Intuitive Editing
A recent episode of The Ezra Klein Show featured an interview with storied editor Adam Moss. Moss served as editor-in-chief of New York Magazine from 2004 to 2019 and is lauded for his skill and talent as a magazine editor. He was there to promote his new book, The Work of Art: How Something Comes from Nothing. The book profiles 43 diverse artists, from architects and comedians to filmmakers and playwrights, focussing on how they work through their ideas in the process of creating their art. Most of the artists end up rejecting numerous early drafts in the form of sketches, blueprints, doodles, plans, etc. before they’re content with the finished product. In one case, the abstract painter Amy Sillman discarded 39 (!) different iterations of a painting before she was satisfied with the final product.
Incidentally, the podcast host Ezra Klein has held several editorial positions throughout his career, including his time as editor-at-large for Vox (which he also cofounded). Because of their shared background in editing, Klein and Moss jumped into a rich and engaging conversation about editing, which they approached from a high-level, philosophical lens. This was the part of the interview that most piqued my interest.
Editing as reacting
In Klein’s introductory comments, he suggests that our definition of editing is overly narrow. He sees it as a much broader and multi-dimensional exercise:
We think of it as marking up the grammar of a sentence with a pen. But great editors, and I've worked with a lot of great editors, they're mystics of a sort. They're not technicians. They see something that, that isn't there yet. Whether of their own work or your work and not really knowing how to get there.
Moss’ understanding of editing is similar. When Klein asks Moss what it means to edit, Moss’s response is simple and poignant: editing is fundamentally about reacting. “Any editing,” he says, “is just a heightened level of sensitivity to reaction.” Editors are particularly attuned to the way their minds respond to different stimuli. An editor might read a sentence and feel that its structure is somehow “off.” Or that a chapter doesn’t quite flow with the rest of the book. Or an argument is unclear. Or the tone is inconsistent. Through training, experience, and some element of intuitiveness, editors can identify these issues and come up solutions to improve the writer’s work.
Trusting the reaction
But Moss’ theory doesn’t end there. He argues that in addition to reacting, editors must trust their reactions. Trust—the faith we have in the soundness of our opinions—is a key element of editing, and one that we often overlook. Learning to trust our reactions can be tricky, even for the most seasoned editors. When Klein asks Moss what advice he can impart on those who are facing this struggle within themselves, Moss responds that trusting your editorial choices is like trusting yourself in any other context: “You get a little courageous and you venture out and you try something.”
What I took away from this podcast is that good editors are technically proficient; they’re highly knowledgeable and able to follow the appropriate rules and guidelines. However, truly excellent editors also follow their instincts. They rely on them as much as they rely on The Chicago Manual and their dictionary of choice. Editing, then, is not just an intellectual exercise, but an emotional one too.
When Amy Sillman threw away all those paintings in the process of creating her art, she was likely using intuition as her guide (at least in part). We tend to give artists a lot of leeway for making such bold choices because we see that it allows them to generate great works. But as editors, we too would be wise to heed Moss’ advice about the benefits of trusting our innate reactions. In many cases, they can be just as informative as our most steadfast style guide.