|
***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.***
Dead right on both counts, Michael. Wage-earning staff editors play politics or find themselves with a walk-on notice and up against darned sharp and darned good and darned energetic and darned hard-working experienced freelance operators with whom they cannot compete. Or they join the internet 'editorial services for sale' slushpile.
***The most dangerous combination, however, is the poorly skilled editor who combines with a similarly poorly skilled author (and imagine that being paired with a publisher who also doesn't care). They tend to feed each other. There is no easy solution because readers don't find out how badly they have been duped until they have already spent their money.***
On the button, Richard (and thanks for the regular and insightful blogs).
I guess it comes down to the cold fact that efficient and experienced editors with the guts/right to lay down some rules don't come cheap. Cheap editing reflects the value an author places on his own work.
The best editors (staff and freelance) are more than fully employed and are just as selective as to what they will tackle as any publisher or agent.
If you want someone to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, you don't need a professional editor, you need a circus tent illusionist. Plenty editorial illusionists available on a Google search.
Finding a good editor means search, recommendation, potentially good raw material and either playing the submissions lottery or blowing the cobwebs off a credit card that can afford to take a pretty big hit. You don't buy worthwhile editorial input off the peg.
And don't cry poverty, authors who're working by midnight oil and whose families are on the breadline. If your work was as good as you think it is, you'd get the whole shebang for free.
Neil
|