World, Writing, Wealth discussion
All Things Writing & Publishing
>
A riddle: how good was the editing?
date
newest »
newest »
There you have a paradox. You must know as much as the editor to judge if the editor's changes are correct, but if your did, then you wouldn't need an editor. Another problem, which may explain the different sample versions, is that editors don't all have the same concept of good writing. For example, some editors tend to reduce all sentences to simple active voice sentences. So even if you've written an error free compound-complex sentence (worse, passive), that kind of editor will break the sentence down into simple sentences (call it the Stephen King rule). 
Yep, a paradox of a sort. In my case I believe each pair of eyes helps reducing whatever I might've missed.As of style - I've already encountered two different approaches: one editor doing tons of rewrites, simplifying everything, while the other introducing minimal changes (and then beta-readers coming back with something like: it felt Russian written in English words -:)).
In general I see the tendency is simplification. Almost all 'rare' words are being replaced by more commonplace analogues. Don't know whether such approach is justified. Similarly there are movements on simplifying legal lingo for example with their adepts and haters.
The most frustrating is to spend a few hundred bucks on editing & proofreading and then discover a typo or two and one no less in the 2-nd sentence of a book, where for about a year we had 'waiving a gun' instead of 'waving'. Don't know how many sales, if at all, we lost just because of that.
Bottom line - I have a feeling the paradox may cost me more money to bring another editor or at least a proofreader, as I'm uncertain about the quality after 2 editorial passes -:)
Can someone recommend a reasonably priced p/r with equally reasonable command of written English?
I would add a caution about Microsoft's autocorrect - sometimes it isn't correct! As for tenses, some editors seem to dislike certain tenses and "correct" them, even at the risk of changing the meaning slightly. One problem with English as a language is it has so many variations, and many of them merely express quite subtle differences, and worse, many of the speakers do not recognise them because very few have learned formal grammar. In latin, you had to get the grammar right or it could be nonsense, and as a consequence, you did not have to worry so much about for order. In English, word order actually becomes very important, and that must be very hard for a non-native speaker.
Ian wrote: "I would add a caution about Microsoft's autocorrect - sometimes it isn't correct! As for tenses, some editors seem to dislike certain tenses and "correct" them, even at the risk of changing the mea..."Microsoft's performance also depends on whether you choose US or UK English and they can't discern between 'lied' or 'lay', 'wave' or 'waive' and stuff like that.
Sure, English isn't an easy language with lots of subtleties. In general, I came to realize that the assumption that a native speaker would know his/her language better (and here it's also a matter of judgement) than the one learning it as a foreign tongue is frequently erroneous, be it for English, Russian, Hebrew or Ukrainian. They wouldn't have an accent while speaking, but high percentage would have typos and grammar problems in writing.
That's why I can't rely absolutely on an editor/proofreader and re-check everything where I have doubts... Quite an annoying & probably Sisyphean task
I don't have any magic answer, I'm afraid. I'm a native English (British) speaker, and from the point of view of editing, I don't think there's any set of rules (that are easily accessible etc) that you can apply to be able to tell whether your editor is right or wrong.The problem is that English is a pretty flexible language... except when it's not. What's right in one context may be wrong in another. Sometimes, as Ian as pointed out, it's a matter of personal style - other times, it's a matter of common usage, and other times it really is just wrong. You're right that being a native speaker is no guarantee of competence: I know native speakers whom I wouldn't trust to proofread a note to the milkman. None of them work as proofreaders/editors, but, still... :-)
The only answer I can think of is that if you're not happy with your editor, then change editor. If it were me, I would expect two things:
1. That my editor would be 95% correct when recommending spelling/grammar changes (not 100% correct, because sometimes it does transpire that the author is correct when they explain what they were aiming to convey).
2. That my editor would be willing to explain his/her recommendations so I could a) understand why they were made and b) make an informed decision regarding what to do about it. (And figure out whether the editor knows what they're doing).
I think choice of editor is just as important as choice of beta-readers. You need people who are "into" what you do. No point giving a violent thriller to a beta-reader whose favourite genre is romance. Likewise, if an editor's idol is Stephen King, they're probably not the best fit for you if your style is more complex.
In general, simpler is better - except when it's not. Sometimes, you need the extra complexity because it conveys shade(s) of meaning that are important to your story. The trick is to figure out when the complexity is required, and when you're just being self-indulgent or needlessly baroque.
Again... it comes back to choosing an editor who fits well with your personal style (without being such a wet blanket that they let you get away with things that damage your story!).
Regarding proofreading, this often does take several passes if there are lots of errors to start with. The more errors there are, the more chance some will be missed - even by the best proofreader. I've done something similar professionally for years, and no matter how careful one is, if there are multiple errors in one document, chances are, one or two will slip through.
The problem is worse if you have a writer who consistently makes the same errors (their/there/they're confusion, discrete/discreet etc) so their document is full of stuff that is wrong and needs correcting, but the repeated errors make it harder to spot "unique" errors.
In short, your first proofreading pass should clear up the repeated errors and most of the unique ones. That will clear the decks for the second pass to clear up most of the rest.
I had heard that traditional publishing used to assume three proofreading passes to get a manuscript to a publishable standard with an acceptable minimum of errors. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
One way to do it is if you know a native(-standard) speaker who has pretty good written English skills, you could ask them to have a read through the editor's comments and give you an assessment of whether the editor is a) correct on all points b) correct but probably just not a good fit for your style or c) useless.
Hey Tiffany,Thanks a lot for such an elaborate guide how to deal with editors and good solutions to the riddle -:)
In the meantime as I didn't feel sufficiently strong with what I had after 2 editorial passes, I've hired another proofreader, recommended by Alex, to weed out all the remainders (at least 99.9% of them).
My miserable effort to pay less than a thousand bucks (and still having typos here & there) on editing of the third book, might just result in spreading the same amount between a bigger number of people -:)
Hope I'll manage to finetune this book & air it soonest.
I wonder what an editor/proofreader said when s/he'd received Irvine Welsh's MS and how Microsoft's software collapsed after just a thousand words?- :)
This is where having writer friends (in the same language!) helps - I'm part of a writing group, and we edit/proofread/critique each other's. If it's your own work, you can only take it so far before you become so familiar with the text that you end up seeing what you want to see, not what is actually on the page. Even if you intend to have a professional edit (which I intend to, eventually), it's still good to edit-swap. The better the shape you can get your manuscript into before you hand it over to the paid-for editor, the cheaper it may work out: fewer errors means a faster job, and if you're paying by the hour, that will matter (or, indeed, if your editor makes an estimate based on the error-content of the first chapter).
I've done two over the last couple of months, I'm finishing one today, and I've got another in the queue. At some point, I'm going to have time to write my own!
T. K. Elliott wrote: "This is where having writer friends (in the same language!) helps - I'm part of a writing group, and we edit/proofread/critique each other's. If it's your own work, you can only take it so far befo..."Sure, it's a good pre-editing solution, but in my case, apart from critique, I won't be able to contribute to any such group in editing/p/r aspect and a one-way street would be kinda unfair.
You must make time to write on your own - that's the core issue, all the rest are paraphernalia -:)
Don't do yourself down - it's not just good English skills that are required. As has been said by more experienced persons than me, all the polishing in the world won't help a story that's fundamentally flawed. If you can tell where a story is going wrong, that's an even more valuable skill than being able to tell your your past tense from your pluperfect.
Sure, to the extent you mention, I can be of some help. Structure, engagement, plot. Not the 'full package' though -:)I was a bit happier, not suspecting about 'pluperfect's' existence -:)
Now I see the depth of my ignorance... Too many perfects for the imperfect me -:)
Nik, one thing to remember is that if you used a perfect instead of a pluperfect while the meaning is not quite the same, it will probably suffice. Another interesting test is to see whether your editor can get subjunctives right. Give a trial test with a couple of erroneous subjunctives and see what happens.
Sounds like my favorite 'kill the editor' game to me -:)
Returning to editing for a sec, as we've started discussing it on another thread -:) Do (plu)perfect editors exist in nature?
Possibly we had done. In another life.Except that makes terrible sense!
Subjunctives are moot btw. I don't usually change them. It's precious to insist on them. If I were you etc …
It is an interesting question to ask why is it OK to wash subjunctives down the drain but get all upset about other grammatical errors that are formal. I accept, of course, that anything that is ambiguous, or even worse, what happens with certain dangling bits, is not what the writer meant, has to be fixed. In my view, the use of the subjunctive conveys different meaning, so why not use it?
Subjunctives? Because most people don't use them in real life and it's accepted (by some) that using them is no longer necessary. Each to their own.
It's the descriptivist vs prescriptivist divide. Linguist and psychologists studying communication (that'd be me, fwiw) are inherently descriptivist: There is no "wrong" if it's being said by a native speaker, there is at most unusual. There are grammar norms and standard forms, but not rules, because language is a living thing and constantly changing.
English teachers, many editors and style guides tend to be prescriptivist: There is right, and there is wrong, end of story.
Good editors, imho, tend to be a little more moderate. They adhere to the norms as much as possible, but bend them where it makes sense. Where does it make sense? Where natural language usage has moved on from the style guides and dictionaries. Where a particular dialect/sociolect is desired. In dialogue. To retain a quirky but still clear authorial voice. When the damn sentence is just magical the way it is, even if it's unusually phrased. And probably many other situations.
On the third hand: There are perfectly valid constructions in standard English (and indeed, many other languages) that are entirely within the norms and are in fact the norm in some place or another, but because some style guru or another has at some time railed against them in the hallowed pages of The Times, or wrote a misguided book about in the 1860's people think they are unacceptable or at best gauche. It's often best to avoid those types of things anyway when you can sensibly write the sentence another way. Sort of like it's best to avoid wearing white before Labor Day if you are going to a party with the kind of people who care about that kind of thing. Not because it's wrong, but because there are people who care about that kind of thing - wrongly. Things like splitting infinitives fall into this category.
Spelling and punctuation on the other hand, it's a lot easier to defend coming down prescriptivist on. Or at least, because even the rules on punctuation aren't set in stone, "consistent-ist", as in, pick a way and do it that way all the time.
Pretty much agree. Spelling is fairly straight, punctuation less so, use of capitals the same. I tend to duscuss with my authors and leave it up to them. Mostly, editors follow Hart's, Chicago, whatever, but, for me, any author can choose their own style. My role is to point out the recommended one. Up to them after that. Splitting infins is like starting sentences with a conjunction. Sometimes, a feel for lanuguage is more important.
Splitting infinitives is another interesting one, as I have to really watch what I write when writing about them. OK, haters of split infinitives: where else should "really" go?The most ridiculous reason is you don't do it in latin. No, you don't, because you can't.
I have wondered if the ubiquitous writing advice to prune adverbs (and to not use them at all if possible) is really people attempting to completely avoid this stupid misunderstanding about split infinitives.While I tend to agree on adverbs on dialog tags, as it ends up reading like the old Tom Swifty jokes ("We must hurry!" said Tom swiftly), I think adverbs are just fine in regular sentences. And if you are using it in a sentence, right smack in the middle of the infinitive is almost always the best place for it.
But writing in a foreign language (even when you're pretty good at it) is really hard. I speak Swedish fluently, to the point people no longer ask me if I'm a foreigner and where I'm from, they ask how long I lived out of Sweden, because I'll can't completely shake the accent but they do assume I'm a native speaker. Yet I can't write it worth a damn, and even though I can spot that my own writing, while often technically grammatical sounds stiff or awkward, I simply can't fix it. So I really do understand Nik's dilemma from the start of the thread.
Infinitives, subjectives, split infinitives, compound-complex sentences, perfect vs pluperfect, subjunctives, descriptives vs prescriptives... I am French Canadian and learned my written English about half a century ago in primary and secondary schools (French ones) in second language classes, then polished my English through practice and reading. I came (very) late to this thread and I can only say this after reviewing the 21 entries: AARRRRGG!! How am I supposed to ever learn a PERFECT written English, TABARNA..!
This is a fun game to play: write something in your original language (I do this in Spanish, but European and Asian languages offer so much more fun). Then google-translate it to English. THEN, google-translate it back to the original. Is it the same text? Sometimes its not.English can be tough, especially for non-native speakers. I've seen some texts where imperfect English is leveraged for the story. Slang offers a convenient way to peddle such imperfections in dialog. A first-person viewpoint can do the same.
Finally, you could keep it simple: if it sounds right, it must be right.
Nabokov mastered it somehow. Not expecting getting anywhere near his recognition or glory, but he's a good example not to be afraid to dare -:)
Tough to say. Editing is subjective, and also genre specific. Imagine a great editor who focuses on military thrillers/ science fiction and hardboiled mysteries. He likes tight, punch sentences. And a lot of blood pumping action, and cuts sentences to the quick.
My teen son would love the books edited by them.
But set said editor loose on the purple-prose laden "Twilight" series, it would be a disaster. The short, punchy edits would destroy the romance. And my daughter, who ate those books up when she was a teen, would hate the books.
That said, and editor is important. Since a misplaced "your" for a "you're" can drive many a one-star Amazon rant. So here's some pages I have bookmarked that cover getting an editor.
Hope it helps.
http://www.sfwa.org/other-resources/f...
http://critters.org/c/pubtips.ht
Leo wrote: "Tough to say. Editing is subjective, and also genre specific. Imagine a great editor who focuses on military thrillers/ science fiction and hardboiled mysteries. He likes tight, punch sentences. ..."
Good example. I believe there should be compatibility between an author and editor (engaged in more than proof-reading) to have a good synergy. And the editor should like the genre, the style and desirably the book as a whole. In such case the editor would be able to enhance the strengths and point out/eradicate Achilles heels. Otherwise - the cooperation may turn into a covert struggle of styles and personal preferences ...
Nik wrote: "Do people know tenses perfect, btw? Because I get different sample versions from different editors on the same text?." Probably depends on how glaring the error is. If it just doesn't look or sound right then the average reader will see a problem. If it is technically wrong but sounds like it could be right or is often used that way, it's likely to be noticed only by a fraction of readers.
Michel wrote: "Infinitives, subjectives, split infinitives, compound-complex sentences, perfect vs pluperfect, subjunctives, descriptives vs prescriptives"
I'm a native English speaker and I have no idea what any of this is.
Leo wrote: "Tough to say. Editing is subjective, and also genre specific. "This whole post is so on point! Thanks, Leo.
Nik you said it, a total paradox. I've had people tell me my work is error free and I've had people tell me the book wasn't and needs to be edited...and it was the same book! Who do you trust? Whose right? I find it sort of offensive because I did in fact have my book edited and I trusted the person so for someone to tell me my book wasn't properly edited upset me.As for me personally, I put a lot of trust in my editors because I know I can't edit my own book. I will miss stuff no matter how many times I go over it. I like an editor who explains to me nicely of where I went wrong and how and why it needs to be improved. Ones who just fix your mistakes and don't tell you why it needs to be changed is like someone giving you the answer to a math problem but not showing you how they got to the answer, they didn't show their work. I would also go as far to use more than one editor although you'd have to point out to the 2nd editor of what was fixed so they don't go and fix what the first person did plus it creates a whole mess if the first person did a poor job and yeah you get the point.
I see it like this, every book needs to be edited thoroughly and properly which is why it is essential that you find the right person. If in any review someone says the book wasn't edited and you know full well it was just take that person's comments lightly. Editing needs to be great not good, exceptional not excellent.
Justin wrote: "Nik you said it, a total paradox. I've had people tell me my work is error free and I've had people tell me the book wasn't and needs to be edited...and it was the same book! Who do you trust? Whos..."I had a quick glance at the preview of Macabre and saw some errors.
Examples:
An ellipsis is three full points … although I recommend using a glyph. Unless it was two full points, one in error, that I saw..
Nothings there. I think that is short for nothing is there, hence nothing's there, apostrophe needed.
Soz, can't remember the others …
Sure, we can all point every single error out and why it is wrong. Do you really want to pay thousands for how long that would take?
Here's an edit:
I like an editor who explains to me where I went wrong, why it needs to be improved, and how.
No need for nicely and of.
Why something needs to be improved comes before the how.
I do agree with you on the problems with using more than one editor. I've re-edited books and had that in the back of my mind. Truth is, from an editing perspective, just go with it. And from an author's perspective, if you want someone else, then … accept their changes. Also, depends whether you are emphasising proofreading or writing.
And, great exceptional editing don't come cheap. There are people offering editing on GR for $50. Do you think that will be exceptional?
Nik wrote: "You see, I got a problem here. English isn't my native tongue, so when I receive an edited manuscript and still see typos and odd wording, not always do I have enough confidence to overrule the edi..."If you are seeing an inconsistency in editors it could be that one editor is leaving the 'flavor' of a work written by an author whose first language is not English - and the other is trying to sort of eliminate that 'flavor.' In other words, he or she is not sure what or if something should be changed.
One way, although it would be expensive, is to write in the language you are most comfortable with and have someone translate it. I would think that would be awfully expensive though and not worth it. Haruki Murakami for example writes in Japanese but also translated The Big Sleep from English into Japanese. Obviously he is fluent, but when it comes to his own works those are translated into English.
Personally, I like translated works that retain enough of the nuance so I am aware it is translated - I don't like the ones that are totally 'sanitized.'
Some thoughts, Nik, based on recent reading, and past experience. Apparently I have an "idiosyncrasy" in that when I read, I can't ignore the technical aspect of the writing, and may send a list of typos or inconsistencies to the author. One author recently told me his book had been through two paid editors (if I recall correctly), and he seemed astonished and dismayed at what I found. My observations are these:1. Years ago when attending meetings of a local writing group, and people critiqued one another's writing, I noticed what you've said: some people want to modify your writing style to match their own. We don't all write the same, and that's a good thing. Don't mess with the unique flavor of an author's style.
2. If you're writing for an English-speaking audience and either (a) English is not your first or primary language, or (b) you haven't spoken English much after moving abroad for over a decade, it helps if your editor has a good enough command of English/American/Aussie vocabulary to recognize the word you intended, when you wound up with a word sharing a few letters with said intended word.
3. It appears finding a compatible editor is kind of a crap-shoot.
4. There is a lot of common usage in American English that is technically incorrect. Some of the rules of grammar evidently are unknown and/or unpracticed by most of the general public. A more useful editor would be familiar with these, and know how to correct them.
The author I mentioned (whose books I love, by the way), suggested that I turn my "idiosyncrasy" into an income - which isn't a bad idea. I may work toward that. He told me the world certainly needs more editors with a heart.
Meanwhile, if you have a specific example in which your two editors came up with different solutions, or you have a chapter you'd like reviewed, I'd be happy to give you my opinion. (And if I'm stumped, I'll say so!) You might give me a second opinion as to whether or not I have editor potential. :)
Hi P.J., thanks for your insight and generous offer!Not sure it's worthwhile to engage in something that's already irrelevant (at least I hope so -:)), but I'll be certainly glad to have your revision on something upcoming and I'll reciprocate with pleasure with my own feedback -:)
Nik wrote: "Do people know tenses perfect, btw?..."Not always. The regular verbs are fairly straightforward, but the irregular ones are not. With "lie" versus "lay" they usually (almost always among the general public) use the wrong word altogether.
Irregular verbs, perforce, are always a problem for anyone learning a different language, but in English "lie" and "lay" are particularly bad because the two verbs have commonality in form that is mixed almost salt and pepper like. If you get that wrong in your writing, I doubt it is a terrible sin
What about you: do you use editor's kind help or rely solely on your own eye and knowledge?
Nik wrote: "What about you: do you use editor's kind help or rely solely on your own eye and knowledge?"I have made it a policy that my self-publishing is a business, therefore I have to try for a profit. With my sales level, if I paid an editor, I would fail abysmally, so I do it myself, but I also have some help from a friendly "other writer", to whom I return the favour. I do pay for covers because my own art ability is usually considered inadequate.
Ian wrote: ".... I also have some help from a friendly "other writer", to whom I return the favour ..."Ah, a literary barter! Hope it's not a thick tome vs a skinny novella :)
Microsoft's autocorrect helps with typos but not with different tenses.
Do people know tenses perfect, btw? Because I get different sample versions from different editors on the same text?
How do you evaluate the quality of the edited/proofread work? When do you know your work is near error-free level?