This About That
Daniel: That's number eleven. :-)
Tribe: Actually, the full quote is "Sure, I'll change anything you want. Or you can change it for me..." Obviously we don't want writers who are totally bull-headed. But we'd like them to believe in their own story enough to stand up for it occasionally. We don't want spineless little wimpy writers who will bend over, whimpering, just to please us, without even a clue as to why we're suggesting changes. Their paramount concern should be a better story, not just racking up a publishing credit or sucking up to us. If a writer doesn't believe in his own story at all, why should we? And the second part of my pet peeve should be obvious -- we want the writers to do the writing. At best, we make suggestions, provide examples of the sort of thing we want, but we don't want to have to write their stories for them.
Graham: Tension? It's mostly one way. We ultimately rejected a story, that's about it. Someone wants to draw attention to their rejection publicly, that's their business. And hey, trashing me publicly all over the place may get them more easily published somewhere else. Astonishingly -- and I know you'll find this difficult to believe -- I'm not universally beloved. Shocking, ain't it?
Aldo: Alas, I'm pure as the driven slush, and don't take bribes. But save that beer, and we'll drink it together someday, compare war wounds and tell tales out of school.
Jim: That's probably Gerald's and my biggest fault (besides being so glacially slow at times). We're picky about stuff like guns and logic and plausibility and coherency. Some writers grasp immediately what needs to be done, and they're a pleasure to work with. Others couldn't find a clue if it was stapled to their ass.
Tribe: Actually, the full quote is "Sure, I'll change anything you want. Or you can change it for me..." Obviously we don't want writers who are totally bull-headed. But we'd like them to believe in their own story enough to stand up for it occasionally. We don't want spineless little wimpy writers who will bend over, whimpering, just to please us, without even a clue as to why we're suggesting changes. Their paramount concern should be a better story, not just racking up a publishing credit or sucking up to us. If a writer doesn't believe in his own story at all, why should we? And the second part of my pet peeve should be obvious -- we want the writers to do the writing. At best, we make suggestions, provide examples of the sort of thing we want, but we don't want to have to write their stories for them.
Graham: Tension? It's mostly one way. We ultimately rejected a story, that's about it. Someone wants to draw attention to their rejection publicly, that's their business. And hey, trashing me publicly all over the place may get them more easily published somewhere else. Astonishingly -- and I know you'll find this difficult to believe -- I'm not universally beloved. Shocking, ain't it?
Aldo: Alas, I'm pure as the driven slush, and don't take bribes. But save that beer, and we'll drink it together someday, compare war wounds and tell tales out of school.
Jim: That's probably Gerald's and my biggest fault (besides being so glacially slow at times). We're picky about stuff like guns and logic and plausibility and coherency. Some writers grasp immediately what needs to be done, and they're a pleasure to work with. Others couldn't find a clue if it was stapled to their ass.
posted by Kevin Burton Smith at 9:20 AM
2 Comments:
Folks who shoot for "universally beloved" are doing the mambo with madness... I know people with chips on their shoulders about Santa Claus for pete's sake - what chance does that leave the rest of us? I'll take "occasionally surly bastich" myself, and save a bundle on the ulcer medication.
I just read a first novel that in the climax has the single most egregious gun mistake I've ever seen in print, so there are some editors at major houses who either don't know or don't care. Probably both.
I'm happy you guys get it right.
Post a Comment
<< Home