Portland State University Portland State University

PDXScholar PDXScholar

Book Publishing Final Research Paper English

5-2016

How to Be in Charge (How to Be in Charge (and Make Authors Do What and Make Authors Do What

You Tell ThemYou Tell Them): An Examination of Editorial ): An Examination of Editorial

Authority in Letters Written by Trade Fiction and Authority in Letters Written by Trade Fiction and

Nonfiction Editors Nonfiction Editors

Emily Goldman Portland State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/eng_bookpubpaper

Part of the English Language and Literature Commons, and the Publishing Commons

Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Goldman, Emily, "How to Be in Charge (and Make Authors Do What You Tell Them): An Examination of Editorial Authority in Letters Written by Trade Fiction and Nonfiction Editors" (2016). Book Publishing Final Research Paper. 23. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/eng_bookpubpaper/23

This Paper is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Book Publishing Final Research Paper by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: pdxscholar@pdx.edu.

1

HowtoBeinChargeandMakeAuthorsDoWhatYouTellThem:

AnExaminationofEditorialAuthorityinLettersWrittenbyTradeFictionand

NonfictionEditors

EmilyGoldman

May10,2016

Submittedtothe

DepartmentofEnglish

andtheFacultyof

PortlandStateUniversity

InPartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsfortheDegree:

MasterofArtsinWriting

WithafocusinBookPublishing

ResearchQuestion:Whatarethedifferentwaysinwhicheditorsoftradefictionandnonfictionestablish

theirprofessionalauthoritywhenwritingeditorialletterstoauthors?

2

Introduction

"Adevelopmentaleditorperformstwotasks,"accordingtoPer

Henningsgaard,DirectorofthegraduateprograminBookPublishingatPortland

StateUniversity."Numberoneistoidentifythesortsofchangesthatneedtobe

madetothemanuscript.Numbertwoistocommunicatethosechangestothe

author."1

Theprimarymeansbywhichadevelopmentaleditor(henceforthtobe

referredtoas"editor")fulfillstheirjobisthroughaneditorialletter,a

comprehensivedocumentwrittentotheauthoraddressingexistingerrorsand

weaknessesintheauthor'smanuscriptwiththeaimofhavingtheauthorcorrect

theseerrorstoimprovetheoverallwork.Editorialletterscanbeasshortasthree

pagesoraslongastwenty(orevenlonger).Letterscancoveranynumberofwriting

aspects,suchaslanguage,structure,plot,pacing,characterization,consistency,

dialogue,setting,genreconventions,andaudience.Thislistisbynomeans

exhaustive.

Editoriallettersholdspecialsignificancetobotheditorsandauthors.Adam

O'ConnorRodriguez,senioreditoratHawthorneBooksbelievesthat"[an]editoris

ahybridofawriterandaneditor…[andthat]editor'sjobisteachprofessional

writershowtowrite."2Editorsknowthatauthorswillbeusingtheirlettersas

guidestoreferbacktoagainandagainwhenrevising.Authorswillpouroverletters

1PerHenningsgaard,"FirstLectureonDevelopmentalEditing"(lecture,PortlandStateUniversity,Portland,OR,February2015).2AdamO'ConnorRodriguez,"1.TheRoleofaDEandHowWeCanImproveThat"(lecture,PortlandStateUniversity,Portland,OR,January7,2016).

3

inordertomakesuretheyunderstandtheproblemstheireditorhasidentifiedin

theirmanuscriptandwhattheyneedtodotofixthem.

Assuch,it'snecessarythateditorialletterseffectivelyconveytotheauthor

whatkindsofeditsamanuscriptrequiresinordertobeasuccessfulpieceof

writing.Equallyimportantly,editoriallettersmustbewrittensuchthatapositive

relationshipdevelopsbetweentheeditorandauthor:Theeditorrecognizesthe

authorastheoriginalcreatorwhohasthefinalsayovertheirwork.Theauthor

recognizestheeditor'sskillattheirjobandtheirinsightintotheauthor's

manuscript.

Theaimofalleditoriallettersisforauthorstoeditandimprovethequalityof

theirwritingbyusingtheeditor'snotes,edits,suggestions,anddirectionsfoundin

eachrespectiveletter.Evenifanauthordisagreeswithaneditor,decidesnotto

performaparticularedit,orfiguresoutawayontheirowntoreviseaproblemin

themanuscript,aneditorneverthelessdesirestheauthortorecognizeandrespect

theeditor'sauthorityassomeonewithexperienceandinsightintotheEnglish

literature,language,andthewritingthereof.

Thispaperwillintroduceanddiscussthewaysinwhichsixdifferenteditors

oftradefictionestablishtheirownauthorityaseditorsintheirdevelopmental

letterstotheirauthors.Theseparticulareditorseditawiderangeofgenres,suchas

literaryfiction,adultfantasyandsciencefiction,middlegradefiction,shortstory

collections,memoirs,andnonfiction.Someare(orhavebeen)editorsforbigNew

Yorkpublishinghouses,andothersarepartofsmall,independentpresses.One

editoriscurrentlyaliteraryagent,andanotherdoesfreelanceeditinginadditionto

4

workingatapublishinghouse.Allsixofthemwritelettersindifferentstylesand

employsimilartacticsinavarietyofwaysinordertoidentifyerrorswiththeaimof

havingtheauthoraddressthem.

Overthecourseofthispaper,Iwilldiscusstendifferentoverallmeansby

whichaneditormaywriteaneditorialletterinordertoembodyandconvey

authoritytotheauthor.Iwillbeginbyintroducingeachcontributorandtheir

letters:

SteveSilvermanisaneditorofliteraryfictionatanindependentpublishing

houseinPortland,Oregonthatpublishesfourtofivetitlesayearanda

freelanceeditor.HisLetter#1iswrittentoamoreexperiencedwriter

regardingamemoir/investigativeaccountofacriminaltrialandhisLetter

#2istoanewbiewriterhardatworkonhermemoirofherchildhoodand

teenageyears.

ArielleRabinowitzisaneditorofliteraryfictionataslightlylarger

independentpublishinghouseinPortland,Oregonthatpublishesninetoten

titlesayear.Forthispapershehassubmittedtwolettersfortwodifferent

novelmanuscripts(Letters#1and#2).

JosephGoldsteinisaliteraryagentforcommercialfictionandaformer

editorofalargeNewYorkpublishinghouseoffantasy,sciencefiction,and

horror.HehassubmittedaletterforaYA‐leaningsciencefictionmanuscript

(Letter#1).

RachelKravinskyisaneditorofliteraryfictionatasmall,newlyestablished

literarypressinPortland,Oregonpublishinganywherefromonetofour

5

titlesayear.Letters#1and#2aretwodifferentlettersforthesameliterary

novelandLetter#3isforasecondliterarynovel.

SarahMeyerisachildren'sauthorandaformereditorofchildren'sfictionat

alargeNewYorkpublishinghouse.Sarahsubmittedtwoeditoriallettersshe

herselfreceivedforhertwomostrecenttitles,oneofwhichisanaward‐

winninghistoricalfictionnovelandthesecondisanewlyreleased

lightheartedfantasynovel.Bothbooksaremiddlegradefictionandare

publishedtwodifferentNewYorkpublishers.Thehistoricalfictioneditor

willbereferredtoasHelenFeldman,andthefantasyeditorwillbereferred

toasLindaFreedman.

Structure

Aletter'sstructureisoneofthefundamentalaspectsdetermininghowan

authorreadsaletterandreceivestheeditsontheirmanuscript.Goodlettersare

typicallyexpectedbeclean,orderly,andeasytofollowfrompointtopoint.

Henningsgaardadvisesfeedbacktobeseparatedintoconcretecategories,citing

fromexperiencethatanauthorisgoingtousetheletter"likeato‐dolist"when

revising.3Regardingappearance,O'ConnorRodriguezhasstatedhefavorsa

"beautiful‐looking"letterforbeingeasiertoread,whetherthatmeansaneasy‐to‐

readfont,ahierarchyofsectionbreaks,anorganizedlistofbullet‐points,etc.4Of

course,everyeditorhastheirownparticularstyleforwritingeditorialletters(as

3PerHenningsgaard,"ThirdLectureonDevelopmentalEditing"(lecture,PortlandStateUniversity,Portland,OR,February2015).4AdamO'ConnorRodriguez,"Week8Lecture"(lecture,PortlandStateUniversity,Portland,OR,February23,2016).

6

willbedemonstratedthroughtheseveneditoriallettersreferencedinthispaper),

andtheyallreflectthewayeacheditorconceptualizesandprioritieswhichedits

theygive.Somelettersaremorehighlystructuredthanothersandmakeuseof

explicitcategories;somereadasmorestream‐of‐conscious,flowingfromonetopic

tothenext;andotherlettersgothroughtheireditschapterbychapter.

SteveSilvermanwritesthemostinvolvedlettersofthosesurveyed,favoring

lengthy,highly‐personalizedlettersthataretailoredtofittheexactdimensionsof

theproject,thekindsofeditsthemanuscriptneedsthemost,andtheauthor'sown

experienceasawriter.Eachletteropenswithasectiontitled"NoteonthisNote,"an

overviewSilvermantailorstoeachauthorabouthowtoreadtherestoftheletter

andhowtoapproachrevisionatthisparticularstageoftheeditingprocess.Hethen

followsupwiththeofficialIntrodetailinghisoverallthoughtsonthemanuscript

beforemovingontobig‐picturecategoriesthatareheavilypersonalizedforthe

authorandtheirmanuscriptonwhatneededthemostattention.Bothlettersend

withasectiontitled"RoadMaptoRevision"inwhichSilvermangiveseachauthor

guidelinesforhowtobeginrevisingthemanuscriptbasedoneachissueraisedin

theletter.

ThemanuscriptforLetter#1isanatypicalexampleofaneditorbeing

thoroughlyinvolvedinthecreativeprocess,rearrangingsections,writingor

rewritingcertainotherones,andofferingtheseeditstotheauthorforapproval.

Sincethemanuscriptwasatthispointmuchfurtheralonginthewritingprocess,

includesbriefsectionsonthebook'stitle,theauthor'snamethatwillappearonthe

7

cover,chaptertitles,lengthsandnumbering,andalongersectiononthe

manuscript'sstructurethatincludesapproximatelytwopagesofline‐leveledits.

Letter#2,havingbeenwrittenforaroughermanuscriptbyanewerwriter,

includesseveralcategorieswalkingtheauthorthroughtheprocessofediting,

startingwithOverallImpressionsandmovingontoFormatting,Language(which

includesalengthysectiononDialogue),Structure,andlineleveledits.These

sectionsbothpointouterrorsandserveas"how‐to"guidesfortheauthorregarding

howtobestincludephysicaldetails,writedialogue,andavoidclichésandshabby

craftsmanship.Letter#2evenincludesabriefoverviewonhowbesttoformata

manuscriptinMicrosoftWordtofitwithindustrybestpractices.Thisletteroverall

servesasbothaneditorialletterandateachinginstrumentintroducingtheauthor

totheprofessionalworldofwritingandpublishingandwhattheexpectationsare

forapublishablemanuscript.

Silverman'slettersaredemonstrativeoftheextenttowhichhehimselfis

involvedandapartnerinthewritingandeditingprocessalongsidetheauthor.This

linebetweeneditorandwriterbecomesblurredinbothletters,particularlyin

Letter#1,forwhosemanuscriptamanuscriptforwhichSilvermantookamore

involvedrolethanistypicalofaneditor.(Itcanbeassumedtheauthorandeditor

agreedtothisarrangement,asanentiresectionisdedicatedtoadescriptionofthe

restructuresandprose‐levelchangesSilvermanmadetothemanuscript.)In

showingtheauthorhowthoroughlyhehasdelvedintothemanuscriptbywriting

equallythoroughletters,Silvermanseekstoconnectwithhisauthorsthroughan

attentiontodetailthatdemonstratestheenergyheisreadyandwillingtoinvestin

8

ordertomaketheirmanuscriptspublishable."Ican'tmakeanypromisesaboutthe

book'spublication,success,orimpactontheworld,ourcareers,oron[thesubject's]

case,"Silvermanwritesinthe"IntroductionandOverview"sectionofLetter#1.

"ButIcanpromisethatI'llbeinvestedinthismatterwhattheoutcome,andtothe

end."5

Someeditorsstrikeabalancebetweenhighlystructuredandunstructured

letters.EditorsJosephGoldstein,LindaFreedman,andHelenFeldmanuseamixof

discretesectionsonspecificwritingcomponents(GoldsteinandFreedman)and

chapter‐by‐chaptersectionsaddressingeditseitherthroughparagraphsorbullet‐

points(GoldsteinandFeldman).Noneoftheothereditors'letterssurveyedherego

tothelengthsSilvermandoes,bothingettingtheirhandsdirtywiththemanuscript

itselforactingasawritingteacherintheeditorialletter(noraretheyaseffusive

withregardstotheauthor‐editorrelationshiporcontract),makinghimanoutlier

regardingthepenningofhighlystructurededitorialletters.

EditorsArielleRabinowitzandRachelKravinskybothwritefreestyleletters

thatcomprisedofseveralparagraphsthatfloworjumpfromtopictotopic(theme,

characterization,language,verisimilitude,etc.)withlittletonoseparationbetween

thetopics.Forexample,inRabinowitz'sLetter#1,shewritestotheauthorthatthe

mainobstaclesinhermanuscriptarelanguageandsetting,andtherestoftheletter

addresseseachwritingcomponentinturn(sometimesbothsimultaneously)as

Rabinowitzidentifiesinstanceswherechangesinlanguagewillaffectsettingand

5SteveSilverman,"EditorialLetter#1"(workingpaper,Portland,OR,August19,2015).

9

viceversa.Someoftheseeditsvergeintoaddressingcharacterization,althoughthey

aren'tidentifiedassuch.

Thelackofstructurecausestheeditstobleedtogether,lettinggooftheidea

oftheauthorfocusingon"just"languageor"just"settingwhenrevising.Asany

writeroreditorcanattest,thisphenomenonisinimicaltotheactofengagingwitha

pieceofwriting:onecannotfullyisolateindividualwritingcomponentsasdiscrete

entities,andeditingonecomponentwilllikelynecessitatetheeditingofoneortwo

ormorecomponentsinordertoaccommodatetheedit.Ofcourse,it'sdifficultto

ascertainfromstructurealonehowaneditorialletterconveyseditstoanauthor,or

theeditor'sstatusasbothaprofessionalandpersonalauthorityfiguretotheperson

inquestion.Thisiswherethesubjectoflanguageandtonebecomeespecially

importantwhenanalyzingeditorialletters.Indeed,thosearethefirstthingsan

authorislikelytonoticeuponreadingtheireditor'sletter.

LanguageandTone

PerHenningsgaard'sruleofthumbisthataneditorialletter"shouldmakean

authorfeelgoodandappreciated,andthattheirworkhasvalue."[Aneditor]should

comeacrossasgenuine…[and]thattheylovewhattheauthorisdoing."6Because

oneoftheeditor'sjobsisservingasthebook'scheerleader,whethertotheir

publishertoortheauthor("Youcandoit!Youcaneditthisbookandmakeit

great!")thelanguageandtoneaneditorusesinalettertowardsanauthorcangoa

longwaytowardsreassuringtheauthorthattheeditora)believesinthebookand

6PerHenningsgaard,"ThirdLectureonDevelopmentalEditing".

10

b)knowswhatthey'retalkingabout.Alternately,languageandtonecan

inadvertentlydiscourageanauthorfromwantingtoreviseatall.

Children'sauthorSarahMeyerexpresseddifferentreactionstothetwo

developmentallettersshereceivedforherdifferentmiddlegrademanuscripts.

RegardingtheletterforthehistoricalfictionmanuscriptfromhereditorHelen

Feldman,sheperceivedFeldmantobeinexperienced,"despitedeclarative

sentences."Meyerbelievedtheletterhadn'tsuccessfullycommunicatedtoherthe

editor'sconfidenceabouttherevisionprocess,andshestatedthattheletterdidnot

givehertheconfidencetoreturntoworkonthebook."[The]letterseemstosay,

'There.I'vedonemypart.Nowyoudoyours,'"Meyerwroteinanemail.

Feldman'sletterisnoticeablythemostsedateoftheonesdiscussedinthis

paper,expressingpositivesandnegativesinthesamemeasuredtone.Theletter

makesuseofmarkedlycouchingphrasestodeliveredits,suchas"I'dliketohear,"

"I'dliketosee,"and"Iwonderifyou…"RegardlessofwhetherFeldmandeliberately

keptthelanguageoftheletterwarmandmellowinordertodeliverheredits,it

appearsthistechniquemaybelesssuccessfulinbuildingapositiverelationship

withtheauthorasaresultoftheemotionaldistancethelanguageputsbetweenthe

editorandtheauthor.

Meyer'ssecondletter,writtenbyLindaFreedmanforhermiddlegrade,

lightheartedfantasynovel,containssignificantlymoreenthusiasticlanguage(as

wellasanunusualplethoraofexclamationmarks.)Freedman'sexcitementshows

throughespeciallywhenlistingthepositiveelementsofthemanuscriptwith

statementssuchas"Nicelyplayed!"and"Verysatisfying!Veryimpressive!"and

11

"[S]oevil!Soingenious!Dastardly!"Intherestoftheletter,Freedmanrelieson

short,punchyquestionsandinterspersedpersonalreactionsthatcontinueto

conveyinterestandexcitementinthemanuscriptwhilediscussingedits.Regarding

theprologue,shewrites:

"Canyouweaveinmore[ofthesetwocharacters]?PerhapsshowthemgoingEast,thenSouth,thenNorth,andonlythenWest…Couldaddcomedy.Andhelpexplainwhyittakesthemsolongtogetthere.Maybetheypickup[U]inthemiddle?Soweseeabitmoreofher?She'ssuchaloosecannon!Loveher!Dowesee[B]makingtrades?Hemakessuchanoddtradeofthemirrorforthecrutch—doeshemakeotherdubioustradesthatworkoutrightintheend?"7

Oftheeditorialletterssurveyed,twoothereditorsreliedonblunt,

straightforwardyetinformallanguagewhenmakingedits.JosephGoldstein'sletters

arecomprisedofdirectstatementstellingtheauthorwhatisn'tworking.When

givingstructuraledits,Goldsteinfollowsupwithsimilarlydirectstatementstelling

theauthorhowtofixtheproblem.Withregardstoeditsaddressing

characterization,pacing,andworld‐building,Goldsteinusesbrief,brusque

sentencesencapsulatingthenatureoftheproblem,abouthalfofwhicharethen

followedupwithadirectedit.Afollowingexamplearetheeditshegivesinhis

Letter#1regardingchapter23:

[The]lockdownfeelsartificial.Theywouldalwayshavehadtobreakbackout,right?[CA]wouldn'tjustlet2oftheirweaponsoutwiththeirheadgenehackerandthedaughterof[LA].Ithinktheyshouldrealizetheyhavetogonowthattheyknowthat[CB]thekeytounlockingthevaccineandthatkicksofftheescapeplan…Ifyouneedasenseofurgency,maybe[LB]or[D]knowssomethingabouttheplansforthebombingsmovingup"8

Goldsteinacknowledgeshiscomparativelybrusquetoneastheresultofthe

closenessoftherelationshiphehas,orisexpectedtodevelopwithhisclientsas

7LindaFreedman,"EditorialLetter#1"(workingpaper,NewYork,NY,2015).8JosephGoldstein,"EditorialLetter#1"(workingpaper,Portland,OR2015).

12

theirliteraryagent.Inanemailexchangehecontraststhelettersheusedtowriteas

aneditorcomparedtotheoneshewritesnow:

Asanagentyouhavealong‐term,verycloserelationshipwithyourclients.Asaneditor,yourrelationshipismediatedandyouneedtomaintainmoredistancetobeabletomoreeffectivelysaynotothemorengageinmorechallengingdiscussionsifneedbe.Theeditor'sloyaltyistotheimprint,theagent'stotheclient.9

Goldstein'sstatementacknowledgesthedifferenttypesofrelationships

editorshavewiththeirauthors,dependingontherolethey'replayinginthe

manuscript,orwhereinthepublishingprocessthemanuscriptiscurrentlysituated.

Goldsteincanaffordtobemorelooseandcasualinhislanguage—alternately,it'sin

hisadvantagetodoso—becauseasaliteraryagent,hisownsuccessathisjob

dependsonthestrengthofanauthor'smanuscript.Thustherelationshipbetween

anagent‐acting‐as‐editorandanauthorisbasedonmutualdesiresandallowsfor

morelatitudeintheactualrelationship.Goldstein'spraiseisascasualastherestof

hisletter("Thisisoneofthebestscenesinthebook.Moregenehackingbiopunk

badasseryplease")butstillcomesacrossassincere.10Additionallyinthatlast

example,despitethebrusquetone,itneverthelessconveysasenseofinvestment

andpossibleexcitementthroughhisoffhandreferenceofthefinerpointsofthe

manuscript'sworldbuildingandstorytelling.

SteveSilverman'slanguagesimilarlyreflectstheclose,personalrelationship

heestablisheswithhisauthors.InthesectionNoteontheNoteinLetter#2,

Silvermancharacterizeshimselfasan"irreverent,brutallyhonesteditorand

person",adescriptionthatgoesontoinfluencehisletterwriting.Thisisespecially

9JosephGoldstein,emailmessagetoauthorofthispaper,April11,2016.10 JosephGoldstein,"EditorialLetter#1".

13

thecasewithline‐leveledits,manyofwhichareonlyasentencelong:"Thischapter

needsalotmorereflectionanddescription,"and"Introduce[character]earlier;his

entranceiskindofjarringhere."

Incontrastwhendiscussingeditorialissuesonthemanuscriptlevel,

Silvermanmakessuretobalance"negative"honestywithpositive

acknowledgementofwhatthemanuscripthasalreadyachievedorthe

ease/likelihoodthatanissuecanbefixed.InLetter#2hesaystotheauthor,"You

writebeautifulprosegenerally,butthereareofcoursewaysyoucanimprovethe

languagefurther,"andfollowsupwithspecificthingsthemanuscriptneeds,suchas

furtherdescription,scene‐setting,etc.Earlierinthemanuscript,heremarksupon

thebook'slengthwiththefollowingstatement:"Thebookistooshort.Itneedstobe

1.5to2timesaslong.Thegoodnewsonthatfrontisthebookisripewith

opportunitiesforexpansion,andI’lldetailsomeofthoseforyou."11

Asageneralruleacrosstheeditorialletterssurveyed,line‐leveleditswere

typicallywrittenusingmoredirectlanguagesandsimplerphrasescomparedto

larger‐levelmanuscriptaspectssuchastheme,characterization,andlanguage.

RachelKravinsky'sletters,whichdon'tincludeanyline‐leveledits,readlike

extendedliteraryanalysesinwhichsheprobesthesetopicsandhowwhat'swritten

onthepageaffectseitherthereadingexperienceortheoverallstoryasapieceof

literature.Herwritingisfriendlyandmeasuredwithoutbeingcoddling—her

consideredanalysesrequiretheauthorstoaskhardquestionsaboutwhatsortof

effectormessagetheyaretryingtoimbuetheirwordswith,questionsthathavethe

11SteveSilverman,"EditorialLetter#2"(workingpaper,Portland,OR,December22,2015).

14

potentialtoalterthetrajectoryoftheentiremanuscript.Thiscanbeseeninthe

followingpassagefromLetter#2regardingthebook'stheme:

"Ifyou'resayingsomethingaboutloyalty,orfaith,orfamilialobligation,orhowthemostrigidpeoplechange(ordon't),thenwe'llfeelmoretension,versusjustfollowinginterestingstoriestoseewherethecharactersgowithoutknowinghowthestorythreadsrelate...It'salsosomethingtoconsiderwhenlookingatPOV.We'refullyinvestedin[character]andtheladder,somovingontothegirlPOVshastobeforareason,andthatreasonhastoconnectwithwhatwe'vealreadyseen,tosomedegree.Dependingonwhattheme/premiseyoupick,Icanhelpevaluateeachthreadinrelationtoit.Itdoesn'thavetobesuperobvious,orevensomethingthatsomeonebesidesuswouldbeabletoarticulate,butyouneedtoknowit,andmakedecisionsaccordingly."12

Returningtothesubjectofpositive,encouraginglanguageandfeedback,

Freedman'slettermadethemostliberaluseofit,withothereditorssprinklingitin

hereandthere.NoticeableineditorArielleRabinowitz'seditoriallettersisthelack

ofalmostanypositivelanguageandsomesectionswherethelanguageborderson

beingunnecessarilyharsh,withlittletosoftentheblowofsomeparticularly

negativefeedback.InherLetter#1sheincludessomefeedbackfromanoutside

readerofthemanuscriptregardingsetting:

Itmakesmefeelalittleunmooredasareaderandalittleat[a]losswhenitcomestopicturingtheworld[theauthorhas]givenhercharacters.It'sasifhercharactersareoperatinginalimbo.There'salsonoimmediateindicationofwherethestoryisheaded.Thatcombinedwiththedisconnectiontoaconcreteplaceandtimemakesithardtocontinuereading.13

RabinowitzwritesherselfinherLetter#2:

Thesceneinthejailisconfusingtome.Iamnotsurewhatthepurposeoftheconversationabouthumidityandthecopsplayingwiththedoorserves.Itfeelscopshow(notthatIwatchthem!)tome,butIalsodon'tseewhatitdoestoenhanceorforwardthenarrative;infactIworrythatitdragsabit.14

12RachelKravinsky,EditorialLetter#2"(workingpaper,Portland,OR,June30,2014).13ArielleRabinowitz,"EditorialLetter#1"(workingpaper,Portland,OR,2014).14Ibid.

15

Moresothanothereditors'letters,Rabinowitz'slettersconveyasingular

focusonidentifyingandfixingerrors.Combinedwiththelackofovertstructurein

herlettersidentifiedearlier,thelettersmovefromerrortoeditfromerrortoedit

withlittletobreakuptheflow,whetherthroughpositivitytowardsthemanuscript

ordirectoverturestotheauthor.Thisstyleofletterwritingpotentiallygivesthe

authorassuranceofRabinowitz'sprofessionalismanddedicationtotheproject.It

couldalsoscareanauthortoreadanever‐endingletterofthingstheirmanuscriptis

doingincorrectly.ThemainaspectmodifyingandarguablymellowingRabinowitz's

writingisthroughconsistentlyreferringbacktoherselfasareaderandher

reactions.

WhatAbouttheReaders?

Referencingeithertheeditororanotherreader'spersonalresponseisa

techniqueutilizedbyalltheeditorsdiscussedinthispaper.Thistechniquemodifies

thelanguageandtoneoftheletteritselfandaffectswhatkindsofeditsaregivento

theauthor.Theextenttowhicheacheditorusesitvaries,asdoesthemethod—

JosephGoldsteinforexampleprefacesalmostallhiseditswith"Ithink,"yetthis

phraseisusedsoubiquitouslythatithasnooveralleffectonthetypesofeditsgiven

orhowtheyaremeanttobereceivedbytheauthor.EditorsRachelKravinskyand

HelenFeldmanmakeinfrequentuseofthistechniqueandreferencetheirpersonal

reactionsonlyoccasionallytomakeapointaboutaparticularedit.Foreditors

RabinowitzandLindaFreedman,referencingtheirpersonalreactions,oranother

16

reader'sreactions,isintegraltohowtheyframeandjustifytheiredits,abedrockon

whichtheybasetheireditorialauthority.

Tobeclear,referencingtheeditororreader'spersonalresponseisa

differenttechniquethanoneIhavetermed"editingwiththereaderinmind."With

thistechnique,theeditormakesacaseforaneditbyappealingtothereactionor

tasteofahypotheticalreaderandhowtheyarelikelytoreadthemanuscript.

Editingwiththereaderinminddrawsontheargumentofwritingtoorforan

audience.Editingusingone'sownreactions,orthoseofexistingreaders,isan

attempttogivetheauthorareader'sperspectivewithoutovertlyreferencingthe

"audience"atlarge.Thisapproachcanhavetheeffect,however,ofpersonalizing

editorialsuggestionsandinsighttothepointthattheyappearsubjectiveandless

abouttheworkitselfthanaboutoneormoreindividuals'responsestoit.

InRabinowitz'scase,forallthreeofherletterssheprefacesmostofheredits

withherownreaction,usingphrasessuchas"Mysenseis,""I'mnotsure,""Ithink/I

don'tthink,""Idowonder,""Itslightlybothersme,"andothersimilarstatements.In

contextualizingtheseeditsthroughherfeelingsandresponses,theletterconveysto

theauthorthenecessityoftheeditsarisefromtheexistingproblemsasRabinowitz

seesthemwhilelendingthemasubjectivequality.

Withtheseletters,it'sdifficulttodiscerninRabinowitz'sletterstheextentto

whichthispracticeisanunconsciousaspectofherwriting,orwhetherit'sa

deliberateattempttocastherselfandherresponsestothetextasthecornerstoneof

authority—astrategytopersonalizetheletterandestablisharelationshipwiththe

authorthroughcharacterizinghereditsasrootedinreader‐reaction.Thelackof

17

structureinherlettersdiscussedearliercombinedwithconsistentreferencetoher

ownpersonalreactionsmightcausetheauthortoquestiontheireditor'scomfortor

confidenceinhandlingtheirmanuscript.Italsomakesitdifficulttoelucidatefrom

Rabinowitz'sletterswhattheactualproblemswiththeirmanuscriptareandhowto

goaboutfixingthem.Reachingtheendoftheletter,theauthorunderstandshow

Rabinowitzhasreadandinterpretedandeditedthemanuscriptasareader,butnot

somuchasaneditorwhoisabletoprovidetheauthorconcreteinsightorhelpinto

elevatingtheirmanuscripttobereadyforpublication:

LindaFreedmanisanothereditorwholiberallyrefersbacktoherselfandher

reactionsinhereditoriallettertoSarahMeyer,yetinthiscaseit'sclearthatthisis

herparticularstyle,andthatsheisdeliberatelyusingherreactionsassupporting

evidenceforcertainedits.LikeRabinowitz,shemakesuseofphrasessuchas"Ifeel

like,""Idolike,"and"I'dlove."Inafewplacesshegoessofarastocastherselfas

the"reader"ofthemanuscript(albeitareaderservinginaneditorialcapacity).

Examplesinclude:

"Iloveallthethingsthathappen—soit'snotthatanythingneedstochange.I'djusttrytofindthecomicslantoneachscene.""Theprologuefeelsquitelongtome…Ittakesawhilebeforewemeetourheroine,andasareaderI'malwaysimpatientforthatmoment.""IcanimaginefeelinglikeIdidn'tbelonganywhere,thatIwasalone…ButasoulissuchaninteriorthingthatIcan'treallyimaginethatIlackedit.…Thisbitofthestoryneverquitegelledforme…"15

AlsosimilartoRabinowitz,Freedman'scastingofherselfasthemanuscript'sreader

ineditiontoeditorislikelymeanttoimpartherinvestmentinthemanuscriptas

15LindaFreedman,"EditorialLetter#1".

18

demonstratedthroughpersonalreaction.InFreedman'scase,herinvestmentis

amplifiedbyherenthusiasticlanguage,asdiscussedearlier,andsoherreferencing

ofherselfcomesacrossaspartandparcelofhereditingstyle,inwhichsheuses

bothherexcitement,herlaid‐backstructure,andherresponsesasareadertobest

conveytoSarahwhateditsareneededandforwhichreason.16

AnadditionaliterationofthisstrategyusedbyRabinowitzistospecifically

quotetheopinionsandreactionsofotherpeoplewho'vereadthemanuscript,as

withthequotedmaterialonpage14ofthispaper.Letter#1makesthemostuseof

thisstrategysuchthatthereaders'reactionsdirectlyinfluencetheshapethisletter

takes.Rabinowitzwritesintheletter'sintro,"Mynoteswillmostlyaddressthefirst

100pages,asitseemedthebiggestissuewasthatthereadershaddifficultyfinding

afootinginthestoryandfortworeaders,thiswaswhatcausedthemtoloseinterest

andnotcontinuereading."Approximatelyathirdoftheletterismadeupofeditsin

theformofthesereaders'reactionsandwrittenquotationsregardingtheseareas,

withRabinowitzfittinginherownreactionstothemanuscriptinbetween.

InLetter#2,Rabinowitzcitesthemarketingperson'sexperiencereadingthe

manuscriptintwodifferentplacesregardingcharacterizationandsceneorder(the

marketingpersonhadpredictedtheoutcomeofaparticularplotpointthat

Rabinowitzhadnotonherfirstreading)inorderbringtheauthor'sattentionto

areasinthemanuscriptthatcouldpotentiallyusefurtherrevision.Similarto

Rabinowitz'spersonalizinghereditsthroughherownreadingexperience,the

16 Atthetimeofthisletterwaswritten,SarahandHelenwerealreadyfriend.Sarahwroteinanemailexchange,"Had[we]notbeen,andI'dreceivedthissameletter,IbelieveIwouldhaverespondedthesameway.Wouldshehavewrittenthesameletter,hadwenotbeenfriendsalready?Ithinkso!"SarahMeyer,emailexchangetoauthorofthispaper,April22,2016.

19

perspectivessuppliedbytheinternsandmarketingdirectorserveaseitherthe

reasonorjustificationforaproblemidentifiedinthetextand/oraneditorial

suggestiongivenbyRabinowitz.

Ontheothersideofthespectrum,whileSteveSilvermanfrequentlyincludes

"I"statementsdemonstratinghisoverallreactiontothemanuscriptorhiseditorial

approach,thesekindsofstatementsarereservedfortheintroductionand

conclusionandissuesthataremoresubjectiveinnature(suchasthemanuscript's

titleandwhichversionoftheauthor'snamewillappearonthecover).Hemakes

greateruseofthetechnique"editingwiththereaderinmind'(identifiedearlieron

page16ofthispaper).ThiscanbemostclearlyseeninhisLetter#2—whilenothe

doesn'tuseitliberally,Silvermanoccasionallyemploysthetechniquetounderscore

thepurposeeacheditservestowardscraftingamorepolishedmanuscriptthatwill

provideabetterreadingexperiencefortheaudience.Inthisway,editingwiththe

readerinmindactsasanextensionofhispreviouslydiscussedstrategyofproviding

mini‐writinglessonsasameansofeditinglarge‐scaleissues:

"Wedon'treallyhearalotabouttheland,theweather,thepeople,thesmellsandsounds,thecolors…""Prepositionsweakenprosebecausetheyconfusethereaderbytryingtodrawthepictureintheirheadstooclearly.""...eventhoughyourevealquiteafewpersonaldetailsandtraumaticevents,thereaderfeelsoddlydisconnectedfromthenarratorinthepresent.Weimaginethatyouhavestrongviewsaboutmuchofwhathappens,particularlyaboutthesexualandemotionalabuseandlaterthesubstanceaddiction,butthoseviewsarelargelyhidden."17

Silverman'sLetter#1representsanunusualexampleofaneditorialletterin

whichhalftheletterisadescriptionoftheeditsSilvermanhimselfmadetothe

17SteveSilverman,"EditorialLetter#2".

20

letter.Inthiscase,Silvermanusesbothhisstructuralpracticeofexplainingthe

structureoftheletteritselfandhismoreirreverentwritingstyletobothprefaceand

contextualizewhyhehimselfmadetheedits:

"AgeneralnoteaboutthecondensingandcuttingIdid:you'reagoddamngoodwriter,butyou'reobsessedwithminordetailsthatgeneralreaderswon'tcareabout,orwon'tcareenoughabouttomisswhat'sdone.Ithinkyouknowthis.Ipersonallyfounditallinteresting,butsinceIwouldreadthe1,000pageversionofthisbook,I'mprobablynotthebestjudgeofthat.ButpleaseknowIgrappledwitheverycut."18

InbothofSilverman'sletters,editorialauthorityisrootedfirmlywithinthe

editor'sknowledgeofhowgoodwritingfunctionsandhisexperienceinrewriting

andeditingotherauthors'manuscripts.Assuch,whetherhe'sreferringtoageneric

reader—editingwiththereaderinmind—orreferencingeditshehimselfmadetoa

manuscript,thesetechniquesarepartofSilverman'soveralleditorialstrategyof

directlyassertinghisskillandhisconfidencethereofasameansofprojecting

authoritytotheauthor.

RachelKravinsky,asnotedearlieron13,keepsherpersonalreactionstoan

author'smanuscriptinherletterstoaminimum.Ratherthanappealingtothe

authorbasedontheneedsorreactionsofareader,shefirmlygroundshereditsin

thetextofthemanuscriptitself.Whileshedoesattimesreferenceherownbeliefs

asthereasonforwhycertaineditsneedtobemade,shethenfollowsupwith

explicitconcernfortheliteraryqualityoftheoverallstory.Complementedbyher

unassumingyetengagedvoiceinherletters,Kravinsky'sauthorityprimarilyrestsin

approachingthemanuscriptasapieceofartfirstandforemostthatrequirescareful

considerationforhowbesttoconsiderlargerissueslikethemeandlanguage.Inher

18SteveSilverman,"EditorialLetter#1"

21

veryfirstlettertoanewauthor,Kravinskyisfortypagesintohisnovel,andshe

writes:

I'mnowwonderingaboutyoutryingthirdpersonallthewaythrough,focusingoneachcharacterinturn,so[B]willstartitoff,andthenmovetothirdperson[G],vs.astrictomniscient.Thatwouldgiveyoupermissiontofollowthegirls,too,butyou'dalsobeabletozoomthecamerawayintotheirheadssowefeel/seewhattheyfeel/see,whichfeelsreallyimportantasawayofgroundingsuchanout‐therestory…Thebigchangewouldbechanging[B]tothirdperson—or,andthisismoreofarisk—youcouldtrypullingof[f][B]asfirst,therestasthird.19

Inthispassage,andintherestofherletters,Kravinskymakesgreatuseofa

techniqueIhavetermed"causeandreaction"toexplainandjustifyedits.Insteadof

solelyidentifyingissuesinneedoffixing,thistechniquespecificallyprovides

solutionsbyexplainingwhatthesesolutionsaremeanttodotothetext.Firstshe

givesanedit(inthiscaseswitchingtheperspectiveofcertainPOVs.)Nextshe

extrapolatesfromtheeditbylookingaheadtohowtheeditwouldbeimplemented

andhowitwouldachievethedesiredeffect.Inutilizingthistechnique,Kravinsky

conveyshercomfortwithhandlingin‐progressmanuscriptsanddemonstratesher

abilitybreakdownthefundamentalcomponentsofapieceofwriting,aswellasan

abilitytothinkaheadtowhatthefinalshapeofthemanuscriptmightlooklike.

Because"causeandreaction"isamorewriter‐focusedmethodofediting,herletters

comeacrossashavinganunderstandingandfamiliaritywiththewriter'spointof

viewasopposedtothatofapublishingprofessional.

AsKravinskyistheeditorasmall,independentliterarypress,shehas

somewhatmoreleewaytodecidenottoaddressmarketingandsalesconcernsinan

editorialletter,ortogiveeditsdirectlybasedonthoseconcerns.Nevertheless,these

19RachelKravinsky,"EditorialLetter#1"(workingpaper,Portland,OR,June16,2014).

22

concernscanprovideonelastwayforeditorstolendtheweightofauthorityto

certainedits,thefinalcategorydiscussedinthispaper.

TheProfessionalMarket

AdamO'ConnorRodriguezhasstatedthathisprimarygoalasaneditoristo

transformthemanuscriptintothebestpossibleversionofitself.20Inthecaseof

fiction,thisstatementisespeciallymeanttoapplywhenfactorssuchasgenre,the

market,popularormassappeal,and/orpublishers'agendasarerelevanttopicsof

considerationsforauthorsrevisingamanuscriptandforeditorsworkinginbig

housesthatareseekingtoacquirenew,successfultitles.

Sincethemajorityofauthors'goalsfortheirmanuscriptsistohavethem

publishedandtoreachaswideanaudienceaspossible,thequestionofabook's

marketabilityandlikelihoodofachievinganysortofsalesisaconsiderationforboth

authorsandeditorsalike.Becauseabookmustbecompetentlyandengagingly

writtenregardlessofhowitendsupbeingmarketed,aneditor'sfirstpriorityisto

bringingthemanuscriptuptosnuff.Stillthatdoesn'tmeananeditorcan'tbringup

thesubjectofmarketandgenreasfactorsforanauthortoconsiderwhenmaking

decisionsonhowtorevisetheirmanuscript.

JosephGoldstein,asaliteraryagenttaskedwithsellinghisclients'

manuscriptstopublishers,isrequiredtoconsidertheprofessionalmarketand

genrecategorieseachmanuscriptbestfits.InhisLetter#1heincludesasection

titled"Audience,"inwhichheidentifiesthemanuscriptassitting"rightonthecusp

20 AdamO'ConnorRodriguez,"1.TheRoleofaDEandHowWeCanImproveThat".

23

ofYAandAdultSF."HissuggestiontotheauthoristoreviseitfortheYAmarket

sincehethinksithasabettershotoffittinginthere,buthewritesalsothathe'sfine

withgoingineitherdirection.ForthemanuscripttobeYA,"theonlytweakingit

wouldneedarearoundsomeoftheflirtier‐sexierbits.Makeitlessliketeensflirting

andmoreadultandyou'rethere."21

Oftheeditors'letterssurveyedinthispaper,KravinskyandSilverman's

arguablysubscribethemosttoO'ConnorRodriguez'searlierstatementaboutthe

editor'sprimarygoal.Stilleventhesetwoeditorsmakeoneortwopassing

referencestoauthorsregardingtheneedtoconsiderabook'spotentialfutureas

commodityforsale.SilvermanusesthepublishingindustryandmarketinhisLetter

#2toidentifythegoalthatbothheandtheauthorareaspiringtowiththe

manuscript,referringtoitasanalready‐publishablebook(afterhisline‐level

editing),butotherwisethemanuscript"isreallyastarttowardsabookthatcanbe

publishedbyagoodhouse,marketedwell,andbeagoodandsteadysellerthat

couldhelptolaunchyourcareer/continueyourcareer…"Theoneinstanceinwhich

thequestionofthemanuscriptasmemoirisraisedinthesection"Overall

Impressions,"itismadeintermsof"memoir"asaliteraryasopposedtomarketing

category.22

Kravinsky,likeGoldstein,bringsupinherLetter#3thequestiondifferent

bookmarketsandgenrecategoriesasameansofhelpingtheauthorconsiderher

choices,andalsotohelpguidetheauthorinthedirectionKravinskyisaimingfor,as

21JosephGoldstein,"EditorialLetter#1".22SteveSilverman,"EditorialLetter#2".

24

theeditorandpublisherofthemanuscript.Withthisnovel,theconcernwasoneof

languageandtheextenttowhichitisappropriateforanintendedliterarynovel:

"...ifyouweregoingforasupercommercialmarket,youmightwanttoleavesomeofthosemarkers,thosereminders,butwiththisliterary/commercialmix,andbeingasmallliterarypress,Ithinkwecantrustourreaderswillseewhat'salreadyonthepage."23

Aseditorsofsmallliterarypresses,bothKravinskyandSilvermanhavethe

leewaytolargelyleavemarketingandgenrecategoryconcernsoutoftheirletters,

onlyreferencingitinveryspecificcontextswhentheneedseemsappropriateto

eacheditor.Moreimportantly,bothofthemfeelcomfortableperformingeditingina

greatervoidinwhichmarketingandaudienceexpectationsaren'taprimary

concern.

Conclusion

ToquoteO'ConnorRodriguezoncelasttime,"Therearethreelevelsto

developmentalediting.Thefirstisinstinct.Thesecondisobjectivecriteria.The

thirdisartandcreativity,fallinginlovewiththemanuscriptyou'reworkingon."24

Writinganeditoriallettermaynottakesixmonths,orayear,orlongerto

writelikeamanuscriptmaytake,butalmosteveryeditoratsomepointfeels

confusion,uncertainty,andfrustrationintryingtogettheirthoughtsacrosstoan

author,attemptingtoprovideguidanceandgivethemthetoolstheyneedto

improvetheirbookwithoutflat‐outtellingthem,"Dothisanddothatandyou'll

haveaperfectmanuscript."Theactofwriting,beitfictionornonfiction,is

23RachelKravinsky,EditorialLetter#3"(workingpaper,Portland,OR,2014).24AdamO'ConnorRodriguez,"First‐DayLectureinDevelopmentalEditing,"(lecture,PortlandStateUniversity,Portland,OR,January5,2016).

25

inherentlycreative,andthejudgingofacreativeendeavorcanneverbeone

hundredpercentobjective.Yetaneditormustestablishtheirauthoritytoanauthor

aboutthejobofeditingtheauthor'smanuscript.Forsomeeditors,thismeans

establishingthemselvesasanobjectiveauthority;forothersitmeansembracingthe

subjectivityofwritingasanactandreflectingthisintheirownletters.

Editsarenotjustedits—anyonecanreadapieceofwritingandstatetheir

opinionsonit.Somepeoplemayeventelltheauthorwhattheyshouldhavedone

differently,orwhattheynowshoulddoafterward.Aneditorisaneditorbecause

theireditscarryauthorityandtheauthorhasagreedtoreadandrespectand

considertheireditsbasedontherecognitionandacceptanceoftheirauthority.

Editorialauthoritycanbelocatedinoneortwoormultiplecomponentsofan

editorialletter,andthefoursurveyedintheseletters—structure,languageandtone,

editor/readerreaction,andmarket/genre—areonlyafewofthem.Andlikeabook,

thesefourcomponentsaffectandinteractwithoneanothertotogethercreatea

cohesivedocumentthatisbothinstructionandconversationfromaneditortoan

author—backedbyeditorialauthority.

26

BIBLIOGRAPHYFeldman,Helen."EditorialLetter#1."Workingpaper,NewYork,NY,2014.Freedman,Linda."EditorialLetter#1."Workingpaper,NewYork,NY,2015.Goldstein,Joseph."EditorialLetter#1."Workingpaper,Portland,OR2015.Goldstein,Joseph.Emailmessagetoauthorofthispaper.April11,2016.Henningsgaard,Per."FirstLectureonDevelopmentalEditing."LecturepresentedatPortlandStateUniversity,Portland,OR,February2015.Henningsgaard,Per."ThirdLectureonDevelopmentalEditing."LecturepresentedatPortlandStateUniversity,Portland,OR,February2015.Kravinsky,Rachel."EditorialLetter#1."Workingpaper,Portland,OR,June16,2014.Kravinsky,Rachel.EditorialLetter#2."Workingpaper,Portland,OR,June30,2014.Kravinsky,Rachel.EditorialLetter#3."Workingpaper,Portland,OR,2014.Meyer,Sarah.Emailexchangetoauthorofthispaper.April22,2016.O'ConnorRodriguez,Adam."First‐DayLectureinDevelopmentalEditing."LecturepresentedatPortlandStateUniversity,Portland,OR,January5,2016.O'ConnorRodriguez,Adam."1.TheRoleofaDEandHowWeCanImproveThat."LecturepresentedPortlandStateUniversity,Portland,OR,January7,2016.O'ConnorRodriguez,Adam."Week8Lecture.LecturepresentedatPortlandStateUniversity,Portland,OR,February23,2016.Rabinowitz,Arielle."EditorialLetter#1."Workingpaper,Portland,OR,2014.Rabinowitz,Arielle."EditorialLetter#2".Workingpaper,Portland,OR,2015.Silverman,Steve."EditorialLetter#1."Workingpaper,Portland,OR,August19,2015.

27

Silverman,Steve."EditorialLetter#2.Workingpaper,Portland,OR,December22,2015.