Steve Keshner’s masterpiece Cockpit Confessions of an Airline Pilot is totally unedited - I think you can find the word “Philippines” spelled about five different ways - but don’t let this sway you from reading it; it’s keen as beans.
I don’t know much about King, but Rowling doesn’t strike me as the sort of person who’d refuse to be edited, and IIRC she has spoken highly of her editor(s) before. However, I could believe that the publishers of very successful writers might not want to delay a surefire bestseller with a lot of editing and revisions.
That’s what I believe, without any substantiation whatsoever, to be the case for many writers. Editors don’t edit the books of really successful writers beyond a cursory glance because they don’t need to. The book will get published and do well without any extra effort on the editors’ part, and that delay could cost them money.
Even proofreading seems to be neglected in later editions in a series. I’m sure some proofreading happens, because otherwise there would be so many errors that everyone would notice them (even the best writer will miss a lot of typos, extra names instead of pronouns, little things like that), but the number of typos does increase with the number of editions in a series.
Indeed, GRRM’s editor takes the blame for not having a little more resolution in ADWD. Supposedly he/she removed a couple pivotal scenes that will show up in the next book.
Gail Carriger, author of the Parasol Protectorate series, stated* that she is a very contained writer and frequently is told she needs to make things longer. She underruns her word counts for her books.
Gail Carriger: Bestselling Author
*No cite. Personal conversation at FenCon in Dallas last weekend.
If you’re going only on the fact that their later books are longer and less concise than their earlier ones, I think you need more evidence than that. It may be that, for an inexperienced novelist early in his/her career, it’s a relative struggle to come up with enough words and ideas and details to fill a novel. Writing goes more slowly; the output is smaller. But as they get more experience under their belt, the words flow more freely, and they get more longwinded in their old age. I don’t know whether this is actually the case for any particular author, but it sure seems like it’s not uncommon for an author’s later works to be longer and more discursive than their earlier works, even if the author never becomes a megastar.
At least one thing we can say for sure about Stephen King is that he later got enough clout to release a longer, uncut version of The Stand, so we have at least one example of what it looks like when an author is edited vs when they’re not.
I think (and like others, no proof), JK Rowling actually went on an editing cycle through her books. #s 1-3–edited normally. #4–edited, but less so than the first three. #5–barely edited at all. #s 6 and 7–back to using an editor, though still less than 1-3.
I love the Harry Potter series, but I think #5 could easily have been cut by 25% and it would have been a better book. I also think the camping scenes in #7 could have been cut some, but other than that I thought #7 was very good.
Where did you read this?
P. G. Wodehouse said “I think most novels would be better if shorter.” Looking at the long-winded novels of current authors, I agree with him…
Heh Bujold, who has an inordinate number of awards for writing F&SF uses those of us on her mail list as proofreaders when she has a new ARC out, when she has a new edition headed out and when they release a new ebook edition of her stuff … as well as other errata. She also uses us as reference librarians - for CryoBurn she needed japanese translations for stuff that was happily provided by a japanese speaking listee.
That not editing–that’s proofreading and translation. What’s that got to do with the thread?
That said, Cryoburn didn’t need better editing or better proofreading or better translation, it needed better writing.
GRRM said in his EW interview there were more cliffhangers than he’d have liked.
And from the westeros webiste:
http://www.westeros.org/ASoWS/Books/Entry/2665/
So maybe the blame doesn’t fall completely on the editor, but at least some.
Excuse me if I’m skeptical, please. I think he just didn’t have the resolutions written.
GRRM: “I can write some resolutions, really! Just give me another two years! Or maybe four.”
Editor: “Look, we really need to publish something. Even if it sucks.”
GRRM: “Fine, but it’s your fault.”
Heck, I’ve barely started Book 2 and the author’s tendency toward slogginess is apparent.
What comes to mind for the OP, though, is a film-maker named William “One-Shot” Beaudine:
WRT to JK Rowling, was’nt there a rewrite of a substantial bit of book 4 at the editor’s behest?
It’s hard to imagine Pynchon’s latter two monsters *Mason & Dixon *and Against the Day being edited beyond the most cursory level (It’s hard to imagine them even being published by another writer). Who would be up to the job of editing them and where would they start?
It reminds me a bit of when mathmaticians submit proofs of serious problems for publication. Other, unrelated mathmaticians have to agree to take on the job of reviewing the proof and putting it under scrutiny. Which can be a big commitment for a major proof. You’d need someone like John Barth to properly edit *Against the Day *.
I am the proofreader of about half of Stephen King’s books since he came over to Scribner from Viking (the first novel was Bag of Bones) and, having seen many of his mss, I can assure folks that, while his grammar and style are idiosyncratic in many ways, he frequently okays sensible editorial suggestions.
There would be the occasional tug of war over his having 4 out of 5 objects on a single ms page colored red, the copyeditor suggesting at least one of these be turned to green, and his goodnaturedly declining in the margin, with a Smiley Face …
He insists on “for awhile,” which is not standard usage.
OTHER writers, I got horror stories up the wazoo about, let me tell ya …
Copyediting is not editing. Proofreading is not editing. They may be essential and writers are always grateful for those who can do the job well*, but editing is as different as mathematics is from arithmetic.
I know from literary history that many 1000 page novels have been carved out of 2000 page manuscripts. The length of the finished product says nothing whatsoever about the length of the ms.
Thomas Wolfe is the famous case that always gets trotted out, but he’s just the tip of the iceberg.
*And writers have just as many horror stories from the times it wasn’t done well.
As I recall, a Weasley cousin got cut and the important bits she did in terms of driving the main storyline was given to Rita Skeeter instead. However I’ve never heard a suggestion that was the editor’s idea.
For us non-editors, what does this mean? What’s an object? By colored red, does that mean underlined red, or crossed out, or something written in red pen, or what?