tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27325099.post115980987314998362..comments2023-07-14T04:28:49.111-06:00Comments on Now What: The Editorial FunctionLance Olsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13659209766706247259noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27325099.post-1161112792130181582006-10-17T13:19:00.000-06:002006-10-17T13:19:00.000-06:00Given the vastly decreasing editorial services off...<I>Given the vastly decreasing editorial services offered (even by the trades), will domestic editing play a more and more vital role? And if so, shouldn't it be theorized in terms similar to those above?</I> <BR/><BR/>it seems to me that domestic editing would be the logical choice for an author. the familiarity with the writer and his framework/reference point could enhance the editor's skill in sharpening and refining the text. <BR/><BR/>but that exquisite meld can only happen if the writer has a person (or even luckier, persons) around them they trust and has the skill to be an editor without becoming a coauthor.<BR/><BR/>my question back to the two of you is in reference to (5). You ask: <I>Would we want editors -- or at least, some kinds of editors -- to have such powers?</I> I ask: Wouldn't we want editors like that?rebeccahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865597904707670747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27325099.post-1160340072159859732006-10-08T14:41:00.000-06:002006-10-08T14:41:00.000-06:00hugely interesting, you two. thank you. on the to...hugely interesting, you two. thank you. on the topic of editorial sloppiness--i think i'd want to suggest that avant writing does not bring with it a greater potential for editorial sloppiness...but rather helps to open the editorial process back up to its modes of production rather than its place in the great marketing machine. <BR/><BR/>so in the case of chiasmus, for instance, one might find what i would call a more "raw" product, calling attention to the forms of its own making, and an editorial process less bound by our inherited hierarchical academic models (with wise literary sages who can't see past their noses or cliques)--in our case that means letting filmmakers and visual artists be editors alongside literary folks.<BR/><BR/>on the topic of domestic editing--love what you say/ask. i've been thinking a lot about this of late. my husband and i run chiasmus, and we edit each other's texts (including film). our basement is the site of production, with two separate spaces for our individual artistries. i remember how i used to want to find a JOB out there i the world where i could inhabit the world of artistic production. that was 20 years ago. luckily i realized one need not locate the employment out there in the socius. the making can live at home. <BR/><BR/>i do think these concepts and actions need to carry strong questions with them, that we need to continually engage in dialogue about them, so again, thank you. <BR/><BR/>i also think the possibilities for evolution are endless.<BR/><BR/>lidblondehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071230100404794724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27325099.post-1159992095746155012006-10-04T14:01:00.000-06:002006-10-04T14:01:00.000-06:00When it comes to the issue of quality in this new ...When it comes to the issue of quality in this new environment, those of us who believe in it (and I do) probably also need to admit that we might not always immediately recognize it even when we're committed to it. For me, the one good book that does get published in this new environment but wouldn't otherwise is worth the 15 that really aren't very good. Obviously this ratio is debatable: it could be 1-5, 1-75, even 1-1000 (and of course the idea that it would be just one is itself obviously untrue). But I would still say the advantage that more work of quality might get through outweighs the disadvantage that more uninteresting work also gets through. And besides, even if it didn't, there's not much to be done about it anyway.mark wallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10047292022080114501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27325099.post-1159886809163831192006-10-03T08:46:00.000-06:002006-10-03T08:46:00.000-06:00What a fascinating set of questions, you two. Than...What a fascinating set of questions, you two. Thanks for posing and posting them.<BR/><BR/>I'm perhaps most interested in what's becoming of the editorial function in light of the web-publishing's proliferation and the proliferation of the print-on-demand option, and how those affect what we once thought of as quality.<BR/><BR/>I also wonder if, in light of what you say, one of the definitions of experimental work has fairly recently become: that sort in which editors, publishers, PR people, readers, reviewers, and writers tend to be the same people (as opposed to mainstream work, in which editors, publishers, PR people, readers, reviewers, and writers tend to be different people).Lance Olsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13659209766706247259noreply@blogger.com