Reading Reflection #3

In my estimation, the most important of these three paths, so to speak, is flexibility. This cannot come without the other two, but I find that because this path is so closely connected with the author, it should be first in the ranking. Editing is not just a job for one person to complete in a bubble. It is a relationship and conversation between the parties involved. It is a collaboration to bring a piece of work to its fully formed and final iteration. Flexibility makes this relationship possible, and allows the editor to adapt to the project, author, and circumstances at hand. Rigidity in the way that one edits can lead to conflict, and it has the potential to pigeonhole a piece of work or the artist behind it. If we as editors can allow ourselves to work with the work, and the person that created it, rather than against it, we are not only allowing ourselves to learn and grow, but we are also allowing what we are editing to grow with us. 

Next in the ranking comes transparency. I understood this piece as the ability to communicate openly and honestly with the author of the work. This communication is so important to being able to come to an agreement on exactly what a portion of the work should be like, or to be able to communicate what you as the editor believe is important to bring a piece to its full potential. A major piece of transparency is having evidence or reason to support why an edit is being made. In the event that you as the editor pose a change, you must have grounds for that change, and transparency involves being able to present those grounds to the author. Receiving edits can be an extremely personal situation, and if not done correctly or with the right tact can lead to dissolution of relationships or working conditions. Transparency keeps lines of communication open, honest, and productive so that all parties can work together effectively. This can also be helpful in terms of time. If we as editors are transparent, and are able to discuss our edits in a way that makes sense to the author, the amount of back and forth that occurs has the potential to be reduced, leading to the work getting into the hands of the intended audience more swiftly, which is better for everyone involved. 

Last, but not least, is carefulness. Without carefulness, we do not have a foundation to work off of. This is the path that the other two are built on, and it gives editors the tools to be successful in their editing. Saller references the edict of “do no harm” in editing, and I think that holding this idea as we edit can help us remain true to not only the rules and knowledge that we are coming into the edit with, but also to the piece that we are working on. This carefulness helps us edit to the best of our ability, and also requires us to trust that the author has written the piece to the best of their knowledge and ability as well. Just as with flexibility, carefulness is also important for the fostering of the editor and author relationship.