Monday 2, 2009

I thought that Alan D. Williams' "What is an Editor" was insightful with regards to laying out the multi-faceted duties of a successful editor, as well as describing the overall importance a good editor plays in the success of an author. As Williams says, for the author, "the editor is acting as the first truly disinterested reader, giving the author not only constructive help but also, one hopes, the first inkling of how reviewers, readers, and the marketplace will react, so that the author can revise accordingly." Williams' assertion that an editor must be involved in every step of the process is one that seems like a no-brainer in the modern day, especially given what I learned from Richard Curtis' essay.

In M. Lincoln Schuster's "An open letter to a would-be Editor," I was, frankly, shocked by some of the things confessed by Schuster with regards to the realities of editing; one of which being the idea that some editors don't get to read a word of the actual manuscript before having to make a final decision. However, despite such harrowing passages, Schuster's essay was probably my favorite so far this quarter, not only for its useful information, but also for the passion Schuster clearly holds towards editing.

Richard Curtis' essay, "Are Editors Necessary?", like many of the pieces we have read thus far, also points out that despite cries for the (mostly) fictitious "good old days," editors are in danger of finding themselves obsolete unless they can evolve along with the world, with one of the key ingredients being a culture of editors who can shake off the notion that taking risks is not worth it in the editing and publishing industry. I also thought Curtis' closing time-scale was a funny, though overtly hyperbolic touch.