How to speak publisher: E is for editor

Editors come in lots of flavours: chocolate, vanilla, pistachio...

Editor-god is the commissioning editor. (S)he puts together lists and series to make a coherent offering by commissioning writers/books - either looking for writers for specific books or responding to submissions. She may help a publishing director to decide the direction of the list.

The vanilla editor you will deal with most of the time is in charge of the overall shape of a book. If it is fiction, the editor will advise on the structure, plot, characterisation, voice and so on. If it is non-fiction, the editor will advise on structure, choice of material, voice and so on.

The copy editor is most concerned with the words on the page. (S)he will do a line edit - go through the book advising on style and grammar.

Don't be scared of editors (1). The editor is not some harpy bent on removing all vestiges of your individuality from your book. The idea is that you and the editor(s) work together to produce the best book possible. If your individuality manifests in using the same phrase thirty times, or having an apparently major character disappear after three chapters never to reappear, and with no explanation, then some individuality should indeed be pruned away. But the point is to make the book better. All books can be improved and a good editor does that. Have you noticed how some successful writers seem to produce worse books once they are really famous? It's often because editors are unwilling to tell them their latest book is too long, or has too much of something that was a nice quirk once but tiresome when overdone.

Don't be scared of editors (2). Editors make suggestions. You don't have to follow all the suggestions. Follow the good ones and explain why you don't think the others are good. You need a reason if you want to reject changes, and 'I like it like that' doesn't count. If you can't explain and defend what you've done, why should anyone take your view seriously? But you really, really don't need to do everything the editor suggests. To do so makes you look like a push-over. If you aren't going to defend any of your original choices, perhaps you didn't think very hard about the book?

Here's a little anecdote. Last year, I was in Starbucks in Oxford. On the next table were two men who were clearly editors. One began telling the other about a new writer he had signed. The book had come in, and there were a few problems with it (as always) and he had gone back to the writer with his list of changes. "He made every one!" the editor said. "He didn't want to discuss any of them." Do you think the editor was happy? No. The two agreed the writer was unprofessional - he couldn't have had any reason for structuring his book in that way, so he hadn't thought about the commission carefully enough. Finally, the editor said he wouldn't be rushing to take another book from that author. So you might think you're being good and compliant if you agree to every change, but you're not doing yourself any favours if you don't defend at least a few of your original choices!

Editors offer advice and suggestions, and tell you if something isn't working. The editor doesn't have to tell you what to do instead of what you've done - though (s)he might if (s)he can see a solution. Fixing it is your job. Discuss it - the editor might be able to help. If there's a problem with part of the book, you will have to do something about it, so explaining why you wrote the book like that is a good starting place for finding a solution. If you say (for instance) 'this scene you say is boring helps to show Z's character' the editor can help you find a solution that helps builds Z's character but isn't boring. If you just have a strop because the editor wants to change your great work, you're on a hiding to nothing. Don't bother. Work with your editor, not against her.



Caveat: Very occasionally, you work with a bad editor. A few editors secretly want to be writers and change your book just to make it more 'theirs'. But that is unusual. I have had one editor like that in 15 years (about 150 books).

How to speak publisher - C is for Copy editor

A bit of a lurch back to C, I'm afraid - I just tried to link to C is for Copy editor from a post I'm just writing and found it was still saved as a draft. Oooops. Especially as the up-coming post is D is for Draft. So just imagine you have gone faster than the speed of light, like a neutrino, and come to C is for Copy editor some weeks ago. [Please don't start a discussion about the speed of light/neutrino thing - that was a flippant reference, not an informed and informing comment on the plausibility of the CERN result. Which, incidentally, I am prepared to accept is accurate. But that's another story, and was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.]

The copy editor tidies up your writing at the detailed level. That sounds reasonable - they spot and correct the typing and grammatical errors, make sure everything is consistent, and make it all flow nicely. Sometimes it is reasonable, but sometimes the text becomes a battleground.

A good copy editor preserves your style and voice and corrects any errors. Their work should be invisible. They have impeccable grammar and no ego. They improve your book, whether it is fiction or non-fiction by making many or few (often imperceptible) changes, as necessary. That is the key - necessity. They don't change things for the sake of it.

A bad copy editor rewrites for the sake of it, stamping their own voice and style on your work. Perhaps they really want to be a writer, not an editor. [Fine, copy editor - write your own book. I've written this one already.] A really bad copy editor introduces grammatical errors, and sometimes even spelling errors. Believe me, they do. You would think, given that publishing is a competitive field, that it would be hard for someone with a poor grasp of grammar to get a job as a copy editor, but it happens. Copy editors who 'correct' to 'comprised of', and who don't recognise an ethical dative if it bites them, should be sent to a special circle of Hell. Where they will be bitten by ethical datives and hanged with the hanging prepositions they are so fond of.

The copy editor needs a good general knowledge and Classical education as well as an unrivalled command of English. Writers hate copy editors who mess with things and then get them wrong. Professional writers have generally checked their work carefully; copy editors should check any corrections they want to make equally carefully.

On the whole, I am blessed with very good editors. I have had only a couple of copy editors (in around 130 books) who really botched things. One I had to have fired; there was no option. We went back to the unedited text and started again with a new copy editor. Most have improved the books, and several have spotted errors that might otherwise have got through to press. Of course, there are still errors in my books - and they are my responsibility, not the copy editor's responsibility. (It's like children - when they do well, it's their own doing; when they do badly, we blame ourselves.)

A note to copy editors: 

Yes, there are sometimes errors in our books; we are not infallible. But please *tell* us if you think there is an error, rather than just changing the text to what you think it should be. If I have missed out what seems to you to be a crucial reference to a prophecy of Nostradamus, that's because it's apocryphal - one of those bits that is generally supposed to be in Nostradamus but actually is not. I don't want you sticking that kind of error in my book - the kind of error I have deliberately avoided. You have joined in the webfest of Nostradamus-spotting - I've read Nostradamus in the original. Who's likely to be right? JUST ASK FIRST: sometimes you are right, and sometimes you are wrong. It is very, very difficult to spot factual errors that have been introduced into a book by a copy editor. (Grammatical and spelling errors, on the other hand, leap off the page at me - so if you want to add some errors please add that type.)

And another thing - I do know about English grammar, possibly more than you do. Writers vary in this, of course. Some are not very good at it and need lots of help from the copy editor. But you can tell, if you have a whole book to work with, whether or not someone can write correctly. If most of the book is error-free, then it behoves you to ask if you think something is wrong, or to check in one of those reference books about grammar and English usage. Or at least to flag your 'correction' so that we can argue with you about it.

A note to authors:

If you want to argue with your copy editor, you have to know what you are doing. You need to be able to defend your original text if you don't want it changed - you must explain why it has to be as you wrote it, and why it can't be as the copy editor wants it. Why is your wording better than theirs? Don't argue for the hell of it. Look dispassionately at your text and decide whether the copy editor has, actually, improved it. All writers benefit from the work of a good editor.

Except with a picture book text, which is a slightly special case, I recommend NOT looking at your manuscript when you get the copy-edited text, except to check things you think might be wrong. If the changes don't leap out at you, they are probably fine. Don't be precious about your text, and don't be a prima donna - especially with non-fiction. A non-fiction copy editor is - in my view - allowed to edit to improve clarity. A fiction editor should be more sensitive to the writer's style, though clarity is still important. (That's even more true of poetry, but this blog is not about poets.) There's no point in being obscure just because you think it makes you look clever - it doesn't; it makes you look arrogant, up yourself or incompetent. Unless you are Jeremy Prynne.

Ideally - and usually, in my experience - the copy editor is your partner in producing a good book. And they don't even get a credit in the book. So be nice to your copy editor. Don't get cross over tiny things, and if you don't agree, correct them politely with a good, clear and measured explanation. Finally: I'd like to say a big thank you to all the wonderful copy editors I've worked with over the years - you have improved my books in little unnoticeable ways, and I am grateful for that.

.

The right words in the right order (2)

Let’s assume that now you’ve delivered your revised manuscript, the argument/theme/plot/structure/characters have been sorted adequately and the über-editor is satisfied. (If not, just repeat the last stage ad nauseam, or until you decide it’s too much aggro and you don’t want to publish the book, or until your editor goes on maternity leave – they all do eventually – and the next editor can’t be arsed and either lets the book through or cancels it.)

Time to move on to the next editorial stage, copy editingr. A copy editor deals with the detail of the words on the page – the ‘copy’ - turning them into ‘book words’ as they have become known, post-Jordan. If the book is largely text (such as a novel) changes will be intended to make the book read well, be grammatically correct and consistent. If the book has pictures, whether it is fiction or non-fiction, copy fitting is also involved. This aims to fit the copy to the spaces on the page allocated to text. This can be very frustrating, as material you consider useful – even essential – may be cut, or clumsily extended, in the process of getting the right number of words on the page, in the right text boxes.

If you have written well and know your audience and market, not much will change, but the book may still have to be cut to length. A good, considerate copy editor will preserve your personal style and will improve the text at this stage. If you are lucky, (s)he will have Word’s Track Changes option turned on so that you can see what has been done. (I presume you know about Track Changes? If not, shout now and I’ll tell you about it.) Where more significant or extensive changes are needed, the (good) copy editor will ask you to write the new text, detailing what is required. The editors comments and requests may be in Word Comments, in square brackets or, more usually, in a different coloured text (and square brackets). If it is a factual book, there may be queries about facts at this point. There may even be an expert reader (consultant) who can find mistakes for you to correct, but that depends on how wealthy your publisher is and how seriously they are taking the book (and how much they trust you to get it right, I guess).


Bad copy editors will ride rough-shod over your text apparently making changes just for the hell of it, either to justify their fee or to make their mark on the text. They will mangle your prose to the point where an A&E doctor would put a Do Not Resuscitate notice over it and order a body bag. Bad copy editors introduce grammatical errors, factual errors, anachronisms, inconsistencies… they buy them in bulk at Tesco and sprinkle them liberally. You will be lucky if you find them all before the book goes to repro.

Editors should have a good grasp of the English language. Sometimes they have too good a grasp of the English language and are reluctant to loosen their vice-like grip and allow the language any freedom to play. In this case, they will contort sentences with their (strictly speaking) accurate use of ‘whom’ and ‘whilst’ that is entirely unsuitable for a six-year-old reader. Medievalist Malcolm Parkes once told me he wanted to write a book on punctuation called The Strangulated Colon. He didn't intend it to be about these editors, but it could well have been. Some editors have only a slippery grip and the language eludes them, leaving the text strewn with split infinitives and hanging prepositions (fine if they’re yours and you chose them – infuriating if they have been foisted upon you). Worst (in my view) are those editors who cut a text to length by apparently taking out half the words in each sentence, leaving some half-thing crippled by terminal parataxis.

To correct the ‘corrections’ of a bad editor you need to explain exactly what is wrong with the revised text in a way which brooks no argument - not by being stoppy, but by being incontrovertibly correct. You need a well-honed critical capacity and the right vocabulary. It is not for the faint-hearted, but it’s worth it – it’s your text. Very occasionally, you may need to appeal to a higher authority within the publishing house. If you feel they have really mangled your text beyond the point where it could be identified even by dental records, you can plead violation of your moral rights and withdraw it - or ask for your name to be removed, if it was a commissioned piece and you want to keep/have already spent the money. More on moral rights another time.

With a picture book text, in which every word counts, I generally explain each and every change that I want to make to the editor’s version of the text. You are far more likely to get it changed if you can support your case cogently. Refer to the cadence, legibility, vocabulary/age match, ease of reading, repetition – any objective criteria you can think of that explain why your way is better. If you can’t explain why your way is better, perhaps it isn’t. Oh, and the point is not to get all your original text restored, but to get the best text. Thank the editor for improvements; acknowledge where they have done a good job. And if they didn't like your text and you don't like theirs, perhaps you can find a new way of putting it that you will both like.

Whether you should compare the edited text with your original is a matter of opinion. I do in the case of non-fiction because of the accuracy issue, but with fiction I don't do so until I am happy with the edited version and my new changes to it. It's useful to see whether it really is better than the original (it often is), but it's hard to set aside your allegiance to the original if you look at it too early on in the process.
Text can go backwards and forwards several times, accumulating comments and rewrites as it goes. At some stage, when the editor is happy with the text, it will be sent for layout – more about that another. The changing around hasn’t finished yet – there may well be more checking and changing to do after layout.

Ultimately, your aim should be to work with the editor to produce the best book possible. The editor is not your enemy. You are both working towards the same ends. Most editors are good, clever people who can do their jobs well, and if they sometimes make mistakes, well – so do you. The relationship of author to editor is rather like that of parent to teacher. To you, your book/baby is the most special in the world and can do no wrong; to the editor, it is one of many to be dealt with and, good or bad, could probably be made at least a little more presentable and be encouraged to fit in a little better with the rest of the list/class.