On Writing - An Understanding of What a Book Editor Does

This is the final leg of what has become an unintended trilogy on the book editing profession, and while it might appear to be blantantly self-promoting, I hope it at least will shed a little light on the book-doctoring discipline.

A Need for Definition

A few months ago I published an article I was asked to write that explained the different phases of book editing: critiques, copy/line editing, and developmental editing. I also provided a range of costs associated with each environment that reflected my personal experiences, not as an editor, but as a novelist who over the years has utilized editors for these services--and still do. My article was straightforward, but I recently read something that leads to me to feel that the field of professional book editing needs to be covered in more detail.

Editors in the U.S. have a Poor Reputation Abroad. Really?

I happened upon an Internet message board for writers on which someone was asking if hiring an editor to critique a novel was a good idea. When I read a little further, I noticed the person was specifically asking about me and my company. This was certainly okay, as I always strongly recommend scrutinizing any potential editor, agent or publisher. But what really piqued my interest was a reply from a person from Great Brittan who said that editors were respected in his country but that their contemporaries in the U.S. did not enjoy the same standing.

Rationale that Defies Logic

There were no other comments on the man's query regarding me or my services, but it was mentioned that book editors had been the source of a number of recent threads, so I decided to venture further into the site. Two hours later I pushed back from the computer, aghast at what I'd read. With few exceptions (very few), there were dozens upon dozens of posts vociferously denouncing editors. One of the site's apparent gurus firmly stated that it would be of no value to hire an editor, because if a publisher sent a manuscript back to an author for correction, if an editor had been used, what would the writer do, since the person (sic, independently) would be incapable of properly making the requested modifications.

If Professional Editors are Such a Bad Idea, Why do so Many Best-Selling Authors Praise their Editors?

Logic like what I'd just reported doesn't deserve the compliment of rationale opposition, to quote Jane Austen, but let me at least provide a little help for those who universally defamed professional editing. As one lone brave contrarian who responded to the thread stated, if editors are such a horrible idea, why do so many best-selling authors, in their respective Acknowledgements, extol the value of those who edit for them? To step farther onto this cold deck, I'd like to see a list of best-selling authors who say they don't use an editor. I even noticed a piece the other day from a man who has edited for both Stephen King and John Grissom. Both of those authors must need to have their heads examined for employing this fellow in the past.

There is a Time when Amateurs Critiquing other Amateurs Doesn't Work

I facilitate writing workshops sponsored by the local library system, and at times I encourage workshop participants to critique each other's work. But I also make it crystal clear, if a writer is serious about having material considered by a major royalty publisher, at some point the material will require a professional review.

Here is What Editors Do

Professional editing is not about correcting grammatical errors, punctuation, and syntax issues, even though certainly anything a writer might have missed will be identified. Editing at a professional level entails considering a work related to its publishability in the current literary market; and specifically what it will require to polish a draft so it will be accepted for review by a respected royalty publisher. Depth of characterization, quality of the characters, character arcing, transitioning of the exposition and dialogue, dialogue quality, dialogue rhythm, story pacing, the pitch of the scenes, lack of contrivance, point-of-view consistency, redundant words and phrases (this is a bigger deal than most amateurs think), the strength of the story, and the overall readability of the narrative, are just some of the issues an editor must address.

An Amateur Doesn't Always Know What the Industry is Looking for

For many experienced writers, this is the number-one reason to employ a professional editor, since he or she will know what is working in the business at a given point in time--and what isn't. The professional editor will also know where and with whom agents are placing work. This is particularly important because there are sometimes esoteric happenings in the publishing industry of which only an editor and other insiders will be aware of.

A Professional Editor can Save a Writer a lot of Money, Time, and Aggravation

It doesn't cost a lot of money to have a professional editor read a manuscript and provide a critique. For even some of the most competent editors, it's usually around a buck per double-spaced page. Isn't it a lot better to find out from a professional if a work has a chance, rather than to send out queries and submission packages with no idea of the true caliber of the material? Over the years I've read an inordinate number of drafts from writers who have spent years promoting work that has no chance of being published in the condition in which I received it. And what unfortunately happens is that this sort of often-rejected writer becomes disillusioned and at times even bitter.

Having a Work Professionally Edited is a Means to an End

For the overwhelming number of writers who are with major royalty publishers, professional editing is not only a means to reach a satisfactory result, but the only way. For anyone who wishes to question this remark, I only ask this person to seek out any wildly successful author and ask if a professional editor has helped that writer become published.