Don't Blame Me; I Didn't Write It

So I stumbled across this interesting little bit of editor/editorial gatekeeping this morning.

Basically, the argument is that if a reader has not seen the original manuscript or other obscure bits of manuscript-related matter that the editor saw before the work began, the reader does not have the right to criticize the editing.

As an editor friend put it on Facebook: "Hogswallop."

This editor writes:

I do understand the impulse. It’s a shorthand for saying the book is bloated or sloppy. In a famously conflict averse industry, it seems easier to blame a faceless editor than it is to pin it on the author. It’s a way of seeming savvy about the way the business works.

Here’s the thing: Unless you saw the raw original manuscript and the editors’ edits and editorial letter, you have absolutely no idea how well or poorly a book was edited.

Sometimes manuscripts arrive in total shambles and it takes a herculean effort to get them in even passable shape. You think the final book was rough? “Well,” the editor will likely say, “you should have seen it before I got to it.”

Here's the argument, summed up:

I will admit I'm reading a book right now that might fit that category: Terry Pratchett's last book, "The Shepherd's Crown." There's something missing from this novel. It feels empty and hollow. And while Pratchett's people have been open about the fact that the novel didn't quite get the polish Pratchett typically puts on his books because of his Parkinson's disease, the lesson to be learned here is that the exception doesn't make the rule.

But there's a real Hobson's choice here: Be responsible for putting out a mediocre last novel, or be the booger-brained editor who refused to publish the last novel of a granted literary titan because it wasn't up to snuff. Here, I might agree with Bransford in saying since the manuscript had trouble, it was not the fault of the editor or that the editor has little to no gatekeeping power once a manuscript is accepted.

But I have read plenty of books out there where the editing left in bloat, slop, and clutter that a braver editor would have cut out. And I can say this from the perspective of a writer who tends towards bloat, clutter, and slop -- a good editor can and should have more influence on the project's end result. And if the editor drops the ball on that, the reader has every right to say ew.

JK Rowling's writing, for example, became much more bloated as her popularity soared. The first books were tightly edited and I think were better for it. The latter books had a lot of fluff that no one dared cut about because Rowling.

Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast series is an epic example of bloat and clutter left too alone by editors.

John Crowley's "Little, Big" . . . the less said about this the better. A good editor would have said, "John, you can cut at least the first 100 pages of the novel and nothing's really lost from your story, bub." But apparently it wasn't said loudly enough.

Then there's Gentry Lee taking on the Rama "series" from Arthur C. Clarke. A good editor would have said, "Nah, this is garbage. Rama's fans didn't necessarily expect there to be two more ships coming, though Clarke hinted at it. And yikes, does EVERYONE have to die in Rama II?" I guess editors are called on to make silk purses out of sow's ears on occasion, but again I don't think the exception makes the rule. Bransford doesn't really make this clear -- if publishers are pushing for a book, it's the silk purse/sow's ear on occasion. But I don't think you can hold editors blameless. Maybe pity them in their trade, but other than that . . . 

And while authors might have originally made the typos, if they get past the editor, well, I'm going to question the skills of more than just the author.

And while I can find exceptions and exemptions, the idea that a reader may not criticize a book's editing because they didn't see the manuscript's original state is off. Writing and editing, in my experience, work together. They may not always want to work together, but it's part of the deal. And readers can and ought to recognize when the deal is broken. Maybe the news ought to get to writers that their choices are making the editor's job difficult, and that they -- the readers, the ones paying for the books -- notice.