Wondering, there is a lot of sneering round these parts at the golden-tongued writers who think they have Midas' touch--but I also sometimes see what I would consider too many concessions to editors.
So there becomes this middle ground, and what a writer should fight for, and what s/he shouldn't. We've all read Jack London's heated letter to his editor about the use of gloves while trying to light a fire (of course relating to the famous short story of the same name). In this case, it was a factual error. But what about syntactical decisions? Aesthetic ones? How much of a say does the writer get?
I'm not suggesting one should bicker with editors over every little phrasing, because of a sense of entitlement. But what about a sense of vision? What if the editor's suggestion might upset the intentions of the author?
I think the writer should absolutely get a say in how their piece pans out, but at the same time there is the danger of overstepping into banality.
So, the question: Where do you think the writer should fall in the decision making process? Would you edit essentially anything to make a sale? Or are there certain lines you believe are worth preserving for the sake of artfulness? Maybe some of you could share stories about good and or bad publishing experiences (no throwing names under the bus, though, please, just general replies).
Anyway, just something I've always worried about in my own experience. I have pulled a piece only once, a short story, because the journal wanted far too many changes, essentially restructuring the story entirely. I didn't agree and figured it was better to move on while politely thanking them for their time.
Otherwise I've found I'm okay with edits, but occasionally feel an editor injecting their own "style" into my piece, which I think is bad editing. This upsets me, but if they're stubborn and the change is small, I'm likely to concede.
Anyway, go.
So there becomes this middle ground, and what a writer should fight for, and what s/he shouldn't. We've all read Jack London's heated letter to his editor about the use of gloves while trying to light a fire (of course relating to the famous short story of the same name). In this case, it was a factual error. But what about syntactical decisions? Aesthetic ones? How much of a say does the writer get?
I'm not suggesting one should bicker with editors over every little phrasing, because of a sense of entitlement. But what about a sense of vision? What if the editor's suggestion might upset the intentions of the author?
I think the writer should absolutely get a say in how their piece pans out, but at the same time there is the danger of overstepping into banality.
So, the question: Where do you think the writer should fall in the decision making process? Would you edit essentially anything to make a sale? Or are there certain lines you believe are worth preserving for the sake of artfulness? Maybe some of you could share stories about good and or bad publishing experiences (no throwing names under the bus, though, please, just general replies).
Anyway, just something I've always worried about in my own experience. I have pulled a piece only once, a short story, because the journal wanted far too many changes, essentially restructuring the story entirely. I didn't agree and figured it was better to move on while politely thanking them for their time.
Otherwise I've found I'm okay with edits, but occasionally feel an editor injecting their own "style" into my piece, which I think is bad editing. This upsets me, but if they're stubborn and the change is small, I'm likely to concede.
Anyway, go.
