[CLASS/PROMPT 4] #17: Wednesday August 12th / Friday August 14th Classes & Fourth Prompt

These classes will be combined because they didn't have as much content to cover, so yeah! Here we go.

Section 1 (Wednesday): Zoe Dzunko on The Art of Editing

We kicked off our Wednesday class with a behind the scenes look for editing. I was eager to listen to what that specific process is! I was curious because I wanted to know how different that would be to workshopping, which we normally do in class. Surely it would be relatively the same, albeit with a few more duties, but it wasn't fully like that. I'll share what I found fascinating in dot points:

• Being someone's editor is a privilege, because you're being invited into the development of someone else's work.
• Editors gain trust via engaging in conversations with the writer.
• Editing is all about losing. The ultimate choice about some thing is up to the writer. Both parties should remember that the editor's recommendations are in the best interest of the piece.
• Being an editor is primarily about empowering the writer and the work.
• Any fraught writer/editor relationships are usually due to a misunderstand/misidentification of the author's intention. As a result, an editor might be editing another work in their head, the way they see/want it.
• Furthermore, we have two editors, a primary editor and another to converse with the primary to make sure they share the same interpretation of the text, and to catch any misinterpretations.
  
• Editors send detailed "Reader's Reports". I won't be getting any copy edits back, nor a annotated document (unless it's used to point out specific examples).
• There's two methods of commentating on that report - either split it into strengths and weaknesses, or into paragraphs about particular aspects. Editors need to consider if it's too mean/needs to be balanced out, regarding the first method.
• Copy-edits are line-by-line micro edits. Structural edits are macro, big picture. Structural is all about the way the piece is organised, both in form and concept. It's a higher level edit, considering "What is this piece about and how does its structure serve that?"
• Line editing is an aspect of copy editing. It's about considering the way language is used, how to refine sentences, and the arrangement of paragraphs. Could something be brought up earlier or later? Checking the consistency of tense (past/present/future) and tone too.
• Editors implement their house style/style guide later on. This is to make pieces consistent. Things they have to adjust are spelling (US/AUS), intending, en/em dashes, Oxford commas, quotation marks and other minor nitpicks to make a seamless reading experience.
• Oxford commas are found in a list, before the final item. They help to make things clear. For example, "We invited the dogs, Jake and Marlin" implies the dogs' names are Jake and Marlin, but "We invited the dogs, Jake, and Marlin" clearly shows Jake and Marlin are separate people.
• Editors want grammar and punctuation to be invisible. When they are noticed, the reader focuses on them. I've also heard that sloppy work can seriously decrease the quality of a piece (I've also ditched informative reports because of errors as well).
• Writers don't need to worry about the style guide elements at our current structural edit stage.
• If we want to cite information, try to make the full reference in the sentence so you don't need to cite it later. Footnotes or "notes" at the end of the piece work too. Take a phrase from the text, "[Shakespeare once wrote blah blah] came from..."
• At the copy editing stage, I will get two documents back, both implementing the style and any edits. The first will have all track changes not accepted, but the second one won't for ease of reading. DO NOT READ THE FIRST ONE FIRST or else you might feel really upset. Accept the edits I agree with, and leave the ones I don't agree with to discuss with my editor later.
• After a final version, one my editor and I agree with, it's sent off to be typeset, the way it will appear in the book. We'll have one last look over to make sure the styling has made its way over.

I asked a question, "If you received a work that you felt you couldn't edit (maybe the content isn't for you/not your expertise), what do you do? Do you refer the writer to another, more suitable editor?"

Zoe answered that this happens most with form. It's rare that in small press/mainstream that a non-poet edits poetry. Although she beliefs form/genre has very specific characteristics, they are superficial from an editorial perspective. Overall, one can apply the same skillset to every piece.

In peoples' first semesters in the Bowen Street Press, there were many editors editing poetry for the first time. There were only about 1-2 poets out of the 25. But, there's never been a situation where someone has handed over or deferred a piece. In the BSP's context, they edit everything, and aren't specialised.

Section 2 (Friday): Peta Murray and a Deep Listening Pomodoro Prompt

We began our Friday class by listening to Peta Murray, a self-described "all-purpose" wright lovated in Anglesea, in the inner western part of Victoria. She is a theatremarker, and writes essays, collaborative works, discourse and nonfiction. She likes to create new words, and coined the "Essayesque Dismemoir"

Pomodoro Prompt (#4)
"Listening to Peta Murray talk about... It makes me wonder..."

"Listening to Peta Murray talk about deep listening and how a big part of nonfiction practise is a sensitivity to what is being hidden under what is being said is striking. It makes me wonder how I could have that skill and use it in other areas of life.

As a writer and a keen analyst, I'm no stranger to hamfisted lines or messages in the media I consume. I consider it a weakness when something is stated obviously, whether it's Doctor Who's frustratingly rushed climate change message in 'Orphan 55'. I uh, kind of learnt about these sort of things in Jack the Ripper's terrorist line in an Epic Rap Battle of History (which, admittedly, Hannibal Lector pointed out for the viewer).

Writing with implicative words takes, I feel, a high degree of finesse and a deep understanding of how people work that I don't feel I have yet. I don't believe people have to be super sleuths to write effective dialogue - we're not always as perceptive as we are reading characters' lines than in real life. It's the fact that we can get specific information characters aren't privy to, making it easy to determine whether a character is lying. Or, most likely, the fact that we're a remove from the action with no personal stake in it, that we're able to nitpick so easily. When you're in the moment, it's a lot tougher.

Thinking about my own essay... there's no dialogue in it except my own - but the writer is aware someone is listening (or reading, I suppose) so it's written that way. Maybe I can use some of Peta Murray's advice here and try to create an atmosphere in the piece where I talk like that, where there's hidden meaning among the words. I don't currently fully like where my piece is at now - I dislike the fact that I've stated that the theme of the essay IS loneliness, but I don't think it's escapable without scrapping the information I have already. Ugh.

I wonder if it's the fact that I'm at home that's making me more reluctant to do more research... last time I checked out a library book was late 2018. Nothing feels tangible any more. But I digress.

I don't mean to say every word of my essay should have a double meaning. I just want there to be nice pockets of hidden/implied meaning throughout. It's like playing with the reader, dangling the full, direct truth before their eyes then snatching it away. Something I'll never tell.

Talking about it like this reminds me of the frustrating way we women can sometimes talk, where we might refer to something or ask for something very vaguely, and then become very embarrassed and angry when we literally have to spit it out. It's like we assume people are mind-readers even though they aren't. No wonder there was so much humour about men needing a "woman-speak translator" to understand us.

Should I try to write my essay in that sort of way? Sure, I have to be upfront about particular facts, but... hm... it... probably might not work. Even in braided essay format, it's a little bizarre to be so truthful and then cheekily, perhaps frustratingly coy in the next moment.

I'm very eager to read my editor's reader's report on it. I wonder where I can finesse my essay further? Yeah.

Talking about writing a piece in that complex way makes me want to try to write a fiction piece about it somehow. Perhaps the main character (the reader) is people-watching, and notices a particular conversation on the phone. There's two big visual modes of communication when speaking to people - their body language, and their communication (let's just say verbal for this one). So in a phone call, there's:

Voice 1 ---------- Voice 2
Body 1 XXXXX Body 2

Callers can't see each others' bodies. So what might the reader observe when they have the full side of only one person? That would be intriguing... especially... especially if they could see the person is lying... heh.

Wonder where I might choose to lie or hide in my redraft, eh? Worth a shot."

-Katie, the Plague Wanderer