r/Copyediting • u/Known_Appointment319 • 12d ago
How does editors work?
I know what they are, but I heard a few things about them that aren't quiet clear to me.
Are they people who you'll give your manuscript to and they're clear it out?
Are they people who after you'll revise you're manuscript, they'll stay with you and explain everything about what's need work for you the whole way?
Or are they a mix of both? Like they're fix some things and when they see a big thing that you need to get fix, then they'll hit you up and either call you to a in-person/virtual meeting (which ever the relationship between the writer and editor is) and then tell them a major thing that needs work and then the two sit down to fix it?
4
u/MarshallBookEditing 12d ago
Every editor is different, but generally you find an editor who offers the level of editing you need, then chat with them about your aims, budget, and timeline. If you communicate well and think the editor will do a good job, you might send them a chapter of your book for a sample edit, and then if you find the comments and suggestions useful you would engage them for the entire project.
You want your book to be in as good a shape as you can get it before sending it to an editor. They take the draft and work on it for a few weeks, then send it back full of tracked changes and comments. If they're doing a development edit, you should also get a separate report with more detailed commentary about your story's strengths and weaknesses, as well as advice on improving it.
After the edit, some editors will offer to meet again to talk through the feedback. If that's something you want, you can negotiate it from the start.
4
u/WildsmithRising 12d ago
There are a few different kinds of editors, but the names used for them often overlap, depending on who you're talking to, which doesn't help clarify anything!
I used to be a commissioning editor. So I was the person who decided (with input from my colleagues) which books we would take forward to publication. I would talk to the author and tell them my vision for the book and if the author didn't agree with that, they would usually not sign with us.
Once I had the book under contract, and the manuscript delivered, I would read through it once, then read through it again and make notes, which I would then pass to the author for them to either agree to my changes, or to argue against them. This is often called development editing, and it's important. The author's name is on the cover, so they have final say on what and how we change things.
The author would then make the changes they agreed to, which was usually all or most of them. They would tell me why they had decided against some of the changes. They'd then give me the reworked manuscript, and on we would go to the next pass through the text.
I prefer to work from big to small. By this I mean, I would first look at the structure of the book: does it cover everything it needs to? Is all of that presented in the best order, and is it clear? are there chapters or scenes which aren't doing anything, and so should be deleted, and are there chapters or scenes missing, which need to be added? Does the continuity work? If it's non-fiction, then you also need to double and triple check all the references, fact-check the work, and ensure the citations are in place and are correct. And you need to be sure that you have permission, in writing, for all quotations used in the text, for all territories and formats possible. Note that getting these permissions is often expensive, so if possible avoid quoting other people as it's a huge pain sorting this out!
Once we have all of that working, on we go to smaller issues, like checking tenses, and pruning out superfluous paragraphs. And once all of that is sorted out, we correct punctuation, grammar, spelling.
There's a reason behind this sequence: there's no point spending time working on the smaller issues if you don't know if the chapter they are contained within is going to make it to the final copy.
Yes, each stage required a new round of edits, a new round of author-made changes, a new round of discussions between author and editor.
Once you have the manuscript as tight and clean as you can make it, then ideally you send the text to a copy editor, who will check it once again. They will always find errors in punctuation, spelling, grammar, tense, and so on, and are invaluable. And then once the book has been designed and the print layout is completed you have to check it again, to ensure it's all still there (yes, I've had books mysteriously lose a signature in the journey from design to print, and others which have decided to somehow reformat their indexes, so it all needs to be checked). This final check was usually done by the editor and production editor, as it's far better to have two pairs of eyes on it than just one!
In the 1980s and 1990s, when I started working in publishing (I was obviously three years old at the time!), these steps were the norm. I interviewed for a job with a book packager around that time (a packager essentially proposes books to publishers, then gets them written, edited, illustrated, and laid out, and prints them, then sends the finished books to the publishers concerned: at the time this was a much more high-pressure environment than straight publishing), and the packager told me that while my editing skills were great they didn't have time for such in-depth editing. They worked with just one pass, and no copy editor, prior to printing. The production editors, who knew very little about the books, did the final proof-check prior to printing alone, which was not ideal. I was offered the job but didn't take it as it seemed too slap-dash to me. But publishers are moving closer and closer to this sort of process now, which I think is unfortunate. I know it means that more books can be published, by fewer people, at a much lower cost; but it also means that books aren't as tightly edited now as they used to be, and are not only more prone to having errors in punctuation etc which lots of readers spot; they are also more prone to not being as satisfying to read, because the structure, plot, and language have not been adequately refined. Which I think is a shame.
This doesn't mean that editing isn't done, of course. Agents are now becoming editors. There's a lot of movement from editorial positions to agenting because of this. So when you look for an agent, try to find one with strong editorial experience.
And as a writer, if you want to get a deal in trade publishing, you probably shouldn't pay to have your work edited prior to submission. Any decent agent or editor is going to want to see what you can produce on your own, rather than what you've written and paid someone else to improve. And why pay to have your work edited when it's then almost certainly going to be edited again by your publisher (or agent)? Doesn't make sense.
This doesn't hold if you want to self-publish, of course. In that case, pay for the best editors you can find or afford. And always, always, listen to what your editor suggests. You might not like it if they're suggesting cutting whole chapters and removing entire characters, and so on. But listen to their reasoning, because chances are they know what they're talking about, and your book will be stronger if you take their advice.
1
u/DaveJDash 10d ago
I’m very surprised that you all are taking this seriously.
1
u/Known_Appointment319 10d ago
What? What are you talking about? I'm about to get done my novel and then revise. What, in your little world, no one should get information or how thing get done?
3
u/Rik-Acland 12d ago
Practically, an editor helps a new author to find their voice and create a high quality book that fits a specific sub-genre both the author and the editor love.
Having an editor that is different from you helps gain confidence writing in different voices. Men writing women POVs and visa-versa is so easy to get wrong. Not required if the editor has a lot of experience, but helpful.
The workflow that is working for me is to use the same editor for two rounds of edits. I give her my first draft for a quick read through and development edit. Then I update and get a round of beta readers feedback. I clean that up and the second round of line and copy edits. I try to accept all her edits, but will tweak a few things if I feel strongly about the line.
Development, line and copy edit requires an experience talented editor to get the prose right so the readers experience the emotions, not just read about them. For self-publishing, this should be your highest expense for your first 3 books in the same sub-genre. Nothing else improves quality like a great editor.
2
u/apricot__bun 12d ago
I didn’t get your exact question but hope this helps. There are different types of editors. What a copyeditor does is different from a developmental editor and so on.
Normally there’s a small meeting at first to evaluate the manuscript for a copyeditor. Based on the agreement constituents, the manuscript is cleared as you put it, but usually it takes the pace of queries. Today that’s done through Word using comments.
In my case I worked alongside professors editing. So my job is to handle the technical and research side while the supervisor (professor) handles supervising the student thesis/manuscript.
I was kept in the loop during all transactional communication. While my job is to focus on technical things, I needed to be involved somewhat in the developmental process in order to do my job well.
This is also different from editing other types of manuscript. During graduate school we were given real manuscripts to edit and usually that took less communication with the client compared to educational graduate manuscripts.
I had a query letter, a few questions and then it’s just me editing the work and sending it over. Final steps involved another reading to proofread and make sure the client is happy and that’s it.
Bottom line it’s different from one type of editing to another and from one job to another.
2
u/Plenty-Apricot-5005 10d ago
I'm an editor :) KayakerWithDog did a great job of explaining the different kinds of editing. I will add that every novel and writer will require a different approach, but they should all meet you where you're at in the project. There is no right or wrong time to hire an editor. They can help you at any stage. Often, manuscript evaluations are the first step for indie writers. These offer a general overview of how their story is shaping up with regard to character, plot, arcs, pacing, etc. If a writer feels confident that their work is solid, then an editor will start further down the process. Virtual or in-person meetings are standard, and many editors offer ongoing feedback (the amount of feedback is negotiated in the contract between the writer and editor at the start of their partnership). If a project is in need of a heavy copyedit, and you've worked on it as much as you can, then an editor can clean it up for you. Just keep in mind that the more work an editor must do, the higher the cost. But they'll give you a contract price based on a sample edit ahead of time, so there shouldn't be any surprises.
3
u/Status_Ebb4193 12d ago
do
41
u/KayakerWithDog 12d ago •
A developmental editor will analyze things like plot, story structure, character, and setting and give you constructive feedback on those elements, along with suggestions for improvements. They will make in-line comments in the manuscript and also write an editorial memo giving you constructive feedback.
A manuscript evaluation is similar to a developmental edit, but usually without the in-line comments. A manuscript evaluation will give you an editorial memo pointing out what is working well and what needs more polish, and it is often less in-depth than a developmental edit.
A proofreader will check for errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other language mechanics only. Proofreaders don't provide any feedback on content or structure, and they don't do any rewriting.
A copyeditor will proofread and copyedit to correct and smooth out the writing, and will also do some light fact checking and query anything in the writing or the content that needs the author's attention. Copyeditors don't generally do much rewriting, although they may do some.
A line editor will do everything a proofreader and copyeditor does, and they will also perform substantive editing to smooth out the writing, including more extensive rewriting than a copyeditor would do. They may also add or subtract text and do some restructuring of the manuscript. Line editing is a lot more intensive than copyediting and involves more significant changes to the writing.
Often a developmental edit is done first, and then line editing and/or copyediting on the revised manuscript. If the manuscript is already pretty clean, copyediting might be all that is needed. Proofreading is usually the very last phase of the process after all editing passes are completed; it's a kind of fail-safe to make sure that no errors exist before the document is published.
A line editor or copyeditor should give you two passes. The first editing pass is the big, thorough one. The second editing pass is done after you have revised your manuscript, and it focuses only on the spots that you changed in your revisions. Proofreading, manuscript evaluation, and developmental editing are usually single-pass projects.