So this delivers on exactly what the title makes you expect, and it was surprisingly similar to fiction. From the slight amount that I've dipped my toes into the fiction writing world and the bits of edits I've received are very similar in nature (although I can definitely say that that I've never received a note of just yee-haw as the Weiland said he is sometimes wont to do). It was interesting to see the editor go on about the narrative, the arc, and the "curve" of nonfiction books, which I had never really thought about. Granted, I really don't enjoy nonfiction so I haven't thought about it much in general, but it was different and a bit intriguing to see the viewpoint of someone with a burning passion for nonfiction.
One certain interesting bit was how with one book Weiland was editing a book about an author's time at the New York Times, he asked the author to "think like a chapter" and to consider the narrative propulsion of the piece and considering the questions they want to guide the reader to. Now while this sounds super like fiction, the interesting part is that elsewhere in the article Weiland was overjoyed when one of his authors included an over-the-top in-depth history and description of phosphorous. The only question I'm being guided through is "Why?" One had interesting and entertaining stories but needed direction, and the other dude had a somewhat related topic but then went ridiculously hard on it and that was fine. I guess execution is at the heart of everything in writing, but the dichotomy there struck me.
So yeah, the main message I got was that what to consider when writing and editing nonfiction and fiction isn't entirely different. The subject of the reader that needs to be considered doesn't change much as both are generally marketed.
"Whether the writers I work with follow my editorial suggestions or not, what I hope they remember is the spirit in which they're made—an enduring commitment to a writer's ideas and style, a passion for making them public, and a diehard belief that there are plenty of good readers for great general nonfiction on any subject."
One certain interesting bit was how with one book Weiland was editing a book about an author's time at the New York Times, he asked the author to "think like a chapter" and to consider the narrative propulsion of the piece and considering the questions they want to guide the reader to. Now while this sounds super like fiction, the interesting part is that elsewhere in the article Weiland was overjoyed when one of his authors included an over-the-top in-depth history and description of phosphorous. The only question I'm being guided through is "Why?" One had interesting and entertaining stories but needed direction, and the other dude had a somewhat related topic but then went ridiculously hard on it and that was fine. I guess execution is at the heart of everything in writing, but the dichotomy there struck me.
So yeah, the main message I got was that what to consider when writing and editing nonfiction and fiction isn't entirely different. The subject of the reader that needs to be considered doesn't change much as both are generally marketed.
"Whether the writers I work with follow my editorial suggestions or not, what I hope they remember is the spirit in which they're made—an enduring commitment to a writer's ideas and style, a passion for making them public, and a diehard belief that there are plenty of good readers for great general nonfiction on any subject."
No comments:
Post a Comment