Writer/Editor: Are Writing and Editing Mutually Exclusive?

All writers edit and all editors write. This pair of skills is as inextricably linked as love and hate. In a way, one serves as a frame of reference by which the other can be measured. I would argue that, in the process of crafting memorable prose and poetry, editing is every bit as crucial as writing. So why is there ever a need to make a distinction? Why don't we just call ourselves writer/editors? Because not all of us are that. Some of us are editor/writers.

For me, it comes down to one simple question: why do I write? And for the many answers I can conjure, I cannot identify one that is more valid than any other. But there is one that is, without a doubt, more meaningful, because it was the first:

I write because I love to read.

Reading elicits the unconditional reflex of writing in me. I write to reinforce, analyze, and assimilate things that I have read. I write to ponder my readings, myself, the world and the universe, but I write after I have read. This analytical critical thinking approach is what makes me an editor first. And that part of me is constantly warring with the right-brained writer, who just wants to play with words, pausing only to marvel at them.

Drafting and revising is too painstaking a process for the creative mind of the writer to bear (I consider this the biggest reason why novice writers do not advance more quickly). If only the writer stayed writing - and Rewriting - the editor's job would be a dream; simply point the writer in a direction. In that sense, the job of an editor might even resemble the job of a muse: make light bulbs turn on in writers' heads, and receive praise.

Unfortunately, precious few (if any) writers are dedicated to such a degree that the editor's job is made easy. Resisting the very act they claim to love, writers staunchly defend the words as they were written, daring not take pen to page to even consider a change. They curse the editor for striking that perfect paragraph or that niftily turned phrase for the sake of "tightness". They complain that editors warble on about "moving the story along" and ask cryptic questions like, "where is the conflict?" or "what does the character want?" They curse editors and their red pens, their opinions, and yes…their books.

Many a writer and poet have waved their creative license like a get-out-of-jail-free card, using the "subjectivity" loophole to defend their writing. But an editor's feedback is not as much opinion as one would like to think. It is more of a diagnosis and prognosis. It is a professional analysis, (hopefully) based on years of study and service in a specialized field. At the very least, it is based on the writer's trust in the editor's sensibilities about rhythm, tone, pace, clarity, and creativity.

I believe that one can be a great writer and a great editor simultaneously. I even believe that the skill levels mirror one another. But when the line is drawn, it is the individual's motivation for writing that makes them one or the other.

I would love to write the Great American Novel. But more than that, I would love to read it. That's why I choose editing. It will enable me, a lover of reading, to in some small way further the cause of quality writing. I write to study the craft and to learn the nuances and intricacies of the art of written word, to experience the joy of reading.

I won't say I'm retired. I will say that I have officially traded in my black pen for a red one. I will always write, and I will always love to write. And now, finally, after ten years I know the main reason why: because I loved reading first. And that's what makes me an editor.