Penguin-Holt-Penguin

[The Great Quail]

> I've often wondered exactly what qualifications (literally or otherwise) are
> required for the role of editor. Maybe Quail could tell us?

Man, I will say this -- you have to start in print, and work your way up
from the bottom. It's a low-paying and competitive field, until you get to
the very top ranks, after which it's pretty stressful.

Although most of my "professional" editing has been on science books, my
editor friends within the big publishing houses all agree that it's
generally a crummy job, unless you land an awesome writer to work with --
and you can imagine the competition for that. Of course, once you become the
kind of editor that actually makes decisions about what books to buy and
what authors to work with, that's another world -- see my comments re:
stress.

> The question 
> seems particularly difficult/relevant in the case of someone like Pynchon -
> to what extent would there be what the layman would usually think of as
> 'editing'? What sort of iron-clad confidence would someone need, for
> example, to start crossing bits out, or even suggesting cuts or amendments
> etc.?

I have wondered this myself. How the *hell* do you edit something like
"Mason & Dixon?" I suppose you offer suggestions on structure, readability,
what works and does not work, that sort of thing. Other than that, a lot
depends on the relationship the author has with the publisher, and how much
the writer allows his or her sentences to be touched. Of course, beginning
writers have *very* little say; but world-renowned writers are quite
different. 

One of my pet peeves are best-selling writers who begin to feel that they
are beyond editing, like Stephen King, Tom Clancy, and -- notoriously! --
Ann Rice. All three of them began to churn out increasingly more bloated
pieces of crap after they feel that they have drifted beyond the reach of a
mortal editor....

--Quail