Praise
 | Writers
like to get feedback on what works as well as what doesn't.
|
| Enthusiasm
for the piece is always appreciated.
|
Questioning, not rewriting
| It's
frustrating to writers when editors edit their pieces but don't explain the
edits, or change things without asking the writers why they chose a
particular convention. (They often have a reason that the editor may not be
aware of.)
|
| The
editor's role is to point out significant problems to the writer, not to fix
them him/herself.
|
| Editors
should realize that writers have an emotional connection to their words.
|
| A good
editor makes the writing better; a bad editor rewrites the writing in
his/her voice.
|
Respect for the rhythm
| Rhythm
in a piece is key, and editors can often misunderstand or not see the rhythm
that the writer has worked hard to put in place.
|
An objective eye
| Editors
can note recurring problems, such as overused phrases, that a writer can't
see.
|
A good reader
| Editors
are expert readers who can provide a running commentary on what it's like to
read the piece, making comments like "I was confused here" or
"I wanted more background at this point."
|
Responsiveness
| Editors
should give feedback, or at least acknowledge receipt of a piece, promptly.
Writers will be on edge till they hear from you.
|
A lack of ego
| The
words are the writers'; the relationship should be about how writer and
editor are going to work together to make a piece better.
|
| The
best editing is invisible.
|
For more on what writers want from editors, please also see the notes from The
Experience of Being Edited, a talk given by Deborah Donnelly to
the Portland branch of the Guild in December 2006 and notes from a writers'
panel discussion held in May 2004 at a Seattle meeting of the Guild.
|
