Why editors matter

Before talking about editing in YA literature, a quick rec, leochi 's adorable next-gen Weasley-Potter clan image should be smiled at by everyone, it is that happy-making.

Now, onto editing. I have been trying out new YA authors of late. Sometimes this has been a very happy adventure, Frances Hardinge and Ysabeau Wilce have brought me great joy so far. But other times it has been an exercise in frustration. Not because I have been reading bad YA literature, a few paragraphs in the bookshop will usually be enough to warn me off books that would have me frothing, but because I have been reading books that should have been better than they were.

Sometimes it is a small matter, and one that the target audience may not even notice. Flitterwig, by Edrei Cullen and with delightful illustrations by Gregory Rogers, was a charming tale that's more young than YA. Ella, whose mother and brothers are dead and whose father cannot bear to look at her, discovers that she is a part-magical creature and that it is up to her to see that the Queen of the Faeries can return to the Kingdom of Magus.

There were some very clever ideas in this novel and some great spots of writing. My inner six-year-old was giggling at the demented pixie who helps Ella along, and for 95% of the book, I was wholly charmed. But the other 5% was wading through the bog of paragraphs that should have been sentences where the exposition fairy had been allowed to trample her muddy boots across the text. I also seem to remember some copy editing isues, but buggered if I can find my copy to confirm that.

It may not seem like much, but it was very noticeable while I read through, and made me want to break out a blue pencil and mark up edits, as someone else should have done before the book was published. As I say, though, the target audience probably did not notice. I read ever so many Famous Five and Secret Seven books when I was little despite the fact they were formulaic and had the odd plot hole, apparently these things mattered far less to me 35 years ago. I remember that I read them differently to the adult literature I was reading when I was small, and that I filled in all the gaps myself without question, which is probably what young readers of this book will do today, given the smartness of the underlying ideas and the satisfaction of the end.

On a different note is Justine Larbalestier's output. I really, really wanted to love this author. For a start, she set her trilogy up the road, in Newtown, and her other, stand-alone, novel features a character who is a lesbian and is filled with Australia jokes. I should have loved them. But instead I find myself saying, 'they're good, but …'
( cut for length and spoilers )

Why is this all so important? Because good editing means the difference between small print run books that people on LJ think are good and small print run books that take off and become blockbusters. You need either it or publicity, and sometimes the former will lead to the latter. One of the obvious examples is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which was for the most part a beautifully edited novel. There was nothing in it to throw the reader out of the text, to make them work harder than they needed to. Insetad, it all made for a seamless inviting read.

In a purely mercenary sense, good editing is like cleaning your house up before you try and sell it. It is the reassurance to the reader that not only did the author think this book was worth lavishing time and effort on, but so did the publisher. You have more faith in such a book, and less in one that is badly edited.

And it offends me on Justine Larbalestier's behalf that her publisher let her down here, because I think she is smart and has talent, and that it should be polished and shown at its best. The editing these books received did not do that.

Why editors matter

Before talking about editing in YA literature, a quick rec, leochi 's adorable next-gen Weasley-Potter clan image should be smiled at by everyone, it is that happy-making.

Now, onto editing. I have been trying out new YA authors of late. Sometimes this has been a very happy adventure, Frances Hardinge and Ysabeau Wilce have brought me great joy so far. But other times it has been an exercise in frustration. Not because I have been reading bad YA literature, a few paragraphs in the bookshop will usually be enough to warn me off books that would have me frothing, but because I have been reading books that should have been better than they were.

Sometimes it is a small matter, and one that the target audience may not even notice. Flitterwig, by Edrei Cullen and with delightful illustrations by Gregory Rogers, was a charming tale that's more young than YA. Ella, whose mother and brothers are dead and whose father cannot bear to look at her, discovers that she is a part-magical creature and that it is up to her to see that the Queen of the Faeries can return to the Kingdom of Magus.

There were some very clever ideas in this novel and some great spots of writing. My inner six-year-old was giggling at the demented pixie who helps Ella along, and for 95% of the book, I was wholly charmed. But the other 5% was wading through the bog of paragraphs that should have been sentences where the exposition fairy had been allowed to trample her muddy boots across the text. I also seem to remember some copy editing isues, but buggered if I can find my copy to confirm that.

It may not seem like much, but it was very noticeable while I read through, and made me want to break out a blue pencil and mark up edits, as someone else should have done before the book was published. As I say, though, the target audience probably did not notice. I read ever so many Famous Five and Secret Seven books when I was little despite the fact they were formulaic and had the odd plot hole, apparently these things mattered far less to me 35 years ago. I remember that I read them differently to the adult literature I was reading when I was small, and that I filled in all the gaps myself without question, which is probably what young readers of this book will do today, given the smartness of the underlying ideas and the satisfaction of the end.

On a different note is Justine Larbalestier's output. I really, really wanted to love this author. For a start, she set her trilogy up the road, in Newtown, and her other, stand-alone, novel features a character who is a lesbian and is filled with Australia jokes. I should have loved them. But instead I find myself saying, 'they're good, but …'
( cut for length and spoilers )

Why is this all so important? Because good editing means the difference between small print run books that people on LJ think are good and small print run books that take off and become blockbusters. You need either it or publicity, and sometimes the former will lead to the latter. One of the obvious examples is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which was for the most part a beautifully edited novel. There was nothing in it to throw the reader out of the text, to make them work harder than they needed to. Insetad, it all made for a seamless inviting read.

In a purely mercenary sense, good editing is like cleaning your house up before you try and sell it. It is the reassurance to the reader that not only did the author think this book was worth lavishing time and effort on, but so did the publisher. You have more faith in such a book, and less in one that is badly edited.

And it offends me on Justine Larbalestier's behalf that her publisher let her down here, because I think she is smart and has talent, and that it should be polished and shown at its best. The editing these books received did not do that.