FUCK EDITORS

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (314 of them)
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

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

This is all really interesting and informative. Now everyone tell who's looking for pitches.

DM, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 23:54 (seventeen years ago) link

Wait, that wasn't supposed to sound snappy.

DM, Thursday, 1 March 2007 00:02 (seventeen years ago) link

The lesson of this thread seems to be that Keith Harris was the best editor imaginable. And now he's in law school. Sigh.

Matos W.K., Thursday, 1 March 2007 05:15 (seventeen years ago) link

the thing that came to bug me about editing when I was rockcrit/feature writer was the editors' underlying -- subconscious? -- lack of respect for the writing. whether it was an alt-weekly in-house genius brow-beating you over word choices w/the ultimate goal of having you write just like him or a slick magazine editor deploying passive-aggressive tactics and adding extra stars to insure a positive review, usually I wound up feeling compromised in some vague unsettling way, a unwitting conduit for consensus opionion.

OTOH when I edited feature stories for that greying counterculture rag there was a lot of pressure to cut the stories to fit the layout (never vice versa!) and the word count was ALWAYS something different than what had been assigned and this process would take place at the 11th hour w/basically no time to contact the author. So people had to trust me, and while I'd like to think they got good clips out of the deal I know my draconian surgery often felt like amputation. I never added my own language or thoughts, that was beyond the pale.

Over time I could see the rise of the cult of the editor, the angle and attack of feature stories increasingly came to be decided by the editors in endless meetings rather than in consultation w/the writer. "How do you want to do this?" became replaced by "Who should we get to do this?"

Editing reviews was a whole other nightmare, fraught with office and record company politics. Ugh.

Interestingly being edited on my book and on book reviews is a dream compared to all this, it's all about honing your ideas and arguments, not advancing somebody else's agenda. in the end we need editors!

m coleman, Thursday, 1 March 2007 11:33 (seventeen years ago) link

one year passes...

aaarrrggghhh

I am really REALLY sensitive / suspicious about the idea of editors adding stuff you didn't write ...

― nabisco, Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:08 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark

nabisco, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:41 (fifteen years ago) link

Always think this thread is gonne be about the band.

Helsinki Is Other People (Noodle Vague), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:43 (fifteen years ago) link

is this the thread where we welcome nabisco to the uk newspaper industry then?

joe, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:46 (fifteen years ago) link

this is the thread where I resign from the UK newspaper industry in protest

nabisco, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:47 (fifteen years ago) link

I would like to note that I have lots of sensitive feelings, as well as episodes of suspicion, regarding this concept: that some editors may be adding extra words or even information to articles that I have written and submitted. I worry that they could add typografical errors or grammatical awkwardness that could reflect poorly upon me, or even add information that goes against my personal beliefs. More later, as I'm off to my NAMBLA meeting now.

nabisco (n/a), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:47 (fifteen years ago) link

loooooooooooooooool

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:48 (fifteen years ago) link

hey, 'bisco. take a deep breath, look at the big picture, you'll be fine.

J0hn D. (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:50 (fifteen years ago) link

^^ good advice, totally true, and it only took a cup of coffee to get over it, but yeah, this thread deserves bumping now and again -- it can be frustrating!

nabisco, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:54 (fifteen years ago) link

nabisco, that's happened to me more than a few times over the years! at a certain point i just turned off the "care" switch, i guess.

this thread = eternally classic, mostly for ethan's bile.

Beatrix Kiddo, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:58 (fifteen years ago) link

the best solution is probably to write more, and invest less in each piece (not work-wise, but pride-wise/emotionally)

nabisco, Friday, 27 February 2009 17:01 (fifteen years ago) link

You don't want your words dumbed down into irrelevancy, stick to your blog imo.

Eerie, Indierocker (The stickman from the hilarious xkcd comics), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:02 (fifteen years ago) link

thread was started about a bonecrusher review btw

bobby dijindal (and what), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:06 (fifteen years ago) link

ethan, do you still write for that paper?

Beatrix Kiddo, Friday, 27 February 2009 17:16 (fifteen years ago) link

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

max, Friday, 27 February 2009 17:20 (fifteen years ago) link

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

special guest stars mark bronson, Friday, 27 February 2009 18:33 (fifteen years ago) link

my advice: man up

s1ocki, Friday, 27 February 2009 18:35 (fifteen years ago) link

FUCK AD REPS

Jazzbo, Friday, 27 February 2009 18:36 (fifteen years ago) link

five years pass...

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

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

Preach.

alpine static, Tuesday, 9 September 2014 22:11 (nine years ago) link

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

Jazzbo, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 15:10 (nine years ago) link

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

bamcquern, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 19:56 (nine years ago) link

one month passes...

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.

alpine static, Thursday, 30 October 2014 09:13 (nine years ago) link

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

Shepard Toney Album (dog latin), Thursday, 30 October 2014 09:41 (nine years ago) link

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.)

alpine static, Thursday, 30 October 2014 09:53 (nine years ago) link

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.

Eyeball Kicks, Thursday, 30 October 2014 10:55 (nine years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.