Selecting An Editor (An extra criterion)

I recently asked a photographer acquaintance how business was, and he allowed that it was good, in spite of the recession; but that he was frustrated by the increasing number of incompetents who were opening up shop in town (presumably as they got laid off from the oil patch). It was not that he was afraid of the competition, because his corporate client base was not about to go to anyone else, but that these amateurs gave professional photography a bad name: they'd charge families large sums for bad portraits. "The problem is, anyone with a camera and a month's rent can open a studio. They think because they have an actual camera instead of a phone, that makes them a professional photographer. So they look at what other studios charge and charge just enough less to make them seem competitive. But they have no idea what they are doing, and people pay hundreds for badly composed and badly lit portraits. Their clients could have done better themselves with a selfie on their cells."

Somewhat naively, I suggested that as word got around that this or that photographer was useless, they would go out of business.

"No, you don't get it. Good photographers are often booked months or years in advance, whereas these clowns are always available. There are always people who decide they have to get married immediately, or who forgot to book in advance, and have to take whatever photographer is available. And it's these guys! They're always available on short notice because they're everybody's last choice. But that happens often enough to keep them in business forever! And since they're still there a year, two years later, people think they must be legit."

"Well," I say, "what's the problem? You have more than enough business, so what do you care?"

"Because people look at what these clowns do and think that's professional photography, because they paid professional rates for those photos. So when they hate the pictures, they think photography is a scam and decide not to bother again. There's a whole generation of consumers growing up thinking they can do as well with their phone cameras. My art, what I contribute, is discredited along with the bozos."

Oh.

And then it occurred to me the same pretty much applies to editing. I constantly see postings seeking editors like this from June 7: "If you are interested and would like to start working today please contact me." My staff (Hey, did I mention I have staff now? I should do a post on that!) are booked through to September at least, and I personally have project commitments to keep me going well into the new year, so I cannot even think about responding to that request. So I can't help wondering, what's the hurry? Whom did that guy expect would have an immediate, out-of-the-blue opening in their work schedule to take on an 83,000 word book project today? (And how fast did they think one could properly edit 83,000 words?)

Photo credit   [Not actually my desk: I almost never handle paper manuscripts anymore, but a screenshot of an overflowing file folder on my computer desktop doesn't have the same visceral response....]

I understand that after working months or years on a manuscript, it's natural for an author to want to celebrate by getting it out the door and to the editor. But um. I haven't had an immediate opening on my editing schedule for the past three years, and I only started the business six years ago. So unless someone is brand new, or just had an unexpected cancellation (authors do occasionally drop dead or go bankrupt or give up writing or announce they are going to be two months behind schedule getting their manuscript back to you), I can't help but wondering if we aren't dealing with another case of 'wedding photographer'.

Maybe if one has invested months or years in a manuscript, one should be prepared to invest a little patience in getting their first choice for editor. Or, you know, scheduled editing ahead of time.

The Fantasy Novelist's Exam

The Fantasy Novelist's Exam is a list of common cliches in fantasy, so if you find any of these elements in your own story, you need to immediately edit them out... I think this was intended to be humorous, but as an editor, I'm not laughing because I indeed see all of these things across my desk way too often.

What Not to Say to an Editor

Neo-Opsis editor, Karl Johanson, during a panel with and Laurie Smith at KeyCon (Winnipeg, May 2016) gives an example of something not to say to any editor when submitting a manuscript:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekXhdWbmZ5o

I would add another thing not to say: what precautions one has taken against the editor stealing one's ideas. Because, that's not only telling the editor that one does not trust him or her (and why would I want to work with someone who insults me by suggesting I'm a thief?), it's making it pretty clear that they (a) have a grossly over-inflated sense of how original and creative their ideas are; and that (b) they think coming up with the story idea is the hard part of writing. So that pretty much flags one as paranoid, likely to be a bad writer and difficult to work with. In other words, an easy, instant rejection.

As with Karl's example of a 'don't do that', I never thought I'd actually ever get one of these paranoid cover letters—even though every other editor has their own examples—but we have already had to deal with a couple of these.... It just completely sad, and not just because it means an instant rejection.

(Unless the writer is 12 or under. I am prepared to cut a 12-year-old a certain amount of slack here because they are too immature to . But if you're tempted to write that cover letter when you're in your 30s, you need to seek the counsel of a mental health professional. Seriously.)

I also have had to listen to a couple of semi-pro writers talk about how this or that editor ripped off their idea. In one case the writer complained how an editor's recent award-winning story was actually their rejected submission of a few months earlier. All one can do is frown and nod sympathetically...because that is just patent nonsense. Sure, both stories had a spaceship, and both stories used the word 'hyperdrive' at some point, but really? You don't see a difference in the writing? You don't think that is a sufficiently generic trope that it might come up once or twice before? It's just embarrassing.

I know a number of editors have said they had to stop writing once they became editors to avoid countless accusations of this type. Fortunately, this has not been an issue for me: apparently, no one wishes to claim credit for any of my stories....

  — — — — — —

Of course...none of that applies to dealing with anyone connected to Hollywood. Those guys are sharks, and do not—judging by recent remakes and releases—have any original ideas of their own.

---

Oh, say! Karl posted a part two:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX-jyRxfqTA

Another good point!

Query Letters

Here is a good article on query letters by Jane Friedman, though I am a bit skeptical about her comments on simultaneous submissions. I think that depends on the particular market you are in. Similarly, if a publisher's guidelines ask for something specific, then do that in your submission to that publisher, rather than what any advice columnist says: publishers guidelines always trump generic guidelines. But in general, Jane's column is a good clear discussion.

Strangers Among Us Anthology

Got my contributor's copy of Strangers Among Us in the mail yesterday. Pretty pleased with the production values, and the company I am keeping in this anthology. The anthology will be officially launched August 12, 2016 at When Words Collide Festival in Calgary (at which, coincidentally, I am Editor Guest. I'm told as Editor Guest I get to do a 15 minute reading, so will have to see if I can maybe read this one..though it might be a little long.)

I had hoped to immerse myself in reading the stories by my fellow contributors this afternoon, but Tigana snatched it out of my hands as it came out of the packaging and ran off with it first. (That's her bookmark you can see sticking up from the book—I had to borrow it back to take the photo...)

Copyright Law Changes and the Decline of Canadian Publishing

I have been reacting in various listserve discussions to articles like this one in the Globe and Mail which purport to show that the recent changes in Canadian copyright law are robbing authors of their royalties and killing off publishers. It is, of course, pure nonsense. Correlation is not causation, and the confabulation of copyright changes and troubles in textbook and other publishing is often a deliberate attempt by corporate lobbyists to grab off more than their fair share of the writer's revenues. Michael Geist has written a much better researched and argued piece on the topic than I could, so I refer you to his column "False Alarms: Examining the Misleading Claims About the State of Canadian Publishers". Highly recommended.

Story Cliches

I was considering submitting a story to Strange Horizons Magazine and happened upon this list of "Stories We've Seen Too Often" attached to their "Guidelines" page. I was laughing heartily at the hopeless hackneyed ideas of these unsophisticated and unimaginative beginners. . . when I realized that the story I intended to submit was #5 on the list.

*Sigh*

Clearly there is no point submitting this story to any SF venue if my plot is #5 (on a list of 51) SF cliches.

There is nothing for it but to throw it out. . . to CanLit markets. (Well, might be new idea to their editors!)