Will the next booming profession be copy editor?

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by Keryl Raist

For her it's a time issue. Right now she's pregnant and working flat out at the job she has (60 hrs/wk) because the job has health insurance.

In a month she's getting married and will be on hubby's insurance, and said job will go the way of the dodo.

Once said job is gone her calendar will be opening up for new projects. And, if you feel like pming me the names of the places you're thinking of, I'll happily send them to her.

Fiction editing is what she wants to do, and part of starting low is building up a portfolio of work. Once you can point to well written, successful books with your name on them, it's easier to charge more.

With publishers and other content providers being squeezed financially, editing is taking it in the shorts. Established editors who do good work will generally do OK, because they have a reputation and contacts. They've also had much better opportunities to learn.

This environment is terrible for new editors, especially freelancers, because they have to learn their trade in more of a vacuum. And with the way things are going, pay will continue to stagnate or drop.

Despite that, I don't discourage people from following their interests. There's a line between getting experience and being exploited, though. I figure everyone should make their own decisions about where that line is. They should at least find out what the pitfalls are, what the market is paying.

I think content farms exploit people, which is why I don't recommend working for them. But I figure aspiring editors and writers can use them for pay comparisons, if nothing else. Plenty of info is available online. I think any aspiring editor should be able to find the info on his/her own, as part of learning the trade.

[Andrew H.]

There are also editing jobs that don't involve books or magazines. I've posted on this before, but I'm a lawyer and almost every public document I write goes through our editing department, where it's first proofread, then read by non-legal editors, then read by legal editors. It's probably a little different than conventional editing in that I all-too-frequently learn at 5pm that I'll need to revise a document and present the new document by 9am the next day...but I get the impression that they like the challenge, and we really don't have much turnover.


I'm sure that there are other fields that require editors, too.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

There are also editing jobs that don't involve books or magazines. I've posted on this before, but I'm a lawyer and almost every public document I write goes through our editing department, where it's first proofread, then read by non-legal editors, then read by legal editors. It's probably a little different than conventional editing in that I all-too-frequently learn at 5pm that I'll need to revise a document and present the new document by 9am the next day...but I get the impression that they like the challenge, and we really don't have much turnover.


I'm sure that there are other fields that require editors, too.

Yup, there are many kinds of editing, including legal editing, financial editing and technical editing. When you watch TV news and see type crawling across your set, someone's editing that, too. People also edit closed-captioning for TV and films.

Basically, if you want to succeed in a field, it pays to know what's out there. Otherwise, you can't make informed decisions.

For instance, you can do something as basic as visiting a big job site such as Monster.com and searching for the word "editor." Instantly, you'll see a variety of editing jobs across the country. If you check often enough, you'll see what's in demand, what kinds of specific skills are required for certain types of editing, etc. That's just one nearly effortless way to find info online, for starters.

It's common sense to learn about a trade before getting into it, and to keep up as the field changes.

[wyndslash]

how timely for a friend of mine who's currently getting her MS in creative writing. she wants to go into editing o:

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by RolandD

I was trying to present a plausible and feasible alternative to PROFESSIONAL copy editors.

You get what you pay for. A professional copyeditor brings to the table many things that few hobbyists do, not least of which is having the appropriate tools available to do the job competently. You might want to read the following articles (and the linked articles in them) to get an idea of what is involved:

• Editor, Editor, Everywhere an Editor
• The Missing Ingredient: Grammar Skills
• Finding a Professional Editor: The Needle in the Haystack Problem
• I Published My Book But Readers Keep Finding Errors
• On Words & eBooks: Give Me a Brake!
• The Professional Editor’s Bookshelf

Professional editors and proofreaders are significantly more skilled than the average hobbyist.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

We are rapidly entering a world of decentralized publications/communications, which by its nature cannot afford a large infrastructure or teams of personnel. Because of this, there is little room for a pro copy editor, even if there's a need.

This suggests that some of the most vital duties of copy editors will fall upon the creative individuals, some will fall upon automation (computers), and the rest will fall by the wayside... as it has gone for many other professions that fell victim to decentralization. This doesn't mean that copy editors will somehow become unnecessary in the future... just that the decentralized publishers/communicators will largely be forced by circumstance to provide for themselves, and won't be providing employment for many of them.

We have been in decentralized mode ever since the early 1980s when the publishing world began its transformation through mergers and acquisitions. Hundreds, if not thousands, of previously independent publishing houses suddenly became cogs in a conglomerate, which is why we now speak of the 6 big publishing houses.

Although that consolidation forced many editorial and production services to move from within the publishing house to freelance, it didn't change the need for professional editorial services. In some ways, it actually increased the need because the BPHs needed to publish a larger number of books to bolster quarterly profits for the parent company. It also led to the creation of thousands of SPHs (small publishing houses), the publishers who published as few as 2 or 3 books a year. These, too, also hired freelancers.

The big change that is occurring now is the ebook phenomenon. Here things grow dicey. Not only does everyone with Internet access now think they are an author whose words are worth publishing and reading but now anyone with Internet access thinks they are an editor -- after all, they found that spelling error in so-and-so's book, which proves their editorial sharp eye (but what about the errors they didn't find?).

The need for professional editors hired by authors is actually growing. The burden has shifted in the ebook age from the publisher to the author, which is what authors have clamored for -- total control and profit. Yet in these early stages of everyone is an author, authors are reluctant both to invest in their own book and to recognize that Aunt Sally is a dabbler not a professional editor who may do more harm than good.

Where this is first being addressed is in professional publications. In the olden days, an author would write an article and submit it to XYZ magazine/journal. XYZ would review the submission, decide it had merit, and send it to its stable of professional editors before publication. Today XYZ won't consider the submission unless it has already been professionally edited and conformed to XYZ's standards and style.

In the early days of that change, authors resisted that shift of burden; today they accept it as standard practice.

Today ebook authors do not accept the need to pay for professional services; that will change as the market matures and consumers become more leery of indie books. Right now we all revel in the availability of inexpensive (and often free) ebooks and are willing to swallow our standards because 99 cents just isn't going to break the bank and we are willing to trade cheap price for questionable quality. (That, FWIW, was also true in the 1700s and early 1800s when mass publications began to take hold.) But that will change as the market matures and authors will realize that they have spent 1 year of their life writing something that is getting panned because of a lack of professional editing and realize that paying the costs for a pro is well worthwhile.

Few authors I know are satisfied will little to mediocre success. All desire to be well read and well compensated for their efforts.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

The same can be said about unedited books: The assumption that no author can edit their own book and create a good product is simply ludicrous (not to mention the unspoken corollary that every pro editor will produce silk from a sow's ear). Every touch of an editor removes a bit of an author's voice, and substitutes the editor's own. Editors homogenize... not usually a positive when considering creativity.
. . .

Whereas I could have the greatest editor in the country working for me, but without advertising and product placement, struggle to sell 20 books.

Both statements are absolutely true. Professional editing is just one part of the mix. And there are authors who are quite capable of successfully and accurately editing and proofreading their own work. Similarly, there are hobbyist editors who are outstanding. In both cases, these are the Shakespeare's of their worlds, the rare person not the "normal" person.

Yet part of the problem with your defense of the author doing it all him-/herself is that it ignores certain realities. The author sees and hears with his/her eyes what the author expects to see and hear according to his/her mind.

A good example of the value of professional editors is Hemingway. It is not uncommon to hear Ernest Hemingway declared one of the greatest American authors. But Hemingway's unedited work is considered mediocre and a great deal of his success is attributed to his editor, Maxwell Perkins. The author-editor relationship is one of collaboration and partnership whose intent is to make the potentially great fulfill its promise and be great.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Any writer who thinks that he can edit himself is a fool. Even editors know that they can't edit themselves, lol.

That is so very true. No matter how many times I read a blog article I wrote and no matter how many errors I find and correct, a colleague invariably notes something I missed after I have posted the article. It is very difficult to self-edit.

[Keryl Raist]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

With publishers and other content providers being squeezed financially, editing is taking it in the shorts. Established editors who do good work will generally do OK, because they have a reputation and contacts. They've also had much better opportunities to learn.

This environment is terrible for new editors, especially freelancers, because they have to learn their trade in more of a vacuum. And with the way things are going, pay will continue to stagnate or drop.

Despite that, I don't discourage people from following their interests. There's a line between getting experience and being exploited, though. I figure everyone should make their own decisions about where that line is. They should at least find out what the pitfalls are, what the market is paying.

I think content farms exploit people, which is why I don't recommend working for them. But I figure aspiring editors and writers can use them for pay comparisons, if nothing else. Plenty of info is available online. I think any aspiring editor should be able to find the info on his/her own, as part of learning the trade.

I'm sorry, I'm a little confused here. You tell me that the content farms pay better than .01 a word, but they're also exploiting people so you don't recommend them. At .01 a word, if you can do ten manuscript pages an hour that's about $25/hr. Many of us consider that to be a pretty good amount of money. So, exploited how? They don't actually pay? Way too short deadlines?

Honestly, I thought you were indicating you knew good ones that treated people fairly and paid well. I know you can find pretty much anything online. I was attempting to find your recommendation.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Keryl Raist

I'm sorry, I'm a little confused here. You tell me that the content farms pay better than .01 a word, but they're also exploiting people so you don't recommend them. At .01 a word, if you can do ten manuscript pages an hour that's about $25/hr. Many of us consider that to be a pretty good amount of money. So, exploited how? They don't actually pay? Way too short deadlines?

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.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by rhadin

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.

It's not quite that bleak, though--half of the SS tax is tax deductible, all the health insurance is deductible, home office expenses are deductible. Plus there's the savings on commuting, both money and time.

[Mortis]

You're making it sound as though going independent and looking for contracts is the worse thing in the world. I know a lot of people that lost their nice secure positions last year and there will be more, so becoming self employed is going to be a growing sector. Its never easy to cut the corporate strings and go it alone, but the alternative is trying to find the job that everyone else is after, it gets rather depressing after awhile.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It's not quite that bleak, though--half of the SS tax is tax deductible, all the health insurance is deductible, home office expenses are deductible. Plus there's the savings on commuting, both money and time.

It would be worthwhile if it was a tax credit but as a deduction, it has very limited utility. If your tax bracket is 15%, you have to spend $1 to get a deduction of 15 cents -- still a loss of 85 cents.

I have been a self-employed editor for 27 years and I wouldn't trade it for the world. (I began in publishing working for a couple of the BPHs.) But an effective hourly rate of $25 when working is really closer to $10 an hour over the course of a work-year, not $25 an hour.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Mortis

You're making it sound as though going independent and looking for contracts is the worse thing in the world.

No, it is far from the worst thing in the world and I have been doing it for 27 years. OTOH, it is far from the easiest thing to do in the world and to be successful as a self-employed person you must be very disciplined and you need to look at things realistically, not through rose-colored glasses. $25 per hour sounds great and would be great if you were assured of 35 hours worth of work, 50 weeks every year. The reality is that most freelance editors work fewer hours than that (that is, fewer than 1,750) in the course of a year and that $25 hourly rate really comes closer to $10 an hour.

[Mortis]

rhadin, I agree with you, my sarcasm is sometimes a little to subtle, I have been working on a contract basis for 12 years, I left the worlds largest printing company to go it alone, best and worst decision I ever made.

I agree that it's not easy and takes a lot more dedication to make it work, but the reward is better hours (only 16 hour days) vacation whenever you want (last one was in 2005) and better money (sometimes).

Cheers