I've been thinking about (and discussing) editors a lot lately. With my writer friends, I've discussed longform editors; and online (especially within the livejournal community) I've been watching discussions about (and by) shortform editors.

My friend Doug Cohen got my wheels turning with the sort-of rhetorical question, "why do writers argue with editors?" His context for asking (from the pov as assistant editor of Realms of Fantasy) was that a lot of writers who have had stories rejected (for whatever reason) seem to think they can get a different result by arguing with the editor - even when expressly told not to. (It's turned into an amateur rite of passage for people to piss off editor Nick Mamatas by questioning his judgment.)

Let me make my position as clear as possible. There is only one time when it is ever appropriate to argue (politely, appropriately, diplomatically, and RESPECTFULLY) with an editor: when they have already BOUGHT the story at issue, and are working WITH the writer to improve, tighten, improve, polish, and otherwise IMPROVE a story they already loved enough to commit time, resources, and money to.

And even then, "argue" is too loaded a term for the process; "discuss" is better. But again, it's the timing that makes the difference. When an editor like Doug asks the question above, "argue" fits - because it usually means a writer is trying to convince the editor, by argument, to reconsider their negative opinion of a story.

In shortform writing, arguing the reasons why an editor rejected a story is going to do nothing except alienate them to one's future work. In rejecting a piece, an editor either a) suggests changes; or b) simply doesn't like the story. So the writer can either make the changes (or not), or send a different story. And unless that writer's work really sucks potatoes, the editors would probably read any new stories submitted by that writer. But if you argue with them, all that happens is that the writer is screwing up the editor's perception of them personally, on top of having sent a story the editor didn't like.  Not a great basis for a writer/editor relationship. And bear this in mind: those editors ALREADY have GOOD relationships with hundreds of other writers who AREN'T arguing with them.

Regarding longform (novel) editors, it's not a good idea to argue with them, either. The stakes are higher, the work bigger, and so they may (in my experience) be more willing to argue (discuss) a book pre-deal. And that's what makes it an even WORSE idea than arguing with the shortform editors. Because it's very possible the writer would have a chance at winning the argument. To clarify, they'd win the battle of the book, and lose the war of the career.

Seasoned writers will sometimes struggle with this, so it's a harder thing to convince a new writer to believe in: you never, ever want to sell a book to an editor who has to be convinced, coerced, bribed, cajoled, pleaded, persuaded, or otherwise argued into buying your book. Because that hesitation on their part will carry through every stage of the very lengthy and expansive publishing process. That first step determines the direction every one that follows. Make it the right step. Don't sell your book until you have an editor who believes in it so strongly that they're willing to fight on your behalf within their own company. You want someone who will stake their own considerable reputation on the power of the work you have created. And if you can't find an editor like that, then perhaps it's the wrong time for that particular book.

Before HERE, THERE BE DRAGONS, I had opportunities to sell other books I'd written (and some, published); but the circumstances were not right. I had several chances to sell DRAGONS - and turned down several offers before being matched up with Simon & Schuster. Another major, major publisher was willing to be convinced - but was more interested in how the movie deal turned out. My editor at S&S, on the other hand, was totally in love with it after one phone call and a fifteen-page treatment.

Before the book was published, he introduced me to speak at the ALA by telling the audience, "What you are about to hear is the reason why, twenty years from now, you will remember being at this dinner."

Now, do you want an editor who says THAT, or the one who says, "Well, I guess I can take a chance on this, but it'll be a tough sell, and I don't really have a handle on it..."

It all comes down to something I say at every school presentation, repeat often, and tell myself every day: never give up what you want the most, for what you want most at that moment.

If you have to argue your way into a single sale, it may be at the expense of your entire career. Something to consider.