# Does everyone need an editor?



## Incanus (Oct 17, 2017)

Hey Scribes!

It’s been a while since I’ve been able to hang out here.

More and more, I’ve been wondering about finding and working with an editor.

My basic question boils down to this:  Does a writer who has strong editing skills need to have an editor?  Put another way:  Does every single writer on the planet NEED to have an editor?

I’d like to discuss this theoretically first, before trying to determine whether or not I personally have sufficient editing skills.  On that point, I really have no idea.

So far, I’ve seen the work of two professional editors.  In one case, the editor(s) generally lowered the quality of the prose, suggesting adding poor adverbs to dialogue tags, swapping words with ones that didn’t actually fit, and other questionable items (it’s been a while since I looked at that stuff).  In another case, the editor didn’t understand the conventions of the genre very well (and admitted as much), and found no proofreading errors and minimal copyediting issues.

I can certainly see the value in simply having a second set of eyes on my work.  But such eyes need not belong to an editor.

To wrap up, here are my two questions:

Does everyone need an editor?

If not, how might I determine if my own editing skills justify not using an editor?


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 17, 2017)

Well, it depends on what you mean by editing. There are different types of editor and editing. There's editing where it's just about making sure the prose is grammatically correct. There's story editing. Etc. Are you strong enough in all those areas to get the job done?

Also, having an editor isn't just about being able to do the job, it's about efficiency. Sometimes editing requires distance from the story to see the errors, whether they be spelling mistakes or story flaws. Having an editor means you can hand something off and have be read by fresh eyes right away, instead of having to wait a week or so for the story to clear from your head.

Just as there are various levels of author out there, there are various levels of editor. Just because you run into a couple that didn't get your story or genre doesn't mean a "good" editor can't help.

I took an editing course once, and the instructor's day job was working for a small press as an editor. As we went through each of the student's manuscripts, he was making insightful comment after insightful comment, about directions the story could go, about clarity of prose, etc. IMHO, I don't think he was always right, but what he said made perfect sense and definitely gave me food for thought.

I'm by no means an expert, but being an editor isn't about being right all the time. It's about being able to offer up possibilities and helping the author see things in their story that they may not have otherwise have thought of, so the author can make the story as good as it possible can be. And part of the skill of being an author is being able to filter through any all advice given and figure out what's right for your story and what isn't.

To me. it's not about if everyone needs an editor. To me, it's about everyone needing the right editor. One who believes in your story. One who knows your genre and understands what you're trying to achieve with your story. Not just any Joe or Jill off the street will do.


----------



## Russ (Oct 18, 2017)

Yup.  PP is bang on.

It is not whether everyone needs an editor that I really see as the question.

I think of it as two questions:  

"Will person A benefit from an editor?" and then "How does person A find  good editor?"

If you plan to present your work to the public for sale I would say that almost every author can benefit from a good editor.  Whether or not you can find one or afford one is a different question.  The other thing to keep in  mind is that there are different kinds of editors and different editors have very different strengths and weaknesses.   

If you are serious about selling your fiction, a good editor is a very wise investment.   But they ain't cheap or easy to find.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 18, 2017)

Theoretically, no. Realistically, yes. But it depends on defining “need”.

A good editor/writer relationship is gold, but of course, “good” is the key. A bevy of quality beta readers, and/or a base of dedicated customer readers (if speaking commercial) can mitigate the need for an editor. The former because they’ll help your product pre-publish, the latter because they’ll buy a book based on a writer’s track record.

Self-editing has limitations, just like any single editor. There are enough blunders in professionally edited books, don’t need more for a lack of it.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Oct 18, 2017)

For my story, I've already thought of everything an editor will ever think of.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 18, 2017)

I seriously doubt any of us have thought of everything.

A couple of remarks here are worth highlighting. One, you don't need *an* editor, you need the *right* editor for you. And those are definitely hard to find. I've had a couple of poor experiences. Sturgeon's Rule applies here as much as anywhere. I've found this is a good argument for writing short fiction; I can give a short story to a prospective editor to see how they do, both at the story level and at the copyedit level. I've already explored the story pretty thoroughly and know its shortcomings. Those free edit offers are really an audition, and I'm pretty critical of their critiques. 

Anyway, if you are able to find the right editor--at the least, make sure they're in your genre--then hang on to them. Once you have a good one, you won't need to have this argument with anyone; you'll know their value.

The other is the new eyes angle. If you have ever had a reviewer or a beta reader suggest a new idea or spot a problem that you never saw, then you know what I mean. The right editor will do this in spades. Who among us believes their work is perfect, incapable of improvement? To me, writing is in part about getting the story to done, but it is also about making the *next* story even better.

I'll add one of my own. I self-edited _Goblins at the Gates._ I did a pretty good job; respectable, though not perfect. That editing process took weeks. It involved having the entire manuscript robo-read to me. It involved me reading a physical printout. It involved a spellcheck and grammar check pass after each of those (because they entailed corrections and emendations, of course, which could have introduced new mistakes). It involved handing the entire manuscript to an ancient history professor to be read for historicity. 

Weeks. Had I given the manuscript to an editor, I could have spent those weeks working on _A Child of Great Promise_. Now, I did not hire an editor because to do so would have cost thousands, because of the length of the manuscript. So that was a choice I made. But _A Child_ is going to be half that length. 

That said, I have hung out in writers forums for nearly a decade. I have noticed a pattern. The more published a person gets, the less common is this conversation. The less published argue that they don't need an editor. This is neither universal nor a constant, but it's a clear preponderance. Cost is definitely a factor. You're going to have to make your own call on this, Incanus, but at least give it serious consideration. At least doing the research is free.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 18, 2017)

This really depends on where you are in your craft. Even with an editor (of which there are various kinds, it's not a one size fits all sort of thing) you still need to know your craft, know your weaknesses. Not every editor will be right for you and your story. Editors are human and will introduce errors into your work. Some will suck. Some will be really good. It all depends on who you can afford and find.

I've had experiences with editors that were worth the money. Others not. I had to rewrite an entire book once because the editor I paid killed my voice and I threw money down the toilet. That pissed me off so bad. Grr! But I chose poorly. Here's what I've learned:

-Grammarly, Hemmingway editor and these sorts of apps are really good at helping you catch first mistakes. 
-A clean manuscript (before it hits the editor) will make the editor's job much easier and they can help you more this way.
-Line editors, copy editors, developmental editors, and proofreaders are entirely different in nature and purpose. Know what they do. Understand it. Choose the right one for you.
-Developmental editors are expensive but worth it if you find the right one. I used one several years ago and learned a lot from the experience. But I wouldn't do it again because it's too expensive. Also, the easiest way to learn storytelling is to read read read read.
*Practicing your craft over the long term helps you refine your process and improve in skill. 
-ALL writers need extra eyes, whether that's betas, proofreaders, copy editors, whatever. I believe in copy edits and proofreaders. Some of my work still has mistakes in it because I was unable to find proper help when those scripts were ready. No one has complained yet lol but I have to eventually send them to get copy edited.

The short: editors vary in scope, skill, and purpose. All writers may not need an editor, but they need extra eyes on the manuscript to help them catch errors. No manuscript will ever be perfect. Learn your craft.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Oct 18, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> I seriously doubt any of us have thought of everything.



I probably average five speech bubbles of writing per page, allowing me to be very meticulous with what is there. Editors expertise are only useful when there's alot of prose to analyze.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Oct 18, 2017)

Hello Incanus, and Hugs!

I hope that everything in your life has been alright, and you have my best wishes for the success of your work. Now, I am going to say this not only for you but also for any aspiring storyteller that may be reading this thread:

If you are interested in the bookselling business, then definitely you need editors. There are also agents. In some cases it's possible to present your non-edited work to a publishing company and if they like it enough they are going to do all the editing and marketing work for you, but that's very uncommon in the industry.

It's all about the business potential that they see in a story.

Now, editing stories is not done to make them better as an artistic product. This is done with marketing purposes in mind, because selling books is a business just like selling any other product. They want to modify the original work in whatever ways that they judge the best for said book to generate the best sales possible, with a target audience already calculated.

Also, it's true that some editors would mess a story up while others would turn the same story into the best possible commercial product. Do not think of editors as flawless wizards that are always right. You need to find the right editor for your story, and there are so many factors involved that I see commercial success more as destiny than anything else.

There are also storytellers that do not seek to sell as many books as possible. We are not interested in the business, so we do not need agents and editors. We want to tell our stories as we imagine and create them, with our personal style and voice untouched. So, the truth is that not all writers of stories need editors.

On top of that, there are also people that do not bother with editors and agents and they sell their electronic books in Amazon and other sites anyway. I know one here in Mythic Scribes, he sells alright and many people have praised his work.

It's a pretty varied world that we live in.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 18, 2017)

I’ve stumbled onto 2 editors. One I have not used yet, but want to, if she’ll take me on. Better editors are in demand. The lady I worked with can pick and choose the writers who submit, she isn’t taking on every writer who comes her way and I had to wait months for her to get to work. Now I have that relationship established, we know each other’s styles, she’s looking forward to the next books.

I submitted to 3 editors for samples and submitted the sample with known bad habits I have, which are not technically “wrong”.

#1: was nitpicky but not catching my bait

#2: caught one bait out several but only because it was technically wrong as a dangling participle. She also felt a bit kissy butt.

#3: caught me on my habit and said if I want to keep those not to bother with her as my editor, although she liked my writing, and yeah... if I fixed those before hiring her she’d do it cheaper.

DING! #3. Always seek out the hard-asses is my philosophy. As I learned from screenwriting, the pansies might make you feel good but do little for you.

Now, I also stumbled on an editor who is highly connected in traditional publishing, and a helluva resume there, so she would be a double win if I could work with her on the next book.

Find the right editor for you and it’s worth it... assuming you can still eat and pay the mortgage/rent after paying them, LOL.


----------



## Devor (Oct 18, 2017)

Even if you did happen to be a professional, pro-rate fantasy editor, I would still tell you to get an editor.

Writing is already too solitary, too all up in your own head.  You need somebody else to look at your work, to think about what somebody else is going to think about your work, to get that notion grounded that somebody is actually going to be reading it, looking at it, talking to you about it.  You need an editor because you need a colleague, because you need to remember that what you're doing is work, and to to get your head out of the clouds, if only from time to time.


----------



## Incanus (Oct 18, 2017)

Thanks for the input, everyone.  I appreciate it.

I wish I had more time to address everything here.  This issue is going to be very tricky for me.

I totally get having more eyes on my work, I would never think of taking this all the way without that.  The feedback I’ve gotten from three members of this forum has been invaluable, and has made the story better.  This kind of work could be done by non-editors as much as editors.

I suppose my main dilemma is going to be figuring out if this particular novel is actually worth spending money on.  It should more or less deliver on the promise of genre conventions, but also bucks a few common items (such as:  no antagonist, episodic structure, no romance).  I suspect most publishers would see this story as a long-shot.  If there are any comp-titles, I have no clue what they would be.

I’m thinking of finishing this up to a certain point (which to me is having a readable version of the entire thing), then shelving it, and getting to work on novel #2 (which is going to be very, very different).  Time frame:  I should be done with #1 in about 6 months or so.  Next novel may take about 3-5 years to write.

I guess the search for an editor is on.  Any recommendations as to where to look for one?


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 18, 2017)

What kind of editor do you think you need? They all do different things.


----------



## Russ (Oct 18, 2017)

Sheilawisz said:


> It's all about the business potential that they see in a story.
> 
> Now, editing stories is not done to make them better as an artistic product. This is done with marketing purposes in mind, because selling books is a business just like selling any other product. They want to modify the original work in whatever ways that they judge the best for said book to generate the best sales possible, with a target audience already calculated.
> 
> Also, it's true that some editors would mess a story up while others would turn the same story into the best possible commercial product. Do not think of editors as flawless wizards that are always right. You need to find the right editor for your story, and there are so many factors involved that I see commercial success more as destiny than anything else.



Let me firmly but politely disagree with the above view of in house editors at publishers with a specific example or two.

It is simply not true that editors at publishers only edit with sales in mind.  Many of them focus on the quality of the story, and its artistic or intrinsic value (I will try to avoid a discussion of the meaning of the word artistic).    They are optimistic that improving the quality of the story will enhance reader enjoyment, but many of them don't edit simply for sales.

Some understanding of how major publishers (as opposed to small presses) acquire books will help here.  The book is first reviewed by someone who decides whether or not it might be worth buying.  Now that person is either an acquiring editor, or passes that manuscript along to an acquiring editor.  Before they go offering money to buy the book they then have to run the idea past some marketing and business people to get some money to buy it.  Sometimes those folks read the book, sometimes they don't.  The acquiring editor then gets authorized to spend some money to buy the book and usually the acquiring with then shepherd the book through the editing, production, marketing process.  The money guys are pretty much out of the picture by that point, and have no input in the editing process.

So many commercial in house editors edit for artistic and story value and don't edit for commercial reasons or to generate sales.  Their marketing decisions very often have nothing to do with commercial reasons for very practical reasons.  The commercial potential of the book has already been estimated before the book is purchased.  If they think this is a good time to buy "Vampire romances" they might by your vampire romance.  They don't give marching orders to buy "First person vampire romances with a gothic twist and a dark atmosphere that allude to the follies of capitalism" or not, the commercial criteria are much broader.  

There may be a few editors in the commercial fiction area who edit to enhance sales, but based on my experience they are a very small minority.

My wife publishes with a big five publisher.  Her editor is a strong willed academic left wing feminist who edits for social and story value in the books he edits.  In all of the edits I have seen in my wife's work and all of my conversations with her editors on both sides of the pond (we socialize with them as well as work with them) I have never once seen an edit suggested, or a discussion of how the book can be changed to make it more marketable and enhance its sales.  The conversation has always been about quality of prose and story, or theme or message, or being true to character or verisimilitude (if I had a nickel for every time I heard that word come from a commercial editor I would be long retired) or other craft, artistic, or social issue.  Now everybody hopes that will produce a book that readers appreciate more, and those sells more, but the way Sheilawisz describes it is not how in house commercial editors work in the strong majority of cases.  Of the many working writers I count among my friends I only know one who would suggest that has happened to him and it always ends up in a funny story where the changes don't work well or seem absurd and get discarded.

One more fact to keep in mind on this subject.  Several houses and many small publishers pride themselves on publishing work of particular literary or artistic value, sales potential be damned.  They have that reputation and agents and others in the field know who they are.   Do you really think those people edit for sales?   I have seen serious rejection e-mails from big five houses that say "the book is too commercial for our house."   You think they edit for sales?

And now I am going for a record length post I may as well go all the way.  If  you are going to hire an editor to edit your work my advice is to try and hire one who has edited books and authors that  you respect if you can.  I also concur with DD, hire a hard ass.  If you want someone to tell you your work is great, save your money and get your mother to read it.  As one former freelance editor I know used to say "the only thing a writer likes less than my harsh criticism of their work is a rejection slip."


----------



## Devor (Oct 18, 2017)

Russ said:


> Their marketing decisions very often have nothing to do with commercial reasons for very practical reasons.  The commercial potential of the book has already been estimated before the book is purchased.



^ It's worth expanding on this.  Whether something has "commercial" value is already deeply ingrained in a book long before it hits the editor.  The commercial value is in the subject matter, the types of characters you use, the themes, the complexity of your writing.... if I looked at a book and tried to give you advice on how to make it more commercial, I would probably tell you to rewrite pretty much everything.

And the thing is, you don't need to be "commercial" with a novel. To be clear, I don't believe that commercial and artistic are at odds with each other. But if being commercial means appealing to the broadest possible audience, that's something that block buster movies and TV shows need to do in order to cover the huge costs of working in film, while a book doesn't need to cover a fraction of those costs - one author's salary, the editing, a few expenses.... you can do quite well for yourself selling a thousand copies a month, and an audience that size exists for just about anything, if your work is good enough.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 18, 2017)

>I suppose my main dilemma is going to be figuring out if this particular novel is actually worth spending money on.
I think this is sensible. It's why I didn't spend money on _Goblins_. It is my first novel and I know there are structural issues. The book is respectable, or I wouldn't have let it out the door, but it was also a learning project for me. I feel more confident now, and more willing to spend dough on hearing how to make a improve a book rather than how to fix one.

Where to find them? That took me many, many hours. I searched for fantasy editors. There are some sites that gather lists of editors and I went through those. You will also find many from searches of social media. Then you have to go to each one's web site and read what they are looking for. With some, they'll list every genre under the sun and fantasy is just one more in the list. With others, they lean toward things like fantasy romance or horror whereas I was looking for epic fantasy. And some looked just right but were not available. It really does require building your own list by hand.

Then you have to see what they want. How many chapters and which chapters. Or words.

Now I have a list. I worked through it, corresponding one at a time. Found one. Her next available opening is next February. So, when you go down this road, start early. Also, fwiw, because I have other publications, she took a look at those, because the editor wants to know if we're compatible, just as much as the author does.


----------



## Incanus (Oct 18, 2017)

Chessie2 said:


> What kind of editor do you think you need? They all do different things.



I'm not entirely certain.  What are the choices again?

I don't need much help with proofreading or copyediting.

Developmental editing?  Is that a thing?  My plot, characters, themes, and structures are all done--a large change to these would be essentially starting a new novel.
I guess I just need problems I hadn't thought of brought to my attention.

So - a problem finding editor?  I just don't know.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 18, 2017)

Everyone needs a proofreader. Honest. We may not necessarily hire one, but a proofreader will always catch stuff.

Most everyone needs a copy editor. That's what I'm hiring for _A Child of Great Promise._ Someone to catch consistency errors (which pretty much by definition are things I was unable to spot), characters acting out of character, logic loops, ambiguous language, all that and more. A copy editor will pretty much never touch the theme or plot, though they do need to understand both, so they may raise questions if they get confused on those fronts.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Oct 19, 2017)

Devor said:


> And the thing is, you don't need to be "commercial" with a novel. To be clear, I don't believe that commercial and artistic are at odds with each other. But if being commercial means appealing to the broadest possible audience, that's something that block buster movies and TV shows need to do in order to cover the huge costs of working in film, while a book doesn't need to cover a fraction of those costs - one author's salary, the editing, a few expenses.... you can do quite well for yourself selling a thousand copies a month, and an audience that size exists for just about anything, if your work is good enough.



It's good that you mention that Devor, because there is something that I want to say before somebody else misinterprets my posts in this thread. I do not mean to say that all commercial books lack some deeper or artistic value. I praise some highly commercial series like _Harry Potter_ for its values about family, friendship and love and _The Hunger Games_ for its message that even if horrible things happened and keep happening to you, life goes on and you have to be strong.

At least, that's how I personally interpret those two series. The experience of many others is quite different.

Sometimes, publishers pay huge amounts of money for the rights of a book. The printing, distribution and marketing also cost a lot of money, so they do have a great interest in achieving the best sales possible at least in cases like that.

I do not blame them. It's business, and all companies need good margins of profit to survive.



Devor said:


> Whether something has "commercial" value is already deeply ingrained in a book long before it hits the editor. The commercial value is in the subject matter, the types of characters you use, the themes, the complexity of your writing.... if I looked at a book and tried to give you advice on how to make it more commercial, I would probably tell you to rewrite pretty much everything.



Yes, and all of that is true based on what target audience an author or the publishing company involved are aiming for. Themes, types of characters, plot complexity and other things work well for certain audience and bad for others. They need the right story elements for the right readers so the book sells well, again it's a business.

The work of publishers when they edit a story is to make it more likeable for whatever target audience that they have in mind, to make it better _for that particular group_ even if other types of audience would dislike or feel no interest on it.

My points in this thread are:

1- No, not every storyteller in the world needs editors.
2- Professional editors and publishers have an interest above everything else, and that is profit.
3- Do not think of editors as some kind of superior force that all stories need, because they can be flawed too.



Russ said:


> It is simply not true that editors at publishers only edit with sales in mind. Many of them focus on the quality of the story, and its artistic or intrinsic value (I will try to avoid a discussion of the meaning of the word artistic). They are optimistic that improving the quality of the story will enhance reader enjoyment, but many of them don't edit simply for sales.



That's what I said, you just see it in a different way. What I said is that whatever changes they make to a story before it gets published are aimed at achieving the best sales possible for that book. Great sales come from people loving the book. Whether a company sells pizza, Halloween costumes or Fantasy novels, you need the intended customers to like and enjoy the final product.



Russ said:


> Some understanding of how major publishers (as opposed to small presses) acquire books will help here. The book is first reviewed by someone who decides whether or not it might be worth buying. Now that person is either an acquiring editor, or passes that manuscript along to an acquiring editor. Before they go offering money to buy the book they then have to run the idea past some marketing and business people to get some money to buy it. Sometimes those folks read the book, sometimes they don't. The acquiring editor then gets authorized to spend some money to buy the book and usually the acquiring with then shepherd the book through the editing, production, marketing process. The money guys are pretty much out of the picture by that point, and have no input in the editing process.



All of the complex work during the publishing process (from the moment that a promising book is presented to publishers to the moment it hits the shelves at bookstores) has one final goal, and that goal is to earn money and grow as a company.

There is nothing wrong with that, it's what they do to survive and after all we live in a world where money moves everything.

I am trying to argue against the idea that all writers of stories need editors, and that no story is complete without them. Also, many people believe that the only purpose to write a story is to sell it and I want to provide a different point of view.



Russ said:


> The conversation has always been about quality of prose and story, or theme or message, or being true to character or verisimilitude (if I had a nickel for every time I heard that word come from a commercial editor I would be long retired) or other craft, artistic, or social issue. Now everybody hopes that will produce a book that readers appreciate more, and those sells more, but the way Sheilawisz describes it is not how in house commercial editors work in the strong majority of cases.



Yes, exactly my point. Working on the improvement of whatever aspect they see that needs improvement is aimed at producing a book that customers (readers) will appreciate more. They know what they are doing, it's their business and authors have to accept the necessary changes if they want to play the game.

This is especially true for novice authors, because when authors are already famous and appreciated by publishers and readers alike they can get away with stuff that would not be tolerated in the case of a newbie.

A good example would be my own experience with editing, after submitting articles that have been published here in Mythic Scribes.

The original versions of my articles have suffered considerable changes in the editing process. Some parts of the originals that I really like were removed completely, or else altered to a significant degree. Many other parts were not changed at all. In other parts, the structure of my paragraphs or the words that I had chosen were changed for other styles.

I would prefer to see my original versions published instead, but my editor has his reasons to perform those changes and I have to accept them for my articles to be published. The same happens with stories, and the edited versions are not necessarily better than the originals even if they are better for the publisher's purposes and needs.

I very much prefer to be happy and proud of my stories exactly as I created them, but that's just me.



Russ said:


> One more fact to keep in mind on this subject. Several houses and many small publishers pride themselves on publishing work of particular literary or artistic value, sales potential be damned. They have that reputation and agents and others in the field know who they are. Do you really think those people edit for sales? I have seen serious rejection e-mails from big five houses that say "the book is too commercial for our house." You think they edit for sales?



I know that such publishing houses exist, there are some of them where I live too.

I have been talking about the other side of publishers because I know that the goal of Incanus is to be a published author and generate income from his books, the same goal that many people in this site seek.

I am not sure what those _sales-be-damned_ houses aim for when they edit a story, but yes, definitely those do not edit for sales.


----------



## Malik (Oct 19, 2017)

There is no author whose work will not benefit from a professional editor. Not some schmo off Fiverr who will "edit" your book for $50; I mean a month-long, no-bullshit developmental and line edit with multiple passes and email fights and resting your head on your desk and wondering if that ad for truck-driving school was meant for you.

Publishing a book without sending it to a professional editor is like stepping in the ring when all you've done is shadowbox. Nothing's stopping you, but you're going to get hurt and you're going to embarrass yourself. You need to work with a coach, and you need to spar with someone who's better than you and who knows all your tricks. A good editor is both.

If you think you're good enough that you don't need an editor, you definitely aren't.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Oct 19, 2017)

If the editor is better than you, then why are they editors and not successful writers?


----------



## Russ (Oct 19, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> If the editor is better than you, then why are they editors and not successful writers?



Because editing and writing are different skills.

Let me help you with an analogy, do you think Tom Brady's QB coach (Josh McDaniels) is a better QB than Tom Brady?

I am curious, have you ever spoken to a very successful writer about the importance or role of their editor?   

Or perhaps you were just trolling with that question and I have fallen into your trap?


----------



## Annoyingkid (Oct 19, 2017)

Russ said:


> Because editing and writing are different skills.
> 
> Let me help you with an analogy, do you think Tom Brady's QB coach (Josh McDaniels) is a better QB than Tom Brady?
> 
> ...



I was replying to someone else who said it.

You and the prior poster keep bringing up sports. It doesn't matter how knowledagable or skilled you are at a sport if you're too old to play it. No one expects a coach who is clearly too old, to be able to play the sport at that level.  Writing and editing are not activities that rely on youth in the same way. Saying the editor is better than you is ludicrous. It's just a different perspective that's all. Better than you at what? Finding grammar mistakes? Grammar programs can do that very easily. Fixing problems in your own story? How about no. Editors and writers are not in competition in any way. Editors are there if writers feel they need that boost. But if a writer knows exactly what they want, paying for an editor is senseless. If a publisher wants to assign you one then great.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Oct 19, 2017)

I have heard it said, and I agree with the statement that, an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client and an idiot for an attorney. There are several reasons for this: 1) it is more difficult to be objective when looking at your case from an "insiders" perspective; 2) you are less likely to recognize the weaknesses of your case and witnesses; 3) you are less likely to know when a good deal comes because you often believe you are entitled to the whole enchilada. You very well could be a great attorney, but you are still at a significant disadvantage because of your own built-in biases.

Similarly, an author, like an attorney, can be very very good at what they do, but they are still often blind to their own flaws, and oddly enough, also blind to their own strengths. A good editor can minimize the flaws and make the strengths shine because they have an objective viewpoint of the work. Further, because they often look at these things cold they are more likely to pick up on mistakes or missing pieces of information that an author may inherently know and understand but may not have properly communicated.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Oct 19, 2017)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> A good editor can minimize the flaws and make the strengths shine because they have an objective viewpoint of the work.



Writing groups have objective viewpoints of the work. Beta readers. Friends. Who don't charge you.


----------



## Russ (Oct 19, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> I was replying to someone else who said it.
> 
> You and the prior poster keep bringing up sports. It doesn't matter how knowledagable or skilled you are at a sport if you're too old to play it. No one expects a coach who is clearly too old, to be able to play the sport at that level.  Writing and editing are not activities that rely on youth in the same way. Saying the editor is better than you is ludicrous. It's just a different perspective that's all. Better than you at what? Finding grammar mistakes? Grammar programs can do that very easily. Fixing problems in your own story? How about no. Editors and writers are not in competition in any way. Editors are there if writers feel they need that boost. But if a writer knows exactly what they want, paying for an editor is senseless. If a publisher wants to assign you one then great.



Now I know you are trolling. 

Age has nothing to do with it.  McDaniels and others at any age were never as good athletes as the people they coach.  There are reasons for that, but I suspect you aren't interested in learning about coaching theory.

I am quite confident in saying:

a) "Most professional editors are better at editing than most authors" and

b)  "Using a good quality editor greatly enhances the possibility of success of selling your work either to a publisher or to the public."

I notice you never did answer the question about if you had ever spoken to a successful writer about their editor(s).


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Oct 19, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Writing groups have objective viewpoints of the work. Beta readers. Friends. Who don't charge you.


Except they often don't. Friends, all too often, want to soften the blow. An editor doesn't. A related maxim is that you don't hire your friends as attorneys because they too are too close to the situation to be at their absolute best. The relationship should be fairly arm's length and professional, in my estimation.

Further, you have absolutely 0 quality "guarantees" when you rely on friends, writing groups, and family.


----------



## Russ (Oct 19, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Writing groups have objective viewpoints of the work. Beta readers. Friends. Who don't charge you.



I like beta readers, critique groups and others who read my stuff and help me out for certain purposes.  Especially when they are working pros.  

However, for most people there are real limits to the skills and experience that they bring to the table.  As one well respected writer and writing teacher likes to say "Writing seems to be the only place where a group of amateurs get together to teach each other how to be professional."  (paraphrasing).


----------



## Annoyingkid (Oct 19, 2017)

Russ said:


> Now I know you are trolling.
> 
> Age has nothing to do with it. McDaniels and others at any age were never as good athletes as the people they coach. There are reasons for that, but I suspect you aren't interested in learning about coaching theory.
> 
> ...



Troll? Are you a freelance editor is that it? You want to shill your useless profession? 

Plently of athletes get into coaching after their career is over. Gareth Southgate, England football team for example. Kevin Keegan. Glen Hoddle. To say the coach was never as good as the people they coach is wrong. Athletes can very easily get into coaching. Many do after their career is over. 



> a) "Most professional editors are better at editing than most authors"



If you're talking editing where both have no knowledge of the story prior to getting the job, the the editor will be superior, but not when we're talking about the writer's story. The writer has the knowlege of years, on their own story. The writer is supposed to use that knowledge and fix the vast majority of the problems, before an editor ever sees it. 



> b) "Using a good quality editor greatly enhances the possibility of success of selling your work either to a publisher or to the public."



I notice you never did answer the question about if you had ever spoken to a successful writer about their editor(s) [/Quote]

They're not necessary to sell a work to a publisher. In between modern grammar and spellcheck programs, writers groups, writing forums, beta readers, you don't need to pay an editor before you submit. If your story has problems an editor can fix then the publisher's editor will fix it. I've listened to freelance editors and heard what they can and can't do. I'm not against successful writers having their editor assigned to them and using them. I'm against paying for it out of pocket.  Now if a self published writer wants pay them and can afford it, hell, do what you want with your money. But for people who struggle, don't feel like you have to have one. You don't. You know your story best, you know where the problems are, any uncertainty, use the internet, use your writing group, use the feedback from beta readers and do some research.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Oct 19, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Troll? Are you a freelance editor is that it?



Where did this turn into a discussion of freelance editors alone? Further, the question asks whether a writer _needs_ an editor. The answer is generally going to be yes, for the reasons already stated, like a writer  lacking objectivity for their works. Russ is an attorney, btw, with a wife that is a published author and has some degree of knowledge about the business.

As for the coaching point, most coaches aren't highly successful athletes. Looking at my local pro and college teams not one of them was a successful pro athlete and every single one of them are great coaches. (Kyle Whittingham, Quin Snyder, and Mike Petke)


----------



## Black Dragon (Oct 19, 2017)

Everyone,

Remember the guiding principle:


> The guiding principle is to treat others with respect and dignity, and to foster a positive, welcoming and family friendly community.



Please avoid making hostile, confrontative posts.  

Thank you.


----------



## Russ (Oct 19, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> They're not necessary to sell a work to a publisher. In between modern grammar and spellcheck programs, writers groups, writing forums, beta readers, you don't need to pay an editor before you submit. If your story has problems an editor can fix then the publisher's editor will fix it. I've listened to freelance editors and heard what they can and can't do. I'm not against successful writers having their editor assigned to them and using them. *I'm against paying for it out of pocket. * Now if a self published writer wants pay them and can afford it, hell, do what you want with your money. But for people who struggle, don't feel like you have to have one. You don't. You know your story best, you know where the problems are, any uncertainty, use the internet, use your writing group, use the feedback from beta readers and do some research.



All of those things are good things to do.  And on top of all that an good editor will likely make the work better.

Sure, some people can't afford them, and that is too bad.  The places them at a disadvantage in a competitive field.  But then again so does not being able to afford a computer.  

People have to make financial choices every day.   But experience and reason tell me that people who hire a good editor to improve their work enhance their chances of success.  Each person who is on that road has to decide for themselves what financial sacrifices and risks they are willing to take to be successful.


----------



## Nimue (Oct 19, 2017)

Forgive me if I’m misinformed or out of date—I’m not at the stage of serious research about publication myself—but doesn’t this depend on the route you’re taking?

If you’re submitting for traditional publication, a self-hired editor is more of the optional, competitive-edge tool we’re talking about here.  You could self-edit, get beta readers, and count on an assigned editor by the publishing house.  You still need to win over an agent (or win the lottery) and having a professionally-edited work could help that.

If you’re self-publishing, a freelance editor becomes more of a necessity, depending on the process and end product you’re aiming for.  If you’re not sure what route you’re taking, or if you’re planning on submitting traditionally a few places and falling back on self-publishing, having an editor at that stage really depends on what state you want the work in before you consider publication.  If it’s a vast epic series that you want to pour time and money into regardless of a green light from agents or publishers, then maybe you do need a developmental/project-committed editor early on.

It’s not really clear what Incanus is aiming for, much less everyone else.  (Hello Incanus, by the way!  It’s good to see you back and polishing your novel!)


----------



## Russ (Oct 19, 2017)

Nimue said:


> If you’re submitting for traditional publication, a self-hired editor is more of the optional, competitive-edge tool we’re talking about here.  You could self-edit, get beta readers, and count on an assigned editor by the publishing house.  You still need to win over an agent (or win the lottery) and having a professionally-edited work could help that.



Just as an addition to this important thought, some agents will suggest that your work is sound but not yet ready to submit to a publisher. They will often then recommend that you have a freelance editor work on the piece before they agree to represent it or they will submit it.

In these circumstances you need to be careful, and make sure that you have a reputable agent of quality. There are definitely some less than scrupulous agents out there who get a kick back from referring you to certain editors and their interest and advice may not be made in good faith.    There are lots of good ones out there you can trust, but there are all sorts of people (some agents included) who are happy to prey on people's writing aspirations unfairly.


----------



## Incanus (Oct 19, 2017)

Folks sure have some strong opinions on this subject—should have seen that coming.

For myself, I appreciate the wide variety of viewpoints expressed here.  At the moment, I don’t necessarily subscribe to any one of them.  But I’d also say that I believe the vast majority of writers would benefit from having their work professionally edited.

My case might be a little unusual, but I don’t know for sure.  Of all the different skills that go into writing fiction, I’d say my greatest strengths lay in my technical language skills (and maybe some story concepts).  Very few proofreading errors appear, even in my first draft.  I am the sworn enemy of ambiguity and by the time I’ve gone over a piece three or four times, those things gets pretty well cleared up without anyone else’s input.  Most copyediting issues start to fade with each edit pass.

My areas of weakness have more to do with character depth, depicting character relationships, subtext, pacing, transitions, getting the level of detail just right, and other story execution issues.  I have nowhere near the confidence in these areas that I have for language, grammar, and clarity.

Given the chance, I’d probably swap these two sets of skills, seeing how story is more important than language for most readers.  But since that’s not an option, I’ve got to work with what I have.

When I feel I’ve got the right novel, I’d be happy to throw down a bunch of money on it.  I want my books to be the best they can be.  But my first novel?  I’m not sure yet…

(Hey, Nimue!  Good to see you here too.  While I may not have been posting here, the work on my novel has continued unabated.)


----------



## Devor (Oct 19, 2017)

Incanus said:


> When I feel I’ve got the right novel, I’d be happy to throw down a bunch of money on it.  I want my books to be the best they can be.  But my first novel?  I’m not sure yet…



For your first book, you need to think less about the final quality of your story, and more about the quality of your skills. Why not drop a few dollars to work with an editor for just a short stretch - say, the first five chapters - just to help figure out where your skills are, what you need to do to work on them, and whether you're on the right track?  I mean, this is kind of random as advice, but it can help to shake things up a bit for yourself.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 19, 2017)

OP: if your problem is plot, pacing, characterization and other storytelling skills, the only way to resolve this is to read more. You could...could potentially...hire a developmental editor for the genre (and familiar with the subgenre) you are writing. For example, years ago I paid for a developmental edit ($200 an hour kid you not) for romance and it was the bomb. However, it was once in a lifetime experience. For me, it's come down to reading a ton. Books...books...and more books.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 19, 2017)

>My areas of weakness have more to do with character depth, depicting character relationships, subtext, pacing, transitions, getting the level of detail just right, and other story execution issues.

Just ftr, a copy editor will indeed address these things. Not at the highest level, but s/he will definitely be able to point out where a character lacks depth, where relationships are underdeveloped or not believable, where pacing flags, probably nothing on subtext. und so weiter. For the further record, you can and should ask about these things when corresponding with prospective editors.

I said it before but I'll repeat it here: I'm in sympathy about spending thousands on a first novel. I'm not convinced having help with five chapters will help you with the other twenty-five, especially on a first novel. I managed to make entirely new mistakes every few chapters or so. Beta readers and thorough self-editing may be sufficient for this one, assuming you have several more novels lined up waiting to be written.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 19, 2017)

Chessie2, I'm not arguing, but I'll juxtapose. (how's that for a dodge?)

I'm 66 years old. I've been consuming books by the armload for six decades, across a wide range of genres. I'm sure this must have helped me in some obscure way, but none of it helped in any specific way until I actually began writing. Even then, after ten years of writing seriously, I can count on one hand the number of actual techniques I've noticed. I have never understood how reading was supposed to help writing.

I compare that to what I have learned from crit groups and beta readers, as well as reading in forums such as this one--that is, reading *about* writing. I can count on both hands and both feet the useful things I've learned from that quarter, and still have plenty left over. Maybe I'll start a separate thread where people can articulate what specifically they learn from reading. I hear the advice so often, I must be missing something.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 19, 2017)

It's in the little things you notice. It's why I don't plot. When we read, we take in the subtleties that make a genre what it is, story what it is. All of those things add up in your head and your subconscious knows how to turn it into story. I just sit down and write and trust that my subconscious knows what it's doing, where it's taking me, and there are twists and turns I never could've thought up on my own that occur. I think it's from reading and catching what other authors do. At least, that's my theory.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Oct 19, 2017)

In my case, I do not need editors in order to do what I do with stories.

It's not my work to please the readers, or to seek a market. My work is to get my stories told, as best as I can tell them. I have to be loyal to the story that is with me, without changing anything in it no matter what, and that's all. Some people like my work, others do not and I don't care. That's what I mean when I talk about the artistic side of writing.

If somebody enjoys a story of mine, great! If not, well they have to read something else.

In the other hand, if I wanted to get into the industry then yes, I would need agents and editor. That happens because the market is a very different environment, and they are the ones that know what the tendencies are, which publishers would be the best for a story in particular and how to market said work towards a specific audience.

If a traditional publisher wanted one of my stories, the price would be very high.

I have sometimes wondered what the experience and the final result would be like. I believe that my most commercial story would be my _Joan of England_ trilogy, and I am almost sure that the target audience would be teenage girls and young adult women.

The publishers would surely change or remove the most personal aspects of that story, like the Aylar scenes and many jokes that perhaps the readers would not find funny. I have a feeling that the Medieval parts of the first _Joan_ novel would be shortened so the narrative moves to the modern world faster, the constant underage drinking would be removed too and perhaps some of the bloodiest scenes would be scrapped as well.

Most likely they would come up with a more attractive name for the trilogy, and other people would work on designing a book cover as beautiful and attractive as possible.

I think that the biggest problem would be my pretty extreme political ideas, which are central to the plot of the entire trilogy from start to finish. Entire chapters (I mean real chapters, not the mini chapter format that I worked with in the Showcase) would have to be removed and replaced with something else, and that would personally hurt me a lot.

Would I be happy with the finished market product? Perhaps yes, and perhaps I would hate it.

I think that I would choose the Independent path and publish electronic books in Amazon, if I wanted at least some income from my works. There are authors there that manage to do reasonably well and they never hired editors. However, I am not interested in selling and that's why I am in Wattpad instead.

I would like to say that when Stephenie Meyer started to seek publishers, she was sending them unedited samples of her Twilight story. Many people rejected the material, but one day this very fortunate person liked the samples and she asked to read the first three chapters. Soon after that, she wanted to read the entire thing.

After that, they indeed worked together to edit Twilight but the search started with unedited material.

Working with the right editor helps a lot to get you started in the world of traditional publishing, but at least some very successful authors have managed to get started without it.

I wanted to say something positive about the world of traditional publishing, since I fear that maybe I am giving the impression that I hate it. I love the fact that they produce books, real books of paper and ink. Real books have a special magic that electronic equivalents are never going to match, there is nothing like holding the book in your hands.

It is thanks to those publishers that many books that I love (stories and also other kind of books) have reached my hands, so I thank them for that and I hope that they will keep making real books for as long as this world lasts.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 19, 2017)

All respect to Sheilawisz. Her approach to her writing is perfectly consistent. I'll offer a different personal perspective.

I was writing along with _Goblins at the Gates_ when another story broadsided me. It was set in Altearth, but it was in a period I never intended to write about. I wrote it, did my best. It was a short story, about 8000 words.

More or less on a whim, I decided to submit it to magazines. The main purpose was to get a feel for what the submission process was like. I submitted to every type of mag I could find. One accepted.

But not without changes. The magazine has a set of readers, and they came back with questions and suggestions. I did not take all of them, but I took some of them. A couple were definite palm-slaps. Some were ones where I shrugged and decided it really didn't make any difference to me. A couple were ones I disagreed with. I think we even argued a bit over one or two.

I wound up with a story that told the story better than the original. Not hugely better, and probably still not as good as it could be, but I could compare A/B and see the improvement. And here's what's relevant and important, to my mind: the improvements are ones I never would have seen on my own.

Now, this wasn't really news to me. I've been in academic for forty years. I already knew the value of having someone critique my work, and knew how to accept criticisms with a critical eye. But it was the first time with fiction, and I was surprised at how tender I was about it. I really had to call on my academic experience to remain objective and put the story before myself. 

It's been a few years now, but I'm pretty sure that the improvements were not in the nature of "here, do this" but rather "this is confusing or inconsistent, you need to fix it." In other words, the writing was still mine. The fix was mine. The end result is still mine. I never worried a moment about artistic integrity. And I certainly was not thinking about marketing. I was just trying to do right by the story.

Do not imagine I am saying to do otherwise is not to do right by the story. This is simply to recount my own experience. Take away from it whatever you find useful and relevant.


----------



## Incanus (Oct 19, 2017)

I really like that this thread got a sort of meta-discussion going pertaining to this subject.  But for the most part, I’m going to talk about my specific situation.

Largely, I think I’m headed in the right direction.  I’m going to relate a little story about where I’m at now; I’ll try to keep it brief.

At the writer’s conference I attended this April, I won a prize:  a free 3-chapter critique from a professionally published author.  She doesn’t write a genre I’m interested in, and vice-versa, but I welcomed the opportunity.

First, (following a suggestion from a crit partner) I sent those three chapters to my little crit group so that I could do some polishing on them before sending them out to the author.  After this, these three chaps are now my most polished bit of writing to date.

The new and improved version went out to the author, and I specifically asked her not to go easy on me, that I could take a good hard crit just fine (something I’ve learned to do).

I was a bit surprised at the response.  She apologized for not having very many comments to offer, saying the chapters were well written and engaging, and that she wanted to know what happened next in the story.  In the body of the crit, she suggested a number of small, copyedit type of fixes, many of which I agreed with.  And that was it.

While it was only one person’s opinion, I found it pretty heartening.  The lesson:  Keep doing what you’re doing.

I think I’m capable of getting my writing up to a pretty good level of quality, but I have no illusions that I can do everything myself.

Anyway, that’s my story (and I’m sticking to it).


----------



## Russ (Oct 20, 2017)

Chessie2 said:


> It's in the little things you notice. It's why I don't plot. When we read, we take in the subtleties that make a genre what it is, story what it is. All of those things add up in your head and your subconscious knows how to turn it into story. I just sit down and write and trust that my subconscious knows what it's doing, where it's taking me, and there are twists and turns I never could've thought up on my own that occur. I think it's from reading and catching what other authors do. At least, that's my theory.



I have immense respect for people who can write in this way.  Unfortunately I don't have nearly enough confidence in my subconscious to trust it to guide me well enough.

Also, unfortunately, I tend not to learn much at all about story when I am reading.  I am an ideal buyer and reader for books, I get totally immersed and carried away with a good story.  But when I get to the end of the book I say to myself "that author did amazing stuff" but I have no idea how they achieved it.  Perhaps I should read those books a second time with analyzing it in mind.  I find that I catch what writers do by asking them, reading books about writing and taking courses on it.

But if you can view the craft in other people's published work and still enjoy the read, that sounds about perfect.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 20, 2017)

I rather envy that, I am the worst kind of writer/reader, LOL. I might be able to get my editor brain down to 5 mph, but I can't shut off the engine, and if I'm coming down from editing my own stuff? Fergit about it. I have a helluva time reading a whole book these days. A made it through Red Dragon months, and am in the middle of... umm... errr.... 5 or six? Of course, I also have time to either write or read, not both for the most part (this will change in the next six months) so my editor/writer brain is always screaming to write when I try to read. During Red Dragon my editor/writer brain wasn't turned off, but the writing fit my taste well enough I could roll with it.



Russ said:


> I have immense respect for people who can write in this way.  Unfortunately I don't have nearly enough confidence in my subconscious to trust it to guide me well enough.
> 
> Also, unfortunately, I tend not to learn much at all about story when I am reading.  I am an ideal buyer and reader for books, I get totally immersed and carried away with a good story.  But when I get to the end of the book I say to myself "that author did amazing stuff" but I have no idea how they achieved it.  Perhaps I should read those books a second time with analyzing it in mind.  I find that I catch what writers do by asking them, reading books about writing and taking courses on it.
> 
> But if you can view the craft in other people's published work and still enjoy the read, that sounds about perfect.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 20, 2017)

Russ: learning to trust your subconscious takes practice. I haven't always been this way. 

For ages, I tried to plot. I ultimately credit those outlining experiences with helping me learn story structure. But for me, nothing can stand in the way. Meaning, outlines and any information going in is a distraction. I still get stuck, yeah. I might...miiiiight...brainstorm if I've been stuck for days. It needs to be fairly organic or else I feel constricted.

Some think this produces a draft that needs a lot of fixing but the truth is my drafts are fairly clean in one or two sweeps by the time they make it to the editor/editing process. It's taken me years to refine this way of doing things but it's produced some of my best stories to date.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 20, 2017)

I mentioned before that I am hiring an editor for _A Child of Great Promise. _I'll post over in the Writers Work forum my experiences with that. We're scheduled for editing to begin in February, so it's a ways off yet.

As with others, I believe I produce a fairly clean manuscript (though it takes me a few passes to get there), so it may be I find the editor is not worth the money. I intend to find out and not merely assume, one way or the other. I also would not be surprised to learn that an editor who is valuable once is not necessarily valuable every time and, conversely, that just because this work did not much benefit from an editor a subsequent work would not either. Authors evolve, so do editors, and so do the stories themselves.


----------

