Interview with Anitra Grisales
Editing as a dialogic process
We had a great time talking with Anitra Grisales, freelance editor and translator since 2006, who was kind enough to share her thoughts on writing and revision from an editor’s perspective. You can read the full interview here; below are some of the highlights.
HW: You've edited some of the most influential contemporary books in anthropology—Saba Mahmood’s [Religious Difference in a Secular Age], Marisol de la Cadena’s [Earth Beings], Kamari Maxine Clarke’s [Affective Justice], James Doucet-Battle’s [Sweetness in the Blood]... and of course Rima’s book, [Enveloped Lives]. Clearly, your editorial approach is very successful! We would love to hear how you think about the editing process, and how you go about that process with the authors you work with.
AG: I think of the process in a few different ways. Number one as iterative—I almost always read a manuscript at the very least three times, often more, in just one stage of the editing process. Then, depending on where the manuscript is and when I start with an author, our process can also be iterative. It's multiple stages, we will go back and forth.
The approach I take is of a dialogue. I ask a lot of questions. I've had authors tell me that after getting my feedback and going through the revision process, it was like we were having a discussion, and that they could hear my voice, like we were talking with each other.
Also, I think of my approach as solving a puzzle or cracking a code. I'm getting to make associations between things, connect ideas, and identify pieces of a puzzle, and then put it together in this way that then becomes, hopefully, the best representation of the author’s voice and argument and storytelling. It’s like, you've done this amazing work, there's all of these amazing pieces, now let's see how they go together best and how that big picture can really shine. And to continue with the metaphor, if there's extra pieces in there, and you're like, “Oh, wait... this is from a different puzzle!” [Maybe] that's for a different book, [or] for an article.
RP: What are the most common writing challenges that come across in your editing practice, and what are the big differences between the authors [you work with]?
AG: The challenges can be both textual and practice-related. When it comes to textual issues, over-citation is a big one that I see. I often think of it as a relic of the dissertation, and also of writing articles for journals. The over-citation is also very related to burying your own voice and argument, especially for people who are working on their first book. And that, I think, has to do with the way that we're taught to write usually in grad school — we're showing that we have done the reading, we’re showing what we know. When you're making that shift to writing your book, it's really more about — What are your ideas? How can the reader take [those] and how does that enrich their own work? So one of the things I find myself frequently telling authors is to “flip the script” [mimics flipping two paragraphs of text]. Sometimes it's just a matter of bringing your own argument to the front, and then contextualizing that, or support[ing] that with other work in the field — but only insomuch as it helps speak to what you're saying.
Another thing is either not thinking enough about the audience, or not being entirely realistic about who the readership is. When you're making the switch from, say, the dissertation to the book, you are writing for a broader and slightly different audience.
In terms of practice issues, [something] I see a lot is people getting stuck. The big piece of advice I have there is, if you've hit a wall, move on to something else that's going to help you feel like you're making progress. Then, as you keep writing and developing other parts, maybe you realize, “Oh, I was having such a hard time with that, because that actually doesn't quite belong.” Or, “Oh, I see what I thought I was saying, [but] that's actually not what I want to say. And now the wheels are turning because I know what direction to go in.”
Another issue I see is not letting go of something — be it an idea, a piece of material, or content that really doesn't fit, despite the fact that you love it or that you feel like it must go in there. Then there's also the actual manuscript, not letting it go in terms of passing it to your developmental editor. I've had authors delay sending me things because they think that it's not developed enough yet. But then they either get stuck and stop making progress, or they are going in the wrong direction. In most cases, authors are on a pretty strict timeline, and losing that time can be really frustrating. There's a range of states that I can receive a manuscript in, but especially if we're talking about early stages, I think: the sooner the better. Let it go!
HW: What advice do you have for those who are currently working with [an editor] or thinking about doing so before they send [their manuscript] to a press? What makes that a fruitful engagement?
AG: Ask your friends, colleagues, and mentors about who they have worked with and what their experiences have been. That can help you determine if there's a particular editor you want to reach out to. Talking with people who have gone through that process can [also] help you figure out what your [editing] goals are.
The author-editor relationship is a pretty unique one, so it's important to build rapport with each other. It's also important to try to determine relatively early on, be it through meeting in person or Zoom meetings, if this is somebody that you are comfortable with, whose style you can work with. You may be working with this person for five years, ten years, and that [relationship] is an important piece of the whole editing process.
And keeping in mind that this is a process, it will likely take more time than you anticipate. Try to be realistic about timelines and what you can do given your other jobs and commitments.
RP: Do you have any advice for people who do not have the means to hire an editor?
AG: Recently there have been a handful of helpful books and manuals to help guide authors, especially academics, in writing, revising, and pitching their work.
[She recommends books for writers, but also books geared towards editors, which can help “demystify the publishing process”:]
The Book Proposal Book: A Guide for Scholarly Authors, by Laura Portwood-Stacer
Thinking Like Your Editor: How to Write Great Serious Nonfiction and Get It Published, by Susan Rabiner and Alfred Fortunato
Developmental Editing: A Handbook for Freelancers, Authors, and Publishers, by Scott Norton
The Dissertation-to-Book Workbook: Exercises for Developing and Revising Your Book Manuscript, by Katelyn E. Knox and Allison Van Deventer
I recommend workshopping the manuscript, if you can. And asking mentors and colleagues who you know will give you productive and constructive feedback, not just cheerlead — [though] cheerleading is also important. And then writing groups. Basically, trying to access your community of academics and other writers.
And of course, I would recommend that they subscribe to [Write What You Like]. Your reflections [and] advice [are] thoughtful and informative. Generosity is so important when we're doing this work, which can be really isolating and lonely. There are more and more resources [now], people who are writing on Substack and sharing their knowledge. I find that really encouraging, and I think it can be really helpful to go beyond just your department and the people you know. I think that’s better than just writing into the void!
Anitra Grisales began her editorial career at Seal Press, a feminist trade publisher renowned for fiction and nonfiction. After earning her MA in Spanish from Tulane University, she joined the Editorial Acquisitions department at Duke University Press. Since 2006, she has been a full-time freelance editor and translator based in Berkeley, California. She is also the co-author and translator of 100 Years of Spanish Cinema (Blackwell, 2008).