When you disagree with an editor...

...what's the best way to handle things?

A publisher's editor went over my novel MS and made some changes I disagree with, supposedly "to make it flow better." They include:

- adding too many contractions, many of the awkward "would've, might've" type;
- changing a lot of past progressives (I was sitting) to simple past (I sat), even where past progressive definitely conveys the meaning better;
- too many new paragraph breaks, which unfortunately break the flow rather than helping it (in my view).

On the other hand, the edit isn't a disaster, because it does help the narrative flow sometimes. But I think she's made way too many changes.

I think I will revert those changes that I consider to be most important, and give my reasoning for doing so. The other ones I can let stand, even if I might prefer otherwise. How would you deal with a frustrating edit of this kind?

 

Assigned for publication. In any case, I will try to reason with her - she seems willing to listen.

 

You state she is willing to listen, which is good. Is the reverse true as well? It is very easy for an author to try to protect their baby, in this case the story. That protective instinct can close you off from suggestions that can help improve the work.

Have an open and honest debate on the why behind the suggestions so you fully understand the reasoning behind the suggested changes. If there is something that really doesn't work for you explain why it doesn't work from your side. You may find the editor changes or drops a suggestion if you make your case well enough. When all is said and done you want the publisher to feel you are someone they can work with.

 

I'd take another look at this one, because she may be right. I don't know the context in which you are using past progressive, but generally, you don't want to use it unless the action is interrupted or happens at the same time as another action.

I was sitting in the recliner.

I would avoid writing sentences like this. The past progressive gives this the impression that something is missing. As a reader, I'm expecting there to be more to the sentence.

I was sitting in the recliner when the phone rang.

Two actions, both happening at the same time, with one in past progressive and the other in simple past.

I sat in the recliner, easing my aching muscles after a long day.

Again, two actions happening at the same time.

I was watching a re-run of Gilligan's Island when the power went out.

The first action is interrupted by the second action.

I was walking down the street, just minding my own business, when out of nowhere a red dodge zoomed past, nearly hitting me.

There are 3 past progressive verbs in this sentence, and 1 simple past verb, which provides sort of an anchor for the rest. Without that verb in simple past, this sentence doesn't work.

Again, I don't know the context in which you are using past progressive, but if the editor is flagging instances like the first example, I'd keep those edits. If the editor is flagging stuff like the other examples, and changing everything to simple past, then I'd be way more hesitant to accept them. Sometimes I'll combine multiple actions with simple past, like so:

I sat in the recliner, picked up the newspaper.

This suggests two actions happening one after the other, with the comma standing in place of "and" or "then". I don't do this often, but in a list, it works more seemlessly:

I sat in the recliner, picked up the newspaper, and flipped to the obituary section.

These are all in simple past. They are all separate actions, done in the listed order. So, you do have to consider whether or not the actions are happening at the same time.

 

Yeah, that's important - you have to be able to explain your preferences and why something does or doesn't work.

Editing is a job like any other: it can be done well or badly. I've had editors improve my work and wreck my work. That was in a journalistic context where I didn't get a chance at feedback before they published. In this case, I have plenty of time before they publish, so I want to take advantage of that.

 

I'm OK with most of her changes, but there are a few instances where they should be reverted, of the following type:

1: "I was sitting in the chair when Eric entered" vs. 2: "I sat in the chair when Eric entered." No. 2 is misleading, because it suggests that it was only when Eric entered that I sat in the chair, whereas I was actually in the chair already.

1: "A social consciousness was developing" vs. 2: "A social consciousness developed." No. 2 suggests that this process has already occurred and reached some conclusion, whereas I was suggesting that it was still an ongoing process.

 

I agree with you on #1 but not #2.

Readers don't read past tense as though everything in simple past is a completed action.

If I write "John stood" would you think he stood up and then stopped standing? Of course not.

This is one of those things that writers tend to overthink. The same thing happens with sentences like "John was tall." Some writers will look at that and think it suggest that John WAS tall, but no longer IS tall. Again, that's not how readers read it.

Past tense is based on the perspective of the narrator, but for the character, and therefore the reader, it is the present. Readers read past tense as though the events are happening right now, the same as with present tense (assuming the writer has done their job well).

 

This is probably a case I would carefully pick my battles. Some of it, yeah I wouldn't agree with, but it works well enough that it's not worth the fuss.

 

I agree with others that something should happen while you're sitting. One more reason to change it is using 'I was' is going to lead you to a passive phrase.