What reviewer are you?

[lorilee]

- oh look a squirell - where was I?

I'm like that in real life sometimes, but not in writing and reviewing I hope.

I'd have to say I'm grammar first. If something is badly written grammar- and spelling-wise, I have trouble seeing through that to the content. If there are no basic issues, then i go to content

[Gonissa]

Gonissa, your choices aren't adequate. Copy editing, as you have defined it, seems to be something any intelligent fifth-grader could do. Capitalize a proper noun here, supply a needed period there, yawn until quitting time.

Content editing is something I doubt very many people on this site would admit to doing. Your example is a wholesale ripping-apart of the original writer's style, substituting a drastically different one that has none of the feel of the writer's original work. That's one hell of an egotistical editor, one not as much interested in helping the writer as in replacing him altogether.

"Book doctoring" sounds like something bad studio executives do when they're making movies. They take something original and fresh and give "notes," telling writers and directors what they're doing wrong; that there has to be a fight with the girlfriend here and make-up sex there and that the villain should have a huge bald mentally-challenged henchman. They turn something good into the same-old same-old.

You shouldn't be irked at the answers. You're trying to squeeze us all into slots none of us want to fit into. When we review work, we really do try to help where we think the help is most necessary. And it's about helping the writer, not rewriting their prose to suit our tastes or replotting their story to satisfy our own egos. Any honest reviewer comments about the things that need commenting on. We're not bent towards one type of critique or another, especially when someone else is defining the categories.

Hey man, I'm quoting the book here. Apparently, all three of these editors exist in the publishing realm, and it is their job to edit according to their definitions. I'm not creating categories. These categories have already existed on their own.

And yes, perhaps Vickie's examples aren't great, but that's why she's not an editor.

[mammamaia]

yes, they do all exist... i do all three for clients...

[Morgulion]

I'm much more inclined to focus on types two and three; while language, as the means of communication, is indubitably important, I consider it an ancillary element. I will favor the big-picture type over description, as a work must above all be cohesive, solid, and capable of creating a certain message; past that, description is the more important element in constructing that message or impression.

[cazann34]

So I was reading this book, "How to Succeed in the Publishing Game" by Vickie Stringer. She was talking about all the different aspects of editing. Apparently in the business there are three types of editors. Copy editors, content editors, and book doctors.

I'm a 'copy editor, myself. I correct punctuation, basically because I'm new to critiquing and I've witnessed the flip side of over critiquing - in my opinion any way. One member submitted her work for critiquing but someone re-wrote it (a large piece if it any way), causing her great upset, she said she felt her work had been hijacked by this person. I really felt for her and would of been horrified if someone did the same to my work. But now I'm not too sure. Was the rewriter giving a constructive critique?

[mammamaia]

in a word, 'no'...

[Cogito]

Agreed. Just rewriting something is an exercise in ego-buffing, not critique. Without an explanation of the reasoning behind a change, the change is useless other than showing off.

This, among other things, is discussed in How to Use the Writing Workshop.

[marktx]

As a writer working on my own stuff, I do all three.

When I review other people's stuff, I'd probably fall about halfway between content and "book editor." I tend to be more concerned with the character voicing and suggesting ways to effectively juice up the scene in the direction the storyteller wants to go. I don't sweat the copy editing in reviews on this site (although I am pretty ruthless on my own stuff when I get to that stage) because I tend to see lots of people here who do a better job at that than I think I would do. Since we are usually looking at partial samples of a larger work, I wouldn't characterize myself as a full-blown "book doctor" because I don't have a view of the entire book, just the portion that has been presented. But my feedback tends to be more book-doctorish than content-editorish.

[Eva-Athena]

I'm a copy editor, but I try not to be. Whenever I try to get constructive, I just look dumb.

[ranjit23das]

In support of Gonissa I fit totally into the 'content editor' role - as my crits demonstrate. I don't really focus on poor grammar or typos (I figure someone else will) and I don't suggest changes to the plot. I just find flaws in the storyline. I can absolutely see the need for copy editor and book doctor to help me out. Great discussion and its wonderful we have so many talented critics in the team

[wardwolf]

When someone has taken that bold step to share their work, I think it's important to work hard on a review. I probably fit into the content editor category if I had to pick one.

[wardwolf]

Content editing is something I doubt very many people on this site would admit to doing. Your example is a wholesale ripping-apart of the original writer's style, substituting a drastically different one that has none of the feel of the writer's original work. That's one hell of an egotistical editor, one not as much interested in helping the writer as in replacing him altogether.

And it's about helping the writer, not rewriting their prose to suit our tastes or replotting their story to satisfy our own egos. Any honest reviewer comments about the things that need commenting on. We're not bent towards one type of critique or another, especially when someone else is defining the categories.

I disagree. One's craft is forged by a conglomeration of years spent work shopping, experimenting, and learning other approaches. There's nothing wrong with suggesting a shift in styles to an aspiring writer because in doing so you're potentially exposing someone to a process with which they're unfamiliar.

"Style" is not a monolith one must cling to at all costs - it is honed by taking little bits from columns A through Z. To close the door on any critiques that attempt to suggest major surgery where one perceives major surgery is necessary is to potentially ignore good advice for the sake of protecting ego.

Egos need not be offered up when publicly submitting a piece of writing. You go into it with the understanding that if someone rips your work apart it is still your choice to accept criticism as constructive or not - one person's rip is another's light bulb. But ripping apart a style is not ego, it is exposure; it is not replacement, it is suggestion. The writer of a submitted piece decides for her/himself what to absorb or deflect; what to keep or ignore.

Good/great writing is the result of relentless exposure to sandpaper. It is easy to get lost in one's own echo chamber of "personal style", and too much of that will perpetuate weak craft. Holding harshness at arm's length rejects the reasoning for exposing the work in the first place. Any writer who truly seeks improvement must accept a few (or many) punches to the face as a hazard of the job. One in 50 million of us are inherently strong, the rest of us get there by way of the gauntlet. The first thing to do is lay down the ego, and accept exposure to the gauntlet as a requisite bombardment of love. The best writers are the most weather-beaten, wind shorn slabs of granite; they bear scars from years of brutal erosion.

[PlotDeviceManager]

I realized something when I was reading this thread.

I couldn't decide between content editing and book doctoring, because grammar and spelling are my weakest area. It's not a huge Eureka moment, but I've decided I need more work on my basics. Could anybody recommend a good source that I could brush up with? Something that's fast-paced and not too technically written, but thorough?

This was a good question. It made me ask my own. Those kind of questions are always good.

[Gholin]

I'm glad you asked this question. Lately I've been editing a lot for a speculative fiction journal and for my creative writing class, and I find my editing falls in the realms of book doctor and copy editor. I always seem to focus on structure, grammar and spelling as well as how things make sense.

When I workshop with others and they bring up such different ideas than I on how to improve a piece, I always feel inadequate, but I guess that's because they focus on content, not because I suck. I never really focused on plot holes, because being attention deficit, I tend to read over a story and only remember what I liked, not all the glaring details that make it not work. I can't remember anything but hazy details of scenes of a book I read 5 days ago. I remember the whole story line though. Maybe this is a "weakness" I can try to develop?