First up, a reminder of the various stages of editing:
Editors help authors improve the flow and structure of a story, and resolve plot holes and characterisation issues. They do not make the changes necessary to do this: they merely highlight them, and suggest ways the problems can be resolved. It's up to the writer to rewrite her work.
Copy editors check for grammar issues, spelling, continuity and typos: they also fact-check.
Proof readers check the final version of the book looking for any remaining errors.
At every stage, the author should reread the text to ensure the work has been done correctly.
Most books would benefit from a good editor and copy editor (note that this requires two editorial passes). Few self published books have enjoyed the attentions of either.
Edit: After looking around a couple of them, most offer free samples. This is a great idea as you can check the quality of the editing before purchasing.
Good luck!
This sort of sample edit can only give you the smallest of ideas about the editor: how can you tell how she's going to deal with plot holes across the entire book based on such a small sample?
Yeah, a good editor is a bonus. Of course, there is always more we can do. We can hire 5 editors instead of 1. But some writers feel perfectly comfortable doing their own editing and the material passes the reader test just fine. That's all I'm suggesting.
Three editors--structural editor, copy editor and proof reader--should be enough. If they're good.
I don't buy into the notion that every writer must hire an editor to have a professional product.
Having reviewed plenty of self published books, many written by people who thought they'd be ok without an editor, I have to disagree.
I can recommend Dr. Debra Doyle. She's a respected author, she's done MG, she teaches fiction writing, and she's a Ph.D.
http://www.sff.net/people/doylemacdonald/editorial.html
I'll second the recco for Debra Doyle. She's amazing.
And I'll third it.
Some general points:
I do not recommend that anyone pays extra for the editorial options offered when using self publishing service providers. The books I've seen which have been edited in this way seem to have been copy edited rather than edited, and have still been in need of a severe edit. They also tend to have a dull, flat voice which I suspect might be a result of the editing they've received. I'd rather read a book with a raw passion and a few typos than a book which was sanitised and clean.
This doesn't mean that editors ruin your voice: just that incompetent or untrained editors will, and you'd do better to avoid them.
Good editing is expensive. If you pay $150 for someone to edit your work, you're probably wasting your money.
Good editing is difficult. If you've not worked with an editor before, you're probably going to find the process painful. It's not nice to have someone highlight all the ways you've screwed your own manuscript up: but stick with it. Try to see the possible benefits of what your editor says, and embrace them.
People who have written a couple of books don't automatically become good editors. Be very wary of who you pay money to.
