Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

FUCK EDITORS

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (314 of them)
View Previous Page...
(Hahaha on the other hand I actually first worked for Pitchfork for like 2 days in 1999, or something, as a news writer, and got horribly indignant and quit because someone added an unfunny joke to the first thing I wrote -- in retrospect I may have puffed up a bit much over "I will not have people thinking I made that joke" principle. Although there was no pay back then, and nobody wants to be forced to put his name on a bad joke for free.)

that pretty much sums up my Pitchfork experience (except it was in 2000 instead of '99). NEED MORE FUNNY is not a sound editing philosophy.

― Alex in Baltimore, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 18:55 (seventeen years ago) link

i wrote a review for a magazine once and i had to rewrite it five times AND they added all kinds of stuff that i didn't write, so i asked them if i could take my name off of it and have the review credited to "Rick Rockwrite". AND i belittled the editor on the phone when he called me at work. i still feel kinda bad about that. but i was younger and drunker and not very professional. how is Spin doing these days, anyway?

― scott seward, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 18:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah, you kinda just have to hire funny from the beginning -- there's no editing it in.

Hahaha unless music crit goes Hollywood, and editors are all like "Hey, we really liked your article, it's got a great shape to it ... I think we're gonna bring in Nick Sylvester to punch it up, and if that doesn't get us there, then Ben Stiller's going to do a rewrite."

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:00 (seventeen years ago) link

ugh re jokes: how about an unannounced parka joke showing up at the end of a 50 word blurb for a celtic frost show?

― fukasaku tollbooth, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:03 (seventeen years ago) link

lol BRING A PARKA ;-)

― and what, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:05 (seventeen years ago) link

pfork edited the fuck out of my rvws too (including addition of unfunny joeks) except the eminem review & later mullah omar/choppa moussaoui stuff

― and what, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:06 (seventeen years ago) link

I am really REALLY sensitive / suspicious about the idea of editors adding stuff you didn't write -- it seems just ethically wrong to put something out there where people can say "here is what so-and-so said, verbatim," and there's your name, proof, in print ... there's an ethical duty for the person whose name is on there to have absolute final say on what text is going to be attributed to him/her on the everlasting record.

It's also a weird admission of failure on the editor's part -- that they couldn't find a writer to hand over something they'd find workable as-is, or that they couldn't coach, edit, or steer the writer into the kind of shape they wanted. If a good editor wants a piece to be, say, funnier, probably the ideal is to have a writer you can call and say "make it funnier" and get results.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:08 (seventeen years ago) link

P.S. Pfork editing has been great to me since I started writing for real, and getting better over the years -- normal copyediting, all content requests discussed and debated, chance to preview stuff before it runs, etc. (I assume this isn't just because they know I'd be an indignant diva about it, cause I've gotten better about that. I've even gotten over the Brit-style quote/comma placement on there.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:12 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah, i'm kinda the same way, chopping out and omitting stuff is fine but adding anything seems weird, like they should run it by you before putting stuff you never wrote about your byline to be seen by the whole world. but then if it is an actual improvement I'm also OK with taking credit for the whole finished product.

― Alex in Baltimore, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:12 (seventeen years ago) link

i think i'm just a big baby. i'm glad i don't deal with that stuff anymore.

― scott seward, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:15 (seventeen years ago) link

NABISCO AND STRONGO: NEVER FORGET YOUR ROOTS

― Andy K, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:20 (seventeen years ago) link

I've even gotten over the Brit-style quote/comma placement on there

It still bugs me. The usage of dashes might be worse, though. If for some reason you can't enforce everyone to use solid em-dashes, at least have it be [word][space][hyphen][hyphen][space][word] all the time.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:22 (seventeen years ago) link

if there's one thing the past few years have taught me, it's that i'm not supposed to be in charge of anything

― strongohulkington, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:23 (seventeen years ago) link

my fearless leader, so modest.

― Alex in Baltimore, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:29 (seventeen years ago) link

I didn't resent editing at first because I [i]needed it[/it] pretty badly until I had a few pieces under my belt. When you're 21 and writing your first stuff for magazines and alt-weeklies (which is, uh, right now for me), and all you've written until now were pieces for your school paper (or whatever), (good) editors are like a godsend--people who actually can tell you how to improve your writing!

But even when you're a bad (or at least novice) writer, you can tell who bad editors are, and you hate them because you know you could do their job.

― max, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:33 (seventeen years ago) link

we're all faking it anyway

― strongohulkington, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:37 (seventeen years ago) link

And ugh, I hate it when things are added to my shit, and it goes double for jokes (even good ones!) because it seems like such a Hollywood thing (like Nabisco was saying)--"Yr piece wasn't funny enough so we PUNCHED IT UP." Taking out is fine though since I tend to be long-winded and have trouble figuring out what parts aren't good enough to stay (since I'm usually too obsessively protective of my stuff).

― max, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:37 (seventeen years ago) link

my life is like that kids in the hall sketch where dave's giving a report at work and thinking in voiceover "when are they going to realize that i have no idea what i'm talking about?"

― strongohulkington, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:39 (seventeen years ago) link

ha ha ha ha isn't that sort of everyone's life though? or are there people who are really that confident abt what they do?

― max, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:39 (seventeen years ago) link

(the only kind of job i could have that i would truly be confident about would involve playing smash brothers and masturbating in some way)

― max, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:41 (seventeen years ago) link

"this is it! this is the moment i've been waiting for!"

"hey, great job dave."

"damn it!"

― strongohulkington, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:41 (seventeen years ago) link

The important part is "people who can TELL you how to improve your writing," as opposed to "people who 'improve' your writing during the five minutes they spend reading it." People who explain stuff are great: when Keith Harris was at the Chicago Reader, he spent like half an hour giving me a terrific phone edit on a piece that wasn't even close to being able to run.

I spend a lot of time trying to think of hypothetical situations where punch-ups could cause major ethical problems, but they're all along the lines of editors adding stuff like "her voice is buttery but meaty, like lobster," and then the writer coming back with "DAMN YOU I KEEP KOSHER AND NOW MY MOM'S REALLY MAD AT ME."

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:51 (seventeen years ago) link

It's also a weird admission of failure on the editor's part -- that they couldn't find a writer to hand over something they'd find workable as-is, or that they couldn't coach, edit, or steer the writer into the kind of shape they wanted. If a good editor wants a piece to be, say, funnier, probably the ideal is to have a writer you can call and say "make it funnier" and get results.

Yes. In a perfect world, an editor cultivates a wonderful stable of writers: the funny person, the folk expert, the pop lover, the hip-hop master, and so on. But that's not always the case, especially when you're editing for a publication that's not, shall we say, the New Yorker. Yes, the goal to good editing -- or so it seems -- is to have most of the editing done before you even sit down to edit, if that makes any sense.

However, when you have too many deadlines to meet and too much copy to churn out, sometimes coaching and steering can be counter-productive. Sometimes, you try out a writer who can't or doesn't want to be steered or coached. But at the same time, they can at least get you something that's better than waiting on the really talented person who can't meet a single deadline. Sometimes, you just have to choose your battles: certain writers are worth seriously intense editing and others you basically rewrite their stuff. And sometimes things just fall apart because that how the universe works.

It really kinda sucks.

― QuantumNoise, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:53 (seventeen years ago) link

otm.

honestly sometimes i have to whip copy into shape and i don't have time for a formal lesson. i'd never add any idea that wasn't originally in the text but i have no problem with cleaning and clarifying.

― s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:55 (seventeen years ago) link

also i would DEFINITELY never add funny.

― s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Nabisco, did you do a lot of of those phone edits? That's something I've never experienced. Not to sound ignorant, but what can be accomplished in a phone edit that can't be with notes? Is it basically a conversation about the piece? It sounds like something that could help me and my writers.

― QuantumNoise, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:58 (seventeen years ago) link

i had an editor who would call me about every word-substitution and comma change. it drove me crazy.

― s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:00 (seventeen years ago) link

in my recent experience, AIM edits are pretty awesome. I mean, you can say "fuck no" to a suggestion, but then a smiley face emoticon softens it a bit.

― fukasaku tollbooth, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:03 (seventeen years ago) link

more ignorance: AIM?

― QuantumNoise, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:06 (seventeen years ago) link

african information ministry.

― s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:07 (seventeen years ago) link

they vet a lot of copy and they LOVE emoticons.

― s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:08 (seventeen years ago) link

aol instant messenger perhaps?

― fukasaku tollbooth, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:12 (seventeen years ago) link

more ignorance: AIM?

/tuomos

― deej, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:15 (seventeen years ago) link

i see. i've never even used aol!

― QuantumNoise, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:15 (seventeen years ago) link

I haven't done many phone edits, no. I think they're most useful with large features that are still fairly early in their development, and still open to really deep re-shaping and re-framing -- it's more of a "developing a piece" thing than an "editing the product" one. It's just nice that the editor can say something like "I think we need more concrete information about the artist's history," and the writer can respond -- "I was thinking about doing that at the beginning, but do you think the piece would kick off too boring that way?" It also means the editor can ask after things: "I like this idea, is that something you could pull out more? Which do you think is more important, this angle or that one?" And in the conversation it's quite likely that the writer will say something outside of the piece that the edit can jump on ("run with that idea!") or vice versa. All of which can get done nicely via AIM, too, sure, though the short lines of IM conversations might hold back exactly the kinds of long texty comments that are important here.

Hahaha this is a dumb and unrealistic thing to say, but I feel like if a publication doesn't attract writers the editor really likes, and the editor doesn't have time to work with them to get better product, then they should just admit it and publish whatever "sub-par" product they're getting! (And if the editor's such a better writer than his/her hires and has time to go through and rewrite sections of their reviews, then that person should just write more reviews flat out.) I mean, the kinds of sense-editing / copyediting / cleaning-up / tightening / reorganization Slocki's talking about -- helping the writer mean what they mean -- are totally the editor's whole purpose and job, but when you're actively punching up the prose and inserting ideas, you're just covering for the fact that you find your publication's product inferior and unacceptable.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:18 (seventeen years ago) link

wow, why didn't I see the success of this revive coming?

Amazed to see who some of the writers here are; "God bless editors" next.

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:24 (seventeen years ago) link

Did I miss the "yeah man, they're just ripping off Interpol" joke?

― jaymc, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:26 (seventeen years ago) link

i can see a simple telephone call really helping out, especially, as you say, in the formative stages. i have a feeling writers tune out the notes when they get too long, which happens when dealing with the very basics of an article.

― QuantumNoise, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:29 (seventeen years ago) link

To: N!ck Southall
Subject: Kaiser Chiefs edit

Any residual humor from their debut is mercilessly replaced with BLOSSOMS INTO the kind of depthless REFRESHING sincerity that British rockers all suffer from SO SORELY LACK today. There’s simply no charm or subtlety on show here, and not even any in cheeky, bona fide pop thrills in the vein of “Everyday I Love You Less & Less.” It’s this relentlessness that’s the worst thing about Yours Truly, Angry Mob—even when they try and do a ballad on “Love Is Not a Competition (But I’m Winning)” the melody is so forced that it completely fails to scan A FORCE OF NATURE. Awful Song titles, awful songs, awful production, awful sentiments; this album is pretty close to disgustingLY GOOD. It makes my skin crawl HAIR STAND ON END. I can only hope that the title and lyrics of “Everything Is Average Nowadays” are deeply, deliberately ironic, BECAUSE THIS IS AWESOME.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:30 (seventeen years ago) link

morbz clarify?

(ha or i'll clarify FOR YOU)

― s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:32 (seventeen years ago) link

ZOMG CONFESSION: I'm a phone edit virgin. The one time I wrote for CE @ the Voice, I was assuming / kinda hoping he'd give me a buzz so we could go over my piece & he'd help me become The Greatest Thing Ever. But the dude just said, "Hey, nice work!" & that was that.

OK really I just wanted someone to call me. ;_;

― David R., Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:46 (seventeen years ago) link

nev mind s1ocki; once again Search has led me into ILM unknowingly.

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:54 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.greentourism.ca/images/Newsletter/Summer%2005%20Newsletter/The%20Enchanted%20Forest.jpg

― s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:01 (seventeen years ago) link

see I was hoping this would be like the "fuck a creationist" thread.

― Alex in Baltimore, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:19 (seventeen years ago) link

For short pieces I like SMS (mobile texting) edits better than IM because you have more time to respond and think it over, also it's not free and both parties have to keep it short so you don't invite further editing at the drop of a ctrl-v.

― blunt, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:30 (seventeen years ago) link

i prefer semaphore

― s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:31 (seventeen years ago) link

i used to edit via smoke signals but then i went blind

― max, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:33 (seventeen years ago) link

(something about stone engraving)

― blunt, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:37 (seventeen years ago) link

I once did an edit by carrier pigeon, but then when the review ran it was all about how doves are brainless prettyboys who can't hack it in the big city.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 22:18 (seventeen years ago) link

They've never made an album as good as Lost Souls, either.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 22:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 214 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login