I thought I'd start off my first post of 2012 on the inimitable breed... The Editor.
As a writer, we all know that an Editor is absolutely necessary and while our beta readers, if we have one, can check out spellings and cross our 'T's and dot the 'i's (and this is in no way meant as disrespectful to beta readers or CP's. I have two wonderful CP's (betas) who not only look for the obvious grammatical and sentence structure, but also slap me about the head and say, "What you talking 'bout Lisa?" much in the style of Arnold from Different Strokes. However some prefer just to correct the grammatical so I am aware I'm lucky in that way.) an Editor coaxes and suggests and guides your ship to another course that you may not have thought of. Let's face it and I know my CP's will agree, when you've read the same bloody thing over and over again, you can't see the wood for the trees.
I have heard horror stories about Editors, but have had nothing but wonderful experiences with the three I have worked with, and I have had the pleasure of working with all three more than once. We've exchanged emails, got to know a little about each other which made the whole editing process that much more personal. And really, when you've put your heart and soul into your 'baby', what could be more personal?
What I don't like, however, is the non-personal version of the Editor. A faceless, nameless person who doesn't feel the need to make that connection. I think where that connection and the to and froing about the story can only enhance it and make you go "oh my god, you're right, what about this bit?", the impersonal loses some of that and plot gaps slip by.
So what do you prefer? The personal touch or the not so personal?
Answers on a postcard please... or you could just leave a comment ;P
