Will the next booming profession be copy editor?

[Keryl Raist]

Originally Posted by rhadin

First, a good editor rarely edits 10 manuscript pages an hour. Depending on the the subject matter and the author's ability, the pace can be as little as 1 page an hour. 10 pages an hour would equal a very light copyedit, not a substantive edit or a medium to heavy copyedit, which would go much slower.

Second, $25 an hour is a good wage if (a) you are employed by someone else who provides benefits and this is just pin money for you and (b) it is part of a steady business flow. Most professional editors earn more because they have all the self-employment taxes to absorb (e.g., 13.6% of income for social security taxes alone compared to 6.8% that those employed by someone else pay); the cost of maintaining professional resources and tools that someone else would be providing and paying for if they were not self-employed; the costs of insurance, including health insurance that they not only have to foot 100% of the cost of but also have to pay a significantly higher premium for lesser coverage because they are not part of an employer-sponsored plan; etc.

We tend to forget that what a company pays an employee in hourlay wage is only a small fraction of the cost of the employee.

I think one thing to keep in mind is at $25 an hour, I'd be making more than I currently am (0) and my friend would be making more than she does ($9).

I've been self-employed for most of my adult life. Currently as an author/SAHM and before that as a massage therapist running my own pain therapy business. So I'm more than familiar with the joys of the US tax structure and what it does to your hourly rate.

I'm curious as to what sort of editing you're talking about doing where you can only get through 250 words an hour. I'm guessing it's not popular fiction. Even appallingly badly written fiction shouldn't take that long to get through. Not to put to fine a point on it, but for fiction I could re-write the whole page, keeping the original author's voice but improving his grammar and flow faster than that, let alone just make corrections.

I'm also assuming, unless you charge $.15 or more a word, that you also usually do quite a bit more than one page an hour.

[Marc Johnson]

I wrote a couple of blog posts about how much editing cost me. I may have even mentioned it in this thread so forgive me if I'm repeating myself.

Querying editors, I found that for developmental edits was $30-$50/hr. The mean was $35-$40. They all gave me samples and from what they read judged how long it would take and how much it would cost.

Now for copy editing, rates were about $10 cheaper. Generally speaking, copy editing will be cheaper if you use the same editor for both since she's already worked on the manuscript, it should be clean, and it'll go quicker.

If you people really want to know how much it costs, you could ask editors. I found them all friendly and helpful.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Marc Johnson

Now for copy editing, rates were about $10 cheaper. Generally speaking, copy editing will be cheaper if you use the same editor for both since she's already worked on the manuscript, it should be clean, and it'll go quicker.

The advantage of using a different person is that you get a fresh set of eyes. This is particularly important if there've been any major changes or revamping. Both the author and the developmental editor may be so familiar with the material that they lose their awareness of what's been cut or altered--their brains are filling in what used to be there, not seeing what actually is there.

[Marc Johnson]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The advantage of using a different person is that you get a fresh set of eyes. This is particularly important if there've been any major changes or revamping. Both the author and the developmental editor may be so familiar with the material that they lose their awareness of what's been cut or altered--their brains are filling in what used to be there, not seeing what actually is there.

I tend to disagree. Months have passed and she's worked on other projects. Copy editing requires the use of different skills. I'm not asking her to look for plot holes or characterization or anything like that.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Marc Johnson

I tend to disagree. Months have passed and she's worked on other projects. Copy editing requires the use of different skills. I'm not asking her to look for plot holes or characterization or anything like that.

Plot holes are exactly the kind of thing that might appear if there were significant changes to the ms. in the earlier editing process, and might not be noticed by the people who are already very familiar with the book.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Keryl Raist

I'm curious as to what sort of editing you're talking about doing where you can only get through 250 words an hour. I'm guessing it's not popular fiction. Even appallingly badly written fiction shouldn't take that long to get through. Not to put to fine a point on it, but for fiction I could re-write the whole page, keeping the original author's voice but improving his grammar and flow faster than that, let alone just make corrections.

Nonfiction developmental editing can be as slow as 1 page an hour; nonfiction copyediting is generally calculated at a rate of 4 to 7 pages an hour.

Yes, there are editors who skim through everything and can do 10+ pages an hour, but as with everything else, the faster they go the fewer nuances they catch.

As for how fast an editor you are, only you know and only you and your clients know how thorough you are. Personally, I would be leery of an editor who claims to do more than skim reading yet does 10+ pages an hour.

I do not charge by the word (and don't personally know any experienced editors who do), so I have no idea what my per-word rate would be.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The advantage of using a different person is that you get a fresh set of eyes. This is particularly important if there've been any major changes or revamping. Both the author and the developmental editor may be so familiar with the material that they lose their awareness of what's been cut or altered--their brains are filling in what used to be there, not seeing what actually is there.

This is absolutely correct. When I am hired to do both a developmental edit and a copyedit on a project, I assign one function to one editor and the other to another editor. No matter how good an editor is, the editor will miss things and make mistakes. Like authors, we see what we expect to see.

I recommend these articles from my blog: Great Expectations: A Recipe for Disappointment and The WYSIWYG Conundrum: The Solid Cloud. The second article, in particular, addresses the seeing-what-we-expect phenomenon.

[MrsJoseph]

Very interesting blog post from Amanda Hocking that discusses self-publishing:

a bit of reality check...

SNIP

Self-publishing is NOT is the easy way out. If you simply want to be published, and do not care if everyone reads or enjoys your work, then yes, self-publishing is easy. If you want to be sucessful and make a living as a writer, then it is hard work. In a lot of ways, I suspect it is harder than being traditionally published.

I'm just under the impression that a lot of people are now looking at this as a Get Rich Quick scheme, and this is no such thing.

SNIP

Most of my life has been spent in front of a keyboard or with a pen and paper. I have spent more of my life writing than I have on any other singular activity (with the exception of sleeping). I easily work over forty hours a week, just on writing, editing, networking, reading, etc.

SNIP

Another thing I'm hearing a lot is that a writer is finishing writing their first novel today and planning to publish it next week. There is no way a first time novelist can have it completed, edited, and formatted properly in a week. That writer may be a fantastic novelist, like truly fantastic, but rushing a product out will only hurt them.

SNIP

The point is that if you want to be successful with this and have a career as a writer, you need to do all the same work you would do if you were traditionally published. You just need to do it all yourself. The goal of being a professional writer is to produce a quality product, and that product should be indistinguishable from self-published and traditionally published.

I still think self-publishing is great for writers. But writers have to be careful not to shoot themselves in the foot. That means polishing your work and acting professional in the blogosphere.

SNIP


There are no tricks or schemes with self-publishing. It's just about writing a good book, polishing it really well, getting a good cover, pricing it right, and putting it out there. There are no short cuts. If you want to be successful at this, you have to do the work.

[Mortis]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Very interesting blog post from Amanda Hocking that discusses self-publishing:

A post about self publishing and there's a typo in the first line.

Self-publishing is NOT is the easy way out.

Couldn't help it!

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Mortis

A post about self publishing and there's a typo in the first line.

Self-publishing is NOT is the easy way out.

Couldn't help it!

lol. Maybe she should have had an editor for this post?

[Mortis]

Perhaps, I think if I was going to imply that I knew a lot about proofing, I would be damn sure to proof my post better. This is why I don't profess perfection