Editors are both lauded as heroes and reviled as villains. In “Let Us Now Praise Famous Editors,” Gary Kamiya tells us that the job of editors can be to toil as “craftsmen, ghosts, psychiatrists, bullies, sparring partners, experts, enablers, ignoramuses, translators, writers, goalies, friends, foremen, wimps, ditch diggers, mind readers, coaches, bomb throwers, muses and spittoons—sometimes all while working on the same piece.”
We at Schlager Group come out of the old-school Scribner tradition of forelock-tugging amanuenses (from Latin a manu—“by hand”—and in servus a manu—“enslaved servant with secretarial duties”), trained to efface the self. It is not we who count; it is the prose we shepherd from manuscript to book page. One of our style guides instructs the copy editor in the proper way to address queries to the author: “Never use the first person. Editors must pretend that they do not exist.” Even so, I have been ill-used as a spittoon perhaps as often as I have been praised as a guiding muse.
Kamiya tells us that “the art of editing is running against the cultural tide. We are in an age of volume; editing is about refinement. It’s about getting deeper into a piece, its ideas, its structure, its language. It’s a handmade art, a craft. You don’t learn it overnight. Editing aims at making a piece more like a Stradivarius and less like a microchip. And as the media universe becomes larger and more filled with microchips, we need the violin makers.”
I would be interested to hear the thoughts of our editors and writers alike on the arts of writing and editing and the uneasy alliance of writers and editors.
In the meantime, I will return to my job (in Kamiya’s words) as Mr. Wolfe, the problem solver from Pulp Fiction (“You have a corpse in a car, minus a head. Take me to it.”)