I agree, it needs to be sharp and professional. I've proofread hundreds of things in my day. Not just my own work, but others as well. I consider it a form of editing. I think most people in this forum think of an editor more as structural, developmental or content editing. If I'm misunderstanding this will anyone jump in here? I've heard proofreading called line editing in certain circles. My understanding of the job of an editor might be different from the way others look at it. Sometimes certain industries use different understandings from one company to another, or one area of the country to another. And the understanding of terms can change as time goes by.
Not all editors charge the same. And the fee charged is not necessarily proportional to the quality delivered. If you aren't your own best editor, chances are you are in no position to know whether the editor you chose is brilliant or buffoon.
As the old adage says, "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client." Couldn't that also apply to a writer who edits himself?
No. Saying that the same thing applies implies that editing your own work is a bad thing. Now, being the only one to edit your own work, and not allowing other eyes to read, and make suggestions to that work, is foolish. But the truth of the matter is, no one is going to be stricter on your work than you are. You're the only one that knows how you wanted it to turn out, or whether it reached that level. So you're the only one that can guarantee that it reaches that quality, at least before it goes in for submission.
Not on your life. You know your piece of writing better than anyone else, and you know, or should know, your own style better than anyone. Also, you are a writer. You are expected to master the language you are writing in. Don't worry. You'll get the chance to pass someone else's scrutiny when you submit your manuscript. Unlike a courtroom, you'll have plenty of chances to try again.
But if a writer is supposed to be their own best editor, it would have application. Like you say, distance is important.
I think editing is a great thing. We structure the sentences we write; we give form to ideas. All of that requires a critical eye and creative expression. Making sure it conveys the desired meaning requires we go over our work, time and again. Seems to me, that is a given. The writer maintains control of the story. An editor, at least a good one, takes into account your style and story. They draw out the one to give stability to the other.
Sure, we know our story and style. That makes sense. Anyone trying to be a better writer would certainly try to be the best they could be. But that doesn't negate the role of an outside editor. That's what I like about editing. It is the opportunity to make things better. It can be difficult, but it is well worth the effort. Not only when we turn a critical eye toward our own work, but when another set of eyes reads it as well. It is the chance to reach a better level of clarity and professionalism.
Let's say you workshop your novel and get all kinds of feedback on how to make it better. Would you guys think of that feedback as editorial suggestions? ...not really... because folks in workshops are only other aspiring writers, not editors... What if you let someone read your manuscript and they commented on how some of the dialog was confusing? Would you edit your own work to tighten things up? ...only if i found their comment to be justified... What if you wrote and edited your work without anyone else ever seeing it? Would it stand as good a chance for a publisher picking it up than if you had an editor look it over one last time? ...yes... because i've always been capable of editing my own work successfully... and i've been a professional editor for almost as long as i've been a writer... Do you think getting feedback from friends or at workshops can replace an editor? ...no... not entirely... and in many cases, can be more harmful than helpful... Do you ever pay for an editor to comb through your final manuscript before submission? ...no... [from erebh] I just read editors charge $10 per page of 250 words... lucrative business ...it can be... though, for a good editor, it's well-earned, since it's hard, painstaking work... i get paid even more than that, if significant rewriting is needed... That seems high. What all are they offering to do for that price? ...there are several kinds of editing... they range from simply catching typos and major grammar/techinical goofs, to doing a full rewrite... As the old adage says, "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client." Couldn't that also apply to a writer who edits himself? ...no... it's not a valid comparison... good writers are also good self-editors...
mammamaia, thanks for that. It sounds like you are capable and confident with editing your own work. When you submit your manuscript does the publisher's editor make many editorial suggestions about your work? I'm sure there are many people on this forum who have never submitted their work for publication. What would you suggest to them? If they have not reached a master level like you and Cogito talk about, what would be the best course of action? Some may have the creativity to present a structurally sound, well thought out idea, but clearly have not reached a master level of self editing. What would you suggest? When I read some books it is a wonder that anyone ever published it. Some books sell well that way. The subject matter had more appeal to the publisher than the quality of written content. It has been discussed in this thread that some writers self edit, some also get outside help, some submit and leave it to the publisher to sort out with their editor if the work is purchased. For writers who are struggling with self editing, how would you recommend they proceed?
you're entirely welcome... ... i can't remember getting any suggestions for any of the work i've submitted over the past 30+ years, other than a minor typo or two i may have missed... as for the columns/articles i wrote for my hs newspaper decades earlier, i was the paper's editor, so the same applied then... ...getting better at it!... if they can't edit their own work to a polished, publication-worthy level, they'll never make it as professional writers... that's just a sad fact of life in the writing business... having to pay an editor to do it for them 1. won't make them a good editor and 2. won't make writing a viable career choice, since they'll always be putting out more money than their writings can bring in... and before anyone starts citing exceptions, keep in mind they are few and far between, so it's foolish in the extreme, to count on being one... ...how?... the only rational way to proceed is to learn how to edit their own work, so they'll be submitting polished mss... period! 1. yes, many terribly written books do get published and some even become bestsellers due to content, rather than good writing... but as i noted above, it makes no sense to count on being that lucky... 2. see above re paying for outside help... 3. a poorly written work and mss with a significant amount of goofs one submits will not get purchased, so won't be corrected by the publisher's editors, whose job is not to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse anyway, but only to address minor issues and catch typos... ...i hope this helps and answers all of your questions...
This. Exactly. The job of editors is to sift through the work that's turned in to them and decide what is worthy of publication. They get so many entries that they are waiting for the first possible opportunity to tell you that yours isn't acceptable. If that comes in the form of sloppy spelling and grammar, then so be it, that's what they'll tell you. You don't want to be turned away for something so trivial if you can help it, which you can, simply by perfecting your craft.
