I’m very pleased to be able to bring to you an interview with James (Jim) Frenkel, who is currently a senior editor at Tor books. Books he has edited have won a number of awards, including the Hugo Award, the World Fantasy Award, the Bram Stoker Award, the Michael Shaara Award for Excellence in Civil War Fiction, the American Book Award, the Shamus Award, the Edgar Award, and the Scribe Award.
JF: Born and bred in New York City, I have been an avid reader as long as I can remember. I can’t say what except for genetics made me such an avid reader or for that matter why I’ve always been fascinated by science and technology. But I have. I’ve also always been a very active athlete . . . though a retinal detachment in 1986 has limited my athletic activities to work out exercises and fast walking on a treadmill for cardiovascular exercise. I’m still avid about all these things, as I am about film, cooking, and spectator sports, especially baseball, with American football being my second most favorite sport.
I’ve been in publishing since 1971.
Why did you become an editor?
JF: In college I was an English major, and I wrote fiction and non-fiction whenever I could, as well as being a reporter for the school newspaper. When I graduated from college I wanted to write the Great American science-fiction story . . . but I needed some kind of a job, a steady paycheck that would enable me to get my own apartment. And I thought publishing would be a sensible business in which to work—I could find out how to get published, make contacts, make money . . .
Unfortunately for my writing career, when I started working in publishing I realized that I liked editorial work. I liked the excitement of publishing books, and in particular, I liked editing books.
That was it for me as writer. I realized that I was a better editor than I was a writer, and I could do more good as an editor than I could as a writer.
What is the most important aspect of your editing role?
JF: That’s hard to say. Perhaps the most important aspect of the job is identifying manuscripts that are likely to be worth publishing. Without a track record for editing successful books, an editor can’t really sustain a career.
Of course, part of recognizing manuscripts that are likely to make books that critics will like and readers will enjoy is being able to see the potential in a manuscript. That’s not easy. I think many young editors tend to overestimate the difference they can make in the overall quality of a work of fiction. Being able to tell the difference between a manuscript that is competent but no more than that and one that really has the potential to become a terrific book is a big part of being able to identify worthwhile projects.
It’s relatively easy to identify a book that is so good that it has “bestseller” written all over it. Any competent editor should be able to do that. But what is much more difficult is to look at something that is not already wonderful but has the real potential to become wonderful and realize the potential there . . . and also have the skill to be able to work with the writer effectively enough to enable that writer to make that book fulfil its potential.
But while those skills are vital to being a good editor, it is also essential for an editor to be able to work with the other people in a publishing company. Publishing is a collaboration—between author and editor, but also between the editor and the art department, the production department, the sales and marketing departments, the advertising, promotion and publicity departments, the contract department . . . and every other department in a publishing company. Editors have to be good co-workers, or they can waste the potential of a terrific project.
Which areas of editing to you find the most enjoyable?
JF: I love the editing; but the thing I love the most is the finished product—holding a terrific book in my hands, seeing great reviews, strong sales . . . it’s like being midwife to a birth of a baby. No, it’s not the same—I have children, and their births were two of the most amazing, important moments of my life . . . making books is second best, but it’s also great.
In your view can editing be taught?
JF: That’s a good question. I don’t really know. I think that competent editing can be taught, but I am not sure that someone can be taught to be the kind of editor who can do the things I mentioned regarding the kind of editing that can turn a competent book into a great book.
How do you define the editing role?
JF: If an editor did all the kinds of things an editor does, but in a different kind of business, he or she might be called a producer or director if it was film or television; if it was a business that involved developing and producing some other type of product, an editor might be called a product manager. Editors are responsible for procuring rights to books . . . and then making sure that everything that has to be done to bring the book to a successful completion as a project is done, coordinating with all the departments that are involved in the process. So—producer, director, project manager . . . facilitator. How’s that?
What areas of editing do you find most challenging?
JF: Marketing—this is, I think, the most challenging part of editing, simply because every book is its own marketing challenge. There are many books that are relatively easy to market, but there are also a number of books that will either succeed or fail depending on the effectiveness of the marketing efforts. Such books require creativity, energy and the efforts of the entire company working in concert. That’s a lot of work, and if it isn’t done right, it just doesn’t work.
Do you have any advice to aspiring editors?
JF: Don’t do it unless you’re prepared to work ridiculously long hours for low wages. With very few exceptions, editors spend their days doing administrative work; that means that reading and editing is done at night and on weekends.
Only someone who is single-mindedly committed to the cause of excellence in publishing should become an editor. It hurts the books and the authors if an editor isn’t truly committed to the job. And I’ve seen too many editors who thought publishing was glamorous and then burn out in one or five or ten years, leaving mediocre or poorly published books in their wake.
For new entrants to the market, where is a good place to start in the editing field?
JF: As an editorial assistant.
Donna Maree Hanson, Author, Phd in Creative Writing 
Hi Jim
Thanks for the interview. I wondered about what you said about being a writer and then realising you were better at editing. Do you find that the energy/talent/place where writing and editing come from are the same?
James’ Frenkel’s reply
I don’t really think that editing and writing come from quite the same place. Obviously, they’re similar–but they’re not the same. There are some people who are terrific writers but aren’t at all interested in editing, and vice versa.
I know that doesn’t really answer the question.
Let’s try again. Writing is original creation. Editing is working with what’s there already. Those two things are very different. They involve many of the same skills, but the two activities come from different motivations.
How’s that work for you?
I guess what I am thinking is that editing can be creative as much as writing is.
James Frenkek’s reply
Hmm. It’s very dangerous to say that editing can be as creative as writing.
I don’t think it’s true.
Editing is similar to writing in the sense that it’s an intuitive skill. However, writing involves creating from scratch. Editing is more about problem solving. That’s really not at all the same thing as saying that editing can be as creative as writing.
Also, I would be loath to use the words “editing” and “creative” in the same sentence (except this one) because it is all too easy for an editor to get carried away with “creativity” and essentially co-opt the author’s role. And that’s _not_ good editing.
One of the dangers editors like me talk about is “creative copyediting”–a copyeditor who likes (or hates) a book so much that he or she feels compels to “make it right”–in other words, to change it the way he or she thinks it should be, as oppsoed to what the author thinks it should be.
The same thing applies to over-zealous editors in general. There is a very firm line between being a good, helpful editor and being a meddlesome, overbearing editor.
Pulp fiction editors were often the latter. Lester del Rey, who, for at least two decades before he worked as an editor at Del Rey books, was an editor of pulp fiction–various sf magazines in the 40s and 50s, culminating with Galaxy and If in the early 70s (and I’m sure others in between) . . . Lester firmly believed in “my way or the highway.” If you grew up working in the pulps, you’d feel that way. Many pulp writers were really hacks, writing fast instead of well. Obviously, many were terrific writers, and a number of people who started out in the pulps, sf or otherwise, became famous, highly respected authors. But the lower-talent pulp writers, who were the backbone of the pulp magaazine industry for decades, were not great craftsmen, and a good, strong editor was a tremendous asset. But that’s not the kind of publishing you really want to tell your readers about. You want them to be editors who respect the material they are working with, as I do.
That precludes “creative” editng.
Does this help clarify the issue?
Thanks, Jim. That is excellent.