Book Reviews and The Editor's Dilemma

I absolutely love my job. Without hesitation, I unequivocally, devotedly love my job. I've loved it since the moment I decided that my life's path was going to head off in this direction... long before I imagined doing it as an actual career... you know, getting paid with real currency rather than emotional currency.

One of my greatest joys, aside from writing, is reading. I love reading nearly everything. I enjoy genre and literary fiction, children's books, young adult and new adult fiction. I even enjoy reading the things that sometimes make me squirm a little. Full disclosure, I've read two Indie Published stories where I found the snakes unsettling, but not altogether evil... something I never would have imagined possible, except I know the authors, and they warned me in advance, so it was easier for me to set aside my 'irrational' phobia and just read. [Please don't imagine this is an invitation for more of you to send me books infested with snakes... not the point.]

I love non-fiction with its deep dives into research. I love reading to learn new facts and perspectives. I was that misfit kid who asked parents and grandparents to offer up topics so I could swim deeply through the card catalogue at the library to write research papers during my summer vacation. For me, it was the best of both worlds... I got to write, and have fun learning new stuff from a perspective of curiosity, rather than as a forced assignment.

I love stories that transport me to fascinating places, and more... I love authors who introduce me to characters that, most likely, I'd never have the opportunity to discover in real life. Sometimes, specific characteristics of a particular hero or villain, or a subdued tick of a bystander, can open up libraries of thought to me that I wouldn't have considered, if not for reading about those things in the pages of a book.

"So, what's the dilemma?" you ask.

Writing reviews and professional taboo. Allow me to explain.

Conventional wisdom says that as an editor, I shouldn't have an opinion. Or at least, I shouldn't share my opinion publicly, regarding the positive or negative qualities of a book I've helped an author make ready for public consumption. I know, I used the word "public" there a lot, but it's an important detail, and here's why.

It's nearly impossible for me to only act as an editorial pen, completely disconnected from the nature of the manuscript. Either I loved the book, found it interesting but not necessarily in my sphere of emotional curiosity or comfort, or on rare occasions, I may actually loathe a book I've helped to improve. Because I connect so deeply to the written word, to story, and to the legacy of what we do as authors, I will always have a strong opinion about what I've read. Actually, I'll have two opinions, a professional one and a personal one.

I am trained to look at a manuscript and discern the difference between, "This is extremely well-written" and, "I didn't connect personally with the book because..." I think noticing the distinction with a difference is a positive approach. I can respect the work, but not enjoy it, simultaneously. The opposite is also true. I have the ability to see the story an author is trying to tell, but the work may be challenged by the mechanics, and therefore, come off poorly. For an editor, I think this "seeing both sides of the page" is an important skill. At least, that was the lesson my IP English teacher in high school drilled into my head. "We must always have opinions about what we read, for THAT is how we digest the message or the entertainment the writer is trying to convey and share that connectivity with others."

However, there's a strangely odd (unspoken or perhaps slightly whispered) rule in the publishing industry that demands editors keep our opinions to ourselves regarding the books and authors we mentor in a public forum. We're supposed to remain professionally distant, even after the book has been released and readers have discovered, enjoyed, and recommended it. Sure, we're allowed (and some might say required) to market the projects we assist after a public debut... but we're not supposed to express how we feel about the book. We're expected to mask or completely hide the pure unbridled joy or outright disdain we felt when reading the manuscript for the first, or even the last time. We're unauthorized to confirm nor deny our experience with the book in statements like, "This book was so fantastic, when I got it, I felt guilty taking money for the few suggestive changes I felt it needed to achieve a final polish." Or "This book was so challenging, I should have charged the author 'combat pay' to complete the editorial process."

We're not supposed to say any of that... but we all think it. Regardless of whether our opinion of a book is favorable or not, I believe it's impossible to squelch our opinions, nor do I think we should.

Editors are called to provide an objective view of a manuscript, and make suggestions to improve it. We provide notes regarding how to adhere to a standard of grammar, spelling, and formatting. We also offer considerations about enhancing the author's voice so it will ring more true in the internal ear of the reader. It's an editor's job to come to a project with a fresh, outside perspective, and offer Opinions coupled with Education and Expertise to arrive at what we think will improve the work and make it more enjoyable for it's intended audience; all while strengthening the credibility of the author.

Absolutely, there have been projects I've edited that I have not thoroughly enjoyed. I think that is intrinsic to the career. Not every author I encounter is going to write the psychological thriller with the twisty ending and bit of romantic spice that I crave. I get that. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy or find merit in other works. Even with extremely violent, bloody, gory horror or over-the-edge erotica... which are certainly not in my preferred wheelhouse... I can still find the value of the writer's work, and I can objectively realize this style of writing has an audience (although again, it may not be me). Most importantly, I can maintain my responsibility to treat the work as sacred to the author and their readers, even though I may not agree that it's an enjoyable story. I'm a trained professional, I can say, "This torture scene is exceptionally well-written, you got all the beats just right, and the scene moves the story forward in the right way." AND I don't have to leave out the rest of the statement, which is, "It made me very uncomfortable, and a book like this is not something I'm naturally drawn to because of the violence." My personal reaction to the book does not negate my ability to be objective, professional, and provide the best editorial services I can for clients who choose to write those stories.

Okay, I feel I need to say it another way, to add a bit of clarity. So here's a comparison, albeit perhaps a bit exaggerated.

Teachers and parents all know, you will always love the children you spend your days mentoring, but there will be times that you may not like them. This doesn't mean you're not a good teacher and parent. You're still giving that child 100% of your wisdom, love, skills, and whatever else they need to grow and continue to be amazing. It just means there are aspects about kids we don't enjoy 100% of the time.

It's the same with editors, authors, and books. We're trained professionals, but we don't always fall head over heels in love with every project we work on. Acknowledging that point, I think, supports our humanity, and our attention to the details of the writing craft.

And... I believe we shouldn't be forced to remain silent about the books we adore, abhor, or found neutrality in, simply because there's an industry expectation that we're to leave our opinions locked away because we have a close association with the project and it's author. One of the reasons I'm overjoyed that some authors return for my editorial mentoring with several of their books is precisely because I love their work. I don't want to publicly suppress my feelings about what I read or that I'm a big fan.

And, isn't this the origin of the back cover blurb, anyway? Professionals promoting, supporting, and sharing what they love and why they love it with the world?

So, after a few years (yes, really) of noodling this around in my head, here's what I've decided: I'm not going to hide my opinions anymore. I'm not going to cower behind some contrived mosquito netting of my industry and pretend that I don't love or dislike the projects I work on just to avoid the sting of perceived impropriety. Moving forward (and perhaps retroactively - just because I truly adore some authors and their books... and I want to see them succeed with every fiber of my being), I will begin reviewing the books I've worked on in an editorial capacity.

In all fairness, my plan is to wait until the book is properly released; you know, out in the world, swimming deep, and well saturated within the reading community for a few weeks or months... just so I don't taint the well of organic reviews. I'll make it clear when I write the review if I've acted as an editor on the project, just to allow for complete transparency.

It's important to me to maintain my professional integrity... but it's just as important to me to be entirely supportive of the books and authors I love to read. My intention is that this compromise will suffice to appease everyone: authors, readers, and editors. And if it doesn't, I hope my career as an author and editor can weather that storm, and me and my work won't suffer too badly.