Gimme Gimme Editing Tips

Pay em. Oop - wait. Um. Dunno.

Tracer has hit the other nail on the head. Nobody makes any money out of this. Nobody loses it either, 'cept me, though.

Tom you are better than most at spotting poor and/or boring logic in arguments: you are allowed to nudge writers towards the piece you think they could have written. Some are gagging for this (= me); others will resist and throw tantrums.

I don't think you can make people write who don't enjoy it.

Ned was brillant in his editing of my bran van reivew. he prodded me to add a coda , he cut certain senteces and made me beef up my intro. he was very good.

*blush* Merely thoughts on how to improve the main point. I have to say that I usually struggle with the same problems Tom does.

When I'm editing, the whole thing is a process where all issues are discussed with the writer, who then edits themselves. It's a different kind of editing, I'll grant you (TV scripts), but it does mean that everything is explained to the creator, and *usually* they are happy that someone is helping them make their work better.

I've never edited articles, mind, but the same fragile egos are involved. If you intend to edit content, it's worth laying your cards on the table with the writers before they've submitted their work. Adding editors notes without changing the original text may be the best way of making your point without treading on the toes of the author.

Essentially, if you have talented people writing interesting articles, and they're not preaching bigotry or whatever, I'm not sure what you stand to gain from editing the essence of what they're saying. If you have the luxury of having too much to stuff into each update, maybe it gives you more leeway - "I had another article I wanted to use which went in a similar direction, so maybe it's worth hving a look at X instead" - it's tricky, but it could work.

Ach, I don't really know what I'm talking about. Just be careful about changing things to fit your own opinions - if that's what you want, it's probably best to write everything yourself.

I'm not intending to edit people's opinions - I suppose what I have in mind is more a case of being more involved with the commissioning and gestation of articles, and being more hands on about getting people to expand on or clarify the ideas they've had.

Encourage them to be individual with their opinions, not fall back on regurgitated canonisms because they might be unconfident, or worried that they might be 'exposed' for lack of knowledge, method etc. Convince them that their opinions are as good as anyone else's who's ever been published, and not to worry what people might think. What holds most people back is the conviction that everyone's watching them and waiting for them to fall - dispel this!

I'm sure your select band of writers will be past this, but the most useful editing technique I've come up with - dealing with both amateurs and pros - is the simple question "What are you trying to say here?", which almost always elicts a perfectly coherent verbal response, unlike the convulted sprawl they've written. At which point you find a polite way of saying "just write that then." If they can't explain it verbally, they usually back down and admit they were bluffing a bit. Also: I don't care whether that you're not paying these people: if you don't understand, it shouldn't be going in. The idea is to communicate, not baffle with the denseness of someone's pet theory. As for commissioning, it's worth taking it slowly that both editor and writer are sure that they are really talking about the same idea. Be tough and patient. And the best way of convincing the reluctant they can write is just getting them to keep writing until it stops becoming an issue. Well, that's my tuppence of advice, anyhow.

For what it's worth, a new writer whose piece I didn't immediately publish with the last batch got rewrite advice from me. The initial piece sounded like a promo for the band rather than an explanation as to why anyone should care.

Out of interest, to what extent (and how) are editing concerns for someting like FT born out of concern for the nurturing and support of the writer as opposed to (and is it opposed to?) concerns about presentation vis-a-vis the implied readership? Tom, your question implies an attention largely focused on the former - how do you think about factoring in readership concerns and I'm sure some glib answer is possible here, like 'good editing facilitates good communication which will satisfy both writer and reader', but that presupposes a much neater fit between the two than I assume exists?

V garbled post, sorry; I trust some vestige of my meaning is clear.

The reason for doing a not-for-profit, free-access webzine is that you have the luxury of not really worrying about the readership. I want as many people to read and enjoy FT as possible, but I see that as my job - conceiving and chasing a range of interesting material, and promoting it - rather than being a function of my relationships with the writers.

yeah fuck the readers those good-fer-nutn blah blah

My inspiration in this was The Wire circa 1992, natch.

all these answers have been good, especially the 'what are you trying to say here?' answer. it usually solves the problem my blue pencil spots the most.

also, i'm a big fan of marking cliches and extra phrases like 'however,' 'truth be told,' 'when you get right down to it' etc. they're usually nothing but filler -- and removing them allows the writer's *true* style -- think about the way people speak, and how that translates to their writing! -- to come through even more.

(i'll probably print out this thread when all's said and done!! it's quite helpful.)

Tom: you seem a little caught between the idea of being 'hands-on' (your words) and the fact that FT is a fanzine. But I think the role of the editor in this case is to help the writer, who may well be struggling to get exactly what they want across. While bad editing can leave a writer feeling pretty grumpy, good editing will leave everyone a lot happier. A writer has to tipping towards the arrogant to believe that the piece they submit is without question impossible to improve.

Hmm, how do you mean, Mark? The 'hands-on' element really is just in contrast to what I did previously - almost no communication with the writers, they would send a piece along and a week or two later it would show up unedited. Compared to that almost any kind of editing will be hands-on, but I dont intend to impose my will on writers, more try and enthuse them with the kind of things I envision for the 'zine. Does that make sense?

As one of these people who's being badgered haha to write some more I think Toms saying some good things. I'd genuinely appreciate some input into my writing before anything goes up, even if it's something small. I don't think I'm a great writer and there are some areas where I could improve and I think Tom would be good at that. I'd certainly prefer some guidance and hints towards topics as well, things that I might be grasping at but just miss, ah story of my life, if only I could have clung onto that rusk for longer as a baby. Mmmm RUSKS. I wouldn't like someone who chops into my writing and putting it up w/o saying anything though. Shtinkay.

bad editing usually a result of i. editor an idiot; ii. NO TIME NO TIME NO TIME!!

With an online zine ii. doesn't apply.

NO SPACE NO SPACE NO SPACE doesn't apply, but NO TIME does if you're trying to keep things to any kind of regular schedule.

My editor at Adhoc called me in to look at my piece (interview with Wes Craven on Scream 3, I think) and we 'edited' it together. I was quite impressed she had taken the time to consult me before editing.

No Tom actual real-life magazine deadlines are not the same as, "Yes it would be good if I got done by the weekend." I mean read this 2000-word piece for literals, the last bike will be here in 23 minutes => poor paraphrasing of confused original, sometimes

Oh, I think you know what you are doing, Tom. All I meant is that in my limited experience of writing stuff for publications that don't pay, they tend to go "thanks, no really, thanks so much for doing it, I'm sure it's great" and all the while I'm desperately hoping that they are going to tell me how to fix the bloody thing.

It depends how professional and consistent you're trying to be. It's nowhere near as stressful etc as 'real-life deadlines' but time is still a factor. Of course it's a self-imposed discipline rather than an externally-imposed one, but if you say you are going to do something every weekday then you have until the end of each weekday to get it up onsite or you will not be doing that thing.

The really crucial difference between print proofing and online proofing is that you can go back and correct errors - in that sense you're 100% right.

Note that I am not in any way saying I or anyone else on FT will do things to any kind of regular schedule. I've made that mistake before.

I speak from brutal experience that Mr. Morris does indeed give good sub-editorial advice, and goodness knows some of us need sub-editing.

Other passive (or absent) sub-editing has been *very* frustrating, especially when such advice has been requested / offered and still doesn't arrive. Bad draft published = unhappy me.