|
I think Neil Marr and William Campbell have made the point succinctly - editors really, really are indispensable. I believe that all writers have 'blind-spots' that require an objective eye to rectify. However, I'm afraid that, even in mainstream publishing, the editing process isn't always done efficiently. In the two novel writers' support groups that I organise, members sometimes bring in examples of errors made by highly successful writers (and, by default, their editors). We've come to the conclusion that the more successful the author, the less likelihood there is of his/her receiving a careful edit. Has anyone else noticed this? Could it be that the editor of such work is more reticent to point out errors to such exalted clients? It could be, of course, that the publisher skimps on the editing in order to save both money and time. If that is the case, it's the poor old author who gets most of the criticism when errors creep in.
Maybe the author should take a stand and insist on tight editing. But that's a slightly different issue.
|