Hiring a professional editor can be expensive. And there are lots of different editorial services available. So if an author comes to you with a limited budget, how might you help them choose where to spend their cash?
In an ideal world, a manuscript will go through at least three rounds of editing: macro (manuscript critique or development editing), sentence (line editing and copy-editing) and proofreading (the final check).
But this can all add up.
If an author’s budget is limited, they need to decide which service is going to give them the best results. And they might come to you for help with this decision.
There are two main arguments people in the book industry make:
- Story is more important than correct prose, so authors should spend their money on a manuscript critique or a developmental edit.
- Correct prose is more important than story, so authors should spend their money on copy-editing and proofreading.
Usefully, these are completely contradictory.
Let’s take a close look at each argument and see if we can come to a conclusion that makes sense.
The ‘story is king’ argument
The main theory here is that people can forgive bad writing (or a few typos) more than they can forgive a bad story.
This argument has merit. It’s true that no amount of sentence-level editing can improve a badly considered concept or a poorly told story. The story the author chooses to tell and how they choose to tell it is so important.
But I think a lot of people who favour this viewpoint may not fully understand the value copy-editing and proofreading can bring to a manuscript.
More than just catching a few typos, a thorough copy-edit can result in thousands of changes to a manuscript. (And what if there are more than just a ‘few’ typos?!)
A published manuscript should be of professional quality, and copy-editing and proofreading help achieve this.
The ‘correctness is king’ argument
The other side of the argument is that an author should spend their budget on copy-editing and proofreading because judging a story comes down to personal taste, but errors are universally recognised – and therefore it makes sense to focus on what will increase the objective quality of the manuscript rather than the subjective quality.
At a professional development day I attended, writer and editor Andrew Lowe suggested that bad grammar and typos is what most often attracts bad reviews. Many of the editors in the room nodded in agreement.
However, it would only be best for authors to spend their editing budget on copy-editing and proofreading if there really wasn’t any way to objectively assess the quality of a story.
But there is.
Sure, subject matter and style will always come down to personal taste, but it is possible to recognise a seriously poorly written book. And with knowledge of the craft, it is possible to make objective suggestions on how a novel can be improved.
So which service is best?
I’ve been thinking about this issue for years.
And I’ve been on either side of the argument.
The trouble is, both story and correctness are of equal importance – just for different reasons. So when an author’s editing budget is limited, I believe they have to consider other factors.
Where an author is best off spending their money will depend on how knowledgeable and experienced they are as a writer, and how they want to publish their book.
The newbie writer: don’t hire an editor
If the author is a completely novice writer, this is the first manuscript they’ve ever completed, they’ve never been published, they’ve never studied creative writing (taken a class or an online writing course, or read any books or blogs on the craft of writing) and they’ve never belonged to a writing group – I recommend they don’t pay for any editorial service at all.
They’re probably not ready for it yet.
If they pay to have their work copy-edited and proofread, it’s highly likely that the story won’t be up to scratch. And it’s likely that a manuscript critique or developmental edit would only scratch the surface of the issues that need addressing.
They might have a better book at the end of the process, but probably not a publishable one.
They’d be better off putting the manuscript aside, continuing to write and dedicating themselves to learning more about the craft. It can be a hard thing to say to an author, but also a kindess.
After they’ve improved their skills and knowledge, they’ll be able to rewrite their manuscript to a higher standard, or write a new, better book – one that’s ready for professional editorial input.
Saying that, the author might decide to work with a developmental editor as part of their learning process, but they should do so with their eyes open. I would always advise them that there are often cheaper ways to learn and they might end up having to rewrite most of their manuscript to bring it up to scratch if they do go down this route.
The established writer (self-publishing): choose copy-editing
If the author has been previously published, they’ve written several books, they’ve studied creative writing (taken classes and read lots of books and blogs on writing craft) and they’ve workshopped their writing with a trusted writing group – they might be best off paying for copy-editing.
But only if they want to self-publish.
Chances are, they know what makes a good story.
If they’re really on the ball, they’ll have a good idea of the bookselling industry, too, so they know what kinds of books people like to read, the genres that sell the most, etc., which will help them make decisions about their book, set realistic expectations and effectively plan their marketing.
They also might have an established network and know how to use beta readers to help them test and improve their story.
This author should probably spend their budget on line and copy-editing. They’ll have a good story with high production values.
If they have any more money in their editorial pot, they should hire a proofreader to do a final pass.
The established writer (traditional publishing): choose a manuscript critique
If the author is as knowledgeable as the established self-publishing writer in the profile above but they want to get an agent and be published by a traditional publishing house, I recommend they pay for a manuscript critique.
The main difference here is that it is much more difficult to be published this way since a manuscript will be competing with thousands of others.
Agents and publishers are most interested in a great story that’s told well (it’s all about that ‘unique voice’), and one they can take an educated gamble on selling.
The writing can be polished at a later stage (usually paid for by the publishing house), but story, voice and market potential are the key things here.
A manuscript critique is a good way to get a professional, objective view on a novel. It won’t tell the author how to ‘fix’ every little issue, but it will provide them with enough insight to help them see where things need to change. It’s then up to the author to apply their expertise as a writer to the issues highlighted.
If the author has a little extra in their budget, then they could also hire a line editor or copy-editor to polish their submission package (the first few chapters, their synopsis and their query letter) or offer advice on improving these things.
That way they really can put their best foot forward when pitching to agents.
Is it the editor’s responsibility?
If an author comes to you and asks which service they need, it’s up to you whether you want to help them work this out or not.
You might decide it isn’t worth your time and the author should do their own research (which is completely fair!).
But if you offer different editorial services, it makes sense that you help the author hire you for the service that will best help them.
If you think they need a service that you don’t offer, though, it’s ethical to turn them away – and recommend where they can find this service, if you’re able to.
Hopefully this post has given you some food for thought that will help you decide what to do.
