The editing apocalypse...

[solosundance]

Interesting article from a friend of a friend in Oz, on the subject of writers and editors, pro and non-pro alike.

http://keithstevensonwriter.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/the-editing-apocalypse-or-why-authors.html

Authors might have a strong idea about what their piece is about, the overall theme and issues addressed. Some won’t, because they’re too close; they just have a story to tell. In other cases the theme the writer had in mind ends up not being what the story is about anyway because it changes as they write it. Editors are always looking for thematic meaning, because that is one key to sharpening the final story and making it relevant to the reader.

Good editors are the ultimate wingman – or woman. They’re not the writer’s friend or partner. They don’t need to say a thing is good when it’s not. They don’t go out of their way to hurt a writer – the best editors are very diplomatic in how they convey their reactions to a piece – but they will give the writer a considered, professional opinion about their writing. In this world, that is pure gold.

The bit about not being a friend of the writer made me smile :)  I don't think as beta readers of one another's stories we are as... um disinterested as the writer's "ideal" pro editor.  We have more than a common love of the subject matter I think, more of an emotional stake in what's being written.  That makes for a unique relationship doesn't it?  That can, for sure, be pure gold :))