Editing and publication questions

[GNTLGNT]

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?

….it is an individual choice.....reach for the stars or be happy at ground level....

 

[Gerald]

….it is an individual choice.....reach for the stars or be happy at ground level....

Once you're an adult it is, but initially in youth you're pushed strongly towards perfection through schooling. That is your initial contact with society when you're starting to develop outside your home environment. That is how you form your perception of society: try to be the best and it will be the most rewarding. There is a strong element of competition right away, because only one can be the best.
But you also see it in the age old pursuit of physical beauty. It's a big part of culture in the way of media and advertising, with a strong emphasis on physical perfection, and presenting products in a way that makes them look ideal at a surface level.

But back to narratives in books and films. It doesn't take me out of a story if a car didn''t exist in a certain year, or if a gun doesn't work the way it's described. Most of those things you don't know anyway unless you look them up. Yet this is the sort of thing SK (and other writers) try to do very right and excuse for if they were wrong. And the public is eager to point these things out: Ian Fleming got letters too if something was wrong in his Bond-books and he would make the changes.

But in the end: is it really important? What takes me out of a book is when it's poorly written or characters make choices that don't make sense, or if the plot is really weak. Not whether a detail is completely according to reality.

 

[GNTLGNT]

Once you're an adult it is, but initially in youth you're pushed strongly towards perfection through schooling. That is your initial contact with society when you're starting to develop outside your home environment. That is how you form your perception of society: try to be the best and it will be the most rewarding. There is a strong element of competition right away, because only one can be the best.
But you also see it in the age old pursuit of physical beauty. It's a big part of culture in the way of media and advertising, with a strong emphasis on physical perfection, and presenting products in a way that makes them look ideal at a surface level.

But back to narratives in books and films. It doesn't take me out of a story if a car didn''t exist in a certain year, or if a gun doesn't work the way it's described. Most of those things you don't know anyway unless you look them up. Yet this is the sort of thing SK (and other writers) try to do very right and excuse for if they were wrong. And the public is eager to point these things out: Ian Fleming got letters too if something was wrong in his Bond-books and he would make the changes.

But in the end: is it really important? What takes me out of a book is when it's poorly written or characters make choices that don't make sense, or if the plot is really weak. Not whether a detail is completely according to reality.

....well said....

 

[Gerald]

Perfection is a strange concept anyway. Because essentially it's a subjective thing: what's perfect to one person doesn't have to be to another. Yet as a whole I think it's what humanity always strives for. Which is strange, because when you lived long enough, you realize there are very few things that are perfect, if any at all.

For me it also has to do with 'order'. Of all King's stories the one that resonates with me most is 'N'. When you have O.C.D. you seem to strive for a certain perfection too. You derive a certain satisfaction from the idea that everything is in order, and nothing is wrong. You check things over and over, to see if they still are okay.
I don't know what causes O.C.D. exactly, but it feels not simply like being a control-freak. It's just that you want things to be very perfect and derive comfort from that somehow. And the reason feels to me that life at large feels chaotic and messy - you want to make sure at least the things you have control over are fine and you hate it when they're not. It's not that you want obsessive control over everything, but when you come across something that is perfect, or goes well, you derive satisfaction from that, and you basically wish everything could always be like that - which in reality it isn't.

The thing though is that perfection is a human concept I think. I wouldn't be surprised if ultimately it exists because it makes humans feel like they triumph over that chaos. Yet what seems chaos to us, probably isn't at all: the universe exists and works, just not by our criterion of what perfection is. When there is something that is very beautiful and perfect to us, like say a flower, it's very easy for this world to destroy it - by a force of nature for example, or simply stepping on it. And even when it lives, eventually it will wither and die. This does not correspond with our idea of perfection, yet it is the way the universe works. Basically every time we strive for perfection we battle the way the universe works. Just like in 'N', where the guy just tries to stop the chaos from coming through by making sure everything is ordered and okay,

 

[Gerald]

I still had some questions about editing and publication:

What are the officiial terms for the way SK organizes his books? He always does it different from book to book of course, but often there is this structure:

there are a number of main Parts - these are divided in chapters, and then the chapters are divided in numbered sections.

What terms do the editors use to describe these?

 

[Moderator]

I still had some questions about editing and publication:

What are the officiial terms for the way SK organizes his books? He always does it different from book to book of course, but often there is this structure:

there are a number of main Parts - these are divided in chapters, and then the chapters are divided in numbered sections.

What terms do the editors use to describe these?

Honestly don't know what the publishers' term is other than possibly chapters and subchapters as I never really thought about it before. They format it just as Steve has when he's submitted the manuscript and I'm guessing he's done it in whatever way made sense to him for that particular book when he was writing it.

 

[Gerald]

Honestly don't know what the publishers' term is other than possibly chapters and subchapters as I never really thought about it before. They format it just as Steve has when he's submitted the manuscript and I'm guessing he's done it in whatever way made sense to him for that particular book when he was writing it.

You've worked with him so long, if there were terms for it, you'd probably know. Unless you've got absolutely nothing to do with the editing process.

It seems to me the editors would sometimes have contact with him about certain things though and then they would need a term to describe the numbered 'subchapters', for example.

And of course he changes it from book to book, based on how he feels it works best for that particular book. I like he always changes it around.

 

[Moderator]

You've worked with him so long, if there were terms for it, you'd probably know. Unless you've got absolutely nothing to do with the editing process.

It seems to me the editors would sometimes have contact with him about certain things though and then they would need a term to describe the numbered 'subchapters', for example.

And of course he changes it from book to book, based on how he feels it works best for that particular book. I like he always changes it around.

I'm not directly in that loop as the editors send the actual manuscript pages (albeit they can be digital ones these days) to him marked up with their corrections/suggestions. He can see exactly where/what the corrections are without their needing to cite the material's location. Alternatively, they can give him the page number of the manuscript and then quote or describe the material that needs editing.

 

[Gerald]

I'm not directly in that loop as the editors send the actual manuscript pages (albeit they can be digital ones these days) to him marked up with their corrections/suggestions. He can see exactly where/what the corrections are without their needing to cite the material's location. Alternatively, they can give him the page number of the manuscript and then quote or describe the material that needs editing.

A term for each section is not directly needed in that case, but I figured maybe he's sometimes on the phone with one of the editors. It's quite personal work in a way, correcting and making suggestions for an author, I figure he talks with his usual editors (like Nan Graham) from time to time.

 

[wolfphoenix]

I'm not directly in that loop as the editors send the actual manuscript pages (albeit they can be digital ones these days) to him marked up with their corrections/suggestions. He can see exactly where/what the corrections are without their needing to cite the material's location. Alternatively, they can give him the page number of the manuscript and then quote or describe the material that needs editing.

But why? You should be in that particular loop! Editrix goddess.
IMHO.

 

[Moderator]

A term for each section is not directly needed in that case, but I figured maybe he's sometimes on the phone with one of the editors. It's quite personal work in a way, correcting and making suggestions for an author, I figure he talks with his usual editors (like Nan Graham) from time to time.

Of course, but they have it figured out how to make sure they're on the same page--literally.

 

[Moderator]

But why? You should be in that particular loop! Editrix goddess.
IMHO.

No need and that's above my pay-grade so happy not to be in that particular loop.

 

[Gerald]

Of course, but they have it figured out how to make sure they're on the same page--literally.

Do most famous/bestseller writers still use editors? Is it mandatory if you want to publish through the major publishing companies? Or is it more that some authors want it themselves? Does Steve want it himself or is it required for him too?

 

[Moderator]

Do most famous/bestseller writers still use editors? Is it mandatory if you want to publish through the major publishing companies? Or is it more that some authors want it themselves? Does Steve want it himself or is it required for him too?

I can only speak for my experience with him but yes, he does want it as the writer can be too close to the material and not see where improvements need to be made.

 

[Gerald]

I can only speak for my experience with him but yes, he does want it as the writer can be too close to the material and not see where improvements need to be made.

I believe his only books that weren't edited are the first four Dark Tower books. Yet I can't notice anything different with those from his other books that were edited. Actually I find the writing in The Gunslinger (the parts he actually wrote when he was young, the new part less so) some of his best ever.

 

[Moderator]

I believe his only books that weren't edited are the first four Dark Tower books. Yet I can't notice anything different with those from his other books that were edited. Actually I find the writing in The Gunslinger (the parts he actually wrote when he was young, the new part less so) some of his best ever.

But then, you don't know what has been changed in the books that have been edited so might have a different opinion. The primary reason he wanted to edit the earlier Dark Tower books was to bring in more continuity now that the story has been told.

 

[Gerald]

But then, you don't know what has been changed in the books that have been edited so might have a different opinion. The primary reason he wanted to edit the earlier Dark Tower books was to bring in more continuity now that the story has been told.

So, they have been edited by now?
I was under the impression he only changed The Gunslinger. That Drawing of the Three, The Waste Lands and Wizard and Glass were unchanged. I read The Gunslinger before he revised it and find it some of his best writing ever (apart from the last part which he added as an adult much later).

 

[Moderator]

So, they have been edited by now?
I was under the impression he only changed The Gunslinger. That Drawing of the Three, The Waste Lands and Wizard and Glass were unchanged. I read The Gunslinger before he revised it and find it some of his best writing ever (apart from the last part which he added as an adult much later).

Just The Gunslinger. I think he may have given up on the others as he has had too many ideas to write new books.

 

[Gerald]

Just The Gunslinger. I think he may have given up on the others as he has had too many ideas to write new books.

Well, I don't feel or see much difference between those four unedited books and his other work that was edited. In fact I find Gunslinger one of his best.
Wizard and Glass is a bit slow perhaps, but never uninteresting - it also may be you're more aware of the tempo because it starts off literally at high speed with Blaine the Mono at collision course - usually his books don't start off in full speed.

So from that perspective it's still a bit of a riddle (something Blaine would love) to me what it is the editors actually change.

 

[Moderator]

Well, I don't feel or see much difference between those four unedited books and his other work that was edited. In fact I find Gunslinger one of his best.
Wizard and Glass is a bit slow perhaps, but never uninteresting - it also may be you're more aware of the tempo because it starts off literally at high speed with Blaine the Mono at collision course - usually his books don't start off in full speed.

So from that perspective it's still a bit of a riddle (something Blaine would love) to me what it is the editors actually change.

Although she isn't an "official" editor, after Tabby read Bag of Bones, Steve deleted an entire section he'd written about what Mike Noonan was doing after Jo died. He explained to Tabby that he thought readers might want to know what Mike had been doing and Tabby's response was that "(he) didn't need to bore them to death doing it." That's one example of how it took someone else to point out a section that Steve might have thought was good but others might not.