I have been thinking a lot about editing and re-editing, mostly because I am elbow deep in edits for my book, and because recently I had the miss fortune of having one of my articles for the paper re-edited by the editor.
Now I have had word changes done to my column, restructured conclusions or introductions, but this was a complete overhaul, when I asked why? They said they were taking the character in my column in a new direction. The thing is I have always gotten good reviews on the column, so I found it odd that they would change it.
This thought continued to bug me long after the column was printed. Unable to figure out why they changed my column, I began to think about why I changed some of my own characters in my books. I came up with: not a strong character, too boring, not memorable enough. I even changed a characters name in my book, because no one liked the name I picked for her.
The problem is, there was something people didn’t like about each of the characters I changed. People liked the character in my column. Which begs the question: if it’s not broke, does it still need a tune up?
The answer to that question I do not know. So I continue down this new road for my column, and leave you with this question, whose view of a character is best? the peoples, or the authors. Thank you so much all my lovely readers for stopping by. Remember the comment box is always open, can’t wait to hear from you.
Ravenspen 