editors...which way is best?

[infinitus_kaze]

Many publishers have their own editorial staff which will work with the author to make sure the manuscript is as close to perfect as it can be for print. I usually edit my works between 4-6 times and I'm currently looking for an agent. I was wondering, should I hire an independent editor to look through my work before submitting to an agent or if I should try to get an agent and let the editors at the publisher, if an agent can get me one, do the final editing of the book?

I'm new to the editor and agent market, so I'm not sure which way is best.

[Will Lavender]

You shouldn't hire anyone.

If your experience is anything like mine, both your agent and your editor will work extensively to make the book better. At this point, I've gone through nearly 10 pretty close edits of my manuscript. If your editor believes in the product enough to add you to his or her list, then he or she will have just as much of a vested interest in its "perfection" as you do.

[Jamesaritchie]

An agent and the editor who works for the publisher will help you get the novel the way they want it. All a hired editor can do is get the novel the way he wants it, which is seldom the same thing.

[Garpy]

What Will said. You really shouldn't be forking out money to anyone.

From my experience, by all means refine a query 20-30-40 times, but once you've gone through your MS three or four times from beginning to end you should put it out there. If the idea, or the writing style is strong enough, you'll get taken on warts an' all.

I hate seeing writers throw money and years and years of their time at a book that just isn't going to sell. It's heartbreaking.

[infinitus_kaze]

Thank you for your help everyone.

[aruna]

I hate seeing writers throw money and years and years of their time at a book that just isn't going to sell. It's heartbreaking.


Here we go again!
Opinions are divided on this, but if the book is as good as you can make it, and you are perfectly happy with it as it is, then they are right.
I just wanted to add that it isn't always throwing money away.
In my case it wasn't. (I'm not talking about sub-editing here.)

[job]

In the long run -- you are the writer.

You're on your own.
Your decisions. Your judgement. Your heart and mind and skill.
Nobody else can make it good.
Only you.

So trust yourself.
Don't expect some editor -- not one you hire and certainly not somebody at the publisher -- to 'make it work' or 'clean up the problems' or reassure you that it's good.

If you need new eyes to see whether your decisions are working ... join a critique group. Find some beta readers.
Get feedback from them.

For minor stuff like grammar and spelling and typos ... yes. You can't do it yourself. Print it up in Courier and get a friend to proof for you.

[herdon]

I completely disagree with most of the replies.

Having someone edit your work can be very valuable even if the work itself is not publishable. Not only can it make your manuscript better, but it can be a learning tool much like taking a class, reading a book on writing, asking questions here, etc.

I'm lucky that my wife is good at editing. Having the extra pair of eyes that can spot weak points in writing, tendencies that I might not have caught on my own, as well as possible issues with plot and characterization has been invaluable. I have become a better writer because of it.

Also bear in mind that no matter how good your story is if your writing stinks it is not going to get published (outside of vanity press). I'd bet that well over a half of submitted manuscripts are rejected within the first few paragraphs -- and that's because of writing, not story. (You can't rightly tell much about story in a few paragraphs unless you are reading a short short!)

How to go about looking for an independent editor, if that is your choice, is a totally different thing. There are definately a lot of scams out there and you want someone that is going to be geniune in their work and good at documenting the needed changes in such a way that you can learn from the process.

However, I would say hiring an editor is definately something you should do after you have read multiple books on writing, taken any courses you can on writing, written a fair amount of work yourself, and if at all possible joined a strong writer's group. (In many ways a writer's group can give you the same help an editor can as far as what you can learn from them.)

But I wouldn't completely write it off.

[Kristin Landon]

I have a good friend who has been one of these independent editors. She was not scamming people—I've been in a critique group for years with her, I know how she works, and I'm sure people got their money's worth. But she recently stopped, because she found it exhausting and depressing to try to help people whose work was still far from publishable, and who didn't seem to be able to hear that. They had plenty of money to pay her, but didn't want to listen to her.

I've known other editors of this kind who also did their best but who (unlike my friend) could not write publishable work themselves—so even the honest ones are not necessarily competent.

I wouldn't urge anyone to go that route unless they really know it's not a scam. Certainly you should never go with an editor suggested by an agent ("Maybe I'll take you on once you've worked with So-and-so").

[herdon]

I've known other editors of this kind who also did their best but who (unlike my friend) could not write publishable work themselves—so even the honest ones are not necessarily competent.


I think you are treading a line there. Certainly, if a writer cannot produce publishable 'writing' they probably aren't a competent editor, but an editor who couldn't produce a publishable *novel* could still be a fantastic editor. Writing and creating are quite different things: Someone can be great at knowing how to flesh out a story or a character and still not be able to create that story or character.

[James D. Macdonald]

...should I hire an independent editor to look through my work before submitting to an agent...

No.

[Kristin Landon]

I think you are treading a line there. Certainly, if a writer cannot produce publishable 'writing' they probably aren't a competent editor, but an editor who couldn't produce a publishable *novel* could still be a fantastic editor. Writing and creating are quite different things: Someone can be great at knowing how to flesh out a story or a character and still not be able to create that story or character.

But if they've been trying for many years to publish novels and have never succeeded, I wouldn't feel much confidence in their judgment of what constitutes a publishable novel, or of how my book could be made publishable. And many of them claim to be selling exactly that service.

[aruna]

I think you are treading a line there. Certainly, if a writer cannot produce publishable 'writing' they probably aren't a competent editor, but an editor who couldn't produce a publishable *novel* could still be a fantastic editor. Writing and creating are quite different things: Someone can be great at knowing how to flesh out a story or a character and still not be able to create that story or character. (my bold)

Alleluia! I've always said this. I had a great editor at HarperCollins, but I'm sure she cannot write a novel herself.

However, a stickler for words as always, I am wary of the expression "having a ms edited". Makes it sound as if the editor goes through it and makes all the changes him/herself. That's not good.

I am all for a beginner having a ms critiqued or assessed before submitting to agents: by someone who knows about writing. That could be a writer or an editor. So as to point out stuff like weak characterization, too passive, bad structure, etc. A first time novelist has no way of knowing if his/her ms works or is in even approachably publishable condition. We are all in love with our novels. An independent, qualified assessment is vital - paid or unpaid is irrelevant.

Probably, though, you always pay. Even if you have a writer friend look over your ms for free, you will probably feel obliged to pay by reading his/her ms in return, which may not always be up your street. As mentioned above, writing skills don't always translate to editing skills.

As awlays, find out what is best for you and remember there are lots of scams out there.

[herdon]

But if they've been trying for many years to publish novels and have never succeeded, I wouldn't feel much confidence in their judgment of what constitutes a publishable novel, or of how my book could be made publishable. And many of them claim to be selling exactly that service.

I don't know why you think an editor must be a failed novelist. That sounds more like a stereotype than anything else. A great editor is someone who fell in love with the process of editing rather than writing -- not someone who just couldn't cut it as a writer.

I think you are treading close to "those that can't do -- teach" which is another quite silly statement.

[herdon]

However, a stickler for words as always, I am wary of the expression "having a ms edited". Makes it sound as if the editor goes through it and makes all the changes him/herself. That's not good.


I totally agree. An editor (used in the way described above) should not make any changes at all to the manuscript. The writer learning what is highlighted and the reasons why is as vital to the process as any actual changes.

I think the same can be done in the form of writing groups as well which is why I suggest trying those (and books, classes, etc.) before looking for an editor, but not everyone has access or can find a good group.

[Kristin Landon]

I don't know why you think an editor must be a failed novelist. That sounds more like a stereotype than anything else. A great editor is someone who fell in love with the process of editing rather than writing -- not someone who just couldn't cut it as a writer.

I think you are treading close to "those that can't do -- teach" which is another quite silly statement.

Havlen, I'm an editor myself. No, an editor does not need to be a novelist, failed or otherwise. However, the editors I was talking about, those who are also known as book doctors, often market their services specifically as making unsaleable manuscripts saleable. That is different from what, say, an editor at a publisher does, or a freelance copyeditor like me: working to make a manuscript that has already been acquired ready to publish. That can indeed be done perfectly well by someone with no interest in writing.

I'm also not talking about book doctors who've never tried to sell their own work. There's no basis for judgment there.

I'm talking about book doctors who have tried, repeatedly, to sell their own work and failed. Presumably making their own work saleable mattered to them, and yet they couldn't manage it. Would this really be no cause for concern?

[waylander]

Could someone link this discussion to the one we had about the exact same subject a couple of weeks ago. http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60436


I'm tired of rehashing the argument.

[aruna]

I'm talking about book doctors who have tried, repeatedly, to sell their own work and failed. Presumably making their own work saleable mattered to them, and yet they couldn't manage it. Would this really be no cause for concern?

Well, I'm not trying to make a case for these book doctors here, far from it. But even so, the argument doesn't pull for me. Being unable to make their own novels saleable means little; a good editor will readily admit that there are some books - many books, in fact - that can never be made saleable. If the raw product is not good enough, then no amount of editorial work can save it.

Maybe said "book doctor" just isn't a good storyteller to start with. Maybe she can't put life into her characters. Maybe she lacks that vital "Factor X" spark. Maybe her real talent is editing, not writing. Many people make false career starts.

But maybe said "failed novelist" is a brilliant editor. Who knows?

[johnzakour]

I happen to be a terrible editor of myself so I always hire somebody to do a quick line edit of my manuscripts before I send them off to my publishers. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Kristin Landon]

johnzakour, that's a smart thing to do if you know you need that kind of help; I've heard editors and agents say they sometimes reject manuscripts out of hand if there are problems with spelling and grammar. That's maybe not fair—the ms. could be brilliant in every other respect—but to someone trained to spot those problems, it's like fingernails on a blackboard to read an ms. that needs fixing on that level. It's a great idea to make sure that the ms. is correct in that way, so they're judging it based on other things.

Hiring a line editor is also a different category from hiring someone to "fix" your book's plot, characterization, and style.

Well, I'm not trying to make a case for these book doctors here, far from it. But even so, the argument doesn't pull for me. Being unable to make their own novels saleable means little; a good editor will readily admit that there are some books - many books, in fact - that can never be made saleable. If the raw product is not good enough, then no amount of editorial work can save it.

Maybe said "book doctor" just isn't a good storyteller to start with. Maybe she can't put life into her characters. Maybe she lacks that vital "Factor X" spark. Maybe her real talent is editing, not writing. Many people make false career starts.

But maybe said "failed novelist" is a brilliant editor. Who knows?

I suppose that is possible, although again I'd wonder what kind of diagnostician such an editor was—unless she was also completely honest about unpublishable work when she recognized it. That's what caused my book editor friend to drop her business—having to tell people, no, it isn't time to make a shortlist of agents—you have a long way to go with this. Some would become very angry at this, even verbally abusive. She realized that what these, at least, were really trying to buy from her was not the truth about their writing, but a rubber stamp of approval that would make them feel good about themselves while moving their writing forward not one bit.

Some book doctors are in exactly that business, and it's a lucrative one.

[Gillhoughly]

I was wondering, should I hire an independent editor to look through my work before submitting to an agent.

No.

Send your book out.

Be working on the next one.

[Medievalist]

No.

Send your book out.

Be working on the next one.

Yeah, pretty much.

There are a few exceptions -- I've done what I consider proofing, that is fixing grammar errors -- for mss. for scholarly/academic authors who are less than comfortable doing proofing themselves for any number of reasons.

Fiction is a 'whole 'nother beast though, and I'd generally say do the best you can and send the book out; your publisher will have different editorial criteria than an editor you hire (though there are a few really really good editors that work for publishers who also freelance--but you pay for quality).

[herdon]

I'm talking about book doctors who have tried, repeatedly, to sell their own work and failed. Presumably making their own work saleable mattered to them, and yet they couldn't manage it. Would this really be no cause for concern?

The question was concerning 'an editor' and you are narrowing it down to a specific subtype of editor. That's like saying: No, you should never let an editor mess with your work because some editors are bad at their job and you don't want a bad editor working on it. You see the failure in logic there?

As for your hypothetical subset of editor: If the 'book doctor' was good at editing then, yeah, he/she could be a great person to edit a book.

One thing I still don't think you are getting is that someone can have a real talent for editing -- and not just grammatical editing, but spotting issues of story and characterization -- and still not have a talent for being a novelist.

[Kristin Landon]

Havlen, perhaps you missed the post where I said exactly what you just said, that an editor doesn't have to be a novelist. And you are objecting to something I didn't say. I expressed doubts about the value of a particular subset of editor; I had nothing bad to say about editors outside that subset. For heaven's sake, I am one; I've been an editor for much longer than I've been serious about writing, more than twenty years now. It's my profession. I know what it requires.

You may also have missed where I mentioned my friend who was a "book doctor" and did good work, giving good value. I did not deny that this is possible; I gave an example of a good one from my own experience. And I certainly never said not to let an editor "mess with" one's work; just above I suggested that it can be a good idea.

I stand by my opinion that some "book doctors" should be avoided. I'm hardly alone in saying this—do I really need to post links?—and such a view is neither illogical nor silly.

[herdon]

I've known other editors of this kind who also did their best but who (unlike my friend) could not write publishable work themselves—so even the honest ones are not necessarily competent.


Just to be clear, this is what I have been responding to. Yes, you are right that you were just talking about a subset (my bad for the later reply where I projected editors as a whole into the discussion).

But you are very wrong in equating writers who can not write publishable work themselves not being competent. Which is what the statement I've quoted does: It equates them.

An editor can be very good at knowing the right technique to flesh out story and characters (as well as grammar) but still be unable to invent the story and characters themselves. Those are two different skillsets. Thus, a person could be doomed to failure as a novelist (should they pursue it) but a fantastic editor.

It matters little whether or not they have tried (and failed) to be a novelist or not. They only thing that matters is how good they are at being an editor.

As for some 'book doctors' needing to be avoided for whatever reason -- I think that is obvious and not what we are discussing here. There are incompetent editors (just as there are incompetent lawyers, doctors, teachers, programmers, etc.) and there are scam artists. If someone has decided to go to a third-party editor for whatever reason then I certainly think they should do their due dilegence.

Again, my point is that someone can have a talent for editing without a talent for creative writing.

[Kristin Landon]

I was talking about a specific skill set there (taking an unpublishable ms. and trying to make it publishable), not editing in general. But it's probably not worth parsing this further.

You're quite right that an editor can see what's wrong with a story while not necessarily being able to create a story from scratch himself, just as it's possible to hear flubs in a musical performance without being able to play the instrument yourself.

[job]

Setting aside proofreading --
(which solves typos, grammar, spelling, consistency, continuity, fact.)

and talking about for-pay editing of the substantive kind.


If your manuscript is getting only form rejections, time after time after time ...
The problems in the ms are probably apparent to any competent critter.

Save the money.
You don't need an expert.
You need a crit group or writing class or a book on writing
and practice.


OTOH, if you're getting requests for partials and fulls and individual responses from agents,
but nobody has taken the ms on after 30 or 40 'almosts'.
And you don't know why.
Then you may have some specific and complex problem and this is a case where an expert might help.


Sadly ... most of the folks who want to 'hire an editor' to 'fix the manuscript' are in the first group, rather than the second.

[aruna]

As for some 'book doctors' needing to be avoided for whatever reason -- I think that is obvious and not what we are discussing here. There are incompetent editors (just as there are incompetent lawyers, doctors, teachers, programmers, etc.) and there are scam artists. If someone has decided to go to a third-party editor for whatever reason then I certainly think they should do their due dilegence.


Yes. This goes without saying.




If your manuscript is getting only form rejections, time after time after time ...
The problems in the ms are probably apparent to any competent critter.

Save the money.
You don't need an expert.
You need a crit group or writing class or a book on writing
and practice.


OTOH, if you're getting requests for partials and fulls and individual responses from agents,
but nobody has taken the ms on after 30 or 40 'almosts'.
And you don't know why.
Then you may have some specific and complex problem and this is a case where an expert might help.


Sadly ... most of the folks who want to 'hire an editor' to 'fix the manuscript' are in the first group, rather than the second.

Excellent advice.

Judging by the variety of answers here, it's obvious that the real answer to the OP question is "it depends!"
None of us here know how good/publishable/saleable his ms is; I guess time - and maybe rejection - will tell. There are no pat answers; though I think the last post sums it up pretty well. We all have a different route into publication; no-one can speak for another.

I personally am glad I took the route I did, with a critique service before submission. It cut several years off the process. Telling me outright not to do so would have been terrible advice. Others go a different route. Whatever; good luck.

[herdon]

I think one thing most people agree on is a third-party editor would be a choice made after other methods such as books, classes, discussion groups, writer's group (peer review), etc. are exhausted.

[Kristin Landon]

Yes, Havlen, absolutely. I tend to diss the option of editors because I have a writing critique group that is (just simply) to die for. There is no doubt in my mind that I owe my upcoming publication to these people; that is simply the fact.

A critique group that is (1) oriented toward publication, (2) free of personal issues ("the work comes first"), and (3) blisteringly honest is worth its weight in gold. It takes a while to develop the detachment necessary to handle that kind of critique (beieve me, I know)—but once you're there ("you" generally), if you have a good group, I don't think you'll need a hired editor.

[aruna]

A critique group that is (1) oriented toward publication, (2) free of personal issues ("the work comes first"), and (3) blisteringly honest is worth its weight in gold. It takes a while to develop the detachment necessary to handle that kind of critique (beieve me, I know)—but once you're there ("you" generally), if you have a good group, I don't think you'll need a hired editor.

But not everyone has access to a GOOD critique group, and not everyone wants to be in one. I definitely wouldn't want to be in a critique group.

[Kristin Landon]

Well, it takes time to find a good group, and commitment to keep it. And it may not be right for everyone.

I just know that my group kept me writing when it would have been easy to stop, because I was starting my own business and having babies, etc., etc. I knew I had to have pages for the group every week, so I had them. Sometimes I read my pages and discussed them while nursing a baby, but it got done.

The harsh honesty was also important. No ego involved, just making the work better. It worked.

For me, it was exactly the right answer. I'm not saying it's right for everyone.

[herdon]

Yes, Havlen, absolutely. I tend to diss the option of editors because I have a writing critique group that is (just simply) to die for. There is no doubt in my mind that I owe my upcoming publication to these people; that is simply the fact.

A critique group that is (1) oriented toward publication, (2) free of personal issues ("the work comes first"), and (3) blisteringly honest is worth its weight in gold. It takes a while to develop the detachment necessary to handle that kind of critique (beieve me, I know)—but once you're there ("you" generally), if you have a good group, I don't think you'll need a hired editor.

I'd always recommend a writer's group over a hired editor. In the end, an editor is giving you one person's (hopefully educated) opinion while a writer's group is giving you a group of opinions. But, not everyone is able to join a good writer's group.

I'm lucky that my wife is a good editor. Having another set of eyes and an educated opinion on matters is invaluable to a writer trying to improve their craft. We've been in two writer's groups but neither was the right fit (it was obvious we were much more serious about the work and the group was tenative on giving true peer reviews). We do have a line on a new one that might be better -- hopefully.

[Kristin Landon]

Good luck, Havlen. A bad group is poison, but a good group is just plain wonderful.