Editors and Writers discussion
Is quick editing a good thing?
date
newest »
newest »
I definitely take my time! I think you have to do a read through first so you understand the message they're trying to send. Then initial edit for obvious mistakes, followed by the time consuming edit where you go over it slowly making sure you haven't missed anything and rephrasing things if necessary. I prefer to do my work well, which usually means slowly. I think if authors expect it to be done quickly then they should expect imperfection!
Mod
Raphael,Thank you for starting what I think is an important discussion. Lin makes a good point. I used to work for a journal and one our reviewers invariably turned in well-written, immaculate reviews. But she was an anomaly, at least in my experience.
It's hard to compete with someone who promises a turn-around that seems to require a time machine, especially when that person charges next to nothing. It undercuts us all in the end.
Ruth
I don't know if the authors, proof-readers and editors of today realize how fortunate they are. During the movable type era, proof-reading had to be done by two persons. The proof-reader and the 'copy-holder'; the latter read out the text from the manuscript as the former scrutinized to make sure that no lines were missed by the compositor.
Then there would be errors like 'letters upside down' and 'letters face down'!
The proofs would be drawn on a hand-proof machine and the proof-reader often would have ink stains on the fingers after a session of proof-reading! It would take weeks to proof-read a sizable book.
The printed forms had to be re-read after printing because the type would sometimes fly off the machine bed without the pressman noticing. So most books had an 'errata' at the end. The reader was supposed to refer to the errata first, carry out the changes in the main book, then start reading...
I agree that 2 days to edit anything other than a very short novella is not enough time to do a good job. The Editorial Freelancers Association lists the average pace for basic copyediting at 5-10 pages/hour and the pace for heavy copyediting at 2-5 pages/hour. For line editing, they say 1-6 pages/hour. Also, an editor is typically not editing 8 hours a day. I find that 6-7 hours a day is my limit before my mind needs a break, and I've read similar estimates from other editors. If I feel my attention wandering, I stop. Every book deserves my full attention. Obviously how long an edit takes will depend on the project, but these page ranges seem right to me based on the editing I do. This pace gives you the time to provide a quality edit, while still being sensitive to an author's desire to have their manuscript back in a timely fashion. No editor will catch every error (I wish we could, but it's not humanly possible!), but if you are taking your time and making 2 or 3 passes through a book, you should catch the majority of them. Thanks for starting this discussion!
Erica
www.ericaellisfreelance.com
By the way, quick editing is what I expect for a newspaper article, and it only takes minutes to do so. No editor, including all of us, would be able to edit a single novel in two days or even a week. If we were to do a quick edit, we would have to go through days without eating or sleeping. And that is beyond impossible. Most of us have children to take care of, while some of us have other aspirations and duties to deal with. It's impossible. That is why we all make our schedules to keep track of things every single day.
This is a very helpful thread--especially for aspiring editors (i.e. me). Before I jump in with both feet I'm trying to get a feel for how much time I need to budget, among many other things, of course. Thank you for starting (and continuing) this discussion!
Mod
They begrudge the costs involved, and the time it takes, and want to rush in, whereas even a few years ago they would have been forced to polish, rewrite and produce more work, improving their writing, before achieving the goal of a publishable work.
If they publish too soon, before the writing is properly ready (and this includes either skipping editing altogether or paying editors to rush through their work at an unreasonable fee/timescale), they risk damaging not only their own reputation but the reputation of self published books generally.
The theory for pricing is to edit a sample of the work and work out how long the whole work will take, but I can't see this being particularly accurate if you don't know how the rest of the book is put together, which is why I encourage writers to take up a paid beta first - I get a little money for my time and an overview of the story,they get detailed feedback and an idea of how I work, and the beta fee is taken off any further work they want.
Raphael - did the author understand that two days was far too short to pick up everything or did he/she expect the whole job done thoroughly in that timescale?
And Sudhir - I'm so glad all that type of proofreading was well before my time ;)
According to the Facebook conversation, the author's editor was her publisher, and it was supposed to be a month's worth of editing in her book. It was done in two days. She was disappointed in their service. By the way, the novel is really her first.
Sudhir,Yours was an apt reminder. And there were those publishers who wished to save time by continuing to print as the proofreaders checked the work. The type would get changed as they found errors, and sometimes it's hard to know which copies have the intended text in them.
I wonder what Shakespeare would have done if he had had a laptop?
Ruth
It is hard to do just a straight proofread in just two days and do a through job! How could anyone even think they could do a full edit in that time is unthinkable.
Part of the problem is that the point-and-click mindset of the time creates a false impression that everything must be done instantaneously. Technology does help us, but it's only a tool. Any writer interested in creating a quality product knows that an editor must become at least as well acquainted with their book as they are! But most new writers just don't understand the process, and some approach it from the quicker, the cheaper, the better. Lots of editors, (also newbies)try to jump on that bandwagon as well. Either way unfortunately, it doesn't take them long to figure out that inferior product just can't compete in an overcrowded market. That much is true of independent as well as traditional publishing.And if anybody happens to be in need of someone with actual experience? http://villagegreenpressLLC.com
Happy Holidays, y'all!!
Teresa,I think your point is spot on. I'm not sure how one combats that expectation when we're all so focused on the next, even-faster device.
Ruth
It usually takes me more than a few days just to read a book. I can't imagine anyone not only reading but editing a full length manuscript in that time. I'm happy when my editor gets my book done in 3weeks to a month. That's quick to me.
I totally agree that a quick edit is not a good thing. Now some books can be edited faster than other based on pages and content. However, some can go faster than others. I typically tell a client 7-10 days but if I do the best job possible in 2 days then so be it--but it's rare. Sometimes there are deadlines that have to be met but I won't take the edit unless I can honestly meet the deadline and do a superb job!
I think that editors and proof-readers would look at a manuscript in different ways. The editor would concentrate on the plot, theme,the construction and presentation as a whole, the suitability and consistency in style, the characters.
Depending on the theme and length and the editor's expertise in the field, it would take anywhere from a week to a month or more.
The proof-reader would concentrate on typos, punctuation, grammar, spellings, splitting longer text into paragraphs. Depending on the length of the book, the proof-reader would take considerably less time than the editor, say from a couple of days to a week or two.
Ultimately, the quality of their work than the time taken should be the criterion for evaluation.
Mod
Folks used to expect to undergo several rounds of editing. Now, I find I'm increasingly competing to offer authors a "one fee fits all", that is, they want one round that includes developmental notes, copy editing and proofreading. I can do that, of course. I just can't do that overnight.
Sudhir,You're quite right. Editors and proofreaders do indeed approach manuscripts differently. There are many kinds of editors. There are so many different kinds that the terms have gotten kind of fuzzy. Here's a condensed version of what I have on my website:
It used to be that a book would go first to a developmental editor, someone who would help with the structure, organization, coherence, argument, consistency, dialogue, logic, character, plot, perspective, tone — edits that deal with vision and over-arching concerns.
Then there's copyediting — in light, medium, and heavy varieties. All include mechanical editing, checking the correlation of parts, ensuring conformity to house style when applicable, eliminating sexist language (except in a work of fiction where it might be important to a character’s persona), and making factual queries when necessary.
For a Light Copyedit, an editor will point out particularly problematic passages but will refrain from making corrections or suggestions, will ask for explanations of new terms, and will inquire about inconsistencies.
A Medium Copyedit will also alert the author to stylistic problems, suggest revisions, point out terms that need definitions, check some content, draw the author’s attention to organizational weaknesses, and ask about logical inconsistencies.
During a Heavy Copyedit the editor will plunge even more deeply into a manuscript and correct unfortunate phrasings more freely than in other levels, may rewrite or restructure wordy or confusing passages, supply definitions for terms, check and possibly revise factual information, and emend organization and logic.
In an ideal world, that's followed by line editing, a careful line-by-line process intended to catch previously overlooked errors.
Proofreading is the last step, the final check for errors that may have been introduced while a text was being prepared for publication.
And then there are substantive editors, who may be the same as developmental editors, or copyeditors, or something in between. Whew!
Ruth
Thanks Ruth for the informative piece.I would like to add that proof-reading and editing do overlap to some extent and more so in freelance professional services. And that is where would-be authors expect faster turnover and the editor/pr is put under pressure. However, the serious service providers should and do seem to avoid unrealistic demands, try to maintain quality and build reputation... and that will be ultimately for the benefit of the aspiring authors.
Sudhir and Amanda,Yes and yes. The lines between different kinds of editing are fuzzy and mobile. I like developmental editing, but that doesn't mean I can refrain from correcting spelling and punctuation errors without the help of heavy sedation.
So how best to educate writers? Let them use editors who promise perfection in the blink of an eye and learn from the experience? And how do we establish ourselves as serious service providers? One of the discussion threads I've been following on LI repeatedly emphasizes the importance of finding qualified editors who can point to the books they shepherded through to publication. How do we get folks to hire us before we have such a string of successes to cite?
Ruth
Mod
Personally, I'm refusing to cave in to the pressure to charge silly prices that make it impractical as a business, and biting my tongue when I see other people doing just that. I hope that authors look closely at what they offer, and calculate how long an editor would spend on their work for the money. In some cases, a close look at their website causes alarm bells! I'm working steadily to build up a reputation. I offer paid beta reads/critiques these days - it's a good introduction to my services, allows me to receive some payment for looking at the work and the fee comes off any later work the author has done. In this way I can also collect testimonials for my services.
I do feel that publication is too easy now - instead of going through the quality control of publishers, writers can rush in and publish the first thing they write, and this is not always a good thing. On the other hand, self publishing can also be empowering; the difference is in those writers who understand the business and are prepared to invest in their own work, both financially and in terms of developing their writing to a high standard rather than publishing before their writing is really ready.
Lin,You have made an important point about the changing nature of publishing and the role of the freelance editor. I think now the editor's work has extended to educating the aspiring and inexperienced authors.
I am a writer and an editor. When I wrote my first book I got an editor because you cannot see everything on your own. When you look at the same manuscript too long you start seeing words which should be on the page, but actually aren't. I wanted to publish my best work. Relying on myself as a writer and the only editor would have been a huge mistake. I took the time to find a quality editor and I didn't fuss about the turn around. As an independent editor business can be slow, unless you work for a small newspaper or magazine. I guarantee my clients quality work and do my best to do it around their schedules in a reasonable amount of time. There has to be great communication between writer and editor to produce quality work.
I understand the concept of slow and easy, but at the same time, when I'm editing an 80k-word story, I like to completely submerge myself in it. I will work 5-8 hours per day, multiple days in a row, until I finish it. I can remember the story better, follow the story more easily, and feel the "flow" of the story more than if I had only edited every couple days or few hours at a time. I could finish an 80k-word story in one week, but I'd have to work all day, every day on it. Thankfully, most authors are relaxed about the time frame. I think they're so happy and relieved to finish their manuscript that they don't want to see it again for at least another month!
When I hear comments like that, it sickens me as an editor because it lets me know some of the members of the editorial industry rush into their projects and end up missing half doing their projects. When I edit a client's e-book -- and they're usually novels -- I take my time. First I read the whole book from start to finish. Then I start my editing process from start to finish. E-books over 100,000 words take me a month to two months to edit, while e-books under 100,000 words take me less than a month. I make sure the book flows well before submitting it back to the author. I want my customers to be happy with the services, especially when they publish them. It's nonsense for an editor to half do the book in an unreasonable short amount of time, especially if the book is not a short story, novelette, or a novella.
I'm sure you guys would agree with me that quick editing is not a quick method at all. You actually have to read the book first before editing. That is the right approach. Obviously, some editors don't like to read the book first before editing.