Your Attitude towards Professional Editors

I disagree. I've griped occasionally about the quality of self-published nonfiction books that I've purchased in the past. There was one book that was coherently organized, completely free of SPaG errors, with prose that was logically assembled and perfectly readable...but...but...I didn't finish it. I wanted the information in it, but I still didn't finish it. It was a chore to read. Not difficult, not hard to understand, but all the same, a chore. Reading it involved a compete and total lack of pleasure. The book needed something, something analogous to the need for salt in food, something that I couldn't put into words.

I believe that a professional editor of the right type would have been able to put it into words. That editor might have been able to get that book past whatever hurdle was keeping it from being traditionally published, or, if the author was determined to go with self-publishing, might have been able to make it good enough for me to have liked it and given it a great review and praised it on my blog. (Not that my blog is going to make a book, but there are other blogs that could.)

Professionals see things that amateurs don't, and they understand those things, and they can put them into words, and they can help to fix those things. That's what makes them professionals. That book needed a professional.

 

It may be important to distinguish between a true professional - someone with lots of training, industry experience, talent, etc. - and someone calling him or herself a professional, without any of those qualities.

There isn't a governing body for editors and there are a lot of people who love to read and seem to think that's enough. So it's possible to get a negative impression of the class of "editors" based on experience with someone who really had no business using that title.

 

Oh I can certainly appreciate that some people really could use some help and that editors can be helpful in certain situations but I think those situations are far fewer than received wisdom would have you believe. Not to sound overly pretentious but I don't need a editor because I actually take the time to proof and edit my own work. The authors you are talking about clearly didn't. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit but I don't think it's beyond the wit of the average person to coherently organize a book length project. Sure, an editor could have helped them out and ensured their work was up to a professional standard but that's not something they couldn't have done themselves if they just took the time.

As for helping you season your work; just as that metaphor suggests it's a matter of taste. Sure, if this guys writing was awfully stodgy and he genuinely didn't see it (the equivalent of cooking with zero seasoning) then someone helping him add any amount of spice is a good start. But what if we're not talking about someone who doesn't know what a spice rack is? What if I, with my broad and experimental palette, am the one asking for an opinion of someone else with a fairly broad palette? He likes his books one way, I like them another.

There's nothing wrong with getting that opinion. But I do object to paying for an opinion when I can yell on the street and get five. I can yell here on this site and get ten people who read a lot to look at my stuff. Why is this one guys opinion somehow right just because I paid him? Why should I listen to him instead of to myself or my friends or any of you fine people?

 

Another good point.

Ours is an extremely aspiration fueled business. There's a lot of money to be made by selling people on the dream of being a writer. I don't want to characterize all editors as being this but many do make their living serving amateurs by telling them they simply couldn't ever make it big unless they give an editor some money. That doesn't mean that some people don't benefit from their services or that there isn't real skill to being a dedicated editor but finding someone who is in a good position to really help your book is a challenge by itself especially since there's only so much money to be spent here.

Maybe it's just me being too cynical but if someone knows the publishing world so well that they can make really authoritative statements about what style I should be using and what plot elements should be added in order to find a publisher; why isn't this guy making his money writing books? The answer, of course, is that his opinion is just his opinion and there is no magic wand here. His services can save me time and effort in tracking down mistakes but if I'm already confident my work is good enough to send to agents then he can't really help me.

 

I have never used an editor before. I actually haven't shown any of my work before. I usually kept my stories to myself. I didn't know if anyone was interested or how to go about asking. That's why I came on this site was to finally show some of my stuff and get feedback. As far as editors go, I would welcome a professional editor but if I feel comfortable enough, I may edit my own stuff or ask someone I know to look it over. A new set of eyes really helps in my opinion.

 

Every writer takes the time to proof read their own work. Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, John Green...all those professional career writer still use editors. If they still use them, who are we not to? If you are going through a publisher then no you dont need to get your work edited because the publisher will have it done for you. But if you are self publishing get an editor. I know someone who self published and didnt use an editor, he's a teacher and good god he needed one.