I have found that most first-time authors, when they bring their book to a professional editor, know that their book still likely needs some work and are seeking guidance with this (it's why they come to an editor). So they are usually open to talking about what level of service they need, and most of the time, they make the right decision in collaboration with the editor.
But then there are SOME authors who contact an editor saying, "I'm really happy with my writing and my content. All I want you to do is copy-edit." Then the editor reads the text and sees that the author needs a lot more than just copy-editing...there are major structural issues and plot inconsistencies all over the place and the editor knows that the manuscript in its current form will not attract either an agent or a publisher.
What are your thoughts on how to convey that kind of information to an author without seeming like you're just trying to add to their editing costs (and to make more money for yourself)? It's really hard for an author to hear that an editor thinks the book still needs work if the author is so convinced that the book is already good enough. Freelance editors are at a disadvantage here, because in-house editors at publishing houses can always demand the changes with the "threat" of not publishing the book if changes are not made. But freelance editors are often hired by the author who wants his/her manuscript to be polished enough to submit to an agent/publisher, and thus the editing costs are paid by the writer. If you're an experienced editor, you likely know when a manuscript needs further work, but you also have to make the case that doing the further work entails the author spending more money.
I have a manuscript on my desk right now that an author just sent to me stating that he/she is thrilled with his manuscript's quality and that it is destined to be a bestseller, and so just please copy-edit. After reading over the first 10 pages, it became immediately obvious that the manuscript needs a lot more than copy-editing. The manuscript is full of flowery adjectives, long run-on sentences that go off on tangents, and some very strange imagery. For example, one chapter opens with "The newscaster sat charismatically at his desk." How does a person sit charismatically? Another sentence says that "Ryan played with his fingerprints" without clarifying any kind of context. Did he have copies of police fingerprints? Was he dipping his fingers in mud and then pressing them onto a window? Without any clarifying text, the sentence seems absurd. And so forth.
This young author likely does not have a lot of money, which is why he's opting for what he thinks is the cheapest alternative, the copy-edit. Yet, I cannot in good conscience not tell him that his manuscript needs some fairly substantial developmental and structural editing, including the need to rewrite sections of it.
Recently at a seminar in my home city where an editor colleague of mine was presenting on the topic of editing books, the editor was going through the levels of editing and what authors could expect to pay for the various levels. A member of the audience called out, "Yeah, but you editors are always going to try getting the top price, right? So sure, you're going to tell us we need structural editing when just a good proofing will do." The seminar presenter had an "oh no, not this again" look on his face.
So, what are your thoughts on the best way for an editor to discuss the topic of further editing without being seen as a money-grabber?
You need to be a member of writersnetworks to add comments!
Replies
Some people's reach exceeds their grasp. If there is nothing worth salvaging in the draft the author sends me, I just decline to get involved. I suggest they find a writers' group or workshop, take a creative writing course at their community college, or start a blog and post their content there.
But once in a while, you come across a diamond in the rough. A young man came to me with a YA fantasy novel at, if I recall correctly, 190,000 words. His sentences all parsed—that is, he had an ear for what makes a well-formed sentence in his native language—but they were full of unnecessary modifiers and qualifiers of all sorts. He had clearly never had a writing teacher. I explained to him that the goal was to get the length down to 70,000 words or fewer but that by eliminating all the dross he could probably do it. I edited his lede graf, with complete annotation for every word I cut, gratis. I spent maybe half an hour on it. And I sent him on his merry way. A few months later, after applying the principles I'd laid out for him in my cover note, he came back to me with a lean, taut story at 70,000. It needed a light copyedit, which he could afford, and then it was ready to be queried to agents. A year later, he came back with a second novel, as well put together as the first, for a little cleanup. Good students are few and far between, but they're out there..
You could start with something diplomatic along the lines of, "I think your story has some great elements to it," and then look really hard :> for three or four elements to name for the writer. Then you could tell the writer that in order to help you with filing, keeping manuscripts straight, whatever, that you'd like the person to come up with an elevator pitch (every writer/author should have one or do one at some point for his/her work.) Sometimes if you help the writer refine his/her vision by making that person do the work, the writer might see the deficiencies and start doing some of the rewriting without being prompted.
Another approach would be to give the writer a suggestion: tell that person you recommend for writers, when they're waiting for you to finish with edits, to sit down with their manuscripts and read them out loud. Sometimes when new writers hear their own words, they'll realize on their own what they've written doesn't make sense (how does one play with fingerprints, I wonder?)
In the end, though, you have to be honest. Tactful, but honest. If you handle it the right way, you shouldn't feel guilty or bad in the least for the writer's reaction. If that person is mature, he/she might be hurt but will eventually realize that you're only saying what you're saying to make the story better -- our main role and goal as editors. If that person takes it badly and decides to fire you, at least you'll know you've given it your best shot and you can bid that person goodbye and wish him/her well as you hope another editor comes along with the guts to express the same things you did. Some writers might need to hear it more than once before it actually gets into their heads.