Editor Discussion Did you use an editor for your book?

Agree.

 

I'm pretty much done beating this dead horse, but reading this I really have to clarify because you're mis-stating my experience. My publisher did not make me cut my book to under 100K.

My editor suggested that I either beef up the 2nd POV (which would have added words, not taken them away) or switch to a single POV. I chose to switch to a single POV which reduced the word count since I had to ditch many scenes where the single POV character wasn't present since I write in close 3rd. The book isn't better because it's shorter, it's better because the flow and pacing is more smooth without MC2 popping up every once in a while because it was convenient for me as a writer.

The problem wasn't that over 100K words was some sin that I was miraculously forgiven for. The problem was that one POV was 75% of the book and the other was only 25%, which my editor found unbalanced and distracting. At no time ever ever ever did my editor or publisher say "this book is too long and you need to cut 50K from it." That simply didn't happen, even though you seem to think you know my life experiences better than I do for some odd reason.

Honestly, I don't give a flying fart what opinions or advice anyone has, regardless of their experience, book sales or what have you. Opinions are like assh*les - everyone's got one, including me, and mine is likely no more valuable than anyone else's. But when sweeping statements are stated as fact that directly fly in the face of my own experience, I feel like that's worth standing up to.

 

@LostThePlot isn't saying anything outlandish here. Surely everybody who's looked into publishing agrees it's rare to sell a book that needs a major overhaul. It stands to reason: why would a publisher take on a book that needs 50 hours of an editor's time when they could take one that needs 5? Why take one that will need 6 months of editing when they could have one that's ready in 6 weeks?

He never said it was IMPOSSIBLE, as far as I can see. He said it was unusual. And it is.

 

THIS!

 

First of all, I probably overreacted a bit in my first statement, because I read it as "do you really need to edit your book?" The answer to that is, of course, yes. It's plain to me now that the OP was not asking whether a book should be edited, but whether it's worth it to get a professional editor. The answer to that, in my opinion, gets more complicated.

I've already said that money doesn't equal success, so there's that. Paying out the nose for anything is only guaranteed to do one thing: make your wallet lighter. You don't necessarily have to pay for editing services, but you should get them. There's no way one person can acquire all the skills to put out a finished manuscript by themselves. At least, I'd put it in the "so unlikely as to be improbable" category.

We enlist the help of beta readers and proofreaders and editors and more beta readers to help us. But your average beta reader isn't focused on editing, and proofreaders don't do the same thing as editors, and editors will give you different feedback than what your betas will give you. If you have a large enough social circle with people who are willing to help you with all of that for free, huzzah. You're blessed to have those kinds of people in your life.

If you don't know those kinds of people, then you should consider paying for those kinds of services (though I don't know that I'd pay for someone to beta read). Most editors I've known charge based on the word count, usually $0.005 to $0.02 per word, so a 100k manuscript costs $500 to $2,000 for an edit. That's where proving their work comes into play; I'd want them to do maybe the first ten pages to show me what kind of feedback I can expect on the other pages before I pay for the rest of it.

My editor will essentially dip the pages in red ink, so to speak, with thorough notes. It's not that my writing is "that bad" or that he's pulling things out of thin air to justify his costs, but he has legitimate suggestions. He's able to say, "Here's why I made this suggestion." He'll also sit down with me to go over the work and explain things, or let me ask questions. I get to pick his brain about changes to the manuscript, and borrow from his extensive experience in analyzing stories.

It's kind of like having a skill like, I don't know, let's go with juggling. I can juggle kind of well, but not as well as a guy who does it for a living. I can edit my own work and improve it, but not as well as the person who reads and edits for a living. That's where their experience can be worthwhile. You don't have to pay for that kind of thing if you have a beautiful friend in your life who will do that for you for free, but you should seek out an editor either way.

As I said before, I've read a lot of stories that were self-published (and a few that were traditionally published) where there weren't any real grammar or spelling mistakes, but the story still sucked because the author couldn't be bothered to find a decent editor. Proofreading alone won't get the job done.

 

This has been my experience 100%. I think I've gotten somewhat derailed on this subject, which I apologize for. I absolutely agree that your book should be the best effort you have before it goes out for submission.

I'm just sharing my experience because I was completely gobsmacked by the scope of my editor's advice to consider dropping an entire POV or adding another 25% to the second character's POV. I thought for sure that my first set of edits would be minor issues like small continuity errors, SPaG issues, etc. I thought if my MS was good enough to get accepted it must have been fairly close to publication ready. Like @LostThePlot mentioned earlier, I assumed it just needed a once-over. But I was wrong and the hard work had only just begun. I was given 30 days to fix the problem and submit my edits back to the publisher, which was one of the most stressful experiences of my life. I really wish I had known that it was a possibility, and when my second book came back with equally massive change suggestions I was much better prepared.

 

I know, man. I'm using that as a benchmark for how much money you can realistically expect to clear. If that's all the publisher can afford to pay you, it's a fair bet you're not going to make even that much when you self publish.

 

I concur. I did it once and wasted something around £200-400. The guy wasn't quite a con - he did read my story since he did leave comments. But he was no editor. I don't understand the logic people have that editors don't bring value and that somehow any reader's comments would be worth the same as an editor's. It's just not true. Now I have no idea what a good editor looks like - never had one - but I do know that guy I hired sucked. If any reader could have given the kind of feedback an editor should give, then sucky editors or pretend editors wouldn't exist.

Although, genuine question: editors obviously usually have a list of past clients they've worked with, and good editors would usually have a list of books they've edited that you can find online to buy. But how can you tell if they've done a good job without wasting months and months reading books in their entirety?

Anyway, totally agree. Either fork out the big bucks and get a legit, good editor, or save your money. I went for a cheap one and still feel cheated

 

I don't actually think anyone said that editors don't bring value? Some opinions were made as to why some don't use them, but I didn't see where anyone said they have no value.

Editing is a learned skill, like any other skill. Yes, you can be a good editor and edit your own manuscript. Some people have an eye for continuity, SPaG, POV breaks, etc. Other people do not. If you have developed those skills, betas are mostly what you need to point out anything your brain fills in (because it's your story). No one is infallible, everyone will miss something (even big name authors, with the best editors around).

Some people don't have the desire, ability, or willingness to hone that skill to the point needed for editing their own work to a fine point. Others do. Just like writing a story, there's no one way to do anything. I am blessed to have a couple of phenomenal betas who catch things I miss and won't hesitate to tell me if something was confusing or read weird or just didn't seem right to them. I have other betas who go on the ride and don't ever complain or notice much. Actually, I've found that the slowest readers catch the most, because they don't fill in anything, and when my slowest beta emails me the night I give her a 100k manuscript and gushes about everything because she read it all in one day, well, then I know I'm on the right track because it takes forever and she really has to be in it and invested to even finish a book, let alone in one day. You have to know yourself and know who you're working with and what you can expect of them and what you shouldn't. That's just my opinion though, so take from it what you will.

 

@Trish - I haven't read the entire thread so I haven't a clue what's been discussed. However, from having been on the forum in the past, I do know there is a school of people who think you can do everything an editor can do for you, therefore paying for an editor is a waste of money absolutely all the time. From that, I interpret that this school of people do not see that there is any additional value an editor can give that readers cannot. But it's a generalisation from what I've seen people say in the past, as opposed to on this thread.

Personally I don't honestly care much whether people wanna hire an editor or think they're good or not. Do it if you want, don't do it if you don't want. There're people who have managed to publish without one, and there are others who have found editors invaluable. Like you say, editing is a skill and not everyone has that skill set to professional level necessarily.

For myself, I'd love to hire one but honestly, I don't have that kinda money...

 

@Mckk: what I said is that you'll never make the money back, therefore paying for an editor is a waste absolutely all the time. Some of us believe you should be aiming for a profit.

 

Most self-published books sell fewer than 20 copies. I still wouldn't put an unedited book out.

 

At that point, buddy, you're paying a hundred dollars per copy to sell a book for like $2.99. Count me out, friend.

 

I make the money back. I make a profit.

I'd never publish anything longer than a free short story without at least a copy edit. I have a reputation to maintain.

Other people have a reputation to build.

Most of my books go through publishers so I don't pay for the editing, but when I self-publish? Hell, yeah. It's not about not knowing the rules, it's about not having enough distance from my own work and my own quirks to be able to accurately see the problems.

 

BAYYYYYYYYYYY I MISSED YOU HOMIE <<<<33333

 

I asked a question earlier that kind of got lost in the shuffle. But I'm still curious. I'm asking those of you who paid an editor to work on your stuff before you submitted it to agents, etc.

Did your editor ask to see a good-sized sample of your work before they agreed to take you on?

I'm just wondering if 'good' editors do that, or if they agree to work for anybody, as long as they're willing to pay?

Speaking only as a beta, I know I like to have an idea of what a person's writing is like before I agree to take on a big project. I'm wondering if editors work the same way.

 

My editor already knew how I wrote when he took me on, but he's never said anything about requiring a sample from his clients before he'll agree to the work. He does offer them a deal where he'll edit a number of pages for free so they know what to expect from him. I think he has mentioned before that some edits are harder than others, but he rises to that kind of challenge.

Different editors will do different things, but I've never personally heard of an editor screening their clients by requiring a sample before they agree to edit the work.

 

Thanks. Just wondered.

 

Aw, now you're being too pessimistic! Who knows, you could be the next JK Rowling!

I'd say though, what's probably a smarter thing to do would be the following:

1. Edit the hell out of your book before submission (pretty sure we all do that)
2. Submit to agents
3. If rejected by all agents, double check you really have spotted all issues
4. Submit to more agents after further edits
5. If still rejected by all further agents, consider hiring a professional editor - it's obvious there's something you need learning that you haven't learnt and issues you haven't spotted.
6. Make a choice: hire one or move on to the next book - either way, you're still learning, but through different methods.

I'd say, hiring an editor could be two-fold. Obviously the primary motive is to get the book to publishable standard, but if we assume you have that sort of money to spare to begin with, one could see hiring an editor as an investment in learning. Much like why so many of us fork out God knows how much for a university degree or other qualifications. If you see it as that the editor could teach you something, then perhaps it is money well-spent. Of course, you could say you could learn all that stuff on your own, and of course perhaps you can and some people do manage - but perhaps learning from an editor would cut your learning time by half.

For me, it's really a matter of money rather than "is it of any benefit". Of course there is benefit in getting a professional eye analyse your work (assuming you hire a legit, good editor). But is the benefit worth the amount of money you're putting into it? That's basically the question nobody can agree on - some think it is, others think it isn't. Still others, like me, simply can't afford it.

Also, I'd say perhaps more of us might be more willing to hire an editor if we knew better how it even works, and if we knew better how to judge the quality of the editor's work to begin with. I think half the reason some people don't think editors are worth it is because they don't actually know what the editor is supposed to bring in the first place. Even if we did, there's no way to judge the editor's work on, say, how well he can spot pacing and foreshadowing issues without first paying him for the work, because that kind of work takes reading the entire book. Most of us don't know what a good editor looks like, or the right questions to ask. I still don't know what makes a good editor or how to judge whether someone is good. That deters me from hiring someone. And advice that is out on the web is often vague and very general - lists of common sense stuff that don't really answer the question.

Still to further complicate the issue is the types of editing services available out there. People talk about "editing" but it's honestly too general. Proof-reading services could be had from an editor - but I don't think I'd pay for proof-reading services. I can do it myself. I don't think I need line editing either - but then do I know what line editing really is? Can't say I do, but I think it's the sort of editing that tries to tighten the use of language and flow - details, as opposed to the big picture. I imagine it as something like "making sure your writing quality is good - eg. that the sentence makes sense and it sounds good and flows from one sentence to the next". I'm good at that - so if line editing is what I think it is, then I don't think I'd pay for that.

What I personally need is "big picture" editing - pace, structure, characterisation, foreshadowing/build up. I need comments on the story structure - and that level of analysis is not the kind a beta reader can generally give me. That is why for me, hiring an editor would be, could be, worth it.

But people just talk about "editing" without ever specifying what kind - and the different kinds cost differently too. So of course no one can agree on whether it's "worth it" and no one can give good advice on what to look for in an editor.

 

@big soft moose The issue is that you and the other author (can't remember her name) and several other people in this thread are conflating the idea of hiring your own editor, at your own expense, for a book you are publishing yourself (which is what both LTP and I were saying was a stupid idea, if I understood his point correctly) with the idea of having an editor period. The largest source of annoyance for me was that it was so obvious that this thread (as observed by that guy with the llama ears? Can't remember his name, either) is about self publishing that the carping about publishers hiring editors for "real" authors just comes off as deliberately disingenuous, and then all this "how many sales do you have?" dick measuring started, and I absolutely believe that is fucking shameful and has no place in a thread about self publishing.

 

I don't really understand how this:

fits in with

Dick-measuring aside, the number of sales someone makes obviously ties in with the likelihood of her making a profit, right?

I mean, if you were arguing that self-publishing is more about freedom or artistic expression or whatever, then I agree that it would make sense to disregard the number of sales. But if you're looking at self-publishing as a business, then sales numbers become pretty important.

Don't they?

 

I think that was me. I believe the idea I expressed was that if I ever have to go the self-publishing route, I will definitely hire a professional editor. My experience working with them so far has made it clear that one is essential to maintaining the quality of the books I put out.

 

Well said. That point you made about what 'kind' of editing you're looking for is an important one. I agree with you, that a person should be able to do their own proofreading and 'line editing,' which are just basic SPAG writing skills.

It's the overview stuff that an editor can really help with.

A beta reader might well spot the same flow/characterisation issues a professional editor does, but may not be able to say how the issues might be fixed.

But, as you also say, a good editor is expensive and it's difficult to find one if you don't know the ropes. Lots of people out there claim to be editors and publish their advertisements in well-respected magazines ...but who vets them? I think that's what I'd like to know more about. It's the process of finding a good editor that interests me, more than wondering if one is worth it.

 

In my opinion, we as the prospective client vet an editor. Mine is self-educated (and up-front about it), but he also offers the sample I've mentioned. If for some reason I needed a different editor, I would expect a glowing recommendation from a writer I trust, and/or a "sample edit" of my work (even just five pages). We as writers aren't vetted except by reviews, recommendations, and so on, and it's similar with editors.

For a writer, you can check out their books at the library, read reviews online, use features like Amazon's "look inside," and other, similar methods to see if you like the writing. A professional editor--to me--will make their expertise apparent. They could have a college degree or not, because a degree means less than it used to. Not that a college degree is worthless, but there are plenty of college-educated writers who routinely produce bad books, so it follows that editors may or may not be good, and higher education or specialized training of any kind isn't a good indicator of expertise.

It's that whole "professionals built the Titanic but a novice built the ark" thing. You ask around for recommendations, you talk to an editor, and you run away if they seem shady. There's also a personality issue to consider. I wouldn't ask an editor to look at my work if I didn't like them. If I'm going to spend money on a person, I need to like them. My editor and I don't see eye-to-eye on everything, and don't need to, but we do agree on what makes a good story. He knows more than I do about that, so I learn from him. If an editor and I disagree on what makes a good story or they have a personality I don't care for, we can't do business.