How much control should editors have over writers?

[Guergy]

I know that we often joke about how we should reign really creative writers especially if they are "auteurs" like Geroge Lucas or Quentin Tarantino.  The question I have is, how much control should editors have writers to prevent them from going too far? I know that it might be more complex than that but what I want to know is how much control do they have over weiters?

[MetalSkulkBane]

My first instinct is say "almost none". I mean, keep the project sell-able and finish-able, but overall untainted vision is usually far more fascinating. Not always the best, but fascinating. I feel like editor should just suggest things, be a first audience sorta.

And if writer is doing terrible job? Perhaps it's time to get better writer.

WITH THAT SAID, I am not gonna defend for this position. I wouldn't be surprised at all if reality was much messier than this.

[Shade Vortex]

Honestly? As much as I liked Star Wars growing up, and same with Dragon Ball (though I still follow Dragonball whereas I lost interest in Star Wars), I feel the former is proof that a creator should have somebody to reign them in sometimes (the prequels should not have happened in the form they took), and the latter actually has examples of things that were clearly improved by editor meddling. Most people would likely have lost interest in the Android Arc pretty quickly if Gero and 19 were the end-all-be-all androids of that saga.

On the other hand, as with all things, there must be a balance. There's no point of even having a creative mind if you don't let them express themselves- however, some restrictions being place is ironically something that can contribute to greater creativity. When you try to go in too many directions at once, you go nowhere at all.

[Kuzu]

Its a case by case basis. I understand that most fans who consume these products are artists and creators themselves, so there's a general idea that a creator's "vision" should be untainted by the filthy hands of those greedy corporate execs who only care about money.

But that ignores that not all creators actually have good ideas, even if they themselves think so. Contrary to popular belief, sometimes executive meddling is needed. Especially when you have a very large target demographic.

 

 

Obviously creative freedom is important but so is understanding when to reign it in.

[Salamander]

A point worth bearing in mind is that we're not necessarily comparing like for like in discussing both books and films this way.  Books are by and large a one-person authorship matter and everything else is printing and marketing, where films have to employ hundreds of people just to get past that first hurdle.  I think it's reasonable to suggest that large productions involving many employees perhaps demand a greater degree of oversight and control than the production of a single book.

Past that, it's all about the exact balance of power; obviously, if you frame it as a balance between artistic and commercial considerations, then it's hard to sympathise with the latter... but sometimes it's art versus art.  Or not even "versus"; editorial changes are meant to be straight-up writing advice from a more experienced voice.  I'm sure a lot of authors appreciate the justice in their editors' suggestions and know that they wouldn't be writing as well without it.

[Rabbitearsblog]

It really depends on the situation.  While I personally would love for writers to have more freedom with their works, I can understand why editors are needed.  Sometimes, a writer will go too far with their stories and said story might end up terrible because there was nobody there to reign in the writer when they start entering territory where their stories are not grabbing the general audience.  

[Guergy]

17 hours ago, Salamander said:

A point worth bearing in mind is that we're not necessarily comparing like for like in discussing both books and films this way.  Books are by and large a one-person authorship matter and everything else is printing and marketing, where films have to employ hundreds of people just to get past that first hurdle.  I think it's reasonable to suggest that large productions involving many employees perhaps demand a greater degree of oversight and control than the production of a single book.

Past that, it's all about the exact balance of power; obviously, if you frame it as a balance between artistic and commercial considerations, then it's hard to sympathise with the latter... but sometimes it's art versus art.  Or not even "versus"; editorial changes are meant to be straight-up writing advice from a more experienced voice.  I'm sure a lot of authors appreciate the justice in their editors' suggestions and know that they wouldn't be writing as well without it.

That is a good point. I always thought that it was an antagonistic relationship and/or that one is above the other. I had no idea that it was supposed to be a mutual relationship where both benefit from it.'

17 hours ago, Kuzu said:

Its a case by case basis. I understand that most fans who consume these products are artists and creators themselves, so there's a general idea that a creator's "vision" should be untainted by the filthy hands of those greedy corporate execs who only care about money.

But that ignores that not all creators actually have good ideas, even if they themselves think so. Contrary to popular belief, sometimes executive meddling is needed. Especially when you have a very large target demographic.

 

 

Obviously creative freedom is important but so is understanding when to reign it in.

I guess these matters are not as black and white as I previously assumed.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Hard to say. I’d say the Editor should be #2 when it comes to the writer’s intent, as sometimes the editor can make a mess of things—granted, I’m only saying that out of sourness from Archie’s World’s Unite, so it may not be as bad in other cases.

All in all, they should respect the artistic vision. Editors are editors for a reason, able to make a script or idea really come to light. But if they go against the vision, without good reason, the editor shouldn’t be the editor.

[Rabbitearsblog]

On 3/2/2022 at 4:42 PM, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

Hard to say. I’d say the Editor should be #2 when it comes to the writer’s intent, as sometimes the editor can make a mess of things—granted, I’m only saying that out of sourness from Archie’s World’s Unite, so it may not be as bad in other cases.

All in all, they should respect the artistic vision. Editors are editors for a reason, able to make a script or idea really come to light. But if they go against the vision, without good reason, the editor shouldn’t be the editor.

I agree with this.  At the end of the day, it's the writers themselves who create the stories, not the editors.  The editors should be the ones who just edit the stories to see if they are written well, not change the vision of the writer.

[Guergy]

I guess it puts the whole "X writer needs an editor as the writing is questionable" in perspective. Where did the "joke" itself come from anyway? 

[Rabbitearsblog]

17 hours ago, Guergy said:

I guess it puts the whole "X writer needs an editor as the writing is questionable" in perspective. Where did the "joke" itself come from anyway? 

What does that quote mean?

[Guergy]

On 3/7/2022 at 12:35 PM, Rabbitearsblog said:

What does that quote mean?

I was referring to how some writers are criticized for some writing or storytelling decisions.

[Rabbitearsblog]

2 hours ago, Guergy said:

I was referring to how some writers are criticized for some writing or storytelling decisions.

Ah, I see.

[Eggman Fan]

It depends.

If you don't control them at all then who's gonna keep the characters on track, and if your too controlling you get forces' story. I think they should only interfere when they start showing characters out of character, unless it's for character development reasons like tails becoming braver in Sonic Adventure or Shadow not blowing up Earth in SA2.