Jul 6, 2023·edited Jul 6, 2023Liked by Nicole R. Zimmerman
Let us first say that there are good editors and not so good ones. How will you know? Experience. Writing and submitting a lot, no matter how much you are published, is a kind of school. Working with good editors, bad ones, and indifferent ones is also a school. Recently a story I wrote in Spanish was accepted for publication (next month, I think) by an editor whose writing I deeply admire. So I know her choices are good. She wanted to kill about eight words in the last sentence (the last sentence!) of the story. I felt pain at first. Then I allowed "butwhatif" to enter me. Then I said, you're right about these four words, but these other four? They have to stay and here's why. She said yes. My belief in those four words had been instinct before. Her challenge pushed me to defend them intellectually and that was useful for me, for her, and for the story. In this way, the best editors are collaborators who care about the piece itself, who work with you in a granular way, who are patient, and who are not suggesting changes just to suit their own thematic or word count needs.
I've been working with dozens of newspaper, magazine, anthology, and book editors for years and my work has always been improved if the suggestions rang a bell for me, so to speak. If I felt intrigued or even excited, and started making notes or even rewriting that same day I received the feedback, I knew the editor was on to something. Writers can always keep growing and learning--if they want to. And being edited so well for so long by so many people has made me a better editor myself, both when I taught creative writing at MSU and when I launched my own editing/coaching website writewithoutborders.com.
Good, specific advice here! I once tried to explain my craft decisions on a poem to an editor, and the response was that they offered me a "kill fee" and didn't publish the poem. Their suggestions had been vague, however--in the vein of "make the beginning better"--which was probably why I had resisted. Now I go with nearly any editorial suggestion, figuring I can always revert to my own version if it appears in a book.
I love editorial suggestions, generally--since I've worked as a editor for 18 years, I appreciate them from both sides. Usually, I go with the suggestions, unless I have a very strong reason. Sometimes I can't see the point of the change until later, so giving the editor the benefit of the doubt is a wise move. Also, editors like to be regarded as someone who is helping the writer, not diminishing their work.
For my own submission stamina, I enjoyed reading about your take on options after a no. I like how you immediately replied and suggested a different idea that was accepted. Very encouraging. Thanks.
Yes, both perspectives on this seem right. I just went back to check and the longest I've had a piece out in the world waiting for a home is 11 years (and it just got accepted!). But I've also learned that if I get ten rejections with no comments attached, to accept that there is probably something systemically wrong that needs revising, and I need to bring in outside eyes to help figure it out.
I don't write literary fiction or non-fiction. I write "genre", mostly crime/mystery, occasionally light horror or SF (when I need a change of mood.) In genre short fiction, edits are relatively rare, or rather brief. You either fit the theme/spirit of the publication, or you don't - sometimes rejections come with comments: too mild, we don't like this subject, etc. I recently went through 3 edit cycles with a publication, however. I took some of the suggestions, bristled at others but rephrased (if somebody found something wrong with this, others would too, so it should be considered), and rewrote the ending - that stung but the final result was unexpected and a ton better. So, I listen!
One thing I remind myself when an editor asks for changes that I don't agree with: I can always, in theory, publish my original version in a collection someday. Like a "director's cut." This eases the sting a bit. That said, if the change is too significant, or I disagree too strenuously, I'll hold my ground, or at least argue my point vociferously. Unless it's a great journal. Then, to be honest, I'm just happy to for the pub cred. Sometimes you have to let your kids go to camp, and come home with tattoos and such.
@Nicole I love this piece. Thanks so much for it. I will write you separately about how this piece sparked an idea for the AWA Craft Book.
Recently, an editor of a poetry journal asked me to "de-sestina" a sestina. I asked her if I could try to improve on two lines without compromising the integrity of the form. She agreed. I tried, I really did, but her edits were stronger than my attempts to adhere to form, and so the published version will have two lines that stick out.
Nods. Another piece about editing? Edits may also be required to fit the house editing style, or to prune a piece that doesn't fit the magazine, the theme, or the anthology. Additions may be required for the same reason. A magazine or anthology is also reflective of the person(s) who edit it, so some tweaking may be required, no matter what.
Nicole, so kind of you to read and comment. The biggest challenge I faced was that the editor wanted me to include erasure poems from other writers, and I needed to find the ones that made sense to me, were available online, and then get permission, which I easily did once I contacted the other writers. Their contributions really enriched the article and the learning process for me. It was a lot easier to connect with them and get permission than I expected.
Sep 16, 2023·edited Sep 16, 2023Liked by Nicole R. Zimmerman
I am reading this article with enthusiasm, as I've been mulling what to do with some recent personal––you came close, submit again soon, we mean it––rejections. The specific examples here of how to respond and make sense of these editorial comments is hugely helpful––thanks, Nicole! Also, I just had a craft essay published after editorial suggestions offered by an editor who really cared about helping me fit my essay to the publication's needs. A much better article emerged and I was pleased that I engaged rather than dismissed.
This piece channels some of my experiences with Becky on my piece, Rogue Submission Guidelines to the Rescue. The writer already has one foot in the door with an editor's suggestions so it will be the height of foolhardiness to not give them considered attention. The caveat is when the editor's suggestions would have a fundamental effect on the lie of the piece but then, which editor would do that? If an editor is not specific with what she'd have expunged or rewritten, I usually permit them to do it themselves and let us see in bold relief how she prefers it. Thankfully, Becky obliged me and there was peace on both fronts.
So far, most of my work has been published without any edits. But I did have an amusing interaction with a couple of British editors. The story was set in the American Midwest, and when they changed a bit of dialogue from "while" to "whilst", I really had to say no. (They also objected to the character's use of the subjunctive "If it were up to me ..." and changed it to "If it was up to me ..." but I just let them have that one.)
As both a writer with my own string of plentiful rejections sprinkled with a few scant acceptances *and* as a professional editor, can I just say, hear, hear?! Well said!
I think one of the great challenges, especially for newer writers, is understanding when is the right time to engage with specific, prescriptive editing advice. Late in the process, when the writer has reached the end of their abilities to see the work clearly or understand what it needs, is exactly the right time. Early on, writer's voice needs to be championed and encouraged--not trained in a particular direction envisioned by someone else. Great editors know when to employ which approach.
Let us first say that there are good editors and not so good ones. How will you know? Experience. Writing and submitting a lot, no matter how much you are published, is a kind of school. Working with good editors, bad ones, and indifferent ones is also a school. Recently a story I wrote in Spanish was accepted for publication (next month, I think) by an editor whose writing I deeply admire. So I know her choices are good. She wanted to kill about eight words in the last sentence (the last sentence!) of the story. I felt pain at first. Then I allowed "butwhatif" to enter me. Then I said, you're right about these four words, but these other four? They have to stay and here's why. She said yes. My belief in those four words had been instinct before. Her challenge pushed me to defend them intellectually and that was useful for me, for her, and for the story. In this way, the best editors are collaborators who care about the piece itself, who work with you in a granular way, who are patient, and who are not suggesting changes just to suit their own thematic or word count needs.
I've been working with dozens of newspaper, magazine, anthology, and book editors for years and my work has always been improved if the suggestions rang a bell for me, so to speak. If I felt intrigued or even excited, and started making notes or even rewriting that same day I received the feedback, I knew the editor was on to something. Writers can always keep growing and learning--if they want to. And being edited so well for so long by so many people has made me a better editor myself, both when I taught creative writing at MSU and when I launched my own editing/coaching website writewithoutborders.com.
Good, specific advice here! I once tried to explain my craft decisions on a poem to an editor, and the response was that they offered me a "kill fee" and didn't publish the poem. Their suggestions had been vague, however--in the vein of "make the beginning better"--which was probably why I had resisted. Now I go with nearly any editorial suggestion, figuring I can always revert to my own version if it appears in a book.
I love editorial suggestions, generally--since I've worked as a editor for 18 years, I appreciate them from both sides. Usually, I go with the suggestions, unless I have a very strong reason. Sometimes I can't see the point of the change until later, so giving the editor the benefit of the doubt is a wise move. Also, editors like to be regarded as someone who is helping the writer, not diminishing their work.
For my own submission stamina, I enjoyed reading about your take on options after a no. I like how you immediately replied and suggested a different idea that was accepted. Very encouraging. Thanks.
Yes, both perspectives on this seem right. I just went back to check and the longest I've had a piece out in the world waiting for a home is 11 years (and it just got accepted!). But I've also learned that if I get ten rejections with no comments attached, to accept that there is probably something systemically wrong that needs revising, and I need to bring in outside eyes to help figure it out.
I don't write literary fiction or non-fiction. I write "genre", mostly crime/mystery, occasionally light horror or SF (when I need a change of mood.) In genre short fiction, edits are relatively rare, or rather brief. You either fit the theme/spirit of the publication, or you don't - sometimes rejections come with comments: too mild, we don't like this subject, etc. I recently went through 3 edit cycles with a publication, however. I took some of the suggestions, bristled at others but rephrased (if somebody found something wrong with this, others would too, so it should be considered), and rewrote the ending - that stung but the final result was unexpected and a ton better. So, I listen!
One thing I remind myself when an editor asks for changes that I don't agree with: I can always, in theory, publish my original version in a collection someday. Like a "director's cut." This eases the sting a bit. That said, if the change is too significant, or I disagree too strenuously, I'll hold my ground, or at least argue my point vociferously. Unless it's a great journal. Then, to be honest, I'm just happy to for the pub cred. Sometimes you have to let your kids go to camp, and come home with tattoos and such.
@Nicole I love this piece. Thanks so much for it. I will write you separately about how this piece sparked an idea for the AWA Craft Book.
Recently, an editor of a poetry journal asked me to "de-sestina" a sestina. I asked her if I could try to improve on two lines without compromising the integrity of the form. She agreed. I tried, I really did, but her edits were stronger than my attempts to adhere to form, and so the published version will have two lines that stick out.
Nods. Another piece about editing? Edits may also be required to fit the house editing style, or to prune a piece that doesn't fit the magazine, the theme, or the anthology. Additions may be required for the same reason. A magazine or anthology is also reflective of the person(s) who edit it, so some tweaking may be required, no matter what.
Nicole, so kind of you to read and comment. The biggest challenge I faced was that the editor wanted me to include erasure poems from other writers, and I needed to find the ones that made sense to me, were available online, and then get permission, which I easily did once I contacted the other writers. Their contributions really enriched the article and the learning process for me. It was a lot easier to connect with them and get permission than I expected.
I am reading this article with enthusiasm, as I've been mulling what to do with some recent personal––you came close, submit again soon, we mean it––rejections. The specific examples here of how to respond and make sense of these editorial comments is hugely helpful––thanks, Nicole! Also, I just had a craft essay published after editorial suggestions offered by an editor who really cared about helping me fit my essay to the publication's needs. A much better article emerged and I was pleased that I engaged rather than dismissed.
This piece channels some of my experiences with Becky on my piece, Rogue Submission Guidelines to the Rescue. The writer already has one foot in the door with an editor's suggestions so it will be the height of foolhardiness to not give them considered attention. The caveat is when the editor's suggestions would have a fundamental effect on the lie of the piece but then, which editor would do that? If an editor is not specific with what she'd have expunged or rewritten, I usually permit them to do it themselves and let us see in bold relief how she prefers it. Thankfully, Becky obliged me and there was peace on both fronts.
So far, most of my work has been published without any edits. But I did have an amusing interaction with a couple of British editors. The story was set in the American Midwest, and when they changed a bit of dialogue from "while" to "whilst", I really had to say no. (They also objected to the character's use of the subjunctive "If it were up to me ..." and changed it to "If it was up to me ..." but I just let them have that one.)
As both a writer with my own string of plentiful rejections sprinkled with a few scant acceptances *and* as a professional editor, can I just say, hear, hear?! Well said!
I think one of the great challenges, especially for newer writers, is understanding when is the right time to engage with specific, prescriptive editing advice. Late in the process, when the writer has reached the end of their abilities to see the work clearly or understand what it needs, is exactly the right time. Early on, writer's voice needs to be championed and encouraged--not trained in a particular direction envisioned by someone else. Great editors know when to employ which approach.
Thank you for this.