Editing and publication questions

[Gerald]

He's been quite productive this year. In addition to the above, he's written four (IIRC from what he told me a while back) short stories. What he has done is cut back on interview requests and appearances which gives him more time to do his writing.

But he doesn't always edit his books anymore, it seems. He often thanks others for editiing in the back of his books (someone named Nan Graham I believe). So I guess he does a rough draft of a book and then hands it over?
I suppose only his very early books were edited completely by himself? Since young, unpublished writers seldom have editors.

 

[Moderator]

But he doesn't always edit his books anymore, it seems. He often thanks others for editiing in the back of his books (someone named Nan Graham I believe). So I guess he does a rough draft of a book and then hands it over?
I suppose only his very early books were edited completely by himself? Since young, unpublished writers seldom have editors.

That would be an incorrect assumption or perhaps a misunderstanding of the process. His books have been edited for as long as I've worked with him and well before that. The editor's job is to go through and find places that they feel need changes and it's then Steve's job to do the actual changes, not the editor. They may suggest a different wording but ultimately, it's his decision whether he accepts the suggestion or rewrites it a different way. The books are also copyedited (by a different editor) for continuity, misspellings that weren't caught earlier, to pick up errors about products (e.g. a product wasn't in existence at the time mentioned, etc.).

 

[Gerald]

That would be an incorrect assumption or perhaps a misunderstanding of the process. His books have been edited for as long as I've worked with him and well before that. The editor's job is to go through and find places that they feel need changes and it's then Steve's job to do the actual changes, not the editor. They may suggest a different wording but ultimately, it's his decision whether he accepts the suggestion or rewrites it a different way. The books are also copyedited (by a different editor) for continuity, misspellings that weren't caught earlier, to pick up errors about products (e.g. a product wasn't in existence at the time mentioned, etc.).

But that still means a lot of the work is taken out of his hands. If he were to do all those things himself, it would take considerable more time for a book to be finished for actual printing.
I suppose he's been edited since Carrie and maybe only the early Bachman books are unedited?

I also read somewhere the Dark Tower books are the only ones that weren't edited at all. Although I can't remember where I read it or in which context.

Even though he has a general style I would probably recognize anywhere, the books still can feel different from each other in tone. Part it is to do with the story and characters themselves of course, but also factors like which editor worked on it, and which translator add to that feeling.
Actually I should be reading them all in English, but I still read the Dutch ones too - I just always liked the feel of the books as they are printed here: the way they do the covers, the size, the paper etc.
Since a lot of writers in the horrorfield don't get translated here at all, I've been reading more and more in English. You can see though that writers in this field are often popular during certain periods: I worked in a second-hand book store and found many pockets with Dutch translations of Matheson or Lovecraft and they were from the early seventies (of course I bought them).
Most writers in the horrorfield don't have that thing as with King where they get reprinted over and over - at least not here. Even writers like Barker and Koontz, they stopped translating here lately, probably because they don't sell enough anymore.

 

[Moderator]

But that still means a lot of the work is taken out of his hands. If he were to do all those things himself, it would take considerable more time for a book to be finished for actual printing.
I suppose he's been edited since Carrie and maybe only the early Bachman books are unedited?

I also read somewhere the Dark Tower books are the only ones that weren't edited at all. Although I can't remember where I read it or in which context.

Even though he has a general style I would probably recognize anywhere, the books still can feel different from each other in tone. Part it is to do with the story and characters themselves of course, but also factors like which editor worked on it, and which translator add to that feeling.
Actually I should be reading them all in English, but I still read the Dutch ones too - I just always liked the feel of the books as they are printed here: the way they do the covers, the size, the paper etc.
Since a lot of writers in the horrorfield don't get translated here at all, I've been reading more and more in English. You can see though that writers in this field are often popular during certain periods: I worked in a second-hand book store and found many pockets with Dutch translations of Matheson or Lovecraft and they were from the early seventies (of course I bought them).
Most writers in the horrorfield don't have that thing as with King where they get reprinted over and over - at least not here. Even writers like Barker and Koontz, they stopped translating here lately, probably because they don't sell enough anymore.

Steve does make some edits to the first draft before it goes to the publisher for editing. I've seen times when there can be three of four subsequent drafts because of the back/forth between his editor and the changes he makes after they've made suggestions so I'm not sure just how much time is saved. It's possible he would have spent less time because he would otherwise not have made as many changes.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Bachman books were edited as well when they were published by NAL as they knew it was Steve using a pseudonym. Elaine Koster was his editor at Penguin/NAL at that time. It is correct that the first four Dark Tower books were not edited, though, which is one of the reasons why Steve has thought about going through each of them as he did for The Gunslinger.

What I have heard from other writers, at least early on in their careers is that they didn't feel they had much control over changes their editors made to their books. It was a "do the changes or your book doesn't get published" directive but as they became more popular, they felt they could say no when the changes being asked for didn't feel right to them.

 

[Gerald]

Steve does make some edits to the first draft before it goes to the publisher for editing. I've seen times when there can be three of four subsequent drafts because of the back/forth between his editor and the changes he makes after they've made suggestions so I'm not sure just how much time is saved. It's possible he would have spent less time because he would otherwise not have made as many changes.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Bachman books were edited as well when they were published by NAL as they knew it was Steve using a pseudonym. Elaine Koster was his editor at Penguin/NAL at that time. It is correct that the first four Dark Tower books were not edited, though, which is one of the reasons why Steve has thought about going through each of them as he did for The Gunslinger.

What I have heard from other writers, at least early on in their careers is that they didn't feel they had much control over changes their editors made to their books. It was a "do the changes or your book doesn't get published" directive but as they became more popular, they felt they could say no when the changes being asked for didn't feel right to them.

But why did the first four Dark Tower books 'escape' the editing process?

Also a special case is The Stand. I'm always surprised that he did such a long book so early on. Not counting the Bachman books, it's only his fourth after Carrie, Salem's Lot and The Shining.
Did he have to edit so much out himself - or was it done by an editior entitely? Because that must be a painful process to make a long book that much shorter.

Also, nowadays, couldn't he just publish without an editior entirely? He's been a writer so long and even has written a book about writing. Why does he still need an editor?

 

[Gerald]

Salem's Lot is considerably longer than Carrie or the Bachman books, but even then it's still big jump to the 1152 pages of The Stand that early - and it still remains his longest.

Actually it seems from the beginning he had an ambition to write long books. He always wanted the Dark Tower to be long, he writes in one of the prefaces. Although he can not give a clear explanation as to why he wanted it to be so long. It just seems he always had this ambition to work on an epic scale.

 

[Moderator]

But why did the first four Dark Tower books 'escape' the editing process?

Also a special case is The Stand. I'm always surprised that he did such a long book so early on. Not counting the Bachman books, it's only his fourth after Carrie, Salem's Lot and The Shining.
Did he have to edit so much out himself - or was it done by an editior entitely? Because that must be a painful process to make a long book that much shorter.

Also, nowadays, couldn't he just publish without an editior entirely? He's been a writer so long and even has written a book about writing. Why does he still need an editor?

The Dark Tower books were published first by Donald M. Grant Publisher, a small independent press, and they did not have an on-staff editor.

Steve's editors have all been employees of the publishers he was currently contracted with, not someone he hires independently. Could he do it himself? Probably, but he's smart enough to know that there are times when having that other set of eyes will pick up things he would be too close to see. The editor picks up on places that are weak and/or could be improved to make the book even stronger by the time it gets to the public.

The reason The Stand was published in an unexpurgated edition in the '90s was because so much was cut from the original publication of the book, primarily to come up with a book that would be what the publisher thought was a more cost-efficient version. In other words, they didn't think they could make money on it in the full length he'd written it as they didn't think readers would pay for a longer book that would necessitate a higher sale price. In that case, he didn't have as much say over the edits the publisher wanted. It was before my time, so I don't know if their editors told him which sections had to get cut or if he made those decisions.

As for the length of books, they are as long as it takes for him to write the story. It's not something he goes into with the idea that they will be a set length.

 

[Moderator]

Gerald
These posts should probably all be put into a different thread as they don't have anything to do with the TV production of Lisey's Story. If you want to continue the discussion, let me know and I'll move them.

 

[Gerald]

The Dark Tower books were published first by Donald M. Grant Publisher, a small independent press, and they did not have an on-staff editor.

Steve's editors have all been employees of the publishers he was currently contracted with, not someone he hires independently. Could he do it himself? Probably, but he's smart enough to know that there are times when having that other set of eyes will pick up things he would be too close to see. The editor picks up on places that are weak and/or could be improved to make the book even stronger by the time it gets to the public.

The reason The Stand was published in an unexpurgated edition in the '90s was because so much was cut from the original publication of the book, primarily to come up with a book that would be what the publisher thought was a more cost-efficient version. In other words, they didn't think they could make money on it in the full length he'd written it as they didn't think readers would pay for a longer book that would necessitate a higher sale price. In that case, he didn't have as much say over the edits the publisher wanted. It was before my time, so I don't know if their editors told him which sections had to get cut or if he made those decisions.

As for the length of books, they are as long as it takes for him to write the story. It's not something he goes into with the idea that they will be a set length.

IT was edited here in translation, just like The Stand was. And I suspect for the same reason.

In the preface of The Dark Tower books he puts the epic length of it down to him being American - building the highest, digging the deepest, writing the longest. And then being surprised as to be asked: why? And then he puts it down to just 'it seemed like a good idea at the time'.

 

[Gerald]

Gerald
These posts should probably all be put into a different thread as they don't have anything to do with the TV production of Lisey's Story. If you want to continue the discussion, let me know and I'll move them.

Of course. Move them. I also been wondering about letter size. Why is there so much difference in the size of the letters in different books? I have a feeling there is currently a tendency to go with smaller letters - for example the hardcover of The Outsider has quite small letters.

Right now in the translations here, there is huge difference in letter size: some of his books very small, others regular, and others quite big.
I prefer sort of medium size - not too big, not too small.

Who does make that decision about letter size. And is it done for reasons of costs (fewer pages with smaller letters) or does it has nothing to do with that, because sometimes even when the page is quite big, they still make the letters small.

 

[Moderator]

Of course. Move them. I also been wondering about letter size. Why is there so much difference in the size of the letters in different books? I have a feeling there is currently a tendency to go with smaller letters - for example the hardcover of The Outsider has quite small letters.

Right now in the translations here, there is huge difference in letter size: some of his books very small, others regular, and others quite big.
I prefer sort of medium size - not too big, not too small.

Who does make that decision about letter size. And is it done for reasons of costs (fewer pages with smaller letters) or does it has nothing to do with that, because sometimes even when the page is quite big, they still make the letters small.

Those are all production decisions made by the publisher, for whatever reasons they've decided to make them.

 

[Gerald]

Those are all production decisions made by the publisher, for whatever reasons they've decided to make them.

There does not seem to be clear thinking to them. No one seems to know. I asked my bookseller too.

 

[Gerald]

Steve's editors have all been employees of the publishers he was currently contracted with, not someone he hires independently. Could he do it himself? Probably, but he's smart enough to know that there are times when having that other set of eyes will pick up things he would be too close to see. The editor picks up on places that are weak and/or could be improved to make the book even stronger by the time it gets to the public.

It's interesting that this is an element that always stays, even with someone who has written as much and has as much experience as SK. Why do you overlook things when you are close to something creatively?
And it seems to go mostly for writing, not painting for example.

When I look back at things I've written I see mistakes too. Why don't you see those at the time you are writing it?
The way writing goes is basically: one idea leads to another. You start with an idea 'wouldn't it be interesting if...' and then another idea comes and another. And when you're writing, you basically move from one idea to another. But along the way you make plenty of mistakes.
But you could also say, mistakes come with almost anything humans do. So it seems only natural it comes with creative processes too.

And then there is also that question for me: what does it matter? It's fiction, it's not that important, no lives depend on it.
Even after the editing and copy editing, people point out each mistake that is made in a book. And he also apologizes in each book for any mistakes he overlooked.
The most important thing is that a story grabs you and entertains you - it's not to be something entirely realistic. It shouldn't even be, because it's a story, it's more of an escape from reality.
Yet for a lot of people it's extremely important that each detail is correct.Why does this matter so much?

 

[Dana Jean]

It's interesting that this is an element that always stays, even with someone who has written as much and has as much experience as SK. Why do you overlook things when you are close to something creatively?
And it seems to go mostly for writing, not painting for example.

When I look back at things I've written I see mistakes too. Why don't you see those at the time you are writing it?
The way writing goes is basically: one idea leads to another. You start with an idea 'wouldn't it be interesting if...' and then another idea comes and another. And when you're writing, you basically move from one idea to another. But along the way you make plenty of mistakes.
But you could also say, mistakes come with almost anything humans do. So it seems only natural it comes with creative processes too.

And then there is also that question for me: what does it matter? It's fiction, it's not that important, no lives depend on it.
Even after the editing and copy editing, people point out each mistake that is made in a book. And he also apologizes in each book for any mistakes he overlooked.
The most important thing is that a story grabs you and entertains you - it's not to be something entirely realistic - it shouldn't even be, because it's a story, it's more of an escape from reality.
Yet for a lot of people it's extremely important that each detail is correct.Why does this matter so much?

To me it doesn't. I don't generally see those mistakes. Or, I just accept them as the author's vision. Whatever those "mistakes" are, whether it be grammar, punctuation or a physical aspect of the story. It's the author's world to make it whatever they want. It's the author's prerogative to stretch boundaries, play with language and conventional rules.

My brain fixes mistakes as I read. I have to be beaten over the head with mistakes before I notice them. And some people see every single thing.

 

[GNTLGNT]

...."Edits, Shmedits".....

 

[Moderator]

I was thinking of something a little different than a mistake in the traditional sense when I mentioned being too close to something that was written. The example that was in my head was a story Steve has told about Bag of Bones. When he first wrote it, he had a long section about Mike turning to volunteerism after Jo died to help him deal with her death. When Tabby read it, though, she did not enjoy that part of the book. Steve explained to her that he was trying to give readers a glimpse into Mike's life during that period but Tabby's response was along the lines of "you don't have to bore us to death to do it." That section got cut after a "suggestion" from his original editor and preferred reader.

 

[Spideyman]

I was thinking of something a little different than a mistake in the traditional sense when I mentioned being too close to something that was written. The example that was in my head was a story Steve has told about Bag of Bones. When he first wrote it, he had a long section about Mike turning to volunteerism after Jo died to help him deal with her death. When Tabby read it, though, she did not enjoy that part of the book. Steve explained to her that he was trying to give readers a glimpse into Mike's life during that period but Tabby's response was along the lines of "you don't have to bore us to death to do it." That section got cut after a "suggestion" from his original editor and preferred reader.

That's our Tabby!!

 

[Gerald]

To me it doesn't. I don't generally see those mistakes. Or, I just accept them as the author's vision. Whatever those "mistakes" are, whether it be grammar, punctuation or a physical aspect of the story. It's the author's world to make it whatever they want. It's the author's prerogative to stretch boundaries, play with language and conventional rules.

My brain fixes mistakes as I read. I have to be beaten over the head with mistakes before I notice them. And some people see every single thing.

There are mistakes and there is artistic licence. The line between these two can be very blurred.

It's a strange contradiction. I think SK wants every detail to be right, so the story is more convincing. But in the end what it is, is a story - it's not real by it's very definition.

 

[Gerald]

I was thinking of something a little different than a mistake in the traditional sense when I mentioned being too close to something that was written. The example that was in my head was a story Steve has told about Bag of Bones. When he first wrote it, he had a long section about Mike turning to volunteerism after Jo died to help him deal with her death. When Tabby read it, though, she did not enjoy that part of the book. Steve explained to her that he was trying to give readers a glimpse into Mike's life during that period but Tabby's response was along the lines of "you don't have to bore us to death to do it." That section got cut after a "suggestion" from his original editor and preferred reader.

In this case the section must have been extremely long, because SK is one of the writers that indulges strongly in sidelines in his books. Probably more than any author I can think of. I'm not always sure why he does that - I think more than just tell a story he wants to create a whole world in his books, where lots of things happen besides the main story.

In Revival for example the main story deals with the unusual bond between Jamie Morton and Charles Jacobs - initially a kind of friendship, which grows gradually darker. But on top of that there is a lot of stuff to do with Morton's family, including even a reunion of the family at a wedding anniversary right before the climax in the last chapters.
I wonder: was all that stuff about the family really necessary? Did it contribute anything to the overall story? All it did basically is to fill the gaps in between the parts where Jacobs enters the story, the interesting part. It seemed only to be done, to have the reader think: when will Jamie see Jacobs again - but by itself it wasn't overly interesting.

 

[Gerald]

To me it doesn't. I don't generally see those mistakes. Or, I just accept them as the author's vision. Whatever those "mistakes" are, whether it be grammar, punctuation or a physical aspect of the story. It's the author's world to make it whatever they want. It's the author's prerogative to stretch boundaries, play with language and conventional rules.

My brain fixes mistakes as I read. I have to be beaten over the head with mistakes before I notice them. And some people see every single thing.

I think it also has to do with the way we are raised. There is a strong emphasis on perfection from an early age: getting good grades in school, make no mistakes. Everything is constantly judged and valued. Everything is about competition and being the best at what you do, it's in sports for example, but sadly also in the arts (awards and things like that) where it basically should have no place. Why should creative expression be about perfectionism?

It's strange why there is this strong need for perfection, when life is so often full of imperfections. Or is it a reaction against that: is the striving for perfection a means to rise above the fact that life is essentially quite messy?