Editors don't edit...

Next up, authors do not write...

thothguard51 said:

Next up, authors do not write...

Click to expand...

James Patterson......

Editors don't edit...

Click to expand...

Oh, mine does.

Mine was amazing! <3

If editors don't edit, why do publishers still employ them? And what have I been doing all these years?

Old Hack said:

And what have I been doing all these years?

Click to expand...

Well, not editing, clearly.

No, they don't seem to. I've seen some egregious errors the last few weeks.
I was reading a book about the kings and queens of Britain. In the section about Edward II, the heading is correct, but the first sentence begins, "Edward III..." There was one more but I can't recall off hand. Minor things I know, but still.

LupineMoon said:

No, they don't seem to. I've seen some egregious errors the last few weeks.
I was reading a book about the kings and queens of Britain. In the section about Edward II, the heading is correct, but the first sentence begins, "Edward III..." There was one more but I can't recall off hand. Minor things I know, but still.

Click to expand...

Your having seen a couple of errors in a book you've read lately doesn't mean that editors don't edit. It just shows that editors are human, and don't catch every little error.

And as I think I said upthread, if editors don't edit, what on earth have I been doing all these years, writing editorial reports and working with authors to help them get their books as good as they can be?

Old Hack said:

If editors don't edit, why do publishers still employ them? And what have I been doing all these years?

Click to expand...

Yep, I've obviously been farting around pretending to edit for the last two years.

Forum posters don't ... oh, I should just delete this now.

I applaud editors. Let me qualify that by saying competent, dedicated editors. Some aren't.

I don't know if news organizations have given up editing, or are economizing on who they hire, but I don't see many AP stories anymore that are clean. Not only are they not clean, but they sometimes have truly spectacular errors, and many errors in one story.

I also don't like the "new wave" approach of updating a story simply by tacking it onto or weaving it into the last version of the news. I frequently see some really stupid errors and construction resulting from that lazy technique.

If editors don't edit, then why the hell do my manuscripts bleed red when they're sent back to me?

VRanger said:

I applaud editors. Let me qualify that by saying competent, dedicated editors. Some aren't.

I don't know if news organizations have given up editing, or are economizing on who they hire, but I don't see many AP stories anymore that are clean. Not only are they not clean, but they sometimes have truly spectacular errors, and many errors in one story.

I also don't like the "new wave" approach of updating a story simply by tacking it onto or weaving it into the last version of the news. I frequently see some really stupid errors and construction resulting from that lazy technique.

Click to expand...

This. I was thinking this would be the meat of the matter when I read the title of this thread. I realize news in 2014 (and 2001, and 1977) changes by the minute, but the number of errors I see in virtually every Internet article from AP or any other reputable news organization is appalling, sometimes enough to make me close out the window and look for the same coverage elsewhere. Anywhere.

Full disclosure: I'm self-publishing. That said, I'd consider lopping off a major appendage in exchange for a thorough editing (for free, of course) of my work by an experienced editor. It's insane what slips through the cracks when you're trying to do it all on your own. I had two Chapter 37s in one of my novels for six years. 'Nuff said.

Good editors are worth their weight in gold. In fact, they'd probably edit that cliche out. But with the sheer amount of words in cyberspace out there now, there's a limited number of folks to edit it. High-fives to the competent ones.

grayworld said:

This. I was thinking this would be the meat of the matter when I read the title of this thread. I realize news in 2014 (and 2001, and 1977) changes by the minute, but the number of errors I see in virtually every Internet article from AP or any other reputable news organization is appalling, sometimes enough to make me close out the window and look for the same coverage elsewhere. Anywhere.

Click to expand...

There are errors and there are errors.

What some people see as errors, other see as matters of house style. Consider the Oxford comma; consider split infinitives; consider starting a sentence with "and" or "but".

Consider also the difference between editing and copy editing.

Also, remember that the accusation that editors don't edit any more is a myth which I first saw being touted around by vanity publishers, and those who offer self publishing services, and which has since been pounced upon and waved around by the more evangelical self-publishers. I can't remember having seen anyone from trade publishing suggest that editors don't do their jobs.

Full disclosure: I'm self-publishing. That said, I'd consider lopping off a major appendage in exchange for a thorough editing (for free, of course) of my work by an experienced editor. It's insane what slips through the cracks when you're trying to do it all on your own.

Click to expand...

Why "for free, of course"? You acknowledge the value of good editing: but you're not prepared to pay for it? That seems odd to me.

Old Hack said:

There are errors and there are errors.

What some people see as errors, other see as matters of house style. Consider the Oxford comma; consider split infinitives; consider starting a sentence with "and" or "but".

Consider also the difference between editing and copy editing.

Also, remember that the accusation that editors don't edit any more is a myth which I first saw being touted around by vanity publishers, and those who offer self publishing services, and which has since been pounced upon and waved around by the more evangelical self-publishers. I can't remember having seen anyone from trade publishing suggest that editors don't do their jobs.



Why "for free, of course"? You acknowledge the value of good editing: but you're not prepared to pay for it? That seems odd to me.

Click to expand...

Hi, Old Hack.

I didn't mean to suggest that editors don't do their jobs. I was just sharing VRanger's frustration with the typos I see daily in online articles. Missing words, repeated phrases, garden-variety misspellings, etc. There seemed to be fewer errors in the newspapers I read growing up. Like you mentioned, I probably mixed up the editor/copyeditor roles there.

As far as the vanity publishers/evangelical self-publishers are concerned, I totally agree with you. Some of the first threads I read here at AW were the PA- and Atlanta Nights-related ones. Thankfully, I avoided the traps.

Sorry I wasn't clear on the "free editing" comment. I'd love to pay an editor a fair-market rate for his or her services, but I happen to be really, really, poor and trying to get my work out there in respectable form for next to nothing. If my financial situation ever improves, I'd be more than happy to hire a reputable editor.

grayworld said:

Hi, Old Hack.

I didn't mean to suggest that editors don't do their jobs. I was just sharing VRanger's frustration with the typos I see daily in online articles. Missing words, repeated phrases, garden-variety misspellings, etc. There seemed to be fewer errors in the newspapers I read growing up.

Click to expand...

A few years ago I reread a few books I'd enjoyed in my twenties and I found many, many mistakes. I don't remember those books being so very flawed: I suspect I've learned more about grammar, punctuation and so on, and that over the years I've spent writing and editing my ability to spot errors has improved.

Like you mentioned, I probably mixed up the editor/copyeditor roles there.

Click to expand...

Lots of people do.

Sorry I wasn't clear on the "free editing" comment. I'd love to pay an editor a fair-market rate for his or her services, but I happen to be really, really, poor and trying to get my work out there in respectable form for next to nothing. If my financial situation ever improves, I'd be more than happy to hire a reputable editor.

Click to expand...

If you're going to try for an agent and a trade publishing contract you really shouldn't need to pay for your work to be edited, so it's not an issue for you.

If you're going to self publish then I strongly advise you to save up enough money to pay for a good editor before you publish your work. In my opinion it's not appropriate to charge money for work that isn't the very best that it can be: and you'll be shooting yourself in the foot if you send your work out there unedited, as it will be reflected in the reviews it receives.

I didn't read the article, but from the comments in this thread it seems to me the issue is more one of a lack of, or poorly done, proofreading than it is editing. For all we know (unless we have knowledge otherwise), every single error was identified by an editor, but those corrections have not carried through to the published copy. Typos and missed corrections are something that the proofreader should pick up.

The article is worth a read, esp. as it's quite short. It's a good-humoured response to claims that book editors don't edit.

Editors edit. A lot. As a group, we’re hesitant to speak up for ourselves, lest our decorousness be tainted by saying something too self-aggrandizing. But I’ll take the risk: I probably mark up fifty to a hundred pages a week, most of it on the weekend. I ask questions and cut sentences and write chapter titles and all that stuff. The other editors at my company, and editors I know socially from other companies, are just as rigorous.

Click to expand...

LA*78 said:

I didn't read the article, but from the comments in this thread it seems to me the issue is more one of a lack of, or poorly done, proofreading than it is editing. For all we know (unless we have knowledge otherwise), every single error was identified by an editor, but those corrections have not carried through to the published copy. Typos and missed corrections are something that the proofreader should pick up.

Click to expand...

My bold.

That's not really how it works.

Editors suggest corrections, the author makes them (or doesn't), the editor makes another pass through the ms, and this is repeated until both the editor and author are happy with the book.

Then a copy editor works through the book.

When the book has been typeset, a proofreader checks the page proofs.

"Typos and missed corrections" should have been corrected way before the book is passed onto typesetting: making corrections at proof stage is very expensive.

Old Hack said:

My bold.

That's not really how it works.

Editors suggest corrections, the author makes them (or doesn't), the editor makes another pass through the ms, and this is repeated until both the editor and author are happy with the book.

Then a copy editor works through the book.

When the book has been typeset, a proofreader checks the page proofs.

"Typos and missed corrections" should have been corrected way before the book is passed onto typesetting: making corrections at proof stage is very expensive.

Click to expand...

I guess different processes are inevitable, but my experience is that a proofread is the final step. Therefore, anything missed in all the previous passes should be picked up there, thus the responsibility of the proofreader who may also be the editor, the author or a 3rd party. Obviously it would be ideal for there to be no errors for the proofreader to identify, but obviously things slip through no matter how careful people are.

LA*78 said:

I guess different processes are inevitable, but my experience is that a proofread is the final step. Therefore, anything missed in all the previous passes should be picked up there, thus the responsibility of the proofreader who may also be the editor, the author or a 3rd party. Obviously it would be ideal for there to be no errors for the proofreader to identify, but obviously things slip through no matter how careful people are.

Click to expand...

Proof reading is the last step: my point was that we should check that all corrections have been made and all typos caught by the time editing and copy editing have been finished. Proofing is a final check, not part of the editing process.

As for editors being their own proofreaders? That's rarely a good idea. Nor is it a good idea for editors to proof the books they've edited, but it does happen.

I suppose it depends on the one editing. I had an indie publisher that had supposedly edited my work. They didn't even touch it. I would have been better off editing myself. And I probably had more background in grammar and proper English, as that I minored in English in college, than those that were 'editing' my books. Most indie publishers are a joke. Sorry to be so harsh.