I recently became involved in a discussion on the topic of paying an editor to review writing prior to publication. It surprised me to read the remarks from one of the posters who was dead set against the idea of writers enlisting the services of a professional editor. This person had the idea that anyone who charges to editor a manuscript is exploiting writers. This line of thinking actually shocked me. What was even more shocking was when this poster indicated that any writer who is not good enough to be published without the benefit of a professional editor is not good enough to be published in the first place.
The question now is this: are professional editors taking advantage of authors when they charge them to edit manuscripts before they go to publication? Is it only authors who are contemplating self-publishing who should go to the expense of hiring a professional editor? In the mind of the poster I mentioned, this is indeed the case: only authors contemplating self-publishing need to bother with a professional editor.
Where is the mindset of the aforementioned poster? The biggest problem appears to be he/she feels that when you have a piece edited by a professional that person will take away from the voice and style of the original author. While this could certainly happen, the job of an editor is to help an author turn a manuscript that may not be salable into something that will make money for the author, publisher and agent. This need not involve changing the voice of the original author nor should it do so.
First time authors should certainly take the time to hire a professional editor if only to make sure their manuscript is as perfect as it can be before they send it to an agent or publisher. There is nothing worse than sending a manuscript full of errors to an agent or publisher; it is also the easiest way to find your hard work in the slush pile without a second glance. That doesn’t mean once you are published you can depend on your own self-editing skills. Remember, you are close to the writing, and you are likely to miss things. As writers, we tend to read what we intended to type rather than what we actually typed thus missing some errors.
The final answer to the question whether a writer should pay an editor depends on whether you are a hobby writer or a serious author looking for publication in the traditional market. Even if you aren’t looking for traditional publication now because you are writing something in the niche market that will not appeal to the average publisher, you want to make sure you don’t submit anything that is less than perfect because publishers communicate with each other. If you submit something that is full of errors you will not be well-received in the publishing industry the next time you are ready for publication.
Oct 30, 2010 @ 14:28:02
Professional Editors provide a pair of fresh eyes and objectivity, both of which are important–that’s why editors exists. It doesn’t matter how talented or skilled a writer is; even the most experienced and famous writers rely on the use of editors.
That said, the more experienced a writer becomes, the less she or he will rely on said editor, but that doesn’t mean the writer will ever dispense with a reviewing committee altogether. Editors, sometimes two or three, primarily proofread a work to make sure that attention is allotted to everything. Further, editors know the markets and what sells, when, where and why. They provide guidance with the writer along those lines to ensure that the piece is developed to optimize being received positively in a given market.
When I served as an editor on two publications (one I help found), I went through all submissions not only checking grammar and phrasing, but also discerning as to if and how a particular piece would fit into the journal’s overall scheme and how said piece would be received. I offered assistance to ensure that the writer’s work be prepared with regard to quality, readers perception and interest, as well as its effects on the market in which our publications were respective involved. All three are important, and if a submission doesn’t meet this criteria, its release will be anticlimactic and hurt the writer. No one wants this to happen, least of all the editors and certainly not the writers.
It’s in light of these points that professional editors serve a crucial purpose in the publishing process and why every writer is obligated to employ the services of one. No writer is perfect, but that doesn’t negate her or his talent or skill. It’s human nature to miss things. Besides, whenever a writer submits a work, it is automatically reviewed by at least one editor anyway, so writers cannot get passed it. This reality just reflects how important editors are in the writers’ careers.
CW64
Oct 30, 2010 @ 14:48:23
Neither my post nor the discussion that preceded it are referring to editors for magazines or books. It is relative only to professional editors, namely those who make a living editing either as a freelance editor as for a company that provides editing services to writers. The person who brought up the original discussion indicated that since traditional publishers provide editing services as part of the publishing contract (or so he/she believes) there is no need for any author to pay for a professional edit unless that author is self-publishing. I disagree with that concept which is the purpose of the post.
Oct 30, 2010 @ 15:45:58
I know, and so do I; I concur with you. I was merely expressing the importance of editors in general. It’s crucial to submit a well-polished manuscript to even an editor representing a publisher or publication. It makes the writer look good and cuts down on an the overall tasks on which the receiving editor needs to apply her or his attention. This is why employing the services of a freelance editor beforehand is always a wise and therefore preferred idea for any writer.
Oct 31, 2010 @ 20:17:03
No, editors are not taking advantage of authors to ask for payment for editing. Would those same people expect no payment for the work they do if they were in another profession or job? I think not.
No matter which way you look at it, editing is time consuming and there are only so many hours in a day, and not to be paid for your time working on a manuscript is not on. Even when a manuscript is ‘read’ by the editor, and some errors are picked up, its when the editor comes to actually edit the script that more changes are noticed and made.
If any author thinks their manuscript is ready to be presented to a publisher without any editing they are sadly mistaken but I have come across a few of those people. An author writes, as should be, and does not notice the errors to enable them to edit their own work in the same way. I am no different – I prefer someone else to look over my work to ensure it is correct, even if I have gone over it myself.
One instance comes to mind and the author and his wife decided they could do a better job. No idea how that turned out. I’ve also had authors request editing for their hobby manuscript and quite happy to pay, but others think its not worth it especially if payment on a previous edit was cheaper. I’ve also had other authors pay me to edit the manuscript before sending to a prospective publisher, where they know it will more than likely be re-edited by their staff.
Some authors just don’t think…
Oct 31, 2010 @ 20:56:58
Absolutely, Linda. I don’t know why this person thinks editors who charge for their services are exploiting writers. Granted there may be some editors that overcharge, but that’s where knowing the average fees in the industry is good knowledge to have. It’s not fair for a writer to expect an editor to do all that work to help them prepare a manuscript for publication without reasonable compensation.
Oct 31, 2010 @ 22:49:31
I am right with you there, too, Linda. As a matter of fact, I heard a long time ago (although this might have changed since) that THREE different editors should review a work instead of just one. This would bring forth the accumulated insight of various objective perspectives, not to mention that even one editor might miss something that a second or third editor might discover. That added insight can only help.
As for editors’ rates, yes, the expense might be high, but that expense will be worth it because the review performed on the manuscript in question just might make the difference between acceptance and rejection.
In the end, hiring an editor is more of a(n) [unspoken] requirement or mandate in procedure rather than a choice. If not, it should be, for every writer’s sake.