I don’t think Henry Miller allowed any of his stuff to be edited, and it shows. A lot could be snipped without affecting to story one iota.
She made a mistake. In the original ending to the book, the people came out of the wand in the incorrect order of how they had been killed. After publication, readers pointed out the error and it was fixed.
On J.K. Rowling’s website she has some information about subplots and characters that wound up being cut from the final versions of the books. She talks about cutting the Weasley cousin, but as you say it sounds like this was her own idea and not the editor’s: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=3
However, she does say that at her editor’s request she got rid of another minor character in Goblet of Fire: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=4
ETA:
This is also covered on her website: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=19
Note that she mentions they were under a lot of pressure (presumably from the publisher) to edit the manuscript very quickly.
ZenBeam: Sorry, I wasn’t using a publishing term here, despite red pencils indeed being an editor’s mainstay! King evidently likes the color red, and he’d keep describing various objects in a scene (pens, parkas, purses) as being red, to the point where the copyeditor (who was formerly his boss over at Viking) would try to persuade him to change this, if only for variety’s sake!
And?
We’re waiting…
I’d think it would be evident that the length of a Stephen King book is no indication of whether or not it was edited. Take, for instance, the 8000 paged The Stand and the unabridged 8500 page edition.
The parts taken out didn’t effect the book but they were very interesting to read.
Only 3 easily related horror stories at the moment, all from the late 1980s to 5 years or so ago …
-
A bicoastal actor/filmmaker/“writer” (make your own deductions, it’s NOT James Franco) reduced an editor, a consummate professional, nearly to tears with his egomaniacal insults because she “dared” to suggest to such an Artiste that a chapter be split into 2, or maybe it was combining 2 chapters? This 2d book of his was trite and utterly derivative, and the reviews were appropriately dismissive.
-
I phoned an editor to inform her that a character’s name had changed halfway through a novel. She in turn phoned the prolific author to ask him whether he had a preference, and his response in its entirety was “Who cares??”
-
A Harold Robbins wannabe narrated a ludicrous sex scene and the female copyeditor in the margin of the manuscript questioned whether his anatomical description involving the aerodynamics of testicles mid-coitus was even physically feasible, given the limitations of human male anatomy. His scrawled response in the margin read “Try it, you’ll like it!”
bonus: A “procedural” that was published last year had an orchestra performing the “eighth symphony” of Brahms. (The copyeditor apparently had not been a music major. Nor did this editor notice that chapters were misnumbered, or that the author had midway through the book evidently begun to consult the wrong calendar, so that dozens of “2011” dates in the narrative were one weekday off. This is a major publishing house, and the author is a lawyer.)
It’s a slightly different issue for overseas writers who are sending texts that have already been edited and published in their own countries to American publishers. In that case, what the publisher wants to do is Amercanize the text (often under the assumption that the American reader is a complete and utter moron). The result of that process is almost always abominable.
J K Rowling is a good case in point. In the rest of the world, her first book is called “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”, because the “Philosopher’s stone” is a thing that makes sense. You can look it up on Wikipedia or wherever and get Rowling’s meaning. Her American publisher, Scholastic, changed it to “Sorcerer’s Stone”, which is completely and utterly meaningless and stupid. If you read the American editions only, you don’t even get a chance to spot the Philosopher’s Stone reference and understand that it’s chief property is to stop you from aging.
Dealing with British texts that are being issued in the U.S. can be pretty aggravating as well for the diligent proofreader.
Some copyeditors will insist that every single British term in the narrative (some editors: even if it’s in dialogue spoken by British speakers!) be changed to its American equivalent. This is ludicrous if the book is intended for reasonably sophisticated readers, who wouldn’t exactly have trouble with “lift,” “flat,” and so on. And, invariably, the copyeditor misses 30% of these terms and they need to be changed to “elevator,” “apartment,” etc., for the sake of consistency.
Yet in the same manuscript, there will be a Britishism that is so obscure that I am unable to make heads or tails of it, even with 3 British/American dictionaries at hand (God bless search engines) …
Wow, Chuck Palahniuk has a personal site?
Laurell K Hamilton quit using an editor and oh my god does it show.
Yeah, it took me a bit of Googling to figure out what the hell “plus-fours” were (this was a reference in one of the Harry Potter books). So they think we can’t handle the Philosopher’s Stone or “trainers” for “athletic shoes,” but they give us “plus-fours”?
Back when I was doing typesetting, a manuscript mentioned that someone was deeply moved by Rachmaninoff’s Second Violin Concerto. I changed “Violin” to “Piano,” with an explanatory note in the margin. My boss changed it back to “Violin.”
This was the same boss who changed “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” to “Jesus . . . ,” claiming that the change was self-explanatory.
I think it was Ayn Rand herself who said she challenged Bennett Cerf’s recommendation about editing ATLAS SHRUGGED with “Would you edit the Bible?”
You’ve got to wonder what the result would be if the Bible was submitted to a major publishing house and edited.
It has been translated multiple times and several books either omitted or included.
Blasphemer! The King James version is the version Jesus wrote.
Really? That explains soooo much.
Not by Bennett Cerf, though!
A quote that this brings to mind…
Roger Zelazny’s comment on his Last Defender of Camelot:
(Not disagreeing with you Exapno Mapcase, it was just something that popped into my head from your comment).