Editors on Editing: What Writers Need to Know About What Editors Do (25 page)

A Creative Collaboration

Paul D. McCarthy

P
AUL D
. M
C
C
ARTHY
has been a senior editor at Pocket Books since 1986, acquiring fiction and nonfiction for publication in hardcover and paperback editions. He is also a book reviewer and a member of the National Book Critics Circle. His reviews have been published by the
Los Angeles Times Book Review
and
Chicago Sun-Times Book Week
among others. Mr. McCarthy previously worked as an editor for Dell Publishing Company/Delacorte Press, which he joined in 1979 after being an agent at the Scott Meredith Literary Agency. He is currently writing a book about the philosophy and art of book editing
.

Long before an editor puts the first marks on a manuscript, the editor and the author have entered into an ongoing creative collaboration. That symbiotic partnership, called “developmental editing,” Mr. McCarthy defines as when “writer and editor jointly evolve a concept or story idea, which either or both have contributed, into a strong outline or proposal. They extend that into a manuscript in progress, striving at every stage to make the partial and then complete work as excellent as possible.”

This close relationship between editor and author increases the possibility for both conflict and productivity. The exact character of the relationship and the approach editor and author take to developmental editing depends on their temperaments, personalities, work habits, and a clear understanding of each other’s respective responsibilities: “the author’s is to write the best book possible, the editor’s to help the author achieve that goal. The writer should try to keep an open mind and the editor should not be intrusive.” Mr. McCarthy also believes that “making the relationship work is much more the editor’s responsibility than the author’s. It’s a tough but critical part of the job.”

Believing that there is “a special pleasure and harmony in the joining of forces,” Mr. McCarthy presents many valuable and practical suggestions to the editor and writer that will enhance their prospects of working happily and effectively together. Using specific examples of how developmental editing works in practice, he discusses such essential aspects of the editor-author collaboration as: the importance of editorial objectivity to the writer, the efficiency and importance of an early exchange of ideas and concepts, choosing and focusing on the audience for the book, development of a proposal or organizational plan for the work, and creating the structure of the work
.

Seeing himself clearly as the writer’s partner, Mr. McCarthy states that “one of the reasons I became an editor is because I have great respect for writing talent and revel in my involvement with it. A source of immense pleasure for me over the years has been the increasing extent to which many of my authors involve me ever earlier in the creative process.”

A Creative Collaboration

As every author and editor who has experienced its creative joy knows, a world of collaborative potential exists before the editor begins the final editing of the entire manuscript.

In approach and purpose, that collaboration, called developmental editing, is quite different from comprehensive, structural, and line editing. The dividing line is the full manuscript.

In
developmental editing
, writer and editor jointly evolve a concept or story idea, which either or both have contributed, into a strong outline or proposal. They extend that into a manuscript in progress, striving at every stage to make the partial and then complete work as excellent as possible.

Once the author has finished the manuscript, the editorial process changes, and the editor, alone, begins the
comprehensive editing
, preparing a detailed set of editorial notes covering every analyzable aspect of the book, and working on the writing line by line.

Not all authors or books require the early, intense involvement of the editor, but many times developmental editing is essential and the most productive and efficient way to proceed.

For example, an editor suggests an idea to an author. Because he originated the concept, initially at least he understands better than the author how it should be developed, and he’ll work with the writer until they’re both satisfied that the book is on the right track.
Perhaps the editor and author have worked together before and the author prefers that his editor work with him as they refine his ideas and material. Accordingly, he sends pages and chapters to his editor as he writes them so that the editor can provide immediate response and guidance. This allows the writer to revise as he goes and to avoid wasting time by going too far with stuff that won’t work.

Because the market for published books changes so rapidly, the author, wanting to write a book that’s going to reach as many people as possible, may decide to discuss with her editor whether there’s a sufficiently large audience for whatever she has in mind, knowing as she does that the editor is keeping up with those changes on a daily basis.

During the developmental stage there is, of necessity, a greater closeness between writer and editor. And that means the increased possibility of unusual productivity and of conflict. Therefore, it’s important to be very clear about the respective responsibilities: the author’s is to write the best book possible, the editor’s to help the author achieve that goal. The writer should try to keep an open mind and the editor should not be intrusive. Still, because developmental editing requires, by its nature, significant involvement, the editor’s courtesy, continuing support, belief in the writer’s work and talent, and tactful guidance are imperative and essential. It is also incumbent on the writer to be diplomatic, but it’s my conviction, perhaps unfair to editors, that making the relationship work is much more the editor’s responsibility than the author’s. It’s a tough but critical part of the job.

Successful collaboration allows the author to feel sustained and liberated by knowing that she doesn’t have to bear the burden of creation, development, and refinement alone, though working independently is her right and her option. I think there’s a special pleasure and harmony in the joining of forces. It both eases the loneliness of writing and editing, and multiplies the effectiveness of the creative process in a synergistic way.

Part of the effectiveness derives from editorial objectivity. The author can rely on the editor’s slightly distanced judgment as the work progresses, rather than going through the possibly terrifying course of conceiving and writing the entire work in solitude and guessing and hoping that it is what it should be. There’s also the advantage of efficiency. It’s much easier and faster to make changes in a concept, proposal, or partial manuscript than in a full-length work, and this early labor reduces the amount of revision that will have to be done on the complete manuscript.

A mutual benefit is that authors aren’t under the pressure of thinking they are the only source of ideas, and in turn, editors don’t have to be totally reliant on writers for book concepts. Imaginative editors with solid ideas can find the right writer and develop the book with her. Another benefit at
the conceptual or developmental stage is that the experienced editor, knowing the strengths of the particular writer and publisher, is able to guide the author toward the new or revised idea that will maximize those strengths.

One of the reasons I became an editor is because I have great respect for writing talent and revel in my involvement with it. A source of immense pleasure for me over the years has been the increasing extent to which many of my authors involve me ever earlier in the creative process.

Sometimes, at her request, I’ll begin immediately to work closely with an author I haven’t edited or published before. If she has been well edited in the past, she’s aware of the benefits of editorial involvement and wants me, her new editor, to know how welcome my thoughts are. If despite wanting and needing editorial direction on previous books she’s been edited little or not at all, she’s going to take advantage right away of my interest in and enthusiasm for developmental editing.

Other times, after I’ve worked with an author and we’ve realized the rewards of working together, he’ll ask for my thoughts sooner than he did the first time around. Conversely, because writers and editors are always learning, it’s often the case that what an author has learned from our work together on a previous book he can apply on his own to the next book and therefore can be more independent in the writing. If the short-term goal of developmental editing is the best current book, the long-term goal is the maximum development of the writer’s talent and independence.

It’s been my extreme good fortune to have engaged in, through the years, almost every aspect of the editorial process, from the kind of comprehensive editing of a manuscript that verges on the deranged, with my notes running over a hundred double-spaced pages, to having an idea, finding the writer, and then editing and publishing a fine book with a gratifying minimum of developmental, structural, and line editing. Almost always it’s been very hard work, and definitely always it’s been deeply satisfying. I must admit though that the creative possibilities inherent in conceiving and shaping ideas into books have a special excitement.

A few years ago I wanted to add a new slang dictionary to my publishing house’s list, so I approached an author I’d worked with on a couple of language books at another house. He was interested, and agreed to work on speculation, producing sample material to show the publisher, with no guarantee of an offer. It’s hard on a writer but was necessary in this situation.

Our next step was focusing the concept and making the book competitive with other dictionaries. We weren’t interested in a scholarly work. What we wanted was a lively, popular book that would be a browser’s delight as well as a solid, though limited, reference dictionary. That approach was perfect for the author because that was exactly the kind of book he had compiled
successfully in the past. We decided to restrict the scope of the book to contemporary American slang and to concentrate on making the entries as colorful and entertaining as possible.

As we went on, the author’s research revealed that it had been fifty years since there had been a slang dictionary arranged by categories of words. I agreed that such an arrangement was a critical refinement because it would give us a competitive advantage over the other slang dictionaries, which only listed their words alphabetically. Combining the topical slang focus with the organization by category, the author prepared a brief but delightful and persuasive outline, and I was able to buy the book. We then developed the outline further, wanting it to be a thorough, detailed guide for the author as he wrote the actual manuscript.

Another example of developmental editing involved matching an internationally respected couple working in civilian law enforcement with the right concept and with an author. Each element was a separate editorial challenge. After reading their earlier coauthored books about self-defense and related issues, I met with the couple and suggested a much larger, more popular book than they’d done before. They were giving speeches all over the world, and I thought they could integrate their powerful message with their personal stories to form an anecdotal book that would dramatize their crime prevention ideas.

They liked that approach, and we next had to find a writer who could do justice to their increased potential. My publisher had made it clear that while they were very interested in the new book, they’d have to see something on paper before making a decision.

I talked to one of my authors with whom I had worked successfully and easily before, and she turned out to be perfect. Not only was she excited about the idea and the couple’s message, and willing to accept the risks of writing on speculation, but she made some important contributions to my original concept of the book, giving it more substance and greater appeal by suggesting that we move beyond anecdotes to full, explosive autobiography. The couple thought she was wonderful and the four of us decided to work on a proposal that I could present to my publisher. This is a story currently without an ending because the proposal’s still being written, but I’ve enjoyed the year I’ve spent in developing its possibilities, and I think the other three will also value the experience regardless of outcome.

Another book, which does have an ending, and a happy one at that, required two years of my editorial time. In this case, when I became involved the work was further along than concept because the author had already written a rough draft of most of the manuscript. It was a raw piece of work, and even at its best it wasn’t going to be a major or best-selling book. Nevertheless, I thought that in its own modest way it was unique and
would definitely find an audience that it could continue to reach for years. The writer had a lively, colorful style that set the right tone for his book about mercenary soldiers, based on over forty years of personal field experience. Regrettably, however, he had no feel for structuring a manuscript. He knew approximately how to craft the sections and individual chapters, but the book had no unity or direction.

A sense of structure, though, is among the good editor’s gifts. And my belief in the book’s potential, combined with the author’s willingness to accept direction, made it possible for us to go forward. For the next year, with no contract, only hope, I kept making structural suggestions. The writer would rework and revise the manuscript and send it in again. I would make more suggestions. And so it went. My immediate goal was not to get the manuscript in final, polished shape but simply to improve it enough that I would be able to buy it, with the understanding that more editing would follow. We did get it into that kind of shape, and I did buy the book. The additional editing and revising took another year but, very gratifying for us, the book became more successful than either of us had anticipated.