Edits - You gotta love them. By Rita Karnopp

I’ve often heard it said that writers a bit arrogant, they hate anyone making an off-handed comment about their baby.  What you ask?  The truth is, writing is a lot of pressure; demands, deadlines, choices, habits, goals, and don’t forget we must be creative.  That doesn’t always mean an author is arrogant – they're just protective of their babies.  J

So let’s face it, edits are a bit difficult to face.  They really shouldn’t be – but our egos get a bit bruised.  I’ve always had the belief you can either handle it the easy way or the hard way.  Choice is yours.  So what do I mean by that?

So I finished my book; I met my deadline. Yippee.  Yet, I had a lot of personal issues (surgery, work demands, worry about children, etc.) at the time and I truly knew down deep – it was a great suspense – but maybe it needed a little more work.  So my editor gets it and points out a few holes, a couple of issues not resolved, and maybe some cleaning up is needed that should have been done- at least must be done to make the book the best it can be.

Hmmm . . . so this is not what I wanted to hear.  Right?  Right!  Now, there are two ways I can handle this scenario.

The Hard Way – When I first started writing it was soooo hard to hear anything negative about my writing.  Why?  I’m not sure – as time went on – I welcomed those comments from editors, so I could learn – improve – grow – and ultimately write better and better.  I believe this is something the novice writer must always experience – and learn from.

So – the hard way.  Well, it goes like this.  “What?  Holes in my storyline?  Not even possible. I was so careful.  I know there aren’t any holes.  How rude!  Issues not resolves – not possible.  I like how the story flowed and . . . and not every problem in life is resolved.  As for cleaning up – isn’t that what an editor is for??

Okay – the knee-jerk reaction is ‘defensive.’  That should never be the case.  If you want to become a better writer, listen to editors with an open mind.  Why do they feel the way they do?  Would the editor’s suggestions make the book better?  I’ll bet 95% of the time that answer is a resounding yes.  Drop that chip off your shoulder and allow yourself to consider the comments your editor is making.  They aren’t making ‘edits’ to point out how smart they are . . . it’s all about making your book better – and the bottom line – help you become a better writer.

Personally – I believe editors are priceless.  I’m so close to my story – I need the outside, unprejudiced review to see flaws for what they are.  I certainly don’t want my readers to point them out to me.  Yikes!

The Easy Way - This boils down to simply being opened minded and above all grateful the editor cares enough to do a good edit of your book.  Yep, how invaluable is that?  I believe it's priceless.

Another way to look at this is – we all hate . . . hate . . . hate . . . bad reviews.  A good editor will minimize those ‘hurtful one star reviews’ just by making edits that resolve issues you might hear about from readers.  Let’s face it; readers today are intelligent and savvy.  You need to be ‘on your game’ to entertain them.

When you receive edits - have a positive attitude with energy and a willingness to work the problems/issues through – resulting in a tighter, absolutely great read.

Don’t worry – The worst thing you can do is worry or be embarrassed about it.  Thrashing edits through ranting and raving to this writer friend … and to that writer friend is unproductive.  So you thought you were done – face it – you just don’t want to sit down and do the re-write.  It’s work and you want to throw a tantrum first.  That is so counter-productive.

I truly don’t know anyone who has written a book perfect the first go-round.  I like to think I write a very tight, high-octane, totally paced story that will require minimal rewriting.  If that isn’t the case, I’m just relieved my editor cares enough to ‘wake me up’ and request changes to make my story better.

You can either waste days with frustration and anger or sit down – tackle the task, and when you re-submit you know – phew! That really needed a face-lift.  Dear editor - thank you . . . thank you . . . thank you!

I Blog-jacked Lisabet Sarai's Post...

“Independent Body Parts”: A Defense

A few days ago I reviewed the second round of edits – what my publisher calls final line edits – for my upcoming release Challenge to Him. In general, I had no problem accepting the suggested changes to wording and punctuation. I didn't necessarily agree that the one POV problem the editor highlighted really was a problem, but if she thought it would be clearer if modified, I was ready to go along. For the most part I don't view my words as sacred, so I rarely object to reasonable changes.

I've noticed, though, that each editor has pet issues she tends to focus on. I had one editor who insisted on striking every instance of the word “that” introducing a dependent clause after a verb of sensation or thought. For example, if I wrote:

Henrietta thought that she'd never recover from Harold's treachery. 

This editor would revise the sentence as: 

Henrietta thought she'd never recover from Harold's treachery. 

I agree the two sentence are equivalent in meaning, and the second is more concise than the first. However, sometimes the rhythm of a sentence requires the additional beat of that extra word. Furthermore, I like some variety in my sentence structures. So I accepted most of her edits, but retained a few “thats” where they seemed to fit.

Anyway, my most recent line editor really had a bee in her bonnet concerning “independent body parts”, often abbreviated as IBP. 

In case you've never met the dreaded IBP, this term refers to sentences where some part of a character's body becomes the subject of an action verb. For example:

Her eyes followed him as he strode across the room.

His fingers crept up her thigh and under her skirt.

His tongue poked rudely into her mouth. 

Some novice authors overuse this kind of sentence, often to the point of silliness. Because of this tendency, editors have become hypersensitive to these constructions, brandishing their red pen whenever one appears.

However, there is nothing a priori wrong with using a body part as a sentence subject in this way. This is an accepted category of  figurative language. It even has a name:synecdoche.  Synecdoche is the practice of referring to a part when you mean the whole, or vice versa. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche

Sentences that are labeled as IBP are not intended to be construed literally. Of course her eyes stayed in her head as he walked across the room – no reasonable reader would think otherwise. Yes, most likely he was in control of those fingers – they weren't acting on their own -  but the synecdoche focuses the readers' attention on the stealthy progress of those digits, perhaps even as their owner continues to converse in a normal way.

An occasional “IBP” sentence is not a flaw, in my opinion. When I construct my paragraphs, I do so deliberately, with an eye to diversity and flow. The alternative to using IBP is often to have every sentence beginning with a name or pronoun. This gets boring after a while. 

The so-called rule about avoiding IBPs may be helpful to novice authors. The trouble is, it's really not a rule, anymore than the guidelines about avoiding passive voice are rules. English is a gloriously rich language with an enormous repertoire of sentence structures and rhetorical devices. An accomplished author should not shy away from using the ones that she believes her story needs.

Note from Ginger:  I shared this on my FB already, and my comment was go ahead and throw your hands in the air if you want.  If readers can't surmise they remain attached to your character's arms, then Houston isn't the only place where problems linger.  *smile*  I, like Lisabet, believe too many editors are focused on what they perceive as problems and forget that  sometimes an extra "that" here and there does improve the flow and make the reading more melodic than flat.  This is a great post, in my humble opinion.

Blog Hop Thursday

Today's question, posed by affiliate author, Amy Romine, is:  What do you do with your edits?  Ah....the deadly red pen!

This is a timely question since I just received my first edits on Joy's Revelation, and short story coming later this summer from Muse It Up Publishing.  An author can view edits in one of two ways:
1.  An attack on your writing
2.  The attempt of an editor to help refine your story.

When I first began writing I was definitely a number one person.  How dare someone try to change my words...revise my story.

I soon learned that edits are merely suggestions that might make the story read smoother, correct grammatical errors you might not have noticed, or add more information for the reader's pleasure.

Do I accept every suggestion.  No!  In small publishing companies, many...even most editors are not as versed in the editing business as their title suggests.  Pass a simple test, and you too can be on the other end of the red pen.

My edits are going back with just as many comments as those in the file I received.  If I feel the suggestion changes my voice or style, I balk.  If the noted edit helps enhance my story, then I accept it.  I believe it's important to remember that this is my work and not that of the editor.  Some, I've found, want to substitute my words with words that have the same meaning--some I would never use.

Appreciate the editor's work but don't feel you have to agree with every suggested change.   I've had a few cases where I've known more than the editor.  *grin*

For more answers to today's question, hop on over to An_Alternative_Read and click the link to other blogs.