What editors don't understand (#2,459)


Friend of mine was recently talking to an editor-type, who wanted to know how the work on his latest book was progressing. He did the writer shuffle, but the editor insisted on trying to pin him down.

"So what happens to this character?" asked the editor. "How does [the character]* pull the [plot point]* off?"

"Don't know," said the writer.

The editor-type went nuts.

"What do you mean, you don't know?"

The meeting went downhill from there. I'm not sure if the editor-type thought my friend was bullshiting, being cruel, or somehow slacking off. But the upshot of it was a screaming match and some door slamming. Sorry I missed it, actually.

Now maybe he was bs'ing, or being cruel, or even slacking off, but what he said about not knowing what specifically was going to happen was surely true. The good stuff only happens when you get there. (Ditto the bad, but we don't have to go into that.)

That's what being a writer is - to a large extent, figuring it out when you get there is what makes it interesting.

That's not an editor's head -- an editor has to think more like an engineer, figuring out how things are going to be connected. They want to make sure the bridge is going to stand before they cross it. Writers just say, hell, let's get to the other side. We'll figure out how we do it when we get there.

* The specifics are irrelevant. Besides, by the time I explain the specifics, you'll be checking ESPN for baseball scores.