"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."

"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."

"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."

There are a lot of responses to this post but what about the actually process of editing?

I'm in the process of having my novel edited and so far I am quite happy with the editor. Her comments are relevant and insightful and I think the novel will be better because of them. I am in Canada and she lives in Japn so we are corresponding via email. The ms is a Word file and her comments / edits show up using the track changes function in Word. Ditto for my changes and comments. It's a great way to edit a novel, at least for me. Comments are readable and easy to spot as you page through the document.

What are other peoples experiences in this regard? Do you feel your editor is 'adding value' (buzz word bingo anyone?), is the process of editing making the book better?

My answer is a definite yes.

A pattern of that kind of non-communication might make for a bad editor, but a singular inciendent is thin evidence.

My condolences and sympathies, though. How does your submission line up to the guidelines? If you're too far off of center from theme, I'd like send something similar just to keep from venting. I've done it. "Great peice. Loved it. Can't use it. Just not what we're looking for." Usually carries a subtext of, "we're looking for folks who can read and follow the call for submissions and not send us tangential, though well-written and entertaining peices." OR "Wow. I have no reason to reject this other than the fact that it won't fit with what we've already chosen." OR "Gee. I have no reason to reject this other than the strange line in your intro letter claiming to have read our zine and I personally know you're never seen a copy as no one within three states has ever ordered from us."

Or: "My wife's nagging me to take out the trash, so I can't finish your story, but I want to be timely in rejecting it, so ... you're not what we're looking for, which is to say that that for which we seek is not you." "COMING Cindy! For gods' sakes! Get Joey off his damned gameboy and have him take out the stinking garbage!"

Here's my major grief with this particular communication.

WHAT the HELL does YOU have to do with editors and writers in this particular relationship? NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING! To make personal statements of value about anything BUT the work is very unprofessional.

"This is very interesting writing. But it is not what we had in mind; seems somewhat tangential to our stated guidelines."

NEVER: your writing or you are anything. Who is anyone to tell anyone else based on one interaction much of anything about them or their work? As editors, we talk about the writing. Never the person. Never the talent. It is business; we deal with the product. The only reason to have personal correspondence with an unfamiliar writer is for the sake of mentoring and building a new, reliable source of content. What a waste of time and energy. Forgivable, but stupid.

That would be nice and fuzzy and friendly, but the editor who wrote that wanted to never see work from this author again. Or at least should expect to never hear from said author in any constructive manner. Better to just say, "Hey. Nice try. Enjoyed the writing. Sorry, but it does not fit our publication. Please wait 24 months to submit further work."

If the writer is serious, he or she should make serious strides in writing skills within two years. If they're not serious . . . they'll forget about you and likely submit something next time they scan Writer's Market and like the name of your publication or because they're playing shotgun submission.