Wednesday, 8 February 2012

DEFINITION OF AN EDITOR - SOMEONE WHO WANDERED IN OUT OF THE RAIN AND FELL INTO A JOB...

Copyright relevant owner

Right, Crivvies, now that I've got your attention with that provocative title, let's talk about editors.  Editors, like everything else on this planet, come in all shapes and sizes - good, bad and indifferent.  I've worked for some really good editors in my time, but I've also worked for some total incompetents.  The incompetents make for a much more interesting study, so let's focus on them.

Some incompetents may actually be quite proficient in ensuring that the whole process of comics production runs smoothly, and that the finished result arrives at the printers when it's due with as few hiccups along the way as possible.  In short, they're good traffic managers.  However, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have any particular skills for editing a comic, in the sense of choosing good writers and artists, matching the most suitable ones together, and catching mistakes - whether it be of spelling, punctuation or grammar.  Some editors I've experienced over the years have been diabolically deficient in some or all of those departments.


Let me tell you of such a tale which demonstrates the truth of the above.  I was once approached by an editor about whether I might be available to letter a Holiday Special featuring some HANNA-BARBERA cartoon characters.  I was busy at the time, but mindful of the fact that I might have a quiet period in the future, I enquired about the possibility of it leading to regular work.  "We have quite a number of upcoming projects," I was told, "so there's bound to be something or other we can send your way."


I therefore acceded to lettering the proffered project and duly received stats of the artwork.  There were three stories which required my tender attentions: The FLINTSTONES, SCOOBY DOO YOGI BEAR.  These strips had originated as English-language tales, and then been translated into Spanish or Italian for the foreign market.  Presumably, the English versions were not readily available, necessitating the foreign editions being re-translated back into our mother-tongue to make them suitable for U.K. distribution.


The editor happened to speak whatever foreign tongue the strips were in and had enclosed a script of the English equivalent.  As most bi or multi-lingual speakers will appreciate, when one language is directly-translated into another, adjustments are often required to accommodate the rhythm and phraseology of the latter, otherwise the result are stilted.  So a verbatim translation might read: "The butter pass me please!", instead of the more natural "Please pass me the butter!"  While it wasn't quite as bad in this case, it wasn't too far removed in some instances.


Even worse, however, was that she was completely unfamiliar with Hanna-Barbera characters, which one would have thought a prerequisite for her position.  For example: RANGER SMITH was called WARDEN SMITH, PICNIC BASKETS were referred to as LUNCHEON HAMPERS, and I remember seeing another issue in which the TOWN Of BEDROCK was rendered as ROCK CITY.  In the Yogi Bear story, the veterinary surgeon's hut originally sported a doctor's sign outside.)  Going from back issues, this sort of thing was a regular occurrence, made worse by the fact that the finished strips were submitted to HB representatives for approval before publication.  (Who, it would seem, were also sound asleep at the wheel.)


On top of that, though, the dialogue and captions were just a statement of what was evident in each individual pic, while at the same time (in one particular story) suggesting an overall plot that didn't match anything shown in them.  So, if a character was running away, someone would be saying "He's running away!", while someone else replied something like "He doesn't want his picture taken!" - even if a camera was nowhere in sight.  Worst of all was that no-one ever said anything remotely humorous.


Being conscientious, I 'phoned the editor and described the all-too obvious problems with the scripts, and asked her permission to address them and to add a little humour.  She grudgingly acquiesced, recognising that I was correct, but with her nose out of joint at me detecting flaws which had escaped her attention.  The Flintstones story I amended by about 60%, the Scooby Doo tale by about 85%, and the Yogi Bear one by about 95%.  All this extra time and effort I gave for free, my chief concern being only that the stories made sense and were as entertaining as possible.


I also took time to letter some suitable story titles for the splash pages (they ruined the Flintstone's one by not adding colour), and photocopied the established character mastheads from some of my old Hanna-Barbera annuals so that the stories would look as 'authentic' as possible.  I doubt that anyone ever lavished as much attention on previous specials as I had with this one.  The finished result certainly looked far better than those which had preceded it.  After finishing a few pages I noticed another problem, so I then took special care to make the new lettering accommodate the speech balloons as closely as possible, without them looking too big (or small) for the enclosed dialogue.  (Which was often a feature of pre-computer relettering on translated strips.)

Some months after publication, I 'phoned her again to enquire about some courtesy copies she had promised to send which I hadn't received, and to ask if she might have any regular work for me yet.  She said she had sent the copies (which, going by her tone, I doubt) and frostily denied ever having suggested that she might send me other work.  Yet another example of an editor saying whatever is expedient to secure the services of some trusting freelancer, only to discard them when they're no longer required to meet a deadline and save their bacon.


Would it have been wiser if I'd said nothing and just turned in an inferior product?  Perhaps, but I was motivated purely by a desire to make the job as good as it could be, not to show off in any way.  Had she dismissed my concerns and asked me to do it as it was, I would have, but she couldn't deny that my observations had merit.  My wish to do the best job possible rather than just 'phone it in', made her look more efficient and competent than she actually was.  Trust me, some editors are absolutely bloody useless - but I'll keep their names to myself.  And if there's anybody out there who isn't as annoyed by this sort of thing as I am, then I'm a Dutchman.

(This is Kid Van Der Valk signing off.)

******
   
I should perhaps add that anything even remotely resembling humour in any of the above pages was dialogued by myself.

15 comments:

  1. the world is full of people who dont 'care'.
    And there are a lot of people like you who will go that extra mile.
    I have worked in a few industries,all unrelated and its the same as you described in most of them.
    If its worth doing its worth doing right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unfortunately, as you say, not a philosophy that everyone shares.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I understand your frustration with the scripts you were given but if you were rewriting scripts by as much as 60% to 95% wouldn't the pages have to be re-submitted by Marvel to Hanna Barbara for re-approval? If so you'd be costing Marvel precious time so perhaps that's why the editor began to use other letterers instead.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, and here's why. These strips had effectively already been approved because they were reprints. Therefore, they wouldn't have been submitted for (re)approval until they had been completed, which was usually just a formality.

    (And I was also pointing out that they seemed to get approved even when they were littered with departures from approved HB names, terminology, etc., therefore making the process almost redundant.)

    I assume that, even when starting from scratch, new strips were not submitted until after they were drawn, so that the likenesses could be approved. Or perhaps the scripts had to be approved before being drawn, and also again after.

    Regardless, however, my redialoguing certain sections did not slow the process down at their end one whit - because the finished strip would have been submitted for approval before publication anyway. (And I more than met the deadline.) All it did was give me more work to do for the same money. Oh, AND improve the finished result.

    (Incidentally, if what you suggest had been the case, the editor would no doubt have nipped my suggestions in the bud on those grounds alone.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also, on the point of her using other letterers: In the normal course of events she would have relied upon one or two regular letterers, who must have been unavailable for some reason or other on that particular issue. That means she probably had no intention of giving me further work anyway - it was obviously an emergency situation. She simply buttered me up with the potential of regular assignments to get me on-side for that particular issue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh I see. Well it was 20 years ago. Time to let it go perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  7. They should have got you to design the Cartoon Time logo. The one they used is rubbish.:-/

    ReplyDelete
  8. A - Let it go? And have nothing to write about? The past is always fertile ground for mining, and sadly, these kind of editors still exist. But thanks for commenting, attempt at withering sarcasm and all.

    Anon - yeah, I don't know who did it, but I've always though it was pretty amateurish. Another thing the editor should've picked up on. I offered to do a new one for free, but the response was: "What's wrong with the one we've got?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm in the mood for a bit of a moan so here goes with an editor I used to know.
    He was one of those people who was all good intentions. Nothing wrong with that, you might think. But there's a vast difference between having good intentions and actually following through with them. Making good on your promises costs money. It takes time. Most of all, it takes quite an effort. Money, time and effort - the unholy trinity as far as some people are concerned.
    He promised - not merely "said he would", he PROMISED - to send me Rapidographs, a drawing board, a set square and all sorts of other neat stuff after he found out I was drawing my contributions on the kitchen table in technical drawing pens. What do you think arrived in the post? Correct - beggar all.
    He PROMISED to use my art AND script material, then as soon as I'd sent both along to him, he decided neither were up to standard (which was a barefaced bloody lie) and quickly got one of his hack-it-out work experience lackeys to 'ghost' my artwork in as crude a manner as possible. When I complained about this, he said "your work isn't up to professional standard" - despite having published reams of the bleeding stuff already!
    Last I heard he'd got into some legal argy-bargy and lost his house. So, every cloud...

    ReplyDelete
  10. In my experience, many editors and publishers will simply tell you what is expedient at the time to secure your services. I once lettered a strip for half my usual rate in order to help out a so-called publisher. (Small-time, but with aspirations.) I did it on the understanding that if there were any more strips of the character, I would get to do them, hopefully at a higher rate.

    A few years later, he was doing another strip and hummed and hawed about using me, saying that he'd have to find a way of circumnavigating the fact that comics are now lettered on computers. All the while he was stalling me, he had somebody else lettering the strip with computer fonts.

    They just don't care, do they?

    ReplyDelete
  11. That said, Graham Hey who edited 'Spit!' comic for a while was an absolute gent who went to quite a lot of trouble on my account. So what happened? Spit! got a new publisher and they sacked him. Nice guys, it seems, always do come last.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hmm. You see, Kid, you never had too much to do with management did you? I was once in the office of the 2000 AD editor who bemoaned having nothing to do (pre-computers you see). So I chatted and looked over the pages of the next 2000 AD. I must have pulled a face because he asked "What?" I pointed at the big title header: "SLUDGE ANDERSON" and asked if that should not be JUDGE Anderson? I then noticed two other big errors that I pointed out. We then went over all the pages.
    The problem is that fan boys became editors rather than being a profession where the old fellows checked and double-checked and knew their stuff.
    Re. licensing strips. The policy seemed to be "if anything is wrong who'll complain -the kids?" The licensing company had people who assumed that the company they were dealing with new what they werte doing so why check anything? If something major was wrong they weren't the ones who would be blamed. And the company using the licensed material had the same attitude.
    It really was a case of no pride in your work or knowledge of the material and "this is just for kids so I'll sit back and take my pay cheque!"
    I once chatted to a Marvel UK editor who was useless and told me "I've edited eight titles but they all fold after six or so issues -I just can't work out why?" And his line I'll always remember:"These artists say they learn their anatomy from Leonardo daVinci. Why? If he submitted samples I'd reject him." He wasn't kidding.
    As with "The Scottish Play" we'll not refer to that Scottish Company.
    One last word:BACK OFF! I am the most hated man in British comics with editors aiming snipers rifles at me from every side...on second thoughts...hey, come over here under this light.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I was never management, if that's what you mean, but I interacted with them quite frequently. Case in point: I was in the 2000 A.D. office one day while the editorial staff were studying a page from DICEMAN. I took one glance and pointed out that a character hanging onto a rope stretched between two buildings had his hands reversed. That is, his left was his right and vice versa. To a man, they all hotly disagreed with me - even the art editor of the comic. I simply held up my hands as if I were clutching a rope. The necessary changes were made. This happened all the time - some editors gave me carte blanche to make any corrections required - others got annoyed when I spotted mistakes that they had missed.

    One sub-editor on one comic initially thanked me for all my extra effort, but then asked me not to make changes. (I had noted in the scripts when I made a change and my reasons for doing so. This was necessary to avoid him thinking I had made a mistake and 'correcting' my correction to its previous state.) His editor had noticed and he began to feel it made him look bad, which is why he asked me to stop. So I did - I returned a strip and told him that, as requested, I had made no corrections, but that one was required. I even bet him that he wouldn't spot it. I was right - the strip was printed with the uncorrected error.

    My philosophy was that it was better for me to correct a mistake at my end, rather than at their end when the job had been returned. Otherwise, any clumsy lettering corrections made it obvious that something had been altered and ruined the look of the page.

    Given my recent criticism of The Dandy, I think I'd be any sniper's first target, Terry, so the heat's off you for a while. Relax and enjoy it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A very interesting post! Working as a freelance illustrator & comics creator for ten years between 1997 & 2007, I came up against my fair share of ignominious and indifferent editors, but luckily none that DIDN'T appreciate me pointing out any errors they'd missed. Perhaps it's a British & American thing (in fact, thinking about it, the WORST editors were all American!)? Or perhaps it's just because, I too am a Dutchman (albeit one who was raised and still resides in Enzed)? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Talking of editors, there was one I worked for who, years later, LIED about me in a comment on the blog somewhere. I published and exposed the fallacious (to say nothing of malicious) nature of it, but when people tell outright lies to try and score one over you, it's a sad day indeed. In fact, I'll name and shame him here because he deserved to be further exposed as the liar he is - David Leach.

    ReplyDelete

ALL ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED UNREAD unless accompanied by a regularly-used and recognized
name. For those without a Google account, use the 'Name/URL' option. All comments are subject to moderation and will
appear only if approved. Remember - no guts, no glory.

I reserve the right to edit comments to remove swearing or blasphemy, and in instances where I consider certain words or
phraseology may cause offence or upset to other commenters.