| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Beginner Issues > Topic: writer v. editor? |
Topic: writer v. editor?
| Author | Message |
| getmeoutofhere | Posted – 7/25/2007 10:22:56 AM | show profile The other day in an interview, the interviewee asked me if I knew whether I was a writer-type or editor-type. I wasn't aware the two were mutually exclusive...I have (probably naively) thought that editing is something writers do when they want to make more money. Is whether you're "meant to be" a writer or editor based on your personality, skills or preference (or a combo)? |
| WinonaWriter | Posted – 7/25/2007 11:47:36 AM | show profile I think the best writers are also good editors, in that they "self-edit" very well. I think the best editors are often good writers, or at least, good re-writers. There's a different set of skills for each, but they overlap quite a bit too. They're not mutually exclusive, in my opinion or experience. But I guess an editor would lean more toward the "nit-picky" side, polishing the rough edges, smoothing things over, rearranging things as necessary, proofreading, fact-checking, tweaking things here and there. A writer would lean more toward building something from scratch, going out and getting the information, being more "entrepreneurial" in terms of getting sources and finding outlets for articles. Personally, I have the skills to do both, but unless the topic I'm writing about especially interests me, then I prefer editing. If you're just starting out, I say do as much as you can of both, and you'll probably eventually develop a preference. |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 7/25/2007 2:39:46 PM | show profile A good analogy ... For people in fashion. Do you like the challenge of taking a bolt of fabric and thread, and CREATING something out of it? Or are you more comfortable taking an existing dress and ALTERING it into something new? Same thing with writers and editors. I know editors who are fine with doing entire rewrites themselves, but give them a blank page and they freak out. And then there are writers who just can't copy edit. |
| getmeoutofhere | Posted – 7/25/2007 2:53:01 PM | show profile sadly i think i am an "editor type," but want to be a "writer type." seems typical. |
| angshul | Posted – 7/25/2007 5:56:04 PM | show profile I'm an "editor type" who has done both, but seems to end up these days in jobs that are really for a "writer type." Lucky me. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 7/25/2007 11:40:59 PM | show profile I don't think the two are mutually exclusive at all. I agree with Winona about the good writers being good editors and good editors being good writers, or at least re-writers. Ultimately, I think what you're "meant to be" is determined by what you want to do. People tend to excel at things they enjoy doing because they put more effort into it. |
| writesonwater | Posted – 7/26/2007 12:15:53 AM | show profile When I was writing at a daily newspaper, an editor expressed surprise that I wanted to be an editor type, and explained that in newspaper there were two strains and he thought I was in the writer strain. I've always self-edited, and I wanted more money, so I assured him I wanted to do both! I recently switched horses for a client, going from editing to writing cover stories, and find I like it much more, even though editing is straight-forward by comparison. My editing has been good for my writing, and v versa. I'm thinking of taking on a ghost writing gig shortly, and we'll see how much of each is involved! |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 7/26/2007 12:21:46 AM | show profile Editors need to be good writers FIRST ... ...but the same isn't necessarily true for writers being good editors. It helps, but it's not as essential as an editor who knows how to write, and knows what good writing is. |
| writesonwater | Posted – 7/26/2007 12:27:11 AM | show profile True, Matt. Editors need to be good writers, but there are some writers who could never be good editors. To me, most editors need to have good polishing skills -- and that's not what some writers are about. Things writers sometimes are bad at that editors are generally good at: Spelling Grammar Numbers Detail-checking Seeing the big picture -- flow, content, holes, gaps -- the forest for the trees. Leads. Wrapping things up. Prioritizing (writers are often enamored with whatever they're doing, thinking it's the best; editors need to be more objective.) Knowing what the whole magazine/paper needs, instead of what one particular story needs (although they need to see that, too) |
| seeattleme | Posted – 7/26/2007 1:29:51 AM | show profile Some do both well. Some do one better than the other. Experience usually tells you what you are best at. If you are relatively inexperienced, just say you are not sure, that so far in your career you've done both. So you are looking for a job that would allow you to do both, ultimately. Ask if the job requires more writng or more editing, and match it to your experience. BTW not all editors can write and not all writers can edit--especially for a specific publication. Some do both, but they don't edit their own work well. Some can ONLY edit their own work. It just depends. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 7/26/2007 1:32:13 AM | show profile And unfortunately most of the editors I have worked with couldn't write their way out of a paper bag. And have no clips aside from their college newspaper. And does that really count after a decade in the business? Editors need to KNOW what good writing is. Unfortunately many editors these days--especially at the womens and teen magazines,-- just rewrite and package. So it really does depend. |
| writesonwater | Posted – 7/26/2007 4:40:13 AM | show profile Seems to me the really interesting editing is going on at the book level -- and that generally, you need an English/Lit background to get into that, but I've heard of success stories without it. As Granitegirl said, there seems to be a lot of repackaging/rehashing done at womens and teens magazines. The teen mags I can see it -- girls are moving quickly through stages, and the next generation always coming up, needs coverage relating to those stages. But most womens mags these days have very little appeal because of the repetitive, formulaic nature -- thank goodness people always need new recipes, I think they think. Newspaper there's a chance for varied coverage and new things come up all the time, daily or weekly. I never suffered for something to cover/edit. However, many (especially the smaller newspapers, and regional mags for that matter) are the same dog-and-pony show all the time (unless they go for feature stories, IMO) and editors fall into the same lazy traps writers do. Blessed is the small newspaper with a big-thinking editor and writers who are willing to forge ahead and excel. Real breakthrough territory -- but most often, they starve the editing and writing talent out, talent leaves for greener pastures and paper's back to square one and back in the box ... sigh ... |
| writesonwater | Posted – 7/26/2007 4:43:08 AM | show profile I don't regret the time I spend editing at daily newspaper, weekly newspaper, regional magazines and now freelance -- but I am acutely aware that had I stayed in writing and pushed myself, I'd be further ahead as an author and a freelancer at this point. Does it make sense to specialize? Maybe ... |
| WordyBird | Posted – 7/26/2007 11:44:31 AM | show profile WOW wrote: "To me, most editors need to have good polishing skills -- and that's not what some writers are about. Things writers sometimes are bad at that editors are generally good at: Spelling Grammar Numbers Detail-checking Seeing the big picture -- flow, content, holes, gaps -- the forest for the trees. Leads. Wrapping things up. Prioritizing (writers are often enamored with whatever they're doing, thinking it's the best; editors need to be more objective.) Knowing what the whole magazine/paper needs, instead of what one particular story needs (although they need to see that, too)" Okay, here's where I disagree a little bit. I think a writer should be a master of spelling and grammar. In fact, if grammar isn't in someone's blood, that person has no business getting into writing. Also, I think a journalist should be almost obsessed with checking details because that's part of accuracy. As for the rest, it boils down to raw talent. You either have a flair for writing leads (or, as we old farts say, "ledes,) or you don't. You either know how to transition or you don't. You either know how to conclude a story, or you don't. You can only learn so much about the anatomy of an article in school. The rest comes down to how gifted you are with the language, whether you write with rhythm, and how wide your vocabulary is. Those things separate the good writers from the mediocre ones. Just my opinion. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 7/26/2007 12:15:32 PM | show profile No, that's what they pay damn good copy editors and factcheckers damn good (the good ones) $$$$ for. I' could list off a massive scroll of Pulitzer/National prize winning writers who couldn't spell to save their lives, who broke grammatical rules left and right but did it for authenticity (Hunter S.Thompson, for one), who had trouble with CONTRACTIONS, for screw's sake. So that rule may or may not apply--but obvioulsy there is a need for both skills as publishing /editorial offices employ plenty of people who do both to writer's works on a regular basis. |
| beenthere | Posted – 7/26/2007 12:45:11 PM | show profile Editing and writing are distinct skills, and in my experience it seems that editors can switch to writing, but writers have more difficulty switching to editing. If I get copy in from a writer that hasn't been factchecked or isn't grammatically correct, he's dumped. Period. Writers can submit crap at their own risk and then why they don't get followup assignments. Nothing pisses an editor off more than to do work for which they have already paid someone else. Also, as far as having crappy editors at mags that rehash materials?that's the product the company puts out. It is most likely not the editor's fault that rehashed copy is printed. That may, in fact, be in their job description. And if you don't like it, submit somewhere else. For the billionth time, note to writers: Spend a week shadowing an editor and get a clue as to how things really work. You'll spend a lot less time feeling sorry for yourself and being pissed off that no one wants your work, and finally understand how to get your noncopyedited, full-of-factual-errors story printed. < |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 7/26/2007 2:20:40 PM | show profile As a BROADCAST writer and editor ... ...I realize it's a bit different from print, but I'm guessing essentially the same thing. And there are different qualities of writers in broadcasting, as there are everywhere else. Some of the writers I've worked with can write brillliantly, but sometimes get the facts wrong. Others have all the facts there, but the writing is like regurgitated wire copy. Then, of course, there are the writers whose copy is both accurate and so well-written that as the editor I need only "approve" it for the teleprompter. In any event, even with the best writers, I often need to "tweak" the copy a bit. It's not that the writers' work is below par, but rather that the writer, who's been concentraing on his story assignment, isn't necessarily writing in the context of the entire broadcast. It would be nice if he did, but that's really not his job, that's MY job, as the editor: not only ensuring the accuracy of each individual story, but allowing all the stories to FLOW together cohesively. I'm guessing that magazine editors do the same thing, in the context of their particular issues. |
| Metro Writer | Posted – 7/26/2007 3:53:18 PM | show profile At some newspapers, editor is a glorified term for reporter or copywriter. At some magazines, such as Harper's Bazaar, a contributing editor is someone well-known who gets quoted in the publication. Aside from these examples, writing and editing shouldn't be mutually exclusive. Writers should know how to self-edit what they write. They also have to develop stories and beats. Good editors should not be so desk-bound that they no longer have a pulse on their readership. |
| writesonwater | Posted – 7/26/2007 6:27:36 PM | show profile Agreed on the broadcasting element -- since you say it out loud, it does get mispelt on occasion (but can't stray too far if someone else has to read it.) I'm glad I've got excellent spelling skills and am detail-oriented. I used to think it was a got-to, but I hear from others who don't see it that way. As a newspaper editor, I had two dyslexic writers who frequently, not always, wixed their mords up, and while it drove me crazy, I relied on their reporting skills and cut them slack. I would also get copy in from reporters who hadn't quite gotten it right -- they'd heard something else, and written down what didn't quite work, and I could tell. I did a lot of educating young reporters, teaching them how to be more thorough, for one thing. Teaching's a big part of a newspaper editor's job, unless it's a big enough talent that the staff's not beginners. However, as a stretched-too-thin regional magazine editor, I couldn't take copy that wasn't clean. I just needed it to be good and strong and checked by the writer. If it wasn't, that was the last assignment. THere were occasional slip-ups, granted, but it couldn't be rough. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 7/27/2007 1:11:33 PM | show profile BeenThere said: "If I get copy in from a writer that hasn't been factchecked or isn't grammatically correct, he's dumped. Period. Writers can submit crap at their own risk and then why they don't get followup assignments. Nothing pisses an editor off more than to do work for which they have already paid someone else." Thank you. I'm an editor, not a fifth-grade English teacher. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 7/27/2007 3:37:55 PM | show profile So of course we go to extremes: Seriously. Do you people have real jobs at REAL magazines??? I mean NATIONAL magazines. In my twenty years experience: 1. I have worked as a writer and an editor. So I know how things work on both sides. Just got an edited piece back. Two tense errors and four misspellings. Mostly due to cuts and reissues, but I checked my original copy and mine is correct on all counts. SHIT HAPPENS. It's called human error. DEAL with it. I do. BTW, I make about 50 K. This editor makes 125K. 2. If youa re telling me that if a legendary writer, say a Carl Bernstein or a Pat Jordan or a Molly Ivins or a Barbara Grazzutti Harrison or a David Halberstam turned in copy that had grammar errors or spelling errors or bad puncuation or --I happen to know this WAS a problem for two of these writers -- got possessives and tenses screwed up EVERY time(maybe it was the drinking)--you wouldn't publish it, huh? Bullshit. There's nothing I hate more than hypocrisy. Of course you would. You'd fix it and run it faster than you could pick lint out of your navel, and you know it. So zip it. 3. Did you hear about the guy--the guy with the ninth grade education, so you can probably assume his grammar and vocab wasn;t stellar (I heard it was not), the guy who wrote his novel out longhand , put it in a box and sent it to Esquire? In a BOX! Written out longhand!!! Now, I know what you sticklers with your black and white rules of the road would have done with this: Thrown it out or sent it back. Well, it turns out some editorial assistant actually READ it. It was a stunning book about a guy daling with the death of his son.The thing was typed into a computer, copy edited, fact checked, excerpted--I can't recall if it was nominated for a National Magazine award but I know it was a brilliant novel. I used to edit teen writing. The best, most brilliant stuff I saw was from teens in juvenile hall or with horrible grammar and spelling. But the voice was powerful, the writing was strong, the themes were things I couldn't, in my little editor's Manhattan world, couldn't begin to write about myself. I cleaned the shit up and I published it. That, as far as I was and AM concerned, was my job and IS a good editors. What exactly do editors DO if it's not about getting a piece ready for publication, cleaning it up? Anyone can work with a writer who self edits. That's fucking easy. It takes a skilled editor --a VERY SKILLED EDITOR--to mine, shine, polish, and set a jewel buried in the dirt. I think we just all want to feel superior to other perople. That's why we harp on grammar and spelling and all that shit. It makes us feel better to "correct" other people. Those who are secure in their talents don't have to correct other people and consider it a joy to get a piece of writing they can shape and polish and publish for all the world to enjoy. I never considered it a "burden" or "teaching journalism 101" (though teaching anyone anything is actually part of the job I like best, and I consider it an honor to be in the position to do so. There's nothing burdensome about working with writers who need good editing. It's a joy. It's the prima donna writers that give me a headache. Often, they turn in very polished material (a lot of them have assistants who do their work for them, the reporting, the copy editing, the fact chekcing--the typing, even, they just write the ledes and the conclusions and want $4 a word for THAT!) but they're a pain in the ass and they don't appreciate anything I do or suggest to make thepiece better. God forbid I suggest, for example, they interview subjects who are NOT their neighbors, galpals, and babysitters. No one is saying that writers should turn in poorly worded, inaccurate shit. Jesus Christ. But if a piece of brilliant writing comes across your desk and it needs some cleaning up, and you toss it because "you're not a grammar teacher", well, no, you're not agrammar teacher, you are an idiot with a serious wire hairbrush up your ass you need to have extracted. Quit thinking in terms of black and white, epople. That's three year old thinking. That's ignornant thinking. Newsflash: The world is lots and lots of gray. |
| beenthere | Posted – 7/27/2007 6:00:04 PM | show profile GG, Your extreme anger is overwhelming. Seriously. Most mags are NOT looking for brilliant creative writing. They are looking for stories appropriate to their readership, where the contents are relevant, factually accurate, and organized. In your 20 years experience, if you haven't figured this out, well, there really isn't anything left to say. And, yes, I have worked for two journals that have global?not national?reps. I responded to this post because it was targeted to newbies. If newbies think they can turn in crap and get it published, they will never have any type of career. And that is the advice you are giving them?be brilliant, and f--k adhering to standards. If they choose to take that road, there will be hundreds of others who will adhere to standards and will have published clips and careers, as the brilliant ones, sigh, mutter that no one understands them. Puh-lease. But maybe I should write in caps to emphasize my points. Sheesh. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 7/27/2007 6:31:53 PM | show profile I just ignore her, BeenThere. I don't have time to weed through shrill and--dare I say it--poorly written rants. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 7/27/2007 11:49:54 PM | show profile Of course, you preport to know me, when you've never met me. Most magazines are not looking for brilliant writing? We agree on that. It's why magazines are tanking. Youa re the ones with the anger issues. I am the one who is saying I'll read and consider anything that comes across my desk. You are the ones saying you 'll toss it if it has a mispelling or a misplaces m-dash. Who's the one with the anger issues? I mean, REALLY??? Think about it. Or ignore it. But you're not really ignoring it, right? you wouldn't have typed that post if you had ignored it, right? You obviously read it, right? Huh. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 7/27/2007 11:54:04 PM | show profile And wordy bird, I don't have time to edit my recreational mediabistro posts. I just tap it out and send. I have other work to do. Don't read it. Discount everything I say or have to offer in the way of advice, based on a "poorly written mediabistro post." My God, my mediabistro post is poorly written...how will I ever go on??? |
