THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY, part 6: The Grand Finale. Or, not?

 

“Writing a book is an adventure.  To begin with it is a toy and an amusement. Then it becomes a mistress, then it becomes a master, then it becomes a tyrant. The last phase is that just as you are about to be reconciled to your servitude, you kill the monster and fling him to the public.”

    --Winston Churchill--

 

Well, Sir Winnie is right. Again.

 

Once I've done my second or third reading, looking for grammar, spelling, and sentences that just go "thud," I mail the thing off.

 

A crazed entity called an editor then makes changes. So far, most of the changes have been wrong. That's right: mistaken, erroneous, faulty, specious, spurious, and defective. Words were struck from the text (okay, I confess--I can be wordy) without adjustment of verb/noun/adjective, so the residue, whilst shorter, is grammatically incorrect. Or, a stray comma or period was introduced after an edit.

 

One editor (at a thankfully now-defunct press) took on the following that I had penned for JOURNEY TO THE HEART OF GOD (still available from me):

 

"Jesus said:

      --love one another,

      --serve one another,

      --now, go and do this."

 

The newly edited version read:

 

"Jesus said to love one another. Jesus said to serve one another. He then told us to go and do this."

 

You tell me...is that "editing" in any positive sense of the verb? Apparently, he never moved beyond his third-grade teacher's dictum to always write in complete sentences.

I told the editor, "A love a affair with the complete sentence is a good thing. Generally."

 

The same editor  perfectly reversed the meaning of another sentence in that book. I didn't think it was a badly-composed sentence, but there was something that pushed a button for the editor, and they "edited." I steamed and stewed, ranted and raved, fussed and fumed. After this "editing," I replied with a four-page, single-spaced list of my corrections to the editing...perhaps 20% of which was response to constructive change...that's right, about 80% was clean-up of their introduced errors. I've still got the letter, it steamed me so!

 

So, what's the process...when there's one of these "edits" every page or two?
--do a side by side comparison, both documents open. Find what was changed/deleted/added/questioned.
--Ah, yes, questions--thank you, thank you--when they're asking questions, there's usually a good reason, and a need for me to clarify, simplify, expand, or delete.

--Next, repair any damages, or rework as they suggested...then, thank them for pointing out the need for clarification, as moi always knew what moi intended but it wasn't always gonna be clear to the reader.

 

Submit the changes. Review their next draft, where some of my edits were accepted, and some not. Come up with arguments to support my grammar...oh, editors don't seem to like commas. Strange, because sometimes a panda merely "eats shoots and leaves," but you'd better watch out if it "eats, shoots, and leaves." And, grammarians are divided about the usage of the second comma, "eats, shoots, and leaves." I think it sets off the action better than, "...eats, shoots and leaves." 

 

By the time I get through arguing over commas, colons, (oh, I do try to not overuse the semicolon--being a bit of an academic pedant, it's easy to overdo), and sentence fragments, I'm at a rolling boil. I try to sit on my replies for 24 hours so that the cloud of steam has a chance to blow away. Not a bad strategy for any angry letter, response, or rebuttal.

 

So, by the end of the process, I am one with Sir Winston: cast the beast loose! I care not to ever lay eyes on it again--begone wi'ye!

 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

PS: Of course there are great editors out there. Sadly, I've not yet worked with one.

PPS: David, beware hubris.

PPPS: I am...I'm just a fussy word-smithing grammarian from the outset. So, unless the editor is a FUSSIER word-smithing ultra-grammarian, I'll be arguing.

PPPPS: David, beware hubris.