All language subtitles for Masterclass - David Baldacci Teaches Mystery and Thriller Writing - 13.Working With an Editor

in the um process of selecting editors

um at a publisher, the first thing I

would probably look at and say who else

have they edited? You know, had they

edited books in my genre? And if so, you

know, can I see some of the editorial

letters or maybe I want to talk to some

of the writers that they worked with to

see what kind of relationship they have.

If an editor has not edited a thriller

writer before and really hasn't done a

lot of work in that genre, it's a really

specialized genre, I might be a little

bit hesitant unless that person after

meeting them have other characteristics

that I think would just be far more

positive than negative. So I look into

what they've done, who they work with,

what they've edited, look at some of

their sample editorial letters to see,

you know, that take everybody has a

different style. My editor does a long

editorial letter, parses out the big

points that he wants me to address and

attaches sort of a page by page comment

list. Every page that has a comment on

it, it's also listed on an attachment to

the editorial letter, which makes it

very convenient for me to go through the

manuscript and go right to the page and

see what he's talking about. It's

written out, but it's also

electronically, you know, it's digital

on the manuscript as well, so I can see

all the sort of changes he's asking for

and asking me to think about at least.

So, every editor has a different style.

sit down and talk to the person, see if

there's chemistry there. And there has

to be. Look, if you sometimes they're a

great editor, but you just don't connect

with them. Um, and if you don't, it's

kind of hard to really have trust and

confidence in a person. So, I think at a

personal level, do you connect with

them? And then secondly, what have they

worked on before? And is that really,

you know, does that really match up with

the genre that you're working in?

Editorial relationships are critical for

any writer. Um, I've had various editors

over the years, people I respect and

admired. I've had the the same editor,

American editor, for probably my last 15

or 16 books. We built a very close

relationship. It has to be one of

confidence and trust. Trust in

particular. And I have that with him.

Writers have to understand this, and

this is kind of critical. Um, when a

editor makes comments about your

manuscript, um, it's not that they're

making it to belittle it or that you

didn't do a good job or they think you

could have done better. What they're

trying to do is make this manuscript as

absolutely good as it possibly can be.

So, you both have the same goals. Your

goals are aligned. You want to make it

better. That person wants to make it

better. Their job is to not tell me

what's great about the book. Although

good editors will always say, "I love

this passage. You knocked this out of

the park. This chapter ending was like

primo. Don't change a word because

instinctively I sort of get where I'm

really strong in a manuscript where the

action's flowing, the dialogue is really

spot-on. I kind of get that. I need a

good editor will tell you where are the

weak spots where you've missed the mark

where the characters are not delivering

where the dialogue sounds a little flat

where the pacing is waning and where the

plot is not plausible. That's where I

need that to tell me where my weaknesses

are. Um there can be disagreements about

it uh between editor and the writer

about the manuscript. Um at the end of

the day uh you the writer are the master

and commander. You are the creator, you

are God. So whatever you want to do at

the end that's how it's going to be. Um

but I think an open communication is a

really great thing and a discussion is a

really great thing. I would never, you

know, just tell my editor back off. This

is the way it's going to be. I I would

try to articulate the reasons why I

think this has to be the way it is. And

he can articulate his argument. He may

persuade me. I may persuade him. But at

the end of the day, if I'm really

confident and comfortable in my

decision, then that's how it's going to

be in the story. That doesn't happen

very often with me. I can't say it's

never happened. It certainly has. I

always, as a lawyer, always feel like I

should always give the other person the

opportunity to persuade me uh that I

should go another way. And I always feel

like I should the opportunity to

persuade someone else. Not that I have

to, but it's the respect that I owe to

that person. Um, and and when I say

respect, I really do mean that this

should be a respectful collaborative uh

partnership. And you have to give the

person respect for what they're trying

to do, and he or she will give the same

to you. So, not any word you write as a

writer is set in stone. Please bear that

in mind. Not any word you write is set

in stone. It's subject to respectful

comments from people that you trust.

and take those comments um in a

respectful way knowing that the person

is well-intentioned. You know, this

should not be a conflict uh

relationship. It should be a

collaborative relationship. So, I get

editorial letters. I read through them.

Um I decide which ones I agree with. But

nine times out of 10, here's the cool

thing. I know this manuscript better

than anyone because I wrote every word

of it. So sometimes when the editor

gives me a comment about something, a

character on page 50, it opens up for

me, you know, a plotline that I need to

address and make better in page on page

285.

Not that the editor ever made that

connection, but the spark that he gave

me for making a comment about a

character on that page made me, because

I know this whole broad expanse better

than anyone, connect this thread just

shot out from that page right to that

chapter. And I realized, you know what,

I agree with that change, but also

something he didn't think of, this imp

impacts this and I can make it a lot

better if I just do this. And every

manuscript that I've ever done,

something like that has happened that is

delivered where the editors made a

comment totally unrelated, but it

sparked an inspiration in my mind to

make another change in another part of

the book that I'm the only person who

could have thought of it just because

I'm the person who created it. I know it

better than anyone else. So, it's a

really important relationship. It should

be a collaboration, not a conflict. Um,

and just understand that each party has

the same set of goals. They just want to

make this book as good as it possibly

can be. And these people are working

very hard and they have talent and

professionalism. They're working very

hard on your behalf to make this product

as good as it possibly can be.

Typically way it works, the manuscript

goes up initially to everybody and they

take a look at it and you'll get an

editorial letter back with page by page

comments on it and I work my way through

that. Then I'll send it back up and my

editor may have more changes or maybe

not. So if he does, I'll do another set

and then I'll send that back up. Then

everybody's happy with that. Then it

goes to copy editing. The copy editors

are the one to check for the grammar and

all that stuff. And I go through that

again, not just looking for grammar. I

go through it looking for substantive

things. And I oftentimes find things

that I need to be changed because the

buck stops with me. And I have to make

sure that everything is absolutely right

in that draft because my chances my

chances are dwindling. The opportunities

are dwindling how many times I'm going

to get to look at that. So the copy

editing, I know after that, I've only

got one more shot at this book. After

the copy editing goes back up, then the

page proofs come down and those are the

finished pages. So, I can make changes

to that, but I can't make a ton of

changes to it to change the pageionation

and all that because it's already been

type set. So, I know let's say for on

one page, if I subtract 10 words, then

I'm going to add 10 words back in. Or if

I add 20 words, uh, if it'll make the

page carry over, that's a problem that I

have to find 20 words that I can

subtract from that page because I like

to keep it clean. I don't want to cause

undo uh burden for somebody. So, you

really maybe have three opportunities uh

once you finish your first draft to get

everything you want in there. On the on

the young adult side, the middle grade

side, their their lead time is a little

bit longer than the adult side. So, I

might have four or five different passes

at the manuscript in order to make sure

everything is absolutely right. But even

though I have lots of eyes looking at it

and people that I trust, I always feel

like the buck stops with me. And if

something gets through at the end, then

it's my fault. Um, so I I'm very careful

in going through by word by word, line

by line. Sometimes I'll read the line

backwards because sometimes then errors

jump out at you a lot more cleanly than

they would if you're just reading

because look, the human brain glosses

over stuff and there's a mistake. The

human brain just fools you and says,

"Oh, no, it's fine. Just keep reading."

And that's how mistakes are made. So

it's it's it's about getting a bunch of

eyes on it. But you as the writer, the

buck stops with you.

I'm going to pull out an editorial

letter that I got on The Last Mile, a

book I wrote a few years ago. It's a

second one, second installment of the

Amos Decker series, and we can go

through one of the comments my editor

provided, and I can tell you how I

reacted to it and the changes that I

made in the manuscript. So, this heading

is called Jameson. Alex Jameson is Amos

Decker's partner. They first met in

Memory Man. She was a journalist and now

she's part of this FBI task force

investigating coal cases.

And throughout the novel, you know, Amos

Decker sort of dominates everything just

because of his intellect, his memory,

and just he's a huge physical presence

in the middle of everything. My editor,

the comment was, you know what, Jameson

is a really critical part of this novel.

Uh he didn't think I was getting sort of

giving her full credit uh in the novel.

I wasn't allowing her to do enough. It

was all sort of Amos' show and game and

he was finding all the clues and all

that. So his his comment here was, you

know, we need to sort of build up Alex's

character a little bit more. You need to

give her more things to do to allow her

to shine in addition to Decker.

So that was the comment. And in the

manuscript, I went back and I found

three or four places within the

manuscript where there was a reveal, a

discovery of a clue, a lead that was

obtained and followed through where

before I'd given all that action to

Decker to do. So giving her these extra

scenes, these extra beats, these after

extra lift points allowed her to sort of

rise up in the story and become closer

to Ducker's equal, which solved a lot of

issues and plots in the story. And this

is one of those things where you have to

have that element of trust. Uh this was

a dramatic change. And you know, it's

always sort of a balance act between how

much to give each person on the page.

You know, you've talked about giving

actors time on the screen. Well, this is

time on the page. It's the same kind of

thing. But at the end of the day, my

editor really persuaded me this was

important and he was actually right. And

that's one reason why I made the change.