Kivrin asked Brian Staveley:

We are having a discussion in our group about what a good editor should do for a book. Basically, we were talking about continuity errors and whose responsibility it is to catch them. What, in your opinion, is the job of a good editor?

Brian Staveley Interesting question. My sense is that there are almost as many types of editor as there are sorts of writer. More, I think every editor/writer pairing develops its own rules and dynamics. Some writers want to be left entirely alone until the book is very, very polished. Others like to ping questions off an editor every couple of weeks or so. That said, I think the most important quality of a good editor is an understanding of and receptivity to the working process of the writer. My editor at Tor is Marco Palmieri, and I feel like we fell very quickly into a great working relationship. I always feel like he's there to talk if I have something I want to mull over with him; he's also willing to give me plenty of space when I just need time to mull over the book on my own.

I think a second crucial quality of a good editor is a willingness to tell a writer when something in the book just isn't working. I suspect (never having been an editor) that this is harder to do than we might guess at first blush. After all, most humans want to say nice things to other humans, and it's hard to tell someone that months worth of work are fundamentally flawed. And then there's the fact that any time an editor challenges an author, she's making MORE work for herself, not less. Given these two factors, I would imagine it's very easy for an editor to see a small flaw in a book, then think, "Screw it, I can't deal with this." I'm always very grateful for Marco's frankness when it comes to what he sees as both the strengths and the flaws of my manuscripts.

As for the person who catches the continuity stuff -- that's more the copyeditor's job, although Marco will also pick up on that as he reads...

flag