I'll be picking up the final installment of my overwriting series probably next week, when life isn't quite so crazy. If you missed it, I posted Overwriting (part 4): Tangents last Thursday.
Part of my current time pressures is a stack of page proofs from the compositor (160 pages or so) I need to proofread for work. Some of my newer followers might not know I've worked as an editor for over 15 years, largely in trade and association publishing. I currently work on a scholarly journal that publishes literary criticism on the modernist period (early 20th century). Taking my current job required a huge shift in my thinking about my role as an editor.
Most magazines operate on a journalistic model of editing. This means the ultimate responsibility for things like factual accuracy and avoiding slander or plagiarism lies in the editors' hands. Misspellings are not ultimately the author's fault, even if she originated the mistake. In this model, editors are also responsible for adherence to style guidelines and publication "voice." Thus for much of my career, I've had to rewrite every piece that ever crossed my desk.
In scholarly publishing, I'm merely a conduit who takes scholars' work and gently nudges it to publishable form. We don't have a publication "voice." If MLA doesn't nix a particular stylistic issue, I don't really have the freedom to tweak it in a manuscript just because I think it sounds pompous. Instead, I have to work with each author's style and ensure that the piece is readable and adequately referenced, which means unlearning some of the heavy-handed approach to editing required in previous jobs.
When it comes to critiquing others' work, I still struggle with the journalistic editor in me that wants to dig in and rewrite. But that isn't really my role. The responsibility for the form and content ultimately lies with the author. As I critique a manuscript, I can suggest, nudge, question and point out legitimate errors (head hopping, grammar and punctuation errors, POV shifts), but I shouldn't ever behave as if my way of writing the same story is "house voice" and "house style" and insist my critique partners' work adhere to that standard.
The unlearning involved--especially throwing off my sense of responsibility--is still a struggle. If you've ever let me critique your work, know that I can at times invest too heavily in what you're doing. I have to keep reminding myself there's no unpleasable editor-in-chief waiting to pounce on me for missing something. The work is ultimately your baby, your responsibility.
What influences your approach to critiquing others' work? What do you think makes the critiques you receive "good" or "bad"?
Part of my current time pressures is a stack of page proofs from the compositor (160 pages or so) I need to proofread for work. Some of my newer followers might not know I've worked as an editor for over 15 years, largely in trade and association publishing. I currently work on a scholarly journal that publishes literary criticism on the modernist period (early 20th century). Taking my current job required a huge shift in my thinking about my role as an editor.
Most magazines operate on a journalistic model of editing. This means the ultimate responsibility for things like factual accuracy and avoiding slander or plagiarism lies in the editors' hands. Misspellings are not ultimately the author's fault, even if she originated the mistake. In this model, editors are also responsible for adherence to style guidelines and publication "voice." Thus for much of my career, I've had to rewrite every piece that ever crossed my desk.
In scholarly publishing, I'm merely a conduit who takes scholars' work and gently nudges it to publishable form. We don't have a publication "voice." If MLA doesn't nix a particular stylistic issue, I don't really have the freedom to tweak it in a manuscript just because I think it sounds pompous. Instead, I have to work with each author's style and ensure that the piece is readable and adequately referenced, which means unlearning some of the heavy-handed approach to editing required in previous jobs.
When it comes to critiquing others' work, I still struggle with the journalistic editor in me that wants to dig in and rewrite. But that isn't really my role. The responsibility for the form and content ultimately lies with the author. As I critique a manuscript, I can suggest, nudge, question and point out legitimate errors (head hopping, grammar and punctuation errors, POV shifts), but I shouldn't ever behave as if my way of writing the same story is "house voice" and "house style" and insist my critique partners' work adhere to that standard.
The unlearning involved--especially throwing off my sense of responsibility--is still a struggle. If you've ever let me critique your work, know that I can at times invest too heavily in what you're doing. I have to keep reminding myself there's no unpleasable editor-in-chief waiting to pounce on me for missing something. The work is ultimately your baby, your responsibility.
What influences your approach to critiquing others' work? What do you think makes the critiques you receive "good" or "bad"?
