|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > SFReader > Ask The Expert > What Makes a BAD Editor? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
nathan
Sage
      
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2178
| Posted 7/4/2007 9:00 PM (GMT -5) |   |
Daniel said...
Editors who don't get classic literary/mythological/symbology references.
Editors who can only judge work in styles/genres they personal like or approve of.
Sociopaths
***
Charlatans!!!
Narrow-minded bigots!!!
Swine!
The only good editor is a drunk editor!
NOW we're on to something!
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 7/4/2007 8:50 PM (GMT -5) | | | Editors who don't get classic literary/mythological/symbology references.
Editors who can only judge work in styles/genres they personal like or approve of.
Sociopaths
***
Charlatans!!!
Narrow-minded bigots!!!
Swine!
The only good editor is a drunk editor!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2178
| Posted 7/4/2007 8:35 PM (GMT -5) | | Why would sarcasm ever be useful except as an exercise in ego for the person laying it out?
Rejection comes with the territory. Buck up. Terse rejection come with the massive slush piles. Buck up.
Taking the time to be snotty? What the hell does that say about them?
Not paying? That's called theft. Slow responses are such a problem in this industry. It really ruins things in a lot of ways but it's not anyones fault, I don't think (?)
New Authors? I weep like a baby that the industry has changed from a focus on career-building to one of lottory ticket mindsets. Weep for babylon, weep...
Here's a few of my own:
Editors who don't get classic literary/mythological/symbology references.
Editors who can only judge work in styles/genres they personal like or approve of.
Sociopaths.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 7/4/2007 7:46 PM (GMT -5) | | I'm at my best pissed off: success is the greatest revenge!
***
Hey anger and revenge worked for Sylvia Plath, but then again she had to kill herself to really make her point!
Anger and revenge do make better emotions for writers than supplication and devotion,at least if you listen to the Beat writers, whom I certainly don't take as role models, personally, but advise others to do so, copiously. At least most of the time! On Sundays. And when it is appropriate and advisable for the maintenance of my sacred hypocratic vows.
Or is that hippocratic? Or hippocampus?!?! Something in the brain, anyway, if not in the sacred sunflower, by all good authority! And by that I mean Blake, or at least someone who claimed to know him. Ah!
What I mean is, beyond all voodoo and voodoo dolls:
Living well is the best revenge!!!
LOL
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel | | Back to Top | | |
|
Camille Alexa
fictionista
Date Joined Jun 2007
Total Posts : 629
| Posted 7/4/2007 7:43 PM (GMT -5) | |
Daniel said...
(following up on BitterHermit's "good Editor" thread)
OK writers, let's hear it!
What does, in your opinion, make a bad editor?
Well, not necessarily a bad editor, but...
An editor who accepts only email subs (which I adore, by the way), but doesn't give any indication of receipt--in the form of an auto-response or anything else--within a few days (I'm not talking about acceptance/rejection; merely acknowledgement of submission).
I know for a fact I'm treading close to a couple of local toes, but there you have it.
Also, and this is the rudest thing imaginable, in my opinion: "We respond only to accepted submissions/queries... No simultaneous submissions."
Yuck, and completely unethical. And also, Yuck Again.
I think it's in no way an editor's job to crit one's piece (though I suppose it is his or her prerogative). A simple, polite 'yea, thank you' or 'nay, thank you' is the only requirement. Anyone who has ever slush-wrangled or edited would probably not demand otherwise. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hermit
Diavhrati Luminary
Date Joined May 2007
Total Posts : 1785
| Posted 7/4/2007 6:20 PM (GMT -5) | |
Daniel said...
(following up on BitterHermit's "good Editor" thread)
OK writers, let's hear it!
What does, in your opinion, make a bad editor?
I have some ideas:
1) Editors who have too-slow response times. If you are going to edit a pub, freakin' do your job!
I think I'm on fire . . .
2) Editors who make sarcastic comments on rejections.
I thought you liked being insulted; aren't all literary types afflicted with martyr complexes? How can it be bad of me to justify your self-image?
3) Editors who don't pay authors on time according to contracts.
My first divorce and subsequent bankruptcy taught me the value of contracts - oh! and I'm just following the lead from the Hill . . .
4) Editors who have little or no track record of publishing new authors.
Thank you! At least I've got that going for me. 
5) Editors who routinely ask you to submit future work but never accept anything!
Sometimes no means no. And yet we condition it to protect ourselves from appearing despotic.
Seriously, though, I agree with these points as far as pro pubs go, but you really have to cut us PT bastards some slack. Especially with response times. Not on payment. Sarcastic remarks can be useful, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. Sarcasm rarely works in writing unless you know each other well enough to realize the tone. Number four may merely signify a weak or immature editor - those standards may be set by a higher authority (respect it or not). Any editor guilty of #5 is doing himself a disfavor by not clearly identifying the reason for the rejection and holding out guidance to said writer.
Exile of my own dull vice. . . | | Back to Top | | |
|
erazmus
Master
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 4557
| Posted 7/4/2007 4:14 PM (GMT -5) | | | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
|  Posted 7/4/2007 4:04 PM (GMT -5) | | | (following up on BitterHermit's "good Editor" thread)
OK writers, let's hear it!
What does, in your opinion, make a bad editor?
I have some ideas:
1) Editors who have too-slow response times. If you are going to edit a pub, freakin' do your job!
2) Editors who make sarcastic comments on rejections.
3) Editors who don't pay authors on time according to contracts.
4) Editors who have little or no track record of publishing new authors.
5) Editors who routinely ask you to submit future work but never accept anything!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction." Daniel | | Back to Top | | |
| 88 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:20 PM (GMT -5)
There are a total of 85,850 posts in 7,124 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 20 new threads and 80 reply posts. View Active Threads
| | Who's Online | This forum has 1335 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, rowdyphantom.
11 Guest(s), 1 Registered Member(s) are currently online. Details
T A Markitan |
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP2
dotNetBB © 2000-2009
(c) SFReader |
|
|
|