Just had to link to this post about editors at Paper Cuts, one of my favorite blogs. It's written by the editors of The New York Times Book Review.
Some of the reader comments on this blog are classic. One of my favorites, posted by Jeremy Spencer: "Cutting is an art not easily mastered."
One question that Paper Cuts brings up is just how much editing an editor is supposed to do. After all, at some point, if the editor makes enough changes, whose copy is it? When does the editor become the writer? I remember one classmate in college who claimed that each piece was like a body part, and the act of editing was like chopping off a limb. I wouldn't go that far. But I often wonder how much editing is too much. I tell students that if they want to change a lead, they should call the author first and discuss it. But that's not a very deep discussion.
What do writers and reporters out there think? What about editors?
3 comments:
It is the primary directive of the editor to maintain the intersets of the publication printing the article. That means editors can cut as much or as little as they deem necessary. Notorioulsy independent, most writers despise anybody fiddling with their work, especially when an editor, as a third party, has the final say. Most editors were themselves writers and have enough respect to at least try and retain the author's voice. Ultimately these are the decisions editors are paid to make.
reader1: Good points. It's a difficult art to master, though.
Any article is a collaboration between all the people who work on it: the commissioning editor, the writer, the section head who demands structural changes, the sub editor (copy editor) and so on. It may be the writer's copy, but it isn't 'his' article.
And if the act of editing can be like chopping off a limb, it can also be like removing a tumour...
Post a Comment