Five Types of Editors… and One Strong Warning

by Marcus on May 2, 2007

A reader wrote to me recently. (Okay, it was Eve Nielsen. Stop twisting my arm.) 

She said, “I’ve been reading a book on how to write and just discovered that there are various kinds of editors.  How necessary do you think a copy editor is?”

Let’s start with the strong warning. Caveat emptor. Seriously. 

There is no real industry standard–especially among freelance editors. Are you thinking of hiring a freelance editor? Caveat emptor.

Even if you are hiring me. I mean, this whole blog could be an elaborate facade, right? How would you know? How can you trust someone enough to transition from non-paying reader to paying client?

And no, I’m not accepting freelance clients, right now. This post is not a pitch for additional work. Really. My plate is full for the foreseeable future.

Thus the reason for this post. When I turn writers down, the smart ones always ask me, “Who do you recommend?” And “How can I find a good freelance editor?” And “How much does a good freelance editor cost?”

One helpful source for understanding freelance editing is the Editorial Freelancers Association. Talk about straightforward branding. Their pricing index gives you a general sense of the different types of editing. It also gives you a conservative estimate if you are pricing out freelance work. (The Writer’s Market has a similar pricing index that suggests much much higher rates, but they’ve put all their content behind a subscription gate now.) Whether a particular editor’s prices are fair or not depends largely on that person’s experience.

So without further ado. Here is the hierarchy of editing as I understand it:

1) Proofreading

The editor is looking for standard grammar, punctuation, and usage. This work is very important. A sloppy final draft tells the acquisitions editor that you are not serious. Or not professional.

Don’t hire someone to proof for you unless you have to. Get some friends to do it, then take them out or buy them something cool. Or proof it yourself. If you don’t understand grammar enough to proof your work, then you need to fix that.

One more note on proofing. The closer you are to a manuscript, the harder is to proof. I try to give myself a week or two between composition and proofing. If I don’t have a week, I read a printed version of the text aloud and follow each word with my finger.

2) Copyediting and/or Line Editing

This includes proofing, but addresses issues of style just a little bit more. When I copy edit, I read three or four lines at a time. That is to say, I look for redundancies of sentence structure, diction, etc. I also look for for places where the language or the content is vague. And I keep an eye out for basic logical problems (like begging the question and hasty generalization), and rhetorical weaknesses (like mixed metaphors or passive voice).

Depending on the state of a manuscript, copyediting can be pretty quick or seriously intense work.

Every writer should expect to copy edit his or her own work. But every writer can also benefit from fresh eyes. (In my opinion as an editor.)

3) Reader’s critiques

The purpose of a reader’s critique is usually to guide the rewrite. This is a common kind of editing that I see freelancers offer. It’s basically self-explanatory. Editors offering reader’s critiques will discuss what works for them in the book and what doesn’t. They typically provide margin notes and summative comments.

A reader’s critique can be really really helpful to new writers, but it can also be really discouraging. Remember, the purpose of a reader’s critique is usually to guide the rewrite.

Most writers I know don’t like rewriting their work.

4)  Book Doctoring

When I am working as a Book Doctor, I will not only point out problems, I will propose solutions. This is where editing begins to feel much more intrusive.

Rather than label something as a mixed metaphor, I’ll fix the metaphor. Rather than point out a logical fallacy, I’ll rework the logic. If the content is vague, I’ll clarify the content based on what I think the writer is trying to say.

Usually, this process goes back and forth a bit. My edits in this kind of situation are more like a proposal to the writer—is this what you are trying to say?

Some writers hate this process. Even if they need it.

5) Ghost Writing

Ghost writing is a way of producing material for someone with great ideas but without the time or finesse to write them down. (Almost always the former.)

Ah, the ethical dilemma of ghost writing.

But it’s really not that complicated. A ghost uses primary resources from the author to shape a book for the author.

The best distinction I have heard between book doctoring and ghost writing is this: If the author brings you a manuscript of some kind—no matter how incomplete—if the author has laid the foundation, anything you construct on that foundation is just editing.

However, if the author brings you primary source material that you repurpose into a new genre, that is ghosting. Obviously, there are degrees of ghosting too. Some ghosts are just writers for hire, producing books for people with platforms. Some celebrity books seem to have this kind of feel. Other ghosts bring the author’s ideas to life after a series of interviews.

{ 24 comments }

1 L.L. Barkat May 2, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Randy Ingermanson has an interesting set of posts up right now, on how just TWO paragraphs can betray our skills. Acquisitions editors, he argues, make their decisions pretty quickly, by covering very little text territory.

I think he’s actually right. So why not get Randy’s opinion, or some other professional’s, on just two paragraphs of our “best work”? This could save a lot of money in the long run. (And make Mark a very poor man when he’s ready to take on clients again. Sorry!)

2 Marcus May 2, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Thanks for the comment, L.L.! You make me laugh.

Randy Ingermanson can’t have enough kind words said about him. I have trouble navigating his site, though. Can you give us the direct link?

Also, most of Randy’s stuff is for fiction writers. While most of my work is with non-fiction writers. (Or fiction writers producing non-fiction.)

I have worked with well-published writers who depend completely on editors. Publishing is always about selling books. And the ideas that sell in non-fiction often come from people who don’t have the time to study writing resources like what Randy provides.

3 Eve Nielsen May 2, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Great stuff, Mark! Gonna digest this. :)

4 Every Square Inch May 2, 2007 at 7:44 pm

This is very informative to a writer wannabe like me.

Thanks

5 Charity Singleton May 2, 2007 at 9:16 pm

I’m on the band wagon. This is a VERY helpful post. I’ve had the same question myself, Eve. Thanks for getting this ball rolling!

So, Mark, are you going to tell us when you put your shingle back out?

6 Marcus May 3, 2007 at 6:20 am

Thanks for the comments everyone. I always appreciate the feedback and the community that happens in the comments section.

Eve, you silly person, you’ve read it all before. (I did some line editing on it though.)

ESI, where do you go off calling yourself a writer wananbe? You are a writer. Just because you don’t have 30 published books doesn’t mean you aren’t a writer. The title is a description of activity. Do you write? Then you’re a writer.

If you want to be a professional writer, that’s a bit harder.

Charity, I probably won’t announce it in a post or anything. But I always respond to email inquiries. (Too many years of submitting to editors who don’t.) See, I’ve got these two small kids and a wonderful wife. And I like to spend time with them…

7 Patrick Borders May 3, 2007 at 9:43 am

Wow. This is great, Marcus. Do you charge royalties if this happened to (mysteriously) show up in my marketing material? A wise person I know once shed some light on the myth of the author, and this post points out how many different ways people can contribute to a book project.

If you wanted to finish out the spectrum, you could add Collaborating, which is like Ghostwriting on steroids–the ghostwriter adds many of his or her own thoughts to the work. The Collaborator often ends up with an “and” instead of a “with” in the byline.

A client of mine who self-published a very successful book told me that he saw himself as a project manager. He hired the publicist, the printer, the writer (and I, in turn, hired the editor), and together we got his story out. He understood what some “writers” don’t: it takes a team.

8 L.L. Barkat May 3, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Here’s the link.

http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/blog/2007/04/30/critiquing-caprice/

I guess I also feel that anyone who puts their work into the arena and gets a bite will get free editing. In other words, when a person gets an article published, it will be edited. When a person gets a book published, it will be edited (oh, painfully so!).

So the question remains… why would a person want to pay for editing, unless they are self-publishing? (And, in this case, the “editor” has a conflict of interest. She can’t say, “this stuff is drivel,” because she’s being paid simply to edit it.) (Gosh, I hope you are still chuckling after this very direct set of questions.)

9 Eve Nielsen May 3, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Mark,
There a bit more here than in the email! *grin* The links are a great asset too!

Thanks for the link LL, I was waiting for it :)

10 Marcus May 3, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Patrick, I appreciate the comment! I was hoping some other editors would comment here.

The point about Collaborative editing is a good one. And a good reminder that ghosting–or any one-word editorial description–is almost worthless without a longer explanation of the process being described.

Maybe Al and Craver have some thoughts about that?

11 Marcus May 3, 2007 at 8:34 pm

Eve, I’m glad you found the edits helpful. Mostly, I just trumped up the language by adding the buyer beware stuff at the beginning to motivate people to read.

Did it work?

12 Marcus May 3, 2007 at 8:56 pm

L.L., you underestimate the thickness of my skin. It’s directly proportional to the size of my ego. One advantage of a big ego.

Why would a person want to pay for editing, unless they are self-publishing?

A lot of them are self-publishing. This doesn’t mean they are bad writers or unpublishable by mainstream publishers, though. (Sometimes it means that.) But other times, they already have a distribution platform through their business. And they know business well enough to know the cut publishers take.

A lot of business writers specifically are more interested in a credibility piece than a big seller. Of course, everyone hopes for a big seller.)

Other writers simply know that they only get one shot to make a first impression with a press. Their book proposal and their sample chapters are about to go for job interviews. They want an italian suit. And I provide it for them.

(And, in this case, the “editor” has a conflict of interest. She can’t say, “this stuff is drivel,” because she’s being paid simply to edit it.)

Ouch. I’m just an “editor” now? : )

I avoid the conflict of interest by being upfront with writers about the risk. I’m not discouraging, but I don’t make false promises.

And these are people looking for editors. So its not like I’m some grammar dealer selling cheap doses of good usage on the corner. The question I have to ask is this, “Can I edit their book better than they can–or better than they will on their own?”

So far, I have always been able to answer yes to that question.

And we’re back to my ego again.

13 Tom May 3, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Mark: Having never needed editing, one doesn’t see how one could presume that copyediting of any sort would be needed, let alone paid for. Certainly since copyediting is not needed by me, I can’t help but feel sorry for those for whom copyediting is a foregone conclusion. Besides, most editors apparently aren’t inciteful enough to see the suttle quality of my pros, anyhows.

P.S. – But if ideas are had by you of why I am not published oftener, it would be appreciated by me. Gratis, of course. :-)

14 Eve Nielsen May 3, 2007 at 10:07 pm

Tom,
Funny.

Mark,
It totally worked! I got ya linked to my latest post :)

…They want an italian suit…I’m some grammar dealer selling cheap doses of good usage on the corner….-been watching those mob action flicks again, huh?

15 Marcus May 3, 2007 at 10:27 pm

Tom, you took the words right out of my mouth! Hilarious, man. Thanks for the comment.

Eve, I love a good mob movie. Though the latest goodyear craze is pirates. (When I’m having a bad day, I just watch that video…)

16 Every Square Inch May 4, 2007 at 9:54 am

Marcus

I humbly receive your gentle rebuke and encouragement. In fact, I have co-authored two books on technology and numerous articles but I don’t think they count.

I guess my original comment reflects my awareness that I’m a business executive who likes to write rather than someone with a formal writing background (whatever that means!).

17 Patrick Borders May 4, 2007 at 10:40 am

Chip MacGregor (I believe) has said that a writer needs two out of the following three things to get published: a great concept, a great platform, and great writing.

If you’re a celebrity or a well-established public speaker, then you can combine a great concept with your platform and get published–even if the writing is junk. For the rest of us mortals without a platform, we have to do whatever it takes to make sure the writing is good before it’s seen by an acquisitions editor.

Hence, any free, “on the publishing house” editing would take place only after two out of those three requirements were addressed.

18 Rebecca G. May 4, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Thick skin/big ego – Bwahahaaaa!!!!!

“Most writers I know don’t like rewriting their work.”

I had a student ask at a lecture once what my favorite part of the writing process was – I said, “Revising!” I wish I’d had a camera to capture those faces. It took me the next half hour to convince them I wasn’t joking.

19 Eve Nielsen May 5, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Rebecca,

I don’t know if like it or not-but I am addicted to it. I love the polished look after the revising and editing :)

20 Shannon November 17, 2008 at 10:54 pm

What about “structural editing”? I don't know if this exists, but I frequently do it for people. I'd say it's halfway between “book doctor” and “ghost-writing.” It occurs when an author has a manuscript without a coherent and tightly organized structure–you pull it apart and reassemble it. Then, of course, you edit the reassembled draft.

21 Abigail Effah December 26, 2009 at 7:04 am

I'm reading Publishing Studies in school and have an interest in editting, hopely be an editor one day. Your site have been very beneficail, Can you please help me out with the specific types of editors

22 goodwordediting December 26, 2009 at 9:05 am

I'd be happy to answer specific questions if you have any, Abigail. For TheHighCalling.org, I'm currently acting as acquisitions (deciding who to pursue for articles, and sifting through the slush), then I also do revisions and edits, then I also do the final copy edit/proof. In addition to those more grammatical roles, I do a lot of work to create a consistent vision.

There are a few other editors who help part time–primarily with our social media efforts. That is a new kind of editor, though, and we're making that up as we go.

23 Abigail Effah December 26, 2009 at 12:04 pm

I'm reading Publishing Studies in school and have an interest in editting, hopely be an editor one day. Your site have been very beneficail, Can you please help me out with the specific types of editors

24 goodwordediting December 26, 2009 at 2:05 pm

I'd be happy to answer specific questions if you have any, Abigail. For TheHighCalling.org, I'm currently acting as acquisitions (deciding who to pursue for articles, and sifting through the slush), then I also do revisions and edits, then I also do the final copy edit/proof. In addition to those more grammatical roles, I do a lot of work to create a consistent vision.

There are a few other editors who help part time–primarily with our social media efforts. That is a new kind of editor, though, and we're making that up as we go.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: