"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 power leads into the editors’ responsibility for the relationship with authors. As the ones who evaluate, whether subjectively or objectively, the writing, editors are responsible for the final outcome of the writing, even if authors ignore some of their suggestions. One goal of cooperation between editors and authors is for editors to convince authors of the validity of their suggestions so that authors will incorporate them into their final work. The following are three scenarios wherein editors and authors conflict, and what research can be applied to the editors’ behavior. The Responsibility of Editors: Scenario 1 Anna, an editor, has recently begun working with a new author named Brian. They never meet face-to-face; he sends all of his writing by e-mail and Anna edits the writing just as she does for all of her other authors. However, she and Brian argue frequently over her mark-ups and both have become defensive. Brian begins sending her less and less writing to edit and finally stops sending it altogether. Anna finally e-mails him about this problem and discovers that Brian switched to working with another editor in her department. Anna believes this is evidence of stubbornness on his part and complains to her colleagues that he is being over-sensitive. Interpretation of Scenario 1: Perhaps Brian was over-sensitive. What Anna failed to consider, however, was her own complicity in the conflict. She lay all the blame on Brian without thinking that perhaps her editing style might be causing the problems. Wieringa gives this advice: when editors have problems with authors, or authors do not return for repeat business, the editors should take a look at their editing and not blame the authors (103). Anna did not attempt to get to know Brian and his particular editing concerns, and she assumed that her techniques were inviolable. Perhaps her style was too direct for Brian’s taste, or she may have attempted to change his writing style to make it conform to accepted standards without considering his intentions. Her main problem was one of attitude: as the one with the responsibility to review another’s work, Anna failed to collaborate with Brian; instead she treated him as though his opinions were irrelevant. The Responsibility of Editors: Scenario 2 James has recently accepted an editing position with an engineering company and his department is housed in the same building as the engineers. Because he is unfamiliar with the field of engineering, James often comes across processes and jargon he does not recognize. One of his colleagues advises him to just wing it and hope for the best. But James decides to take advantage of his proximity to the engineers by talking with them directly and trying to understand what they actually do, not just what they write. Interpretation of Scenario 2: Grove writes that both editors and authors benefit when editors attempt to understand what the authors did in their research, not just what they wrote about it. James, in his efforts to truly understand what he was editing, showed respect for authorial knowledge and humility by admitting that he did not understand everything. As a result, he opened the door to collaboration with the authors by actually asking them for assistance so he could edit to the best of his ability. Eaton et al. found in their survey that authors appreciate editors who respect them and their work. They also found that “Six percent of participants . . . noted their appreciation for editors who knew content and audience well and were, therefore, able to edit comprehensively” (123). Respect and appreciation are both key elements of the editing process. The better editors and authors can get along, the better their resultant writing will be. Even though it might be difficult for editors to admit that they do not know everything, they have a greater chance of developing rapport with authors if they request help and are willing to learn. It shows an interest in the authors’ work beyond making changes to their writing. The Responsibility of Editors: Scenario 3 Phyllis, an editor, frequently finds herself in conflict with authors. They accuse her of editing arbitrarily and seem to challenge all of her marks. Phyllis is indignant until they show her actual writing containing contradictory advice that she has given them. She realizes that she needs to be more consistent with her editing and starts backing up her decisions with authoritative sources. As a result, her relationship with the authors improves significantly. Interpretation of Scenario 3: In their 2008 survey, Eaton et al. discovered that authors disliked inconsistent editing. One author commented that “contradictory information can create extra work to reconcile the comments” (128). No one in any organization ever wants extra work, especially if it seems unnecessary. Phyllis’s contradictory editing resulted in extra work for the authors, which in turn caused hard feelings and damaged their relationship. Consistency is important in any field, but particularly in editing, where the small details matter so much. Contradictory editing confuses authors and reflects badly on editors, making it appear that they do not know what they are doing. Phyllis improved her relationship with the authors and also her reputation in their eyes by being more consistent with her editing. Bush, Grove, Speck, and Wieringa all advise editors to be prepared to defend their comments with authoritative sources so that authors do not assume that editing is arbitrary. The editing process is painful enough for authors without them assuming that editors are making changes based only on their own idiosyncrasies. Again, Phyllis smoothed out relations with her authors by demonstrating that other, more authoritative, sources backed up her changes. Also, the authors respected her more because they knew she did the necessary research to ensure that her mark-ups were accurate. |