On Editors: Ours and Theirs
How Medium’s editors differ
It’s been six weeks since I published my first piece on Medium. A modest milestone. Yet, all my submissions made it through. I’ve never written outside of publications on Medium. Meaning, I’ve always gone through the editorial process for publishing.
And this fact is remarkable. The remarkable thing is, after years working with TV series editors, navigating through every circle of Dante’s hell, now I can breathe a sigh of relief.
My editor used to shout, “I’ll beat Dostoevsky out of you!” And he did. My sentences no longer stretch half a page. And certainly, I don’t earn as much as Dostoevsky.
Earning from writing is tough, almost impossible. Some say you can make money by rewriting others’ ideas. Or through business writing. Inside us, a choice emerges: the thinker desires to create, the body needs to exist. Usually, the body wins.
As for Dostoevsky, he delved into society, at times supporting the ruling powers. Later, he was arrested for his involvement in an anti-government group and sentenced to death, a fate later commuted to penal servitude.
Writing is a constant battle between the human being who walks, lives, and desires, and the thinker within us, to whom all this is secondary.
Many say, “Money doesn’t matter, just write.” Often, those with money speak thus. Or those who’ve never seen it and have abandoned hope.
Count Leo Tolstoy was among the wealthy writers. As a young man, after writing several stories, he sent them to the editor of a renowned journal, including a letter. In the letter, he was candid, asking the editor to decide his fate as a writer.
The editor was given the choice to support Tolstoy as a budding author or to turn the page and close that book forever. Tolstoy placed his destiny in the hands of an unfamiliar editor, ready to give up writing if unworthy, allowing another to make the decision.
Tolstoy was not poor; he could be considered wealthy. For him, sustaining life was not a concern. Fortunately, the editor turned out to be a thinker, a master of his craft, and a truly great person of his time. Thus, Tolstoy’s fate was decided. And we can read some of the greatest works in the world and in the history of literature.
Thanks to that, other events unfolded. Mahatma Gandhi considered Tolstoy his spiritual mentor and corresponded with him. Tolstoy offered Gandhi his developed theory of non-violent resistance, which helped lead India to independence. And it all started with Tolstoy’s simple letter to an editor: to be or not to be. A simple yet eternal question.
Let’s honor the name of this editor: Nikolai Nekrasov.
Switching from tea to tooth-breaking bagels
This is about tyranny in editing. I grasped the essence of the word ‘tyrant’ on the third TV series script I wrote. The first two underwent no revisions.
Then the editor changed. Minor corrections turning your submitted script, now crossed out and covered in yellow highlighter, transform your life into a nightmare. “The character isn’t vivid,” “the transition lacks logic,” “this character is superfluous — remove them.” A hundred remarks on every page.
And then, a short sentence: “The script is excellent, just needs a few tweaks.” You stare at this yellow, thoroughly crossed-out canvas of 60 pages and realize your life is over. Removing a minor character means rewriting a third of the script. Making a character vivid means turning them into one of the main characters, which changes the entire essence of the script’s idea.
Now, I habitually write articles in blocks for easy editing if required by the editorial process. And for literary texts, I write separate vertical narrative lines, only dividing the character lines into episodes and weaving the text together before submission. This way, I can easily make changes to the plot without altering the entire structure.
When a Medium editor asks for my permission to make minor changes, it pleasantly surprises me. I’m used to not being asked at all, especially in film. You write one script, and what you see on screen is completely different.
Comparing literary and film editors to those at Medium, one analogy comes to mind effortlessly: Dante’s circles of Hell versus Heaven.
Does an editor’s intolerance lead to the success of the written work?
The answer is nuanced. I believe professional editing has its pros and cons. Over the years, an editor often becomes an expert in “crossing out” the unnecessary.
It’s not about style or, even more so, grammar — the assumption is a high level of proficiency with the pen. Essentially, an editor’s eye is honed for dynamics and inconsistencies in plot lines. The beginning of the work is crucial. Start weakly, and you immediately lose the reader. And a non-clichéd ending.
From the reader’s perspective, an editor is as important as the writer, though the reader may not realize this. On the other hand, my friend who has long been an editor and succeeded at it, doesn’t see me as a writer. In fact, he doesn’t see anyone that way.
Talking to him, I realize: “I would not want to send my text to him for editing.” He considers all writers fools, incapable of stringing even a couple of words together.
Such an editor is a real tragedy. Let him be an expert a thousand times over, but enjoyment is crucial. A writer seeks objectivity and is ready for it, but also craves support. It’s important that effort and the ability to notice and highlight what others overlook are recognized.
Respecting the dignity of writers is like “walking barefoot on moss,” as Victor Hugo revealed in one of his novels. In this, objectivity is a major endeavor to bring together all disparate threads. In this regard, editing on Medium aligns with my worldview and sensation.
The Medium’s Literary Salon
Admiring Marcel Proust and Oscar Wilde, regulars of historical literary salons, I see Medium as both a privileged and underground literary salon. A salon that spreads its secret societies across continents, catering to the interests of readers and writers alike. Its members are not divided by class or education level.
Their community affiliations do not matter. They are all “Mediumists.” We are all “Mediumists.”
Divide society by passion and connect it with the love for writing and reading, much of which has already been lost, and you get Medium.
For some, it’s a means to earn; for others, a writing journey. For some, it’s exclusive reading material; and for others, a lifesaver when all else fails.
“Verba volant, scripta manent”
“Words fly away, writings remain”
Who Stays in History
Ultimately, in the long record of history, whom do we remember? We remember tyrants, philosophers, artists, composers, and writers. With few exceptions, history erases the rest from its memory.
To write means to remain in history. Sometimes globally, other times within a family. Fate will decide. And editors… their destiny is to foresee. On Medium, they have to become like oracles, mediums themselves. Someday, they might even save a country. Then, history will surely inscribe their names on its pages.