A Case for Gentle Editing
Little synchronicities in life never fail to amazeāand delightāme.Ā A few weeks ago,Ā I was writing some content for my web site.Ā I was listingĀ the various editing services I offer to clients and decided to include a few sentences that stated my philosophy on editing since I firmly believe that the underlying philosophy about our workāand the larger purpose it servesāshapes how we perform our work.Ā Ā I am of the view that the key benefits of an editing service should include (1) honouringĀ authorsā wishes to have their manuscripts accurately reflect their authentic voices and truths and (2) collaborating with the authors to empower the clarity of the message.
A few days after writing the website content, I was reading Julia Cameronās book The Right to Write. An Invitation and Initiation into the Writing Life (1998) and, would you believe it, tucked within a chapter on containing oneās work (i.e., being very selective about whom you share the early drafts of your work with) was a brief paragraph in which she described the qualities of her favourite editor! According to her, this particular editor inspires her to write freely, phrases his feedback gently in the form ofĀ questions, supports her strongest work and is not competitive with her (pp. 179-180). Ā The editorās love of good writing and enthusiasm for words inspires her to use words well (p.180). Bingo! Cameron has phrased it in slightly different words, but the gist of what she seems to like about this editor is that he works with her to empower the clarity of the message!
That one little paragraph just resonated for me like one of those large Tibetan singing bowls.Ā There was my philosophy echoed back at me, but I only found this passage after I’d been shaping my philosophy for quite a few months! It confirmed for me that while editing does by its very nature involve providing feedback onāand often making corrections toāanother individualās work, how that feedback is conveyed to the writer makes all the difference to her openness to hearing and following up on the editorās suggestions. It can profoundly influence whether the two parties, the writer and the editor, perceive the process as collaborative or adversarial.Ā Itās the difference between engaging in a constructive process that nurtures the writerās strengths and a destructive process that undermines the writer and his confidence at every turn of the page.Ā It really comes down to this: Are you editing a piece because you love words and you genuinely want the authorās finished manuscript to reflect her voice in a style that captivates the reader with its elegance and persuasiveness?Ā And if you must offer up some criticisms along the way, can they be gently phrased and framed in a way that helps the writer to most effectively convey the truth of the message she wants to share with the world?
To my way of thinking, an authorās manuscript is so much more than ājustā a collection of carefully or artfully selected words and sentences intended to communicate ideas. It also captures much of the writerās āSelfā, hence the trepidation and vulnerability that sometimes accompanies the act of turning over one’s work to an editor.Ā At the end of the day, it seems to me that working collaboratively with the writer, maintaining a sense of humour, honouring how much of the writerās self is in the document,Ā and providing encouraging feedback with respectfully phrased editing suggestions seems to produce a better manuscript and a more rewarding working relationship between editor and writer.
How about you?Ā What are the qualities that you appreciate in an editor or a “friendly reader”?
June 5, 2010
Ā· 
Susan Ā· 
6 Comments
Posted in: Writing process