Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
As a reader I don't have a problem with that, in fact I don't think that there should be an editor in the first place. If you aren't good enough to write a compelling story to begin with, why should you expect to make a living out of writing?
|
As a working editor, I don't think you quite understand what an editor does for a story. Editors help writers catch the things they missed, and see what's not quite clear.
One issue many writers have with a story is that they will inadvertently leave some minor (but important) detail out of the manuscript. When they read the story their mind automatically fills things in, so they don't see the gap. Editors can highlight these issues and let the author know where they left something out or where they could perhaps say something better.
A good editor is like a really good beta reader, who can not only tell you where they had issues, but also explain what they consider the reason behind the issue and make suggestions of how to fix it.
It's impossible to improve anything without feedback, and that's just one of the things editors provide.
As for copy editing and initial proofs: There are some things which will always need a second set of eyes. The author is usually just too close to the manuscript to catch certain errors.
Unedited books are not something anyone wants to look forward to.