Why don't people use professional copy editors?

[Michael J Hunt]

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.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Michael J Hunt

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?

"I'm such a great author that I don't need an editor" syndrome is very definitely real; Stephen King is an example which springs immediately to mind.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Michael J Hunt

. . . 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? . . .

There are many poor editors out there -- after all, many who think that because they spotted an error in a book they recently read they must have a good editor's eye and can be one -- but it is very hard to tell who to blame for a poorly edited book. It could be the editor, it could as easily be the author or the publisher.

Over my 26 years of providing professional editing services, I have encountered several authors who have rejected every correction I have made or suggested, telling me that if they wanted a coauthor they would have selected one and that my job was simply to properly code the manuscript for page makeup.

I have also often had authors simply ignore any questions I raised; they simply deleted them without answering them.

And I have had authors tell me that they do not care what the dictionary (or other standard resource) says; it is their book and they'll damn well do as they please.

Fortunately, in my field, those types of authors are few and far between, but I do learn whose books to avoid .

Of course, there are authors like Stephen King and James Patterson who do not hire professional editors, preferring to do it all themselves.

And there are the publishers whose only driving force is the cost and who will hire a "professional" editor because they are contractually bound to do so, but hire the least expensive person who claims to be an editor, not caring how good or bad the editor is ior the edit will be.

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.

[neilmarr]

***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

[jaxx6166]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

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.

Owch. Neil the realist, ladies and gents

I wonder, does the clientele that manages to hunt down the more expensive editors usually have a better product?

Realistically, plenty of people can (and do) self publish or shop their first draft. And that alone screams of stupidity.

[jaxx6166]

And for those still concerned about how to tell if your editor is "professional", I suggest you check out Richard's website for what a legitimate freelance editor should provide his potential clients. Even though the man charges an arm and a leg, he knows his stuff. =)

[C.I.Bond]

Originally Posted by James_Wilde

Returning to Harry's original query, of course price is the issue. If one is lucky enough to get accepted by a publisher, or sometimes even a good agent, one will get this service thrown in.

If you haven't had that good fortune, it's just too expensive. And I think that, at least in the beginning of e-books, we're going to find that "good enough is good enough". There are so many people out there who enjoy a good read and will overlook the occasional typo or misplaced comma. Let's face it, there are now books in your local supermarket being sold at so much a kilo, and even if they've been edited, they're not Nobel prize material!

Diddo. Would I jump up and down at the opportunity for free editing? You bet! Would that improve my writing? Absolutely! I suspect if I traded manuscripts with another good author that would improve my writing. But how much would a professional editor improve my writing, would it be worth $3-6K even if I never make the money back selling the 0.99 book? I took a 9 month class from an author who edits professionally. It was a great class. Will my work be better than someone who never took a class? Yes, but possibly not as good as someone who spent big $$ on a professional editor. Life is about trade offs, I have to figure out how to spend $$ to get the biggest improvement in my craft.

I have seen and purchased some Indy books where the grammar was so bad I just laughed every other page. Verb-preposition agreements and the finer points of vocabulary in particular… Those works are toast, they don’t even get to my higher level objections about POV violations, scenes that drag on and on, narrators that over explain, etc. I don’t have those problems, my work is better than that, cleaner than that. It isn’t perfect. Far from it however, it isn’t a walking nightmare either. So for me and guy who can’t figure out his prepositions to pay the same for an editor on the principle that everyone needs an editor is silly. I could use an editor. He NEEDS an editor; his readers are in pain, quick save them!

Originally Posted by neilmarr

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

I thought the original question was why people don’t hire professional editors? Unless the topic has changed it seems like “crying poverty” is a very reasonable answer to this question... unless we got off track someplace?

______________________________________
I suffered for my art and now it's your turn, but at $0.99 can you afford not to suffer? Blood Bank

[DavidRM]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"I'm such a great author that I don't need an editor" syndrome is very definitely real; Stephen King is an example which springs immediately to mind.

I think the last 3 Harry Potter books also demonstrate the problem. (They're OK books, overall, but sheesh; especially #5.)

-David

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by C.I.Bond

I thought the original question was why people don’t hire professional editors? Unless the topic has changed it seems like “crying poverty” is a very reasonable answer to this question... unless we got off track someplace?

On this I disagree with Neil; cost is definitely a factor and is a reasonable response to why authors do not hire professional editors. But . . . it really begs the question.

If you are going to give your book away (free), then I think not hiring a professinal editor is reasonable. Reader expectations are so low that few will take the time to complain about how poor the book is. OTOH, if you are going to charge for the book, no matter how little, reader expectations are different and what little reputation you have as an author is being put at risk.

Of course, if you have no hopes of being a commercially successful author someday, then it is OK to look like a fool from the start.

In the end, the question really is this: Why should readers respect your writing when you don't respect it? As a reader, I expect an author to have invested in the writing more than just the time to do the writing. I think this is a reasonable expectation (see my article, Question of the Day: Investing in eBooks by Authors & Readers).

eBooks magnify the problems in a manuscript, making them significantly more visible and noticeable (see my article, In the Face: eBook Errors) because so much less appears on the screen of the typical reading device. Also problematic are expectations that are unrealistic or not expressed at the start (see Great Expectations: A Recipe for Disappointment).

The difference between a hack writer and a great writer is that the great writer cares greatly about the reader's experience whereas the hack writer simply writes and publishes and lets readers fend for themselves. The more an author does to slide closer along the spectrum toward the great writer, the more likely the author is to succeed beyond simply self-publishing and being able to say I published my novel.

[neilmarr]

Sound thinking, Richard (as always). My point, though, is that if an author's work is as good as s/he thinks it is, it may well be picked up by an agent and/or publisher and solid editorial input would be part of the deal.

If work does not find a good home after trying everywhere possible, then the author must think again: Should s/he go the extra mile and buy in professional help, or do rejections suggest that perhaps s/he should completely self-reviise, re-title, re-submit, write another book, or merely press an upload key and offer the raw ms free or for $0.99 at a self-publishing retail outlet with no editorial intervention or selection process in place (no shortage of them)?

Of course, we realise that some promising manuscripts must be overlooked by the notorious gatekeepers, but if an author is sure of the quality of a work and cannot afford freelance help, s/he should plug away with submitting: that costs nothing but diligent research and time these days, and there's a whole bunch of credible alternatives to the Big Five.

Although a single submission might become part of the sad end of one, two or two dozen publishers'/agencies' grim rejection statistics, like roulette, you have a new chance at each spin of the wheel ... and you get to use the same chip. Harry Potter was rejected seventeen times before being picked up. Result? 100% success on the eighteenth spin of the wheel. Nothing lost, everything gained.

And if s/he isn't sure, then the book should not be inflicted on innocent readers. Even if they get the book free, they will be expected to invest several precious recreational reading hours in it.

Very best. Neil

[kcmay]

Just because I don't hire a copy editor doesn't mean my book is full of errors. Even professional editors make goofy mistakes

and let's readers fend for themselves.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by kcmay

Just because I don't hire a copy editor doesn't mean my book is full of errors. Even professional editors make goofy mistakes

You are correct on both counts (and I have corrected the error; thanks). However, it is the rare book -- regardless of whether it has been professionally edited never, once, or a hundred times -- that doesn't have errors in it. That's just a fact of being human.

But the book that has not been professionally edited is much more likely to have errors like seen for scene, there for their, brake for break, etc. The self-edited book often is "edited" by spell-check.

[R. Reed]

I hired an editor on my first book, but I am broke now so I do the best I can on my own.

[kcmay]

I downloaded a free 10-day trial of the Serenity Editor for Writers and Teachers. It combs through your ms to point out ways you might be able to tighten and polish the prose. It also does things like homonym check, spell check, and cliche check. It doesn't do the work for you -- just makes finding ugly writing easier.

I'm in the home stretch for my latest book and so far I'm impressed with it. It's far more advanced than MS Word's built-in tools. For $55, it's almost like having your own copy editor.

[bthrowsnaill]

I spent three years (part time) writing, and one year editing my book. Unfortunately, I didn't get all of the errors corrected (in retrospect), but I did get it to a point where I felt like it was worth $1.99. Since the initial release, as I've had reviews and reader feedback, I've continued to make edits because I've felt like I owed that to the people who've purchased the book; and I want the book to be as good as it can be (short of totally rewriting it or fundamentally altering it, since, fortunately, most of what I've been hearing so far has been criticism of errors and style).

This book release has been an experiment. I wrote what I think is a good book according to my personal tastes. I don't see that as a conceit, since I imagine that every author loves their books when they release them. I'm aware that my opinion is not objective.

The question was (and is) do others think that it's good too? I couldn't see going out and spending $2000 on an editor when the hypothesis (that I can write things that people want to read) was unproven. Then there's the cost/benefit analysis of the edit. Am I really expecting to sell 2000 copies of this book? I'd like to think that it's possible, but I'm not banking on it.

Let's also not forget that the origin of the term "Indie" is slang for the word independant. That means that I'm not reliant on someone telling me what I "have to do" to publish, nor do I have to conform to the editorial and content decisions of a publisher. I think Smashwords is a great forum for Indie books. Many of them are probably "experiments" like mine.

If the experiment is a "success", then that's when a professional edit (and cover) starts to make more sense. Every author is free to and will have to determine what success means for them. Indie readers will have to decide whether they want to endure some failed experiments in order to experience something akin to hearing Nirvana in a small club in 1990.