Good editors should be like God: bringing forth miracles without showing their hands.
Do bad editors think they are God?
Do writers sell their souls in order to sell their work?
Are some writer-editor collaborations dishonest? Is work marketed as Carveresque when it's really Lishy?
Should there be two bylines? Should the byline be the editor's, "from an idea by...?"
I haven't read Raymond Carver, but I recently read up on the controversy around Gordon Lish's editing of Carver's short stories.
It's hard not to feel that Lish found the voice Carver was struggling towards. The qualities in Carver's stories that earned such widespread praise seem to be the work of Lish's scalpel—or sometimes meat cleaver--with some purely Lish additions.
So—who was the great writer? Is Raymond Carver, the author, a mythological beast, a chimera? Or did Carver the writer just receive the appropriate therapeutic treatment that enabled his work to thrive?
It's been said in columns [on Flash Fiction Chronicles] that writing is a business, and everyone involved—writer, editor, PR departments—is a partner in marketing a work.
That's true if you want it to be—if your overriding goal is to be published. It's urgently true if you're trying to make a living by what you write.
In letters, Carver expressed anguish and deeply-conflicted feelings about his collaboration with Lish—and how his reputation as an artist depended on its continuance. Recent reissues of Carver's work, with the oversight of his wife/literary executor, present some stories in their original form and question some of Lish's actions and choices.
Did Lish save an alcoholic writer's flashes of talent and turn them into art? Did he hijack Carver's own vision but help both of them get rich?
I'd say the only truly honest way to reissue Carver's stories would be by including an additional byline. Lish took raw meat and turned it into a prime steak dinner. To be angry about that now—after the accolades and the money—is like sending the plate back to the kitchen after you've polished off the meal.
I'm not likely to get rich from my writing. But I had what Carver didn't—editors who told me straight-out what didn't work, suggested how I might approach the problem, and never altered my own voice. I thank them for what they taught me. That's treasure that can't be quantified.
I edited ten books on Hakka Boxing and Southern Praying Mantis. The author was kind enough to give me credit when he posted the books on Amazon.com. A good author and editor work as a team.
This is a really interesting idea, sharing credit and bylines for author and editor. I can think of some of my own work (mostly academic papers) that I would have been thrilled to slam a second author on if it meant an editor that could get it published and save me that miserable end step. I have a very hard time editing my own work, or even writing the same piece twice, so a co-author who fixes it into something better even if the core insights and ideas were mine seems like a great deal.
I can imagine some people just don't have the same problems I do, or maybe feel that their editors just don't contribute much, but I could see myself signing up for co-author-editor credits, especially if it was clear what the division of labor was.
Now, could I see myself following an Editor like I follow an Author? That's trickier. I have read pretty much everything Terry Pratchett has ever written, but some of his co-authored works were a slog for me where I could see he wasn't contributing much and I didn't care for the co-author's style. An editor that is really good at taking dross and reforging it into something solid is conceivable, but that is starting to sound like an author and less an editor.
Anyway, interesting piece!