![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More Musing on Editing Another's Work
Dec. 26th, 2007 10:51 pm[Posted on this earlier in a flocked post - but continue to be fascinated, so have decided to post more on the topic.]
Just finished reading "Life and Letters: Rough Crossings - the cutting of Raymond Carver" in Dec 24 &31st issue of the New Yorker, otherwise known as the Winter Fiction edition.
The article discusses the relationship between Raymond Carver and his long-time editor, Gordon Lish (of Esquire and later Alfred A. Knopf).
Here's an excerpt: ( Excerpt from the article )
And here's two excerpts from letters Carver sent to his editor, Lish regarding Lish's edits of his work:
( letters from Carver to Lish )
In the letters - Carver's begging his editor to work with him as opposed to rewrite his stories or ghost write. Taking his stories essentially away from him. The letters read like a one-sided tug of war or struggle. Making me wonder to what degree do editors and publishers fall victim to their own egos and own desire to be part of a creation, to leave an indelibable mark or stamp on someone else's work? To ghost write as opposed to edit? I've lost count of the number of young editorial assistants I've spoken with who want every book they read to read like James Patterson, Edith Wharton or what they think sells. Change the plot. Change the style. Change the characters. To the point that the story loses the authorial intent - begging the question is the story the author's or produced by assembly? So when students go to study it later, the authorial intent is misunderstood. One wonders after reading these letters if Carver's intent has been misunderstood? Or on the other hand, if without Lish's edits, if Carver would have even been read by the number of people who've read him. If his stories would have lasted or recieved positive reviews?
Don't get me wrong - I value a good editor. Some books I've read, I cringe at the poor editing job. Stephen King's last few books as well as Ann Rice's ached for editors. But, editing is an art. It's hard to do. And the one thing you don't want to do as an editor is put the writer inside a straight jacket or change their work in a serious way. Writing is about communication. From what I've read of these letters, I'm not sure Gordon Lish was a good editor, even though he obviously furthered Carver's career.
To see a line by line comparison of Raymond Carver's "Beginner's" and Gordon Lish's edit - go to www.newyorker.com.
Just finished reading "Life and Letters: Rough Crossings - the cutting of Raymond Carver" in Dec 24 &31st issue of the New Yorker, otherwise known as the Winter Fiction edition.
The article discusses the relationship between Raymond Carver and his long-time editor, Gordon Lish (of Esquire and later Alfred A. Knopf).
Here's an excerpt: ( Excerpt from the article )
And here's two excerpts from letters Carver sent to his editor, Lish regarding Lish's edits of his work:
( letters from Carver to Lish )
In the letters - Carver's begging his editor to work with him as opposed to rewrite his stories or ghost write. Taking his stories essentially away from him. The letters read like a one-sided tug of war or struggle. Making me wonder to what degree do editors and publishers fall victim to their own egos and own desire to be part of a creation, to leave an indelibable mark or stamp on someone else's work? To ghost write as opposed to edit? I've lost count of the number of young editorial assistants I've spoken with who want every book they read to read like James Patterson, Edith Wharton or what they think sells. Change the plot. Change the style. Change the characters. To the point that the story loses the authorial intent - begging the question is the story the author's or produced by assembly? So when students go to study it later, the authorial intent is misunderstood. One wonders after reading these letters if Carver's intent has been misunderstood? Or on the other hand, if without Lish's edits, if Carver would have even been read by the number of people who've read him. If his stories would have lasted or recieved positive reviews?
Don't get me wrong - I value a good editor. Some books I've read, I cringe at the poor editing job. Stephen King's last few books as well as Ann Rice's ached for editors. But, editing is an art. It's hard to do. And the one thing you don't want to do as an editor is put the writer inside a straight jacket or change their work in a serious way. Writing is about communication. From what I've read of these letters, I'm not sure Gordon Lish was a good editor, even though he obviously furthered Carver's career.
To see a line by line comparison of Raymond Carver's "Beginner's" and Gordon Lish's edit - go to www.newyorker.com.
