"The Relationship between Editors and Authors: A Lit Review"
About the AuthorKelly Shackelford was home educated. She graduated with highest honors from Cedarville University, Cedarville Ohio, in 2010 with a degree in Technical Writing and Editing. While tutoring in the campus writing center, she became interested in the relationship between editors and authors and how they resolve power struggles. She now works for the Air Force and hopes to improve communication between the government and contractors. ContentsEditorial Techniques (continued) |
Editorial Techniques (continued)Editorial Techniques: Supportive Climate Because editing is a potentially ego-bruising process, editors can soften the possible blows by developing a supportive, rather than critical, climate. Beck describes a defensive environment as one where tension exists between editors and authors, with the latter withdrawing from communication. A supportive climate is just the opposite—the author feels safe enough to make mistakes. Beck references Jack Gibb, who provides six contrasts between a defensive and a supportive climate: Evaluation versus description - in the former, editors evaluate authors’ writing as schoolteachers would, and their mark-ups feel like grades. In the latter, editors focus on the writing and the overall purpose, not on grading the writers’ work. Control versus problem orientation – in the former, writers feel that editors are controlling their work, an action writers see as a threat. They want to maintain at least some control themselves. In the latter, editors study how the writing accomplishes the authors’ goal and allow for personal style. Neutrality versus empathy – in the former, editors objectively evaluate and focus on the errors without considering authorial goals. In the latter, editors are concerned for authors and their efforts to accomplish their goals. Strategy versus spontaneity – in the former, authors have to guess what is going on with mark-ups and feel like editors are playing games. In the latter, editors openly communicate their response with clear comments and instructions. Superiority versus equality – in the former, editors know it all. In the latter, editors communicate equality with authors, develop partnerships with them, and are willing to learn from authors. Certainty versus provisionalism – in the former, editors refuse to discuss changes or writing with authors because they believe that everything is already known. In the latter, editors are open to discussion because they do not know everything. They are more collaborative and everyone gets to contribute to the final product. (Gibb, qtd. in Beck 337-338) Editors who follow the positive aspects of these contrasts can help develop a productive communication climate. Mackiewicz and Riley take a similar view to Beck and Gibb, suggesting that editors make their comments constructive rather than negative for the sake of developing cooperation and protecting authors’ egos. Editorial Techniques: Authorial Control Beuhler, Nadziejka, Speck, Thompson and Rothschild, and Wieringa indicate that another way to support authors’ egos is for editors to make certain to ensure authorial control of the writing. One of the biggest authorial concerns is that editors will attempt to usurp control over authors’ writing, and authors frequently see comprehensive editing as part of this power grab. Beuhler suggests that editors support authors’ style and maintain the authorial voice in the writing. This may involve encouraging and supporting effective stylistic effects, such as asyndeton (deliberately omitting conjunctions from a series of related clauses, i.e., I came, I saw, I conquered) and polysyndeton (using several conjunctions close together, i.e., Genesis 7:21—“All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind”), even if those effects are grammatically incorrect. Editors do not need to be nit-picky. Sometimes authors want to accomplish something through a particular sentence or punctuation structure, and editors should not automatically mark these attempts as wrong. Thompson and Rothschild found that their three editors were willing in certain cases to bypass their own editorial judgment in favor of leaving some of the specialists’ words intact. Wieringa explains that editors are responsible to authors and should support literary devices. Editorial Techniques: Establishing Credibility Authors are far more likely to accept changes to their work if editors can justify their alterations with an authoritative source, thus establishing their credibility. Bush, Grove, and Wieringa say that editors must not edit arbitrarily. They must base all of their marks on solid reasons and be able to defend all of their decisions. If authors think that editors are basing their decisions on personal opinion rather than an accepted standard, they will be annoyed and defensive, and they will start challenging even good changes. The editors in Gerich’s 1994 study included among their strategies establishing credibility with their scientific colleagues. Speck suggests that low status editors cite authoritative sources in order to gain more status—they need a greater power backing up their changes. |