A Visit with an Editor

A couple months ago, my buddy Andy Meisenheimer stopped in to talk about one of his pet peeves: the overuse of novelists turning all thoughts into italics in their manuscripts. Andy is an editor at Zondervan, and his post caused much debate and hand-wringing with some writers. Never being one to avoid a good controversy, I asked him if he'd come back.

Chip: So your last visit to my site created a stir, Andy. You ready to face this again?

Andy: Yeah, my last guest blog might have come across as Andy's Vindictive Rant About Certain Arbitrary Rules of Style. People assuring me they'd never, ever, use thought italics, and people offering condolences to the poor writers who have to obey my every whim (and Mike Snyder, constantly calling to let me know his progress in eliminating thought italics from his current manuscript). Instead of a discourse, it became an ultimatum. Instead of "okay" and "better," it became "wrong" and "right."

My intention for that post, and any time I speak up about words, is to encourage writers toward better writing. They aren't rants about my personal hot-button issues. They aren't indirect ways of editing my current authors (please, Mike -- stop calling). If your editors says to take out all semicolons, I encourage you to say, "Puh-leeze. You got somethin' to back that up? The market isn't buying books with semicolons?"

Chip: So would you say an editor's job is to continue the conventions? Or to help an author break them successfully?

Andy: An editor's job is to help the author discern what's working. A good editor must appeal only to conventions of the craft and the effect upon the intended reader to justify editorial comment. And convention and effect are fluid things, open to change and dialogue and debate. Not that they are subjective; there are conventions, and there are effects upon readers, and their equivocation does not make all opinions valid.

In other words, subjectivity is not always the culprit. Think of it like furniture. My wife and I can go shopping for a chair, and we'll look at one chair. I might like it; Mandy might hate it. That's fine. That's liking and disliking; it's subjective. (Though at the point at which it messes with current fashions -- basically, how people have been taught to respond to something -- we can call that "effect upon the intended reader," and subjectivity takes a back seat.)

But is it a good chair? Will it hold up? That depends on the skills of the craftsman, but it's not subjective. It's based on a lot of factors, most of which you could learn through a school or apprenticeship, but the proof will be in the pudding. Sit on it, rock back and forth, jump on it, have your dog bite it, and suddenly you'll see if the chair is good or not.

Chip: I guess that makes you a powerful person in the life of a writer!

Andy: Well, that's a weird way of putting it. Like saying my wife is a powerful person in the life of her husband. True, but weird.

Still, the most fun part of being an editor -- and, I like to think, about being edited -- is inspiring writers to achieve more. The pushing-forward part of editing, instead of the pulling-back part. Instead of, "You're doing this wrong," it's "You could do this even more right." It's the part that says, "This is a moment -- take advantage of it!" and "You should try writing your next novel in second person, future tense, in reverse chronology!"

Chip: Do you ever find yourself intruding on someone's manuscript?

Andy: Sure. I'm no saint. I've got hot buttons. And I probably justify some of them with highfalutin arguments. But I stop myself often and ask the question: Is this just me, or is this on behalf of the reader? To the best of my ability, I want my authors to feel freedom to do what needs to be done to get the story told, and the freedom to ask, "You got somethin' to back that up?"

Chip: Interesting stuff! So to sum up, you believe all authors should write their novels in second person, future tense, with reverse chronology. Got it. ("Hey," I'm thinking to myself, "this Andy guy is an interesting character...but since I'm thinking this to myself, I'll be sure to put it in italics...")

Comments

[Rhonda]

Great blog guys!! I'm always striving to learn more about the craft. This is one blog I try not to miss in my weekly reading. Thanks!!

[Brandt Dodson]

Ditto to Rhonda's comment. (Does that make me a "ditto-head"?)

The editor and the writer have the same goal - to make the writing shine. A good editor-writer relationship, like a good marriage, is going to require honest dialogue and that's going to mean an occasional "You got something to back that up?"

One of the elements that I enjoy best about writing is the never ending reach for the brass ring. You can never get good enough. There's always room for improvement, and a good editor-writer relationship is a solid base from which to improve.

[Madison Richards]

Great thoughts guys! I am in the middle of the almost final stage of editing with my novel and am eating up every bit of this information!

Thanks so much for your time Chip, and your commitment to other writers. Thanks, Andy for sharing your honest thoughts on craft vs. subjectivity.

Madison

[Susan Meissner]

Thanks for these thoughts, Chip and Andy. I really like the chair analogy. And I am so, so glad to have editors in my writing life who know a good chair from a great chair. I can get too caught up in the feel of the upholstery,the hue of the fabric and the shape of the arm rests. Thank heaven for editors who can see past all that to the chair's abilty to bear weight.
Sooz

[Cheryl Wyatt]

I'll join the DHC (Ditto Head Club) too.

Great post, Andy. I always learn something new when you post to ACFW too. Two that come to mind are your clarification of the true definition of show-vs.-tell, and your exposition on Deep POV.

I urge you to teach a workshop one of these years at ACFW. It could help beginning writers as well as challenge advanced writers to continue to aim for excellence in their craft.

Thanks, Chip for having Andy back in all his controversy. Must have missed that. Dang. Dang. Dang. Hate to miss a good writing ruckus.

Seriously, beneficial post.

Cheryl

[Robert Treskillard]

Andy, thanks for opening my eyes on the current opinion about italics. It took me awhile to process it, as my comments show when you visited Chip's blog last time, but I've changed my writing and found it has improved.

[Stevie Rey]

HiDee Chip and Andy!
I'm just writin' 'cause Andy said "highfalutin" and I'd like to encourage writers ever'where to use that word more!

Hee-Haw! Naw, I agree, Andy. I don't wanna do 'nuthin' that don't work with the reader. But, then again, I don't wanna not do nuthin' that does work just because it ain't never been done like that. (that there's a
double negative once removed, y'all!)...I know, I'm like Freddy Kreuger to editors and
English teachers ever'where!

So, the question becomes (how do you do italics on here?)..hee, hee...naw, the question becomes "Who will sign Stevie Rey and 'ees Hillbilly Bible?"

Will it be Zonder-man or that feller Tommy Nelson or will ever'body just keep rejectin'
'eem while 'ees girlfriend Lulu gits her first bestseller? Tune in next week, y'all!

PS. Can y'all tell I suffer from low self-esteem!? Hee-Haw!

Blessin's and Peace and Grace to y'all!

Stevie Rey
The Hillbilly Bible...Not Makin' Fun a The Bible, Makin' The Bible Fun.

[Tiffany Colter]

Andy,

Great chair story. It makes it so much clearer.

Thanks. Tiff

[Michelle Van Loon]

It's easier to push a writer if the chair has wheels. :)

[Merrie Destefano]

Nice post, Chip and Andy! Very nice.

No church-splitting controversy, here. Nothing nearly as racy as . . .

[spoken in a whisper]

italics.

[can't believe I said that out loud]

[Jennifer L. Griffith]

Andy always offers up words of wisdom, even if void of italics.

Thanks for the enlightenment!

[michael snyder]

So this is where Andy's been hanging out?

And let me just warn you people to read the fine-print (the ITALICIZED portion!) of your contracts very carefully. If I had done so, I would not be spending my weekends following Andy and Mandy around to various furniture stores and test-gnawing the legs of their new chairs. Live and learn, I guess.

Good job, men.

[PatriciaW]

I had to comment if only because Michael's comment just above made me laugh. Out loud. At work.

Thanks Chip and Andy for expounding on the role of the editor and the editor-author relationship.

[Christa Allan]

Thanks to both of you. From now on, I will be very careful where, when, how, and why I sit.

[Rob Sargeant]

Thanks Chip and Andy,

Sounds like there is so much that is subjective in this quest for an agent and publisher - (oops) takes a mix of talent, timing and devine appointment, to find the right match for a writer and his manuscripts.

[Sam Pakan]

Actually, it was all a bit fuzzy. Couldn't make heads or tails out of it until I really got inside Chip's head (a scary place to get lost, folks--I'd add an exclamation point here, but I've previously reformed from that, too, you see.) via the italics at the end of the piece.

Sam

[Mary E. DeMuth]

I'll chime in here to say Andy's the real thing. He's got a great mind. He's pushing me to write deeper with more subtlety. I'm learning. And next time I start a novel, I'll have more under my hat, thanks to Andy.

[Pam Halter]

Thanks for the imput, Andy. It helps to understand the author/editor relationship a little better.

I would like to know more about what I keep hearing regarding what an editor is looking for. The answer I've heard over and over again is, "We'll know what we want when we see it."

Your thoughts?

[Rob Sargeant]

And an angel appeared unto Chip at night in a dream and saith unto him "Be thou not afraid to add this author unto thou list, for what is conceived in him is of the Spirit and shall prosper."

So from that day forward Chip took the author unto himself as a client and God causethed his way to prosper.