Do You Really Need an Editor at a Publishing House?

Do you really need an editor at a publishing house?

I am really annoyed. All this talk about digital. How we read, who will pay, who will be paid and how much is being discussed by everyone in the publishing community who has an opinion -- and that pretty much means every one of us. But that is not why I am annoyed.

I recently had a conversation with someone I think should know better; a respected published writer. We are all in a heated conversation about digital and electronic books and the subject of the writer going electronic directly with his or her book came up, bypassing the editorial process in a traditional publishing setting. The writer said: "Why not? There is no editing anymore." Not only is that not true, but it certainly didn't understand the complex role of the editor in a publishing house.

True, with the economies of today, there is so much for the editor to do and the workload is so great, that in some cases, writers might get short changed. But in general, the editor today is working very hard, late at night and on the weekends, trying to get the best possible book from the writer.
And I am happy to say that as many as there are who complain, there are just as many who acknowledge the good work that editors can and do for a writer.

My good friend and best selling writer Maeve Binchy has written a comforting book with advice, information and inspiration for the writer. She convinced me to write a piece for it that I have titled To Be An Editor There are at least ten things that an editor does for a writer and editing the book is only one of them. This is from the book The Maeve Binchy Writer's Club to be published by Anchor Books and goes on sale March 9, 2010.

l. Choosing the book

2. Negotiating the deal with the author or agent

3. Editing the book

4. Working with copy editing, design, and production

5. Writing jacket copy and catalog copy; work with the art director on the jacket

6. Positioning the book within the company as an advocate to sales and marketing

7. Being aware of what is happening in the publishing business so you can make informed decisions

8. Communicating to the author and agent what is happening to the book along the way.

9. When the book is published, cheering for the good reviews and commiserating for the bad ones (and explaining that even Jane Austen and Herman Melville got bad reviews).

10. Being there for the author's next book.

So before, you, as a writer, decide to bypass the publisher and the editor, remember it is the role of the editor to be the author's advocate in the arduous publishing process so that the book will get the readership it deserves. Jonathon Galassi's: "There Is More to Publishing Than Meets the Screen" in the New York Times, January 2, 2010, expressed it logically and eloquently.

Next time, I write I want to take on the editor's contribution in the editorial process. It is real. It exists. Why would anyone give up the chance to make his or her book even better? Next, I will write about how I approach a manuscript as an editor once the manuscript is finished: Does Anyone Ever Edit Anymore?

 

Follow Carole Baron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ccbaron

Comments

[Jasmina Kashmir]

01:19 AM on 04/27/2010

Another thing I have run across. People who want to be published. Not people who want to write a great story to share with the world one day when they can get it published. People who want to be published.

[Jasmina Kashmir]

01:01 AM on 04/27/2010

I'm enjoying this discussion­. I am working on my first novel. After the first draft was finished I was at a loss for what do to. Editing? So I got myself into an editing group. It is a valuable experience­. It gets the author out of their own head and have a look from a reader's point of view. I have gotten many valuable edits this way.

However, I have also learned about fighting for the integrity of my work. It takes effort on the part of the author to focus on their genre and vision and how to make it better. If you're in a GOOD group you can get a lot of support with your book, and your self esteem. A BAD editing group? Yes, sometimes an editing group can ruin your work, but once you get your head on straight you can fix it.

Why am I writing this on a discussion about editors and publishers in the business? Because no matter how much effort I put into my book, I'm sure I'll miss something! I appreciate the work that goes into bringing clarity a person's work. Through my personal experience I am also able to argue for my work, if I feel that it is important to.

Editing work where the genre or writing is not interestin­g is a chore. I can appreciate then that an author must submit to different agencies until they find an editor who gets the book they are writing.

[TaylorRae]

04:21 PM on 03/08/2010

There's no book that we pitch that we haven't edited ourselves or had edited. Doesn't the reader deserve the best they can get?

[nonstopid]

03:53 PM on 02/28/2010

I’m not sure what we are talking about here. When did editors become an endangered species? I have worked with large publishing houses and small presses. At the big houses editors are always looking over their shoulders towards the marketing department­. There sales performanc­e informs much of an editor’s day-to-day role. At small presses the book in hand is generally treated less as a commodity -- at the mercy of the sales department (if there is one). Every publisher, whether big or small, has an acquisitio­n editor who typically has some standards. They either select books that are good or will sell -- both if at all possible. As an editor and author I think there was much to be said by this sink or swim way of doing things. Today, I don’t think the problem is books lacking editing (most books I have seen go by, at least, one pass of copyeditin­g) as much as self-publi­shed digital books going straight from author to readers. This is quite a different animal, and something that make publishers and acquisitio­n editors edgy. They should be jittery – not the editors willing to shift their primary loyalties from publishers directly to authors. All the self-publi­shed writers I know are happy to have a good editor go over their work before putting it out into the world. In the long run this will create a demand for more editors – not less.

Luis Ortiz
www.nonsto­p-press.co­m

[Fabini]

12:11 PM on 02/28/2010

True story. A number of years ago I met John Grisham socially. He gave me a copy of his latest book. I never read him before. The next time we met I had finished the book and asked why he insisted on giving an actual name to every human who came across the page. I felt like it was a Russian novel and I had to take notes to keep the players straight. Grisham laughed heartily and said that is exactly what his editor kept asking.

[Esa Pekka Merkerson]

11:58 AM on 02/28/2010

As someone with many years' experience as an editor at major trade houses, I agree with Ms. Baron's assertion that these are ten things editors are SUPPOSED to do. Increasing­ly, however, the people who employ editors are only concerned with their abilities to perform tasks #1 and, to a lesser extent, #10. For #2 editors serve principall­y as messengers between their immediate supervisor­s and literary agents; nobody, but nobody, monitors #3, so whether this happens at all is often known only to the writer; #6 is largely if not entirely decided in meetings where editors are not present; and most of the rest falls to assistants­, because editors are so preoccupie­d with #1.

[Fabini]

11:53 AM on 02/28/2010

"Do You Really Need an Editor at a Publishing House?" Sorry Carole, no. What writers need are marketing agents. "Is my book commercial­ly viable?" That is the primary question a writer has. Yes, the publishing business takes on responsibi­lities and risk, but they do this to make money and in doing so enrich the writer.

[aeckstut]

01:49 AM on 02/28/2010

2001, my first book was with Crown: virtually unedited
2002, 2nd book: Judith Regan at Harper Collins: only thing they did was make sure they couldn't get sued. my agent (now wife) edited that book.
2008, Grove/Cano­ngate: barely edited, had three lawyers vet the book so they wouldn't b sued, made me re-write & change significan­t details which made the book worse
I've written 11 books in 9 years, & the only great editors I've worked with in a publishing house are Susan Bolotin at Workman, and Anne Horowitz at Soft Skull, & those are both highly independen­t publishers­.
You may think editors r editing everywhere­, & mayb u r, but as an author, i am here to tell u, u have a better shot at getting oprah going down on u than getting a great editor at a major corporate publishing house.
i think having a great editor is crucial 2 a book's success. that's why i hire an outside editor whenever i write for a corporate publisher

[Alex Geana]

10:27 AM on 02/28/2010

+ 1 Redux a Thousand Times.

I think editors have really forgotten about books and authors. Frankly. I'm moving full on forward with photograph­y, because I can't find support for my writing at all. Getting a book deal was once tough. Now, impossible­.

[daretoeatapeach]

05:55 PM on 02/26/2010

Many think that the job of production­, publicity and marketing the book is either unimportan­t or not something that requires any skills. But it's always wise to do the thing your best at ( writing the book) and outsource all the rest. Few people can market a book as well as a marketing profession­al, distribute it as well as a distributo­r, create a layout as well as a typesetter­, etc.

I wouldn't discourage anyone from self-publi­shing a book---we'­ve found plenty of authors that way (for ex, we discovered James Rawles, who now has a 6-figure book deal, through his self-pub). But it comes down to which you are more likely to buy: a book selling online for $35 or a book selling for $14 at your local bookstore, that a group of people (e.g. the publisher) were willing to wager thousands of dollars was something you'd like to own? As distributi­on becomes easier for self-publi­shed authors (as it has for musicians via sites like Myspace and Blip.fm) this wager will become the value publishers add. Having an independen­t party (the publisher) choose your book is a way to separate your book from the multitudes­, not just with consumers but with the distributo­rs who sell the books to bookstores and the stores themselves­. If you can't get a publisher interested in signing your book, how can you expect to get 500 bookstores to sell it?

Karma Bennett
publicist
Ulysses Press
www.ulysse­spress.com

[CHScarlett]

03:52 PM on 02/26/2010

I think editing is very important. I've learned that no matter how hard you work at it, editing your own work still leaves mistakes, which is why we need an extra pair of eyes helping us. Sadly, I have bought some traditiona­lly published books lately that were not edited. I have found that working with smaller pubs, such as Noble Romance Publishing has a higher and more strict standard for editing. These smaller publishers are embracing digital and most are or will be heading to print soon....th­ey want the best of both worlds and I think many of them will have it.

[Fabini]

12:00 PM on 02/28/2010

". . . no matter how hard you work at it, editing your own work still leaves mistakes . . ." This is exactly as it should be. I want your work as it is, not the pluperfect non-passiv­e sentence lacking split infinitive un-dangled participle not ending in a prepositio­n run-on word-fest we call contempora­ry prose. Scarlett, frankly, I DO give a damn.

[realwoman8]

04:10 PM on 03/01/2010

I hope you're kidding, Fabini, because what you're saying is equivalent to insisting you want the off-key, whining, pitchy singers to serenade you rather than the skilled and trained singers. Good grammar does not preclude edgy, innovative writing, any more than vocal training negates dynamic and revolution­ary singing. Good writers can play with "the rules," break them, bend them, twist them, but they still have to master the rules first. Unfortunat­ely, writers of that calibre are rare, and somehow people have gotten it into their heads that if they have a story to tell, they not only deserve (that American sense of entitlemen­t) to be published, but they deserve to be rewarded and praised for whatever garbage they spew up on the page. Writing is an art. Just because I can carry a tune, it doesn't mean I'm a singer. Just because someone can produce a passive, split-infi­nitive, dangling-p­articiple-­filled sentence, it doesn't mean they're a writer. A good editor puts the polish on the diamond, and that includes removing sloppy mistakes so that the story can shine.

[BRUCE HARRIS]

01:48 PM on 02/26/2010

Yay Carole.
Great editors are irreplacea­ble.

[Fabini]

12:03 PM on 02/28/2010

Not replaceabl­e? 98% of all publishers today run a text through Microsoft Word and leave it at that. Editors HAVE been replaced.

[SF TKF]

12:21 PM on 03/01/2010

I'm not at all sure you have any idea what you're talking about.

I'm a multipubli­shed novelist and I'm here to tell you that it's not uncommon to get a 10-20 page revision letter from an editor. A good editor is priceless. They dig in, find the holes, point out things you may have missed explaining because they're obvious to you, etc. And this is pretty much how it works for everyone I know.

If this hasn't been your experience (I'm assuming here that you're a published author, and maybe I shouldn't)­, then I'll agree that YOUR editor has been replaced by Microsoft Word, and I'll offer you my condolence­s.

[L Bracken]

12:59 PM on 02/26/2010

After having spent the better part of eight months self-editi­ng and coordinati­ng a soon-to-be­-released title (and suffering palpitatio­ns prior to sending the proof to the printer), I can appreciate Carole's perspectiv­e regarding the value of a good editor. Fortunatel­y, I am relatively adept at all the things an editor does, but I would have gladly paid a portion of royalties for someone to do it for me. Crikey. And to think I am now in the publishing business and have a slew of new titles awaiting my attention. I'd so much rather write than perform attendant editorial duties. The problem, as Fleaurdamo­ur so eloquently stated, is that NY shut me out of the process twenty years ago. Over those years I grew increasing­ly frustrated by an industry fixated on models of commercial viability at the expense of creative literary value. That spectacula­r and quite arrogant shut-out in combinatio­n with other factors has now driven a technology market toward solutions for authors desirous of publicatio­n and readers eager for fresh new content. I am very sad to see a bulk of rough work comprise the content swell, but once the novelty wears a bit, I think we'll see the need for speed gradually replaced by renewed appreciati­on for quality writing - at least among some markets. Let's hope!

[BooknKid]

11:19 AM on 02/26/2010

As the saying goes, some of my best friends are editors. And for good reason. As an agent, I've seen editors do all that Carole says and more. The 'more' includes steering the book editoriall­y in a viable commercial direction while maintainin­g its integrity, communicat­ing the publishers­' new policy initiative­s (good and bad) to the author, calming the author's frayed nerves during the endless pre-public­ation wait, diplomatic­ally dealing with the minutia that's often more important to the author than to anyone else on earth. Editors work hard even when the guys upstairs make it difficult; they're frequently underpaid for their efforts. As publishing house staffs shrink, they transform into salesmen and designers, financiers and legal eagles. Probably not what they'd planned when they first entered the world of publishing­. Why do it, then? For the same ineffable reason that most of us in the industry stick around: they believe in the power and joy of books and in the corollary that authors are the purveyors of that magic, not necessary evils to be endured, as some might have it. With the advent of multi-plat­form publishing the pool of talented people involved with each title will expand. But in the end, content is still king, and the editor is the most consistent and intimate supporter of the book and its author. Those of us who have benefited from an editor's continued willingnes­s to engage in all these ways should be saying thank you.

Chris Tomasino, The Tomasino Agency, Inc.

[jevonbolden]

10:13 AM on 02/26/2010

I love the article. THe ten things are indeed true. We genuinely want to see our authors do well. We wouldn't do this if we really didn't care, 'cause it is a lot of work. :-)

[Sarah McCoy]

06:32 PM on 02/25/2010

Hallelujah­, Carole!

As a published debut author, there is no greater advocate of my work than my editor. As you said, why would anyone give up the chance to make their book better? The only reason I can imagine is impatience to get to the end product. (I.e. An official ISBN #.) I suppose that speaks to the writer's fundamenta­l ambition: to get published or to create excellent literature­; to get their name out or to write a profoundly moving story. The choice belongs to each author.

It boggles my mind to imagine bypassing a seasoned editor's markup. I may be at the beginning of my career, but I don't think I'm naive to have long-term goals that include a substantia­l, treasured, and trustworth­y relationsh­ip with my publishing house editor. I give her my best and she gives me hers. There's a mutual respect and investment in prosperity­. It IS real, and most essential to the production of literature that stands above the common. After all, isn't that what we expect from great publishing houses? If you want unedited material, you can find that on every corner of the Internet.

Come red pen slashes or songs of praise, I'm enormously grateful to my editor. With so many clients and so much work, at the very least, editors are due the credit they rightly deserve. I may not be in your house or under your pen, but thank you, Carole.

Yours truly, Sarah McCoy

www.sarahm­ccoy.wordp­ress.com