I read a few things today that set off my warning instincts today, a few things on blogs around the Web and in email. As a writing community we all work hard to share information, form support groups, and help each other as much as possible. But I think there are some instances where either that veil shouldn't be lifted, or what's being said should not be done on a public forum.

Taking a post today made by an author who shall remain nameless. She had experienced a disagreement of minor proportions with her editor. She was sharing that on her blog. Nothing wrong, correct? Well... maybe not... maybe so...

The problem that I had with this was I feel that editorial discussions (those conversations between author and editor) should not be open for public review. The editor who's contracted your work only has the best intentions when supplying commentary or suggestions. Nothing's said in attempts to belittle what's been presented, or over-ride the author's vision. (This is what revise and resubmit requests are for). By this point, the book is contracted and the editor likes what is there. Loves it. Now he/she wants to make it shine even more!

Because no two people are alike, no two people are going to feel the same way about every word in a 100K or so manuscript. He/she's going to be bored with passages the author loves. Vice Versa.

Discussions and negotiations are going to occur. Some will be worthy of tantrums on either side. Some neither side is particularly married to. But in the event of tantrums, never, never, bring that to the public eye. It's just unprofessional if someone stumbles onto an email or a post where you've gone into great detail about why you disagreed with a particular change. Why? Because its frankly, insulting to the editor. If you have issue with something he/she has asked for, that's to be discussed between you and him/her. NOT the public.

PARTICULARLY before the issue has ever been resolved.

Also, the editor never has a chance to defend him/hersself in public and a professional editor likely won't. But you can be relatively certain that if you've complained or criticized publically, the editor is not going to be leaping for joy to work with you on future projects.

If there's an issue that's really eating you up as an author, there are other avenues available for expressing, rather than putting it up for millions of people to read and/or chime in on.

a. If you have an agent, this is a perfect time for an agent to step in
b. If you are unagented, then you need to discuss directly with the editor
c. Talk privately with a couple of published authors you respect to see how they might have handled a similiar situation or what they advise
d. If you just need to vent, that's what the phone and your best friend is for.

Anyway. It concerns me when I see authors opening these sorts of discussions. While the one who posted this today I'm sure didn't mean to present any sort of attack, and was just discussing a process... what it amounted to was a lot of people then cheering her on for "standing her ground" and essentially ended up as a "pooh on the editor" situation. Which can never be pleasant, in the long term, for the author with this particular editor, and if other editors stumble onto it, now she's going to have disadvantages working against her. The potential new editor may not be willing to take the risk of suddenly finding themselves on a public forum and their decisions / suggestions / comments up for public discussion.

It's just not cool, folks. And don't shoot yourselves in the foot that way. Your editor is supposed to be your biggest fan. Don't jeopardize that special relationship by saying too much.

Claire
www.claireashgrove.com

~Claire
www.claireashgrove.com
www.toristclaire.com