Skip to main content

Editing

The most difficult part of writing The Study is not the writing process itself, it is the editing process. I have people who are great editors for my other work, but it is far more difficult with this genre. I can see how dystopias are popular to write: the negative outlook on society seems to be an invisible canvas within which we all see the world most of the time. When trying to show how the world might be made better during transition, instead of worse, is far harder for other people to digest for two reasons.
The first reason finding an editor is hard is that we are all used to sharing our own ideas, as opposed to listening to and developing the ideas of others. Whenever I explain the ideas behind the stories in this book, I invariably here a hedged positive piece of feedback followed immediately with an explanation of either why it wouldn't work or how that person would do it instead. I am far too polite to shout at them that if they think their ideas are so great, why aren't they writing this story, but I do think about it.
It is the explaining why my idea wouldn't work that really prevents me from finding the appropriate editors for my story. I wonder if people who write dystopias run into the same phenomenon. I want to tell a story about the world as it could be through my eyes. I know there are other ways it can be done, and mine may not be the most plausible or positive ways to change society, but they are my ideas. I need an editor who is going to help me translate the ideas onto paper in a way that other people can understand. More than that, I need an editor who will help me phrase my story and ideas in a way that sparks positive, effective conversation among different groups of people. My goal in this endeavor is to infiltrate the negative trend in literature to lose faith in humanity and what we can achieve with some hope. I hope that the conversation will change for the better as a result of this book, if it hasn't happened beforehand.
That being said, if you would like to be an early reader for this story, comment or send me an email. Let's change the conversation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What If We Addressed Problems Holistically

What If… We treated problems holistically instead of individually?               One of the things I realized early on in my adult education was the relationship between seemingly disparate ideas. My bachelor’s degree focused on the relationship between biological equilibrium, environmental factors, and the mental reaction of individuals. From the beginning, I knew that it was folly to think that any of these categories could be studied in a vacuum. It did not take long for me to realize that it was not only in my own specialty that this was true, but in many other aspects of life. Yet, the compartmentalized view of the world is how the general populace perceives its environment, and social problems in particular.               As an educator, I found myself unable to teach only the subject with which I was tasked. I found the need for students t...

The Viral Candidate - Housing

Am I actually running for president? Not now. I am reasonable enough to know that an idea borne of frustration at lacking a candidate that represents me and my family is not going to change the world. But an idea can change the world, and these generations are the ones most capable of doing so. I am going to dream of a world where no one is hungry, thirsty, or at the mercy of the elements. If I was running for president, I would need to explain my platform, get feedback, and adapt it to the needs of each community. The problem is most people focus on one or two issues and try to solve them independently. What I have learned as a science teacher and a student of the social sciences is that many issues are intertwined and need to be addressed as a whole, instead of in parts, if they are going to be any good for the average American.               For example, I want to tackle homelessness. That is a doozy and requires so...

Musing on the News - Book Bans

                 Time published an article on 4/20 titled “New Report Finds That Book Bans Have Reached Their Highest Levels Yet.” As an avid reader I am immediately bothered by this, but I think it is worth explaining why.               First, over half the country is functionally illiterate, and even more don’t like to read, so who are we banning books for, anyway? It’s not like online ads that subliminally change your thinking. If you want to read a book, you have to physically get it, let someone else know what you’re reading (checking it out of a library or buying it in a store), and spend hours reading the material, depending on how fast you read. Reading is also self-selecting, as you can figure out by the book cover and back if you want to spend the time to decipher its contents. Reading social media and news is anonymous (except for the data points being collected on ...