|
|
Editorial Practice and Theory: Working with Difficult AuthorsFreelance editor and project manager Christine Clifton-Thornton
shared with us the benefits of her 14 years of book publishing experience,
specializing in working with what are sometimes referred to as
"difficult authors." She detailed her practical steps
for preventing conflict during the editing process, diffusing tense
editor/author encounters and turning angry debates into productive
discussions by concentrating on what really matters: producing the best book possible.
Opening her presentation, Christine framed the issue this way: How do you interact productively with a “difficult” writer in order to get the best possible work done within a reasonable time, without either donating your labor or becoming frantic? Christine’s answer is to set in place a smooth and clear process, aimed at producing the best project possible within the given constraints of time and money. She first asked the group for definitions of a “difficult” author. Among the characteristics mentioned were authors who refuse to revise, who are overly sensitive, who procrastinate, who are passive-aggressive, who have had bad experiences with previous editors, and/or who think that East Coast editors are better. Christine defined the main characteristic of a “difficult” author by quoting Harry Stack Sullivan's book The Psychiatric Interview: “The chief handicap to communication is anxiety. . . .” If a person experiences severe anxiety, s/he becomes incapable of any constructive or useful communicative performance. She said this is often referred to in psychiatric terms as “resistance.” Christine shared with us how she begins the process of working with an author: 1. First, she reads the first 30–40 pages of the manuscript closely and lists the issues that arise. She skims the remainder. 2. She sets up a schedule, so that both parties will know what to expect. 3. To discuss the schedule and editing issues with the author, she calls them. (Don’t just call at a random time; if possible, schedule the call in advance with the author, so they will have the time and space to devote to it.) a. She prefers the phone to face-to-face meetings, because with in-person meetings you may have “extraneous communication” from body language, physical impressions of the other, and the like. With a phone, all you have is the voice. b. In the phone conversation, her purpose is, first, to give them information that will help them feel at ease with the upcoming process. Her secondary purpose is to do reconnaissance and establish trust. She listens very closely to what the author says, seeking, among other things, to find out their fears about being edited. She asks whether they have been edited before. If they have had bad experiences, she will likely hear about them at this point! 4. She then sends a concise follow-up letter that tells them “only what they need to know,” not what they already know. It outlines the editorial process that she will follow. The letter is like a “security blanket” that the author can refer back to and that tells them what to expect. In this initial phone conversation, and indeed throughout the process, Christine strives always to be succinct, direct, and kind. "In editing, I am the kindest version of myself," she said. Christine said one thing that causes anxiety in authors is getting back a manuscript that is smothered in editing marks. She uses a specific technique to avoid this, saying that word choice in writing queries is critical: On the first instance of a certain type of error, she queries it using a passive, informal, and informative style such as "Publisher’s style sheet requires that the serial comma be used. OK with you?" (She advocates praising the author as warranted, but she uses a first-person, active voice for this sort of comment: "I love that phrasing!") Then she refrains from marking the same type of error in the rest of the manuscript, thus keeping the pages as clean as possible. After she gets the manuscript back from the author, she goes through it again and fixes all the instances of each queried error, without revision marks. Christine acknowledged that this method requires more time from her, as the editor – but she feels it is worth it, because it results in a happier author. This technique applies to all kinds of editing, not just copyediting. Christine offered a few thoughts about style sheets: 1. When she returns the edited manuscript, she includes a clean copy of the style sheet (not one on which she or others have scribbled anything). Sometimes, if the manuscript comes to her from a publisher, the publisher will include notes to her together with the style sheet. She removes any such notes before forwarding the style sheet to the author. 2. Every word on your style
sheet should indicate its source – whether it is the author’s style, the
publisher’s style sheet, Christine offered these six rules of communication to calm an irate author, alleviate tension, and discourage resistant behavior: 1. Listen. Make listening sounds. (“Mm-hmm, oh yes, uh-huh.”) 2. Reiterate. Repeat their position back to them, to make sure you have heard it right and to let them know that you have. (“You feel those headings shouldn’t have been changed. Is that right?”) 3. Commiserate. Be specific. (“I liked that heading, too. It was very clever.”) 4. Educate. Tell the author why the change was made. 5. Ask for solutions. (“Do you have any suggestions for resolving this issue?”) 6. Gently stand firm. Editing is a bit like mediation. If the hostility of the author persists,
remember that your job is to help the author communicate, and the author’s
hostility has nothing to do with you personally. Use therapeutic technique. If
the author’s behavior brings out the worst in you, you may want to ask the
author to put their solutions in writing rather than continue discussing the
problem. Q & A
Q: An editor said she was working as a freelancer with a “difficult” author and had attempted to talk with her in-house supervisor about how to handle issues, but the supervisor was less knowledgeable about the project than the editor. A: Set up a meeting with the supervisor. Ask her to include in the meeting anyone else who might be of some assistance in clarifying the situation. Arrive with specific questions. As a last resort, the author’s contract can sometimes be used to resolve issues; if this is the case, ask the supervisor for a copy. Q: How do you respond to an individual author whose manuscript needs a lot more work than they think? A: Respond with kindness but specificity: “Your budget allows for only 30
hours of my editorial services, but to fully edit your book would take 90
hours.” If they want you to limit your editing to 30 hours, you can then
discuss which issues to focus on or handle, and which to ignore. Perhaps you can
point them in the direction of doing some parts of the editing themselves. Q: How can an editor tactfully suggest that a writer needs a class or two? A: With a technique similar to the above answer (kindness and specificity)--pointing out, for example, that fundamental elements of grammar might be better handled in a class than in a tutorial with an editor. However, if the author is already under contract to produce a book, it’s better to simply assist them in producing it, as such a suggestion has the potential to escalate any anxiety the author might already feel.
|
