How to vet editors and why agents/publishers don't prefer professionally edited manuscripts

[Quantum]

In this world of internet connectivity and anonymity--and especially with the explosion of self-publishing with the advent of the kindle and KDP in 2007--you can't be too careful. Check out this article for how to vet freelance editors:

http://www.sfwa.org/other-resources/f...

(This article was originally published in 2013 on the venerable SFWA's website, but we'll assume that they curate their content fairly regularly.)

Not only does this article have an extensive list of things to check out when hiring a freelance editor, but they also have some things that you should be wary of.

For example, it states that one of the things to be wary of is an editor who claims that agents and publishers prefer edited mss. It also says you should be wary of editors who don't specialize in specific genres and will take anyone.

So, let's hear from the trenches. What do you think?

[Catherine]

I find it interesting. Some things are quite contrary to what most publishers, agents, and editors I've spoken with or know, and with my own experiences.

Many publishers prefer edited manuscripts because it reduces their expenses, and most publishers don't make a lot on books in the first place. Agents want books that there are an audience for and rarely accept first draft or second draft manuscripts that haven't been cleaned up. Agents and publishers accepting proposals would be an exception to that rule. Some publishers do want to shape a story, but a pre-edited manuscript wouldn't hinder this.

Unless a publisher or press is big, huge, they often don't even have an in-house editor to work on a manuscript and outsource that service to editors that freelance/contract. There's tighter budgets and smaller resources, so a book that requires less editing or expenses to get where it needs to go is preferred. It's very similar to the workplace (since it is actually a type of profession): a worker who requires less training and has more experience is more desirable than a new one who will cost a significant investment to get where they need to be. This isn't some farce, I was just speaking with a few publishers recently where this is the case.

In a freelance world, having skills from multiple areas and not specializing isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are many commonalities across all types of writing. A good editor is aware of the differences (style guides, conventions). They may have preferences, but the work force is often generalist. A good copy editor can edit creative non-fiction and fiction just as effectively. A developmental editor can use the same processes across the board to help writers arrive at a solid first or second draft, regardless of genre or industry. The only place I see this being a problem is in highly technical writing for academics or certain professional publications, especially when risks are posed if there are misprints or misunderstandings: Engineering, Medical, Mathematical writing, for instance. But, the editor will always be better at one type of editing than others. I'm better at developmental editing (and enjoy it much more), but can still do copy and line editing, and proofreading using the right style guide. Sometimes the quality is also dependent on the manuscript.

I do however agree with the article when it states: "...it’s unlikely that one person will be able to edit any and all subjects and genres with equal effectiveness.

Also, within the basic scope of services they provide, a good editor or assessor will tailor the job to the client–including asking for a sample of your work ahead of time to make sure it’s something they can work with (good editors do turn down jobs)."

In the least, the editor should ask for a synopsis, if not a sample.

Editing definitely isn't a magic fix or a solution to become a best seller. Fixing a manuscript with challenges takes time and effort and learning. Becoming a best seller takes a lot of marketing knowledge, events, effort above and beyond what an editor offers a manuscript. It's a full-time job on its own. There has to be an audience, and some strategic efforts, and good luck for that to happen.

Unfortunately, like every industry, there are a number of editors who take advantage of authors and writers like running a spell check and charging you for it, but 'qualified' is contentious as there are different requirements depending on association an editor is a member of, and there is no standardized education or training requirements in the industry (not necessarily a bad thing, but difficult to claim someone is more or less qualified than another). Every editor is different in style, experience and focus, and that's good for many reasons. Tagging a manuscript as professionally edited on the cover page isn't a selling point. A publisher or agent will be able to assess quality of story and manuscript and writing from the submission itself.

As per the article's statement about 'beta reading' vs critiquing - beta reading is a focus on the reader perspective. It may have similarities with critiquing or manuscript evaluation, but they are different. In a critique, more emphasis is put on marketability, structure, grammar, punctuation, common errors, pacing, where research is lacking. In a Beta-Read, the focus is readability, appeal to the audience, and if the manuscript is ready to be published or not.

I do agree that there is no 'priority' to assessed manuscripts. The priority points: does a manuscript fit with a publisher's market, is there an existing audience to tap into, the amount of investment in the manuscript required (cost, predictable ROI), the appeal of the story, if technical -qualifications of the writer, the competition or saturation for the book in that genre/market.

There are definitely a number of points I don't agree with, and many I do in this article. An editor posting their personal resume to a website is a bit extreme, but they should be able to provide you one (and/or a client list if it doesn't violate NDA) if you ask.

There are a number of free ways that writers can get their manuscript to a great product, and a few are good/experienced enough to do that without editors or help (like .5%). As a self-published author I made the mistake of going without an editor once. I will never do it again. You just stop seeing errors and your brain fills in blanks as a writer. In the least, you have to have a second set of eyes to look at it. As an editor, I've watched author's books transform from something decent, with a good story, to a stronger book, something that would never have happened without editors involved in the process.