The Editor Is Your Friend. No, Really. Part 4--The Final Chapter.

Stuck with it this long? Good! We're about to wrap up this mini-series, so grab a cup of hot chocolate and enjoy this last piece of the puzzle.

We've talked about what to watch out for in the editorial biz. We've talked about "red flags" you should notice, and those that you ignore at your own peril. And we've talked about a couple of key attributes a good editor has: namely, competence and humility--which can be considered as complementary halves of the same coin.

Now, let's talk about some other aspects of good editing and good editorial experiences. What else should you expect from a good editor?

1. A good editor will respect both you and your voice. 

You might think this is a given, but it's not. We've talked earlier about editors who don't respect what you're doing, don't like your genre or look down on it, or belittle or ridicule authors out of some misguided attempt to "make them tough."  None of these things is the mark of a good editor.  When we talk about editorial "humility" as a virtue, we're not just talking about the "head" knowledge an editor has; we're also talking about their "heart." If you ever get the feeling an editor's "heart" is not in the right place, this is not a good editor for your work. And that includes editors who will mess with your "voice."

The converse to that is, however, that you be honest about the difference between "unique voice" and sloppiness. :-) I wish I had a dollar for every naive young author who, when told to correct things like failure to capitalize, spell correctly, or punctuate and/or use the correct word somewhere, countered with, "But that's part of my voice."  No, no, and no again. Your "voice" has nothing to do with bad storytelling techniques, awkward sentence structure, or "breaking the rules just to break them."  If you know anything at all about the language, you know that any deviation you do from standard written English will result in a "ding" it its clarity. You don't want "dings." These things get in the way, just like spots get in the way of a clear view through a window. Make your writing as spot-free as possible; if you do that, a good editor will discern your "voice" and respect it, even if he/she forces you to do some heavy-duty literary "earth moving" in other ways.

2. A good editor will have a degree of flexibility and not be afraid to use it.

It might sound contradictory to stress format, correctness, and transparency as much as I do...and then sound like I'm saying the opposite in the next point.  I'm not. I'm merely saying that a good editor will not "pontificate." It won't be "my way or the highway" unless the change the editor insists upon truly IS a deal-breaker for his/her house or for the sake of the readability of the manuscript. There are cases like that, and writers need to respect them. 

But in the great majority of cases, such as if you're using a freelance editor to improve the book prior to sending it to a publisher or agent, a good editor will be willing to meet you halfway. If a requested change sticks in your craw, don't be afraid to ask about a compromise...or to ignore it entirely.  Odds are pretty good that either the editor won't notice it--it happens!--or, if he/she does and asks about it, and you explain your reasons, the editor will go with your judgment. If he/she does not, be sure you know why not.  It could mean the difference between a faux-pas in your book that you don't want out there...and prose that sings. Most good editors err on the side of the singing!

3. A good editor will be a good communicator.

You'd think it would be a "given" that a person who works with words all the time would know how to stay in touch with authors and other clients...but sometimes, it's not. We've all heard the horror stories of so-called editing professionals who take on a task and then are never heard from for weeks, or months. If at any time you get the feeling that this person may be one of those reclusive silent types, address that issue before you hand over your "baby." Otherwise, it can feel like you've thrown your work down a black hole, and no author deserves that treatment.  You're paying this editor for a professional job; part of that professionalism is regular progress reports and quick answers to any questions you have. 

What's "quick" and "regular"? Rule of thumb: if you send an e-mail to an editor, he or she should be back to you with some kind of response within the week. I won't say 24 hours, because that's blazing fast, and some of us don't check e-mails more than once a day; anything past five or more days, however, you have a right to question.  Treat this working relationship as if you're in the same physical office building together. You wouldn't accept "black holes" there, and you shouldn't accept them in this relationship, even if it's conducted from half a world apart.

Finally...let's get to the nitty-gritty, one of the biggest stumbling blocks on either side of the editorial equation.

4. A good editor will not come cheap.

This is worth repeating (although I won't). But it is worth saying, and saying over and over again--if you want quality, you're going to have to pay for it.  That's just common sense, but it's absolutely stunning how much common sense flies out the window when it comes to having one's work edited.

Why is that? One answer: too much misinformation is out there about the writing and publishing business. Yes, it's good to educate oneself. But if writers read enough horror stories about "greedy editors" who want "too much money" to "do nothing," they all too often get convinced that if you ask for money at all, you're suspect...and if you ask for a substantial amount of money, you're probably crooked in some way.

Don't fall for it. You get what you pay for...in this area, as in all other aspects of "real life."

This is not to say that you shouldn't take some of this guidance; much of it is sound. And, of course, you can shop around--and you should. Rates will range from as low as $25 or $50 for a complete book edit all the way up to my rates ($5 per 250-word page) and even higher, especially if you're hiring a "book doctor" who also claims to have connections to other media.  Much of what you decide to do with a book "doctor" or editor will depend on your budget. That being said, however, resist the urge to go with the low-ball bid strictly on price alone. I've seen $50 edits; trust me, you don't want one for your book. :-) 'nuff said.

When you do compare prices, make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Some people's idea of a "book edit" is little more than proofreading: they check obvious typos, they check spelling, and they check to see if your sentences appear to make sense. Unfortunately, some of these people use software to do those checks--which is never a good idea. Word's grammar check alone is so full of errors that, using it as a guide, you will start with something written right and end up with it wrong. (Clearly, Word did not use a good editor for their software "rules"!) Even if these folks do a personal edit, however, they're not necessarily going to examine your storytelling skills, catch plot holes, find things like name changes for a character, etc. And most people I know want all those kinds of things caught in an "edit" as well as the "basics."  So when you're comparing, take notes on who offers what--and know what you're going to pay for before you commit. If you want a comprehensive, exhaustive  edit such as the kind I (and many other seasoned pros) give, expect to pay at the upper end of the pricing scale rather than the lower end.

One caveat: be aware of the differences in prices--and time frames--per word versus per "page." Pages can be literally any length nowadays, depending on how the writer sets up the manuscript.  Obviously, a "page" with 350 words will take longer to edit than one with 250 words, so estimates you receive should reflect that. When I give quotes nowadays, especially for clients who want a "flat-fee" estimate, I tend to do them on per-word rates rather than "per page." It's far more accurate and fair to both sides. 

The other rate option is a per-hour rate; that can sound pricey at first, but if you've got a very clean manuscript, it can actually be cheaper to hire a high-per-hour rate editor than one who gives you a flat-fee quote. The higher per-hour editor often is better qualified and will work faster...which means that you pay a modest fee, get a quick turnaround, and have great results that fit your budget.

Such a deal, huh?

Whatever deal you strike, with whatever editor you choose...make sure you know what you're getting, when you're supposed to get it, and what you're paying for it up front. That way, you'll know if you're not getting what you paid for, and you can take steps accordingly. But if you exercise reasonable caution, you shouldn't end up on those "writer alert" boards complaining--or have to pay twice for an edit that should be done right the first time.

Good luck!

=======================

This installment concludes our quick-and-dirty course in Editor Wisdom 101. I hope the info here has been useful, valuable, and helpful. Any feedback you want to put in here will be appreciated!

Thanks for listening...

Janny 

The Editor Is Your Friend. No, Really: Part 3.

Last time in this editor discussion, we'd just finished talking about what to be aware of, stay away from, or at least carefully and WARILY question when it comes to the editing biz.
So now, out of the good, the bad, and the ugly...we're gonna talk about the GOOD.

A good editor is...

1. Competent in the language.
A good editor MUST have command of the English language, at least. Some editors are multi-lingual, but I'm here to tell you that (fortunately) that's not required. (Thank heaven!) And, frankly, knowing English well is probably enough to ask of your editor, anyway...because so few of them do.

Do you doubt this? Then how many times have you seen copy that...
...has a plural formed with an apostrophe?

...has a word usage error (as in, say,  affect versus effect or metal versus mettle--among dozens of others)?

...has disagreement of subject and verb numbers (singular subject, plural verb, or vice versa)? 

Don't laugh. This happens far more often than most people realize, for a couple of reasons. 
First, sheer sloppiness. Something that's actually WRONG gets used so many times that it starts to sound correct to the ear. That's how we get sentences like "Every child should know their address and phone number."  Uh-yup. (Every child, actually, should know that that sentence is incorrect!)

Second, words that look singular and are actually plural...or plural and look singular. MEDIA, for example, is plural, while STAFF is singular. So if you say, "Our staff look after you with tender loving care," or "The media is a big problem"...guess what. (!) 

The reason you see these and multiple other egregious errors is because, in fact, so few people calling themselves "editors" nowadays actually know the language very well. This is no accident: they're products of an educational system that, some years ago, threw out grammar and phonics in favor of...well, whatever in the world they were in favor of. Spelling? Who needs it? Just spell the way you feel. Grammar? That's just dull, boring, and stifling. Word usage? That's the stuff of picky people!

So...editors many times don't know that they don't know something. 
Which wouldn't be so bad if they looked things up just to be SURE.
This brings us into the second thing a good editor needs to be:

2. Humble. 
I can see your jaws dropping now. "Humble? Doesn't an editor have to have confidence in her own ability? Why would I want a guy who's HUMBLE editing my stuff? I want my editors to know what they're doing and believe in themselves!"

Well, there you have it. Yet more proof positive of how little many of us know the language. Because none of those objections has anything to do with humility.

So what DO we mean by an editor being "humble"?

A humble editor isn't one who denigrates him/herself. It isn't an editor who lacks confidence, or one who's unsure about what he or she can bring to the table, skill-wise. 
What humility IS in an editor is what we might call "teachability."
It's knowing one's limits.

A humble editor, in short, knows that s/he doesn't know everything there is to know. Not about the language, to begin with--but certainly not about everything else in the world.

This is a bitter pill for many of us to swallow, for many reasons--not the least of which is, if we've paid our dues in the world, we DO pick up a cornucopia of "stuff" along the way. 
Facts. Figures. Proportions. Odds. Specific terminology and jargon. The inner workings of clocks, or radios, or cars, or amoebas, or piano actions, or tiger lilies, or welding torches. Illnesses and their symptoms. Speed and trajectory. Recipes. The proper way to do a backstroke. And so on. And so on.

Yep. We do pick up collections of all kinds of semi-useful stuff, don't we?
But in the process, we also pick up...mistakes. Or misinformation. Or misconceptions.

Some of that's not through our own fault. Especially in the case of historical information, as any student of history will tell you, sometimes what's "factual" depends on who's writing the text!

But even allowing for that gremlin now and again, in the end, one of the most valuable attributes an editor has is the insatiable urge to GET IT RIGHT.
Which means LOOKING IT UP...sometimes in several different places.
And which also means LOOKING IT UP...even if you're fairly sure about it. 
That's what we mean by editorial humility.

Let's repeat that.
A humble editor has learned just enough to know that s/he doesn't know everything. So one of the most valuable things he or she can "know" is what he or she doesn't "know"...for sure.
And one of the most valuable traits he or she can have, then, is the need to GET IT RIGHT.
No matter how small the detail may be, or how "sure" an editor is that s/he already knows it.

I'm a crackerjack speller, yet there are still words I have to look up. There are words I've only recently learned I may have been misspelling. You may wonder how that can be: it's simple. The people around me can't spell any better than I can, so they take my word for it!
:-)

All kidding aside, however, do look for an editor who is humble, in the sense that he or she knows that all editors have limitations. Look for an editor who's willing to be taught (some of us do it kicking and screaming, but we CAN do it). Look for an editor who'll query your stuff along the lines of saying, "Are you sure? What's your source for this?" rather than saying, "This is wrong. This would never happen." Because if there's one thing that good editors learn over the years, it's that pretty much anything can happen on this good earth, given the right circumstances, characters, background, and setting. If you're an expert in something I'm not, I'm more than willing to let you teach me about it.

Just don't mess with the grammar...because there, nine times out of ten, I'll getcha. :-)

We'll talk about more aspects of GOOD editing in the next installment. Don't worry; there aren't many more important than these two we've just listed: confidence and competence in the language, and enough humility to make SURE that together, the editor is  working with an author to GET IT RIGHT. 

Stay tuned for the rest of the story in part 4!

Janny