif.gif

if the check shows up on time don't worry about it

agree and understand on both counts

Having experienced that a long time ago (and only a handful of times; most editors I dealt with always discussed changes), my own opinion is that no one should ever have to put up with that.

But I'm also not going to ask the editor why they keep butchering my stories.

Why not? If they're good editors, they'll understand how upsetting this can be. (Of course, if they were good editors, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.)

You're probably right, clemenza. The best thing to do would probably be to address the issue, just like I should go talk to my neighbor who keeps putting little bits of trash in my trash can. Easier said than done, though.

And aside from just the "avoid confrontation" aspect of it, I have to ask myself: Do I really wanna take the time to craft this email? Do I wanna have to make this editor read it, and think about it, and respond to it? He's a busy guy. I'm not some brilliant writing talent. He could easily decide I'm not worth the trouble and cut me off. I don't think that's what would happen, but is it really worth the effort and heartache to find out?

Plus, I certainly think there's some truth to dealwithit.gif if I'm getting paid, which I am.

Also, since last time I wrote, I've definitely decided my problem is actually with some copy editor or web-department power-tripper downstream from the guy I work with.

Complaining about it anonymously on this thread is really the easiest way to go.

My two cents (also given I've worked as an editor): you should write the email, the kind of revisions and editing you're describing is unprofessional. Without intervening, it's contributing to the erosion of best practice, and feelings of precarity, while understandable, are precisely the sort of thing that allows for the depreciation of standards and care in support of writing, cultural criticism, journalism, or any other professional text-based content.

I mean, it would be one thing if the edits weren't introducing errors into the text, you know?

Totally. I hear what you're saying and am on your side.

To be clear, I do write and ask for typos and other errors to be corrected. And by errors, I don't so much mean factual stuff, but more like "this alteration of my word choice changed the meaning of this sentence slightly enough to where it's not quite right now" or "this edit messed up the subject/verb agreement" ... but still, it's mostly typos added by someone who ... uh ... maybe lacks attention to detail? Or is in too much of a hurry. Or both.

And I pick my battles on some of the more phrasing/readability kinds of things. Partly because I know that's subjective, but moreso because if I write asking for 2 or 3 typos to be fixed, I don't want to feel like I'm high-maintenance by also asking for "bigger" stuff, for lack of a better word.

I really see both sides ... dealwithit.gif and "no, you should deal with it" ... again, appreciate the chance to vent and the feedback. Truly.

better to work with an editor you trust at a place with less name recognition than a place that turns your writing into pulp

imo

whiney's advice was better in an era where a strong editorial hand was common & publications had stronger voices but now there's a chance you're being edited by a 22 year old

when i wrote about music - i remember this one editor changed "that's a bold claim" to "them's fightin' words"

annoys me thinking about it and it was about 12 years ago

lol

keepin' that ol' meme alivey

Haha the writing equivalent of wearing suspenders or a handlebar mustache

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4S2LvMKMrA

http://www.clickhole.com/article/man-mission-man-adding-and-thems-facts-end-every-w-2182

Thought this thread was about the band

the worst kind of editor is one who swaps your phrase in clear English for a cliché.

otm.

send the freelance pitch at 5:15 pm Wednesday on the East Coast or wait till Thursday morning?

Thursday morning is my instinct

mine too. the pitch is probably too long and has taken too much time, which has landed me here!

a good pitch is sent at 2am and explains why it was sent at 2am

i thought this thread was about the band editors

probably should've revived a different, less aggressively titled thread