Part Two of the Trip Report

[kiwisue]

Friday reprise – Oh, damn – I forgot the vid show!. I didn't stay for all of it but I did see przed's 'Believe' (yay!), a few other favourites and the Alias Smith & Jones one (I missed Inspector Rex, though).

Saturday was the day of gumbo soup for lunch – delicious! Possibly the best thing I ate all weekend.


Pros party – vids, mini Swiss Rolls, wall pics to admire… there was a quiz and a door-prize but I was too busy chatting to notice who won what. Karen came back with a small swag of prizes, though.

Panel – Life on Mars (General Discussion)
Interesting readings of the series ending, who the slash pairings were (if any – there were dedicated slashers in that room who didn't see a particular one), pure enjoyment of the series.

Panel – "The editor is your friend… maybe"
Overall, I was disappointed with this panel. It began well. The moderator started a 'good' and a 'bad' list on the whiteboard, invited contributions and discussion kicked off. The first thing I noticed was that most of those who spoke seemed to have had experience from the 'zine editing/production side of things. By inference, the 'beta' process common to internet writers was somehow 'not editing' for several of these folk. This was the first thing that was hard to take. I know people who dislike the term beta, saying that editing (whether done well, badly or not at all) is the correct word to use, always. I think I agree. There are many elements of the 'zine publication process that are different from internet production – however none of these seem to me to be intrinsic to the actual editorial task, which is essentially the same in both settings.

The panel touched on the basics of the editor's role (checking continuity, grammar, characterisation, usage, according to my notes) and there were comments about good/bad editing that people had experienced (but nothing much to add to the discussions that are already available on 'zinelist). There was a useful exchange about what should happen when editor and writer simply can't agree on whether a change should or shouldn't be made, including the option of withdrawing gracefully from an arrangement that isn't working. I didn't take notes, because at the time it simply seemed to me to be good common sense and courtesy – negotiate, negotiate, send texts back with comments and "let's discuss", but at the end of the day (i) the editor shouldn't change something in the work without the author's consent yet (ii) they do have the final say about whether it's included in the 'zine in the form the author wants. Oh, and being clear about time-frames, and so forth.

There was some talk about what editors do when they need to edit works that require specialised knowledge: of a time period (e.g. when the word 'gay' began to be used); of a technical matter; cultural references (e.g. Brit-checking) or foreign/minority group language and slang. Regarding these, I got the feeling that odd/unusual words were frowned on, unless there was a very very, very good reason to include them. At one point I found myself saying "why can't they look it up", because I was thinking about questions I'd seen elsewhere, discussions where people wanted to know simple things, things that anyone could have found out through the Internet a whole lot faster than by writing an email. I was told (emphatically) that the reader "shouldn't have to look things up". That floored me – and I had a little rant about it later, in a sympathetic ear (you know who you are!).

As a fan fiction reader I like being challenged by unfamiliar words as well as ideas. I don't mind pausing to check something out – if it breaks my flow, I go back and re-read as much as I need to. I only have a problem with 'clever' word usage when it detracts from the story that's being told (meaning that when I re-read, knowing what is being said, I still find it jarring). And something I saw on a list today makes sense – I can't quote the source, but basically the writer said that commercial publishers want writing that is comprehensible to someone with a 4th- 8th grade reading ability. Is this attitude/presumption commonly held by fannish editors/betas? Are other commercial publishing "rules" being taken up as "received knowledge" and promulgated in a way that actually stifles creative expression rather than encouraging and honing it?

*shakes head and moves on*.

Panel – "The Professionals – Canon vs Fanon"
This was a reprise of a panel held at the 'Close Quarters' con that I missed. Hampered by lack of a whiteboard/writing surface, it was still enormous fun. I direct you to paris7am's journal for the Quote of the Day!

The Bon Voyage party was great. I had tears in my eyes at the end, singing "The Rose". Never mind that I'd never been to Zebracon before, there was so much feeling in the room.

Stayed up way late and had a ball talking, listening, talking.

Sunday
I missed the 'Dead Dog'. I only mention this because I don't know what a "dead dog" is, in context (and yup, I Googled it).

The best part of Sunday was spent in just talking with various folks (I was so glad I could let the_shoshanna know how much I'd enjoyed "Never Let Me Down" and I loved the discussion of "Love Lies Bleeding"), saying goodbyes and feeling as though the weekend had been too, too short.

Comments

[msmoat.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm glad I didn't go to the editing panel, I think. *g* It's interesting about the term "beta". I used to just insert "editor" (at least in my head) when having discussion with people about it, assuming that they were identical processes. But...over the years I've begun to see a distinction. Betas (and this is a wild generalization) seem to do more of what I'd call a "light" edit, and it is often in the service of friendship. It's true that there are editors that do that as well but...I don't know, maybe it's just that there are so few "editors" compared with "betas". Everyone who publishes on the web seems to have betas and, looking at the results, it seems often that there is no "editing" at all. There are certainly zines that aren't edited, and web stories that are very well edited, but...I guess I do see a difference when someone says to me she had her story beta-read as opposed to edited. And maybe for me part of it is that personal relatoinship thing. I often detest the editing process, but I go through it because I know the story needs it. It's not about making me feel good about my writing or my story, it's about making sure the story is all it can be. My personal relationship with the editor isn't a consideration--it's all about the story. And I expect a lot more from an "editor" than from a "beta reader". The beta gives me feedback--how did the story work for her (or not), maybe some light copy editing. The editor goes through everything with a very hard eye, makes me work on those blasted sentences that I hoped I could get away with not working on, and generally drives me insane--and helps me to write the best story I can write. I'm happy to beta for other people, but I can't be a true editor. I haven't got the skills for it. That's the distinction I see.

I was told (emphatically) that the reader "shouldn't have to look things up".
Oh, for god's sake. Nothing drives me more crazy than this sort of attitude! *g* I'm not writing for children. I have no intention of explaning everything. As a reader, I detest it when a writer feels she has to knock me over the head to get me to understand what it obvious to any intelligent adult. Does that make me an elitist? Sure. Don't elitists deserve stories as well? *g* Seriously, though, I would rather look thing up--and learn things--than to be reading something written for the lowest common denominator. I'll bail on a story that explains too much. Part of the reason why I love Pros so much is the British culture angle. I don't need or want every idiom or cultural item or whatever explained to me. That's a sure way to destroy a story, isn't it? So, they actually said that at the panel? It's a very good thing I wasn't there. *g*

[kiwisue.livejournal.com]

But...over the years I've begun to see a distinction. Betas (and this is a wild generalization) seem to do more of what I'd call a "light" edit, and it is often in the service of friendship. It's true that there are editors that do that as well but...I don't know, maybe it's just that there are so few "editors" compared with "betas". Everyone who publishes on the web seems to have betas and, looking at the results, it seems often that there is no "editing" at all. There are certainly zines that aren't edited, and web stories that are very well edited, but...

Well, yes. That is the kind of distinction that was being made, particularly with regard to the 'friendship' aspect of 'betaeing'. However, although I'm not sure if my experience is unique, I've had editors and 'betas' and they've all adopted a similar approach. They've looked at internal consistency, grammar and usage as well as checking for typos. If anything's been missed it's been because I've needed the job finished quickly, to post a story before a challenge or 'fest deadline, not because they were unwilling to go over it again and make additional suggestions. I've also seen the results of so-called "gentle editing" for 'zines and not been impressed. So I've come to the conclusion it's not the label you choose, it's how you go about the task that's important.

And I was truly hoping the panel that would get more into the mechanics of that "whatever you call it" task of making a story as good as it possibly can be. But that didn't happen.

I'm happy to beta for other people, but I can't be a true editor. I haven't got the skills for it. That's the distinction I see.
But how many people (whether they call themselves 'betas' or 'editors') do? Joan was brilliant. She had the knowledge and the ability to communicate that knowledge, and years and years of practice and experience, professionally as well as in fandom. I'm all for more people getting the motivation to become that good… maybe that's what's missing!

So, they actually said that at the panel? It's a very good thing I wasn't there. *g*
It was said, word for word (I'm sure because I wrote it down straight away, I was so flabbergasted). I didn't say anything, because by that point I'd about had enough. The others may have been having fun, but it wasn't doing a thing for me!

[msmoat.livejournal.com]

I've had editors and 'betas' and they've all adopted a similar approach.
Well, yes, certainly I've had betas who edit. I don't know, it's a slippery thing.

Joan was brilliant, no question, and a remarkable teacher. I miss her very much.

[calla-s.livejournal.com]

Dude! Are you telling me that there exists an "Alias Smith & Jones" vid *and* an "Inspector Rex" one?!!

[kiwisue.livejournal.com]

Yep!

The Inspector Rex vid is available here (it needs the RealOne player):
http://www.ancalime.slashcity.net/Mainvidpage1.htm

Kassidy did the AS&J one, she gave her site address as:
http://starskyhutch.kassidyrae.com/shgen_vids.html
but that particular vid isn't up there. I may email her - it was a good one.

[mab-browne.livejournal.com]

I once used the word 'geas' in a story. One reader couldn't find a definition of it, mailed me, I told her what it meant, everyone was happy. I don't want to be told I have to write to the level of the Readers Digest in every story, and I don't even like being obscure for the sake of obscurity. Guess it's just as well that I wasn't at that panel...

The Dead Dog party - I have no idea why it's called that, but it generally reflects the state of the congoers by the end of proceedings...*eg*

[kiwisue.livejournal.com]

It was your typical quick smackdown response. I'd like to think it hadn't been properly processed through her brain before coming out her mouth, but....

It concerns me because - I don't know why exactly, but I have a bad image in my head of this person with the most up-to-date Rulebook in her hand and someone's story on her computer screen, and she's reading the Rulebook with more care and attention than she is the story.

[paris7am.livejournal.com]

Thank you for another excellent travelogue, Sue. I agree with you - the weekend was far too short.

[the-shoshanna.livejournal.com]

I really enjoyed talking with you, too (and thank you so much for the compliments and interesting discussion!).

I used to be pretty firm about using the word "editing" for what I did in fandom; I edit professionally as well (though I don't do as much substantive editing professionally as I do in fandom, and I don't edit fiction professionally), and it felt important to me to use language that linked those two forms of working with text. On the other hand, another fan I know who edits professionally preferred to use "beta-reading" specifically to separate the fannish and professional parts of her life! I've since relaxed a bit (I mean, if someone wants to credit me as a beta-reader, it's a bit rude to dictate the terms in which they thank and acknowledge me . . .), but I still prefer "edit."

Most important, though, is finding out what an author wants me to do. If someone asks me to edit/beta their story, my first question is always "What sort of help are you looking for?" because the words mean widely different things to different people. Someone who says "I'm basically done, but my spelling is crap; could you look it over?" is going to get very different help from me than someone who says "I don't think I'm really making clear why my character is doing what he's doing, the whole middle section feels too long and out of whack, and I don't actually know anything about seismology, so why the hell did I make the OFC an earthquake specialist, anyway?" even if the stories are identical. As you say, "it's not the label you choose, it's how you go about the task."

[kiwisue.livejournal.com]

Aargh! Sorry, your comment slipped underneath the radar!

it felt important to me to use language that linked those two forms of working with text. On the other hand, another fan I know who edits professionally preferred to use "beta-reading" specifically to separate the fannish and professional parts of her life!

Thank you for your thoughts. I can see your POV - and I can also respect that your friend thinks differently (and not my profession, so can't comment more than that, really).

I've been doing a little googling about the history of beta reading, although there isn't much on where and when it started. It seems there's a connection to parts of the 90's Usenet and the use of the term "beta version" to describe an unedited draft of a fan story. Then quite quickly fan usage became more widespread and the emphasis shifted from "reading the beta (version)" to "doing a beta". Now, over 10 years later, it feels to me as though the concept of what a beta reader does has expanded considerably, becoming much more like... dare I say it?... editing *g*. Although not always; as you say, words mean widely different things to different people.

My friend K, who is pre-Usenet (she doesn't even own a computer), always uses "edit" to describe the process of getting a fan story ready for publication/distribution/posting. It's all fascinating.

Also, sending you positive thoughts re. November (sorry, can't help you with the Dean W side of things :(