Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: ...I disagree with any poster that says that editors can't write. Any poster spreading such scurrilous rumours should study more about how Raymond Carver and Pat Conroy arrived at their brilliance. turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com I'm not quite sure about your reference here. According to Wikipedia, Carver spent only three years as a paid editor, and was fired for for his inappropriate writing style. I presume that means that he had ideas of his own. I find no reference that Conroy worked as a paid editor; he was mainly a teacher, although he shares the distinction with Carver of having been fired. Please fill me in if you know more; I don't know either of them as writers. I don't think I've ever suggested that editors can't write *English*. It's just that in my experience very few of them can write anything that they haven't been given a draft of that was written by someone else first. Y'know...the way Maharishi wrote his commentaries on the BhagavadGita after Vernon Katz had written them first.To clarify my earlier post, I meant Carver and Conroy owe a lot of their brilliance to their editors. Carver's break through collection of short stories: What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, was cut over 40% by his editor. Conroy's first three novels were given to his editor in long hand, on yellow legal pads, in first draft form, barely narratives and not finished novels. His editor finished the novels. I have no doubt that these two talented editors wrote creatively to help finish these excellent works of fiction. But I suspect you are making another broader point: - that editors are not doing anything original and therefore not creating anything, that the writer has not already created. In other words, you seem to imply that editors are not creative collaborators. If this is what you and Ellison are saying, I disagree particularly with these two authors. The editors in these two cases, I believe there are more, were essential for the authors to find their voices and finish the novels that found their audiences. In my opinion, PUBLISHED modern novels are a collaborative effort more like film than painting. We do not hesitate to credit Walter Murch - Coppola's and Manghella's editor on much of their best work, as a creative collaborator. Although literary editors are not credited this way, that does not mean that they are not collaborating creatively and indeed writing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: ONE PERSON sits down on the Throne Of Creativity and proceeds to grunt, groan, push, shove, and occasionally scream until the great turd of a novel is out. It may at this point in fact be too large a turd to sell in the turd marketplace, and a good editor can help it to slim down. seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net I think we can agree that this is a good (and funny) piece of writing. The wife just drove by with this. As much as I think Turq has a solid Zen practise, can't speak to his turds, he may need to consider more than sitting when discussing collaborative toilet training. For example, what about men who miss the hole, no matter how big it is and someone else comes after and cleans the mess up. Is that not collaborative? And what about this male talent for leaving a couple of squares on the roll so they don't have to change it? Not sure how creative anyone is being in your exchange but in my marketplace those are collaborative functions.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
Thanks for this Judy, couldn't agree with you more. I tend to give Stefen King a pass for his more recent offerings, as I'm sure you know, he was involved in that terrible car accident and I think he is close to legally blind. I keep buying his books in hopes he'll revert to his previous quality and besides that a lot of his 50+ Million personal fortune goes to very good causes. He and his wife Tabitha are exceptional human beings. From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, July 10, 2011 8:08:58 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: snip In my opinion, PUBLISHED modern novels are a collaborative effort more like film than painting. We do not hesitate to credit Walter Murch - Coppola's and Manghella's editor on much of their best work, as a creative collaborator. Although literary editors are not credited this way, that does not mean that they are not collaborating creatively and indeed writing. Yes and no. Depends very much on the novel and the novelist. The sad truth of publishing today is that a novelist who has had one or more blockbuster bestsellers may have their subsequent novels rushed into print with minimal editing, because folks will buy them regardless. It's simply not cost-effective for an editor to spend any time on the ms. Stephen King is a prime example. I'm a huge fan of his earlier work, but two of his more recent novels that I've read, Under the Dome and Duma Key, were in desperate need of a good, strong editor. Both became bestsellers nonetheless. (It isn't clear to me whether the early novels had the benefit of such an editor, or whether King wasn't as self-indulgent toward the beginning of his career as he's become and was able to see the need for and implement the editorial function largely on his own, as some writers are. It would be an interesting study to link each of his works with his various publishers' editors to see whether there's a correlation in terms of quality.) At any rate, it happens less often these days, but the relationship between an author and an editor can indeed be an intensely creative collaboration. It isn't just a matter of the editor doing some pruning; it's shaping and deepening and highlighting and expanding and heavily revising, developing characters, refining the author's voice, even changing the plot. And in some instances, a poor writer may have a great idea but be unable to put it into words properly, in which case the editor may also do a great deal of the actual writing. That said, there are certainly writers who can produce a good novel without the heavy involvement of an editor, so it can't be said that *every* published novel is a collaborative effort. It's important to remember that the publisher's editor may not have been the only editor who has worked on the novel. Some writers hire their own editors to help them develop their ideas before the ms. is ever submitted to a publisher. In any case, for a writer to claim the editor's contribution is never creative is just his ego talking. Or maybe he hasn't had the experience of working with an editor to develop a novel because he's never gotten that far, so he really has no idea what's involved. And then of course there are nonfiction books and shorter pieces where an editor may play a major role. One of my clients is a prolific writer of nonfiction; all the books he's had published since he began working with me have had hunks of my writing in them. In the case of several shorter pieces he's published, he's insisted on splitting his fees with me 50-50-- over and above my hourly charge--because so much of them was my work. Bottom line, there's too much variation in author- editor relationships to call them all creatively collaborative, but it's equally invalid to say none of them are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
fest...@yahoo.com I think the best fictional voice on FFLis that of the wife, as Bob refers to her, who reminds me of She Who Must Be Obeyed in John Mortimer's Rumpoleseries. Definitely a formidable off-stage character. The wife thanks you for this distinction and says she accepts it on behalf of, she assumes, the long suffering partners of FFLposters. She also suggests, on behalf of said partners, that if a few FFLposters picked up a dish once in a while that might also be considered a sort of acknowledgement. She also said (she's on a roll this morning) if such an unlikely action were to occur, please don't call loading the dishwasher, 'washing dishes'.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: snip Not to mention her sly habit of posting after he's gone to bed. jst...@panix.com Well, you *did* say this was fiction, right? My mother used to say fiction is as fiction does, or something like that. jst...@panix.com I mean, otherwise, to be fair, you'd have mentioned Barry's sly habit of posting while those of us living in the U.S. are still asleep. Am I censoring you? Absolutely not. And I disagree with any poster that says that editors can't write. Any poster spreading such scurrilous rumours should study more about how Raymond Carver and Pat Conroy arrived at their brilliance.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: I'm pleased a couple of posters recently shared some of their fiction efforts with us. I also began posting on FFL to work on my writing voice. The reason I picked FFL was I figured what better place to develop my writing voice than a place where people seem to be hearing voices. (turquoiseb...) I'm replying to say that I liked your last line above. Any reply is more than appreciated (turquoiseb...) But as for your characterizations of two of the writers here, I think you may be off the mark. For the first, I'm surprised after your mention of Joyce and Dickens that you assume that the age level employed by a writer reflects his own. My experience is that many writers write to the emotional age of their readers. Like most narcissists I tend to write for myself, most days I feel about 13. (turquoiseb...) As for the other writer you characterized as a reform school mail censor, I think that's unfair and demean- ing; reform schools have much higher standards than that for their personnel. Easy for you to say, you're still not an inmate.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: I'm sure many FFL posters know that great fiction writers are rarely, if ever, anything like the voices they use for their stories. For example, James Joyce was a terrible stammerer and Dickens hated children. compost...@yahoo.co.uk I wonder if you share my taste for those great works of romantic fiction Arrows of Desire, This Side of Heaven and Passionate Times? Sadly the writer is no longer with us. But only now I find out that, instead of being a refined lady of good manners and developed sensibility, Emma Blair was a a burly 6ft 3in Glaswegian with a 60-a-day habit and a fondness for a good pint. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14061327 I have not had the pleasure of reading this author although after your post I plan to rectify that. My favourite contemporary (there's a reason Dickens is buried in Westminster Abbey) British writers are John Le Carre and Salman Rushdie, with Ian McEwan a close third. Although I have to admit to disappointment that they did not continue their correspondence covered in the following link. http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/04/18/specials/rushdie-lecarre.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com Who here is hearing instructions directly from god? My wife prefers big G.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Who here is hearing instructions directly from god? roryg...@hotmail.com Who isn't? :-D Couldn't agree more. I've always thought my thinking was hearing voices. The wife said the problem with that insight is that you seem to think that so much of what you're hearing deserves to be repeated verbally.
