I think it stems from the thought which tempts some people that they can write, publish and just hit it big. Skipping the hard work and time of an editor plays into that notion.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
On NOT Hiring an Editor (Interview)
- Thread starter Philip Overby
- Start date
- Status
I think it stems from the thought which tempts some people that they can write, publish and just hit it big. Skipping the hard work and time of an editor plays into that notion.
Zero Angel
Auror
I'm sorry you took offense to it and I'm not really sure why if you're in the same boat. You are fortunate in that your friend is substituting in some way for the money that it would take to hire an editor, but I also don't think that counts as an editor. I think you're doing what I described, the best that you can with what you have, and that's laudable, but I wouldn't call that an editor. When I first published my novel I called the person that edited my book an editor because that was what the college student editor-in-training was going into and we did it TFP. Turns out, he wasn't very good (I hope he ended up doing something else or got wayyyy better). I caught pretty much every proofreading error and he barely offered any advice in regards to directorial concerns. I also had beta readers.
Oh, and I'm now a professional editor also. Have I mentioned that? I've even been paid to do it. WHOO.
But yeah, I still would like to invest the money for another pair of professional eyes to look at my work. But I won't. I won't do that until I'm making at least $100 a month on my books (I'm currently making $15-30/month) AND I can afford groceries. So that means for the foreseeable future (1 novel, 5 novellas, dozens of shorts, 3-10 math books, more), I will continue to publish editor-less.
And I will do it unabashedly.
The animosity comes from the fact that most people that don't use an editor have a lot of crap and it makes indies and selfers look unprofessional, undesirable and bad. To be fair though, the thing that most people complain about are not directorial choices that (as has been pointed out many times) is what editors actually look at. The thing that makes everyone look bad are the proofreading errors, and this is what most people that complain in reviews about "editing" complain about.
I think if you can't afford one you need to be extremely honest with yourself in a way that most people are unable to and take a good hard look at what you're producing and why you're producing it. If you want to have your work out there and don't care about its quality, then well, I guess publish (although I have a hard time understanding the time you've put into it without caring about the quality, I'm not going to say you shouldn't publish, although a disclaimer in the description might be nice). On the other hand, if quality is important, then do everything you possibly can to improve that quality before you publish.
I stand by the statement I made before though. If you can't afford an editor, then go another route. Do as much as you can with what you have and ask yourself if your book is something that you want out there. Is your book something that you would want to explore and read if it wasn't written by you?
I'm not financially where I need to be in order to afford the bells and whistles, I'll settle for the coffin alone. Some people believe that an editor is part of the coffin, but in my eyes it's strongly, strongly recommended, yet not required. Similarly, back when people were regularly buried alive, I would strongly, strongly recommend bells and whistles and snorkels, but it's not required to bury you. I've got a lot of burying to do and if I wait until I can afford the bells and whistles they'll get a bit overripe.
C
Chessie
Guest
Absolutely quality matters. Perfectly said, thank you. 
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
Presumably, you'd only call yourself a professional editor if you had the training and experience to become a professional editor.
Note that not every person out there on the internet charging money for their "editing" services are of any use whatsoever.
I'm an engineer. I don't just "call" myself an engineer. I have a degree, spent more than five years working under engineers, and passed two tests to become one. I'd be angry if someone without those qualifications called themselves an engineer (in fact, in the US, calling yourself an engineer and not being one is illegal).
If I were a real editor, I'd be pretty ticked at all the people who seemingly have no idea what they're doing who are calling themselves editors.
My advice is to find a content editor who has real experience. Going with some random person is not better than your reviewer friend.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
GeekDavid,
Understand, please, that I have no personal stake in you obtaining the services of an editor. It's your book, and you have every right to do whatever you want. It's absolutely no skin off my back if you publish something without an editor.
My interest in this is entirely the following:
1. I'm assuming that your goal is to become a professional writer (ie, you support yourself through writing fiction).
2. I truly believe that you will not succeed in that goal unless if you skip, for whatever reason, the step of obtaining the services of a professional editor.
If becoming a professional writer is not your goal, then my advice, obviously, is not applicable. If that is your goal, I think you seriously need to think about what I'm saying.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic. Really. I'm just trying to share with you what, from my experience, is necessary to progress along the journey of becoming a successful author.
I hope there's no hard feelings.
Thanks.
Brian
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
I still think there is some misunderstanding.
I've been doing this writing thing for a while now. I have a pretty solid grasp of the fundamentals. I completed my book to the best of my ability and had a number of other individuals who know what they're doing look over it.
My book is absolutely going to be tremendously better because I hired a good editor (as painful as the process was). She made many, many, many suggestions that went well beyond what a "reasonably intelligent person" would have spotted.
If you're going to make the decision not to hire an editor, I urge you to at least gain a better understanding of what a real editor can do for you. Frankly, from your posts, you don't seem to have a clue.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
I think you've misunderstood my viewpoint. Hopefully, I clarified it with my latest posts.
Just to reiterate: I don't feel that what you do impacts me at all. I think that you're only hurting yourself by skipping this step. Read the recent interview of Joe Hill in Writer's Digest. Understand all the measures he took to ensure that he was good enough to publish.
I think we all mostly agree that the best way (assuming you're a new author without a built in audience) to succeed in this business is to:
1. Publish a good book
2. Repeat step 1
I think we are in disagreement of what constitutes a good book and how incredibly difficult it is to get to a level where you're capable of producing a good book.
What I'm saying is that, unless you have hired an experienced professional content editor, I seriously, seriously doubt your ability to produce a good book.
Brian, editing isn't a professional requiring chartered status to practice. There are no laws preventing someone from calling themselves a professional editor in the way there are with engineers and architects and so on. There also aren't direct fatal consequences to an unqualified person calling themselves an editor. But the result of this is that there are potentially a lot of people out there who call themselves editors and have shiny websites and testimonies and business cards, but who aren't good editors. People who will happily take David's or anyone else's $1000 and give no more detailed feedback than I do for indie authors I review (which, in my defence, is quite detailed - from structural and characterisation down to homophones and the occasional typo, though if there's a proofreading issue I just mention it once with a few examples and move on to the more important stuff).
So while an unedited book might not sell, a badly edited book will also not sell but cost $1000. The author potentially doesn't know what bad editing looks like because they're not a professional editor. A mediocre editor might do only as much to improve the book as five or six friends who are writers and book bloggers. To the author, this editor has shown them how to make some seriously good changes and gone into things in detail with them, and the book has improved - but what's to say that if those five or six friends had also given detailed information, they might not have covered everything the editor said and then some more on top?
After all, everyone says - the more pairs of eyes on your manuscript, the more comprehensive the feedback. People have different experineces, different opinions, different pet peeves. One editor might catch ten things, but six beta readers each catching four things, with some overlap between them, could catch 16 things in total - six more than the editor.
Also I want to make it clear here - I'm not against hiring an editor, but I want to get a fully rounded view of things and see what the other perspective is. Can an indie author do well without spending money on an editor?
Your experience with an editor, Brian, was good - you editor took your manuscript and improved it. She caught things you and your beta readers had missed. But if you'd have five more beta readers - say, me and David and Pauline and other reviewers - would we have been able to make the same improvements? What about ten more beta readers who are all reviewers or published authors?
So while an unedited book might not sell, a badly edited book will also not sell but cost $1000. The author potentially doesn't know what bad editing looks like because they're not a professional editor. A mediocre editor might do only as much to improve the book as five or six friends who are writers and book bloggers. To the author, this editor has shown them how to make some seriously good changes and gone into things in detail with them, and the book has improved - but what's to say that if those five or six friends had also given detailed information, they might not have covered everything the editor said and then some more on top?
After all, everyone says - the more pairs of eyes on your manuscript, the more comprehensive the feedback. People have different experineces, different opinions, different pet peeves. One editor might catch ten things, but six beta readers each catching four things, with some overlap between them, could catch 16 things in total - six more than the editor.
Also I want to make it clear here - I'm not against hiring an editor, but I want to get a fully rounded view of things and see what the other perspective is. Can an indie author do well without spending money on an editor?
Your experience with an editor, Brian, was good - you editor took your manuscript and improved it. She caught things you and your beta readers had missed. But if you'd have five more beta readers - say, me and David and Pauline and other reviewers - would we have been able to make the same improvements? What about ten more beta readers who are all reviewers or published authors?
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
I agree with you completely here. Part of the problem is that it's not easy to find a good editor and that there are a lot of people out there who will do just what you say. I will say that both Devor and I were able to find good ones. In fact, I've now had experiences with two of them, and I'd say they were both good.
It is my belief that the editor I employed brought knowledge, training, and skills to the table that would not have been matched by any number of beta readers who are not trained.
Again, I have good beta readers. I run a lot of my stuff by a writing group that contains both experienced authors and someone who performs freelance editing.
Neither is a substitute for hiring a good content editor.
I'm only going off my experience, but I absolutely feel that finding and employing a good editor is a crucial step. I understand that the money involved is a hindrance (I felt no joy in spending $550 on this), but it's something that everyone considering self publishing needs to consider seriously. Maybe you can find some substitute that will allow you to produce quality without an editor, but, truthfully, I'm highly skeptical that it's possible.
EDIT: One additional thought - I don't know if you've seen my line by line critiques or not, but I'm pretty darn thorough. I cover everything from speech tags to lack of tension. Even with the level of detail I provide and the knowledge that I bring to the table, I do not feel that my input would adequately replace having a content editor, even when combined with several others with a similar skillset.
Last edited:
PaulineMRoss
Inkling
Interesting discussion, which has obviously touched a nerve with some people. I think we can probably all agree that authors shouldn't just toss books out into the world without at least some external editing, and the more pairs of eyes on it the better.
But to suggest that every author who's serious about the craft MUST employ a professional (that is, trained and experienced) editor, without whom the book will be crap is, quite frankly, offensive. Brian's experience with his editor has been mostly good, which is very nice, but that doesn't mean that's the only possible way to go. I don't actually know what training editors can have that will equip them to edit any particular piece of work. To my mind, experience is far more valuable, especially experience in the relevant format and genre.
The risk in hiring a professional editor is that he or she is just one person, whose opinion is given enormous weight because the author has shelled out serious dosh for their time. There's a temptation to tamely go along with everything the editor says, because s/he's the expert, and it may be that the end result is just another generic fantasy book that's lost all the spark and originality of the author's voice. I think they're probably great for experienced authors who know exactly how to adapt the advice, but I'm not convinced that a beginning author should take that jump.
For the debut book, I don't think there's any substitute for multiple forms of critique; friends, beta readers, critique groups, the more the better, and preferably complete strangers who will tear it apart. Then the author has a range of opinions and can better judge what works and what really doesn't.
I'll repeat here the offer I've made elsewhere on Mythic Scribes. I'm quite happy to read the first few chapters and say whether I'd buy based on that sample, and if not, why not, in some detail. There are plenty of others here who will do the same thing. If anyone really wants their work shredded, Brian is already doing this on his website.
But the key, in my opinion, is to get as many different opinions as possible, and not depend too heavily on just one person, however well qualified.
But to suggest that every author who's serious about the craft MUST employ a professional (that is, trained and experienced) editor, without whom the book will be crap is, quite frankly, offensive. Brian's experience with his editor has been mostly good, which is very nice, but that doesn't mean that's the only possible way to go. I don't actually know what training editors can have that will equip them to edit any particular piece of work. To my mind, experience is far more valuable, especially experience in the relevant format and genre.
The risk in hiring a professional editor is that he or she is just one person, whose opinion is given enormous weight because the author has shelled out serious dosh for their time. There's a temptation to tamely go along with everything the editor says, because s/he's the expert, and it may be that the end result is just another generic fantasy book that's lost all the spark and originality of the author's voice. I think they're probably great for experienced authors who know exactly how to adapt the advice, but I'm not convinced that a beginning author should take that jump.
For the debut book, I don't think there's any substitute for multiple forms of critique; friends, beta readers, critique groups, the more the better, and preferably complete strangers who will tear it apart. Then the author has a range of opinions and can better judge what works and what really doesn't.
I'll repeat here the offer I've made elsewhere on Mythic Scribes. I'm quite happy to read the first few chapters and say whether I'd buy based on that sample, and if not, why not, in some detail. There are plenty of others here who will do the same thing. If anyone really wants their work shredded, Brian is already doing this on his website.
But the key, in my opinion, is to get as many different opinions as possible, and not depend too heavily on just one person, however well qualified.
I think the biggest difference between the editor that I worked with, and the other people I've had give me critiques, was the aggressive cuts. And he even said that he was being restrained because we were doing it informally. I think most people are hesitant to make the changes that are necessary. Most of the critiques I see are motion; here's a thought or two of how I felt. An edit was action; slice this, this, and fix this.
There wasn't a single thing that he changed that I took issue with. So that's probably unusual. There were a handful of changes he made which I agreed needed to be changed, but decided to change them differently.
I learned a lot about writing from having just one story edited by a professional with whom I was on the same page.
There wasn't a single thing that he changed that I took issue with. So that's probably unusual. There were a handful of changes he made which I agreed needed to be changed, but decided to change them differently.
I learned a lot about writing from having just one story edited by a professional with whom I was on the same page.
GeekDavid
Auror
Brian, please understand, I've seen books passed by what you would call "professional" editors that were just as bad as some indy books. Case in point (which I pointed out before, and which you apparently missed or ignored, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one) is The Magician's Guild.
Between chapter 3 and chapter 15 the protagonist goes through approximately a dozen repetitions of "girl on the run from the Guild moves to a new hiding place, she learns something new about her magic, and then the Guild gets close again." Over and over and over again. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum. The only saving grace about those chapters is that what's happening within the Guild is slightly more varied, though I found it eminently predictable (Guild member that is known as disagreeable -- surprise! -- disagrees and causes problems).
Yet the "professional" editor(s) at Hachette thought this repetitive dreck was good enough to put on paper and ship to bookstores across the country.
Pray forgive me if I don't put a lot of faith in a group of people who are able to overlook such basic problems with the plot of a story.
GeekDavid
Auror
So tell me, what is it that makes a "professional" editor better than a "reasonably intelligent person." Have they received a Laying On Of Hands from Anointed Elders of the Church of the Written Word? Have they been bitten by a radioactive bookworm and gained Super-Editing Powers?
Or are they just also reasonably intelligent people who happen to have read a lot and are willing to be brutally honest with an author?
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
Offensive or no, I stand by the opinion.
Not to discount the service you provide, but, again, I can only go by my experience. I thought going into editing that my book was pretty ready. I honestly expected a few minor revisions instead of a major rewrite.
I don't know what to say other than, "Wow, was I wrong." AND "Wow, the book is so much better because of the editing." AND "Wow, I'm a much better writer now because of the experience."
I think, on some level, it's hard to understand how much benefit an author can derive from working with a good editor until you experience it. Before I had the experience, I was much closer to where your POV is now.
I'll agree that you cannot take an editor's every suggestion. The book is yours, and you have to make the final call.
I disagree with the rest of your statement about beginning authors. The improvements in the book, and for you as an author, will greatly outweigh any negatives.
I have never said that an author shouldn't use beta readers, only that beta readers aren't a substitute for an editor.
Beta reading is a vital part of the learning process and a vital part of the process of improving a book. For a first time author, I advocate getting your work to the greatest possible stage of advancement on your own and with your beta readers help before submitting it to an editor.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
David,
I did miss that point.
My first thought is: if it was that bad after editing, how bad must it have been before?
Seriously, an editor isn't a magician. All they can do is take a book from a start point to something better than the start point.
I've read The Magician's Guild. I agree that it isn't great. It is, however, better than just about all the unedited drivel I've read.
GeekDavid
Auror
I honestly think you're giving it a pass because it was allowed through by a "professional" editor.
My honest opinion is that you -- because of your career path -- are both used to being The Expert, and because of that, are imbuing Experts in any field with pseudo-magical powers. A "professional" editor is An Expert, therefore to you, whatever they say must be right.
I've found a lot of Experts who probably had trouble getting the right shoe on the right foot in the morning. They're not superhuman, they're not minor deities, they're merely people who've gotten a piece of paper from somewhere. They're just as prone to errors as the rest of us and in some cases, more prone because they let their Expert status blind them to obvious flaws. (Tacoma Narrows Bridge, anyone? The Experts thought that bridge was just fine, remember.)
One final point, then I am done debating this with you. Are you willing to write your "professional" editor and tell him/her that you'll foot the bill for editing my manuscript? Because I do not have the money to do it. No? Then please, quit trying to force me to spend money I don't have.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
A professional content editor has training and experience in fixing problem areas that arise in writing.
In any field, there is a difference between a professional and a lay person. Let's say you need to build a high rise. Do you go to a structural engineer or is Uncle Bob, who's lived a long time and works in a high rise, good enough?
Back to the point of my post, which you seemed to have ignored: it certainly seems like you don't know a lot about the editing process. Perhaps it would be a good idea to research the concepts involved more in depth before you dismiss the advice that an editor is needed?
GeekDavid
Auror
Yeah, the editors at Hachette had so much training that they let an author write the same scene twelve times in twelve chapters.
See my earlier response about you and your Expert-itis.
I am done debating this with you.
Edited to add: If you'd lose the tone of looking down at anyone who doesn't do it precisely the way you do, you might be able to get your point across better. This whole discussion with you I've gotten the sense that I was being thought of as "not a real author" because I intend to self-publish.
Last edited:
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
And I honestly think that we have an honest difference of opinion on how bad the book is. I don't consider it one of the great works of fantasy, but, if my memory serves, I thought it was okay. Perhaps the problems with the book happen to touch on one of your pet peeves?
I am quite willing to admit that experts can be wrong. Happens all the time.
I'm simply relating my experience and the conclusions I've drawn from it: my book is absolutely better because of hiring an editor. The increase in quality is to such an extent that I think it would have been a huge mistake for me to publish it after only going through the "editing" methods that you've described.
I don't know how I can more clearly state that a) I understand what you suggest is adequate, b) I went through the process that you felt was adequate, and c) I later found out that the process you felt was adequate absolutely wasn't.
I'm not trying to force you to do anything. The only person who is responsible for your success in this endeavor is you, and, really, whether or not you succeed means nothing to me at all.
I'm simply stating that, from what my experience has taught, my conclusion is: you are much less likely to succeed at becoming a successful writer if you don't engage a professional content editor.
It sounds like you don't want to hear that advice. I understand as I've been where you are. I had my own ideas as to what was required to become successful. Experience has taught me that I was wrong, that a lot more is required than I ever imagined.
I don't care what you do with the information, but I'll not shy away from telling you the truth as I see it.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not sure where it's coming from.
I feel like I'm saying: It's my experience that, in order to succeed, you should do this...
You seem to take that as: You look down on me because I'm not doing what you say.
That is not my intent. My intent is simply to try to improve your chances of success based on what my experience and analysis have shown. You are free to disregard the advice. I don't think you're a horrible person if you do; I simply think that your decision has decreased your chances of being successful.
BTW, I'm self publishing, and I consider myself a "real" author. I'm not sure how you got the impression that I am against self publishing or that I feel people who self publish aren't real authors.
- Status
