5 Common Pitfalls to Avoid When Working With a Fiction Editor

Pitfalls to Avoid When Working With a Fiction Editor

Navigate:

• Foregoing the Developmental Edit

• Not Learning From Your Editor

• Not Being Conscious of Your Voice

• Not All Editors are Created Equal

• You've Got a Bad Attitude, Sassy!

I read a second book series from a moderately new author not too long ago whose first series I really enjoyed. I liked the story but also the flow and quality of the prose. However, this author's latest series (from a different publisher) was not nearly as good as the first.

The story was alright, but the quality of the writing took a steep dive. It had none of the flavors of this author's previous writing which I'd read. It honestly felt like it was written by someone else.

Now, it could simply be that the first series was better written overall and that the second series couldn't live up to my expectations in comparison.

There are many reasons I can come up with why the latest series wasn't on par with the first. Perhaps the author wasn't in love with this book and was just trying to meet a deadline.

Maybe they had a stroke.

Jack Tuesday by F. Nelson Smith

Buy Now

But I did get a sneaking suspicion, one that tingled on the back of my neck like some strange editorial-spidey sense. The difference is that the first series got more thorough editing than the second.

The first series I read was likely edited by one publisher, while the second series was edited by a different publisher. The second publisher may have different standards for editing, which can lead to a marked difference in quality between the two series.

Simple.

Sad. But simple.

Interestingly, the first series was published by a smaller press than the second, but I won't go there in this post.

But all this got me thinking of editors and how authors work with them. How can working with one editor have such a striking difference in quality? I mean, did this author not learn anything working with the first editor?

Or did they merely pass the reins of the book over to the editor and check out?

I don't want that for you. So here are 5 pitfalls to avoid when working with a fiction editor.

Foregoing the Developmental Edit

Developmental editors are expensive, so I understand why indie authors might be wary of hiring one.

But it is sometimes the largest difference between an enjoyable read and a forgettable one. In the two book series I mentioned above, this is where I feel the divide was.

The first series was concise, it was direct, and it contained very little filler. It was well developmentally edited.

The second was filled with pages of extra material, dragged on in many places, and was HUGE. A good developmental editor could have cut the word count by at least a quarter, if not more, and it wouldn't have affected the storyline at all.

I once watched a YouTube video from a writer who told authors that they should NOT get a developmental editor because all the feedback might damage the author's confidence and...well...make them feel bad?

While I agree that if you are an unconfident writer, you might be swayed by an editor to change things you regret later. That happens, sure. But the double-edged sword is that you are unconfident because you obviously don't believe in your skill. You haven't learned enough.

And you can't gain that confidence without knowledge and experience. A developmental editor can give you the tools to learn what you are doing wrong and how to fix it. A good one can streamline your learning curve and teach you more than 50 textbooks.

You will also learn more by doing the work—hands-on experience—than through merely reading. You can see the results in your work immediately and gauge the quality of the advice yourself.

Confidence developed by absorbing criticism and mulling over it honestly and thoughtfully is confidence earned.

Confidence developed by blind faith in yourself and blocking out all forms of constructive feedback is not earned. It's not really confidence, either. It is arrogance.

A developmental editor is your friend. By their very nature, ALL criticism from an editor is constructive whether you agree with it or not.

Yes. A good developmental editor is expensive. But so is university, which for creative writing is like a 4-year tenure taking feedback from harsh developmental editors (your professors).

So, if you are not going to do one, then do the other and consider it a massive savings.

And, if you play your cards right, you might only need to hire a developmental editor once or twice (though I recommend more than that, but if cost is a big issue, then one is better than none).

If you listen to them and really pick their brains, you can learn from them and apply what you've learned to your next books.

I do understand the financial constraints of indie and self-publishing. The struggle is real. So a good start is making sure you have some tools to do a lot of the work yourself. The best book I have read to help you learn the most important parts of the developmental areas of your book and how to improve them is Stein on Writing by Sol Stein.

This book will help you get most of the way there on your own in the most efficient way possible.

This brings us to pitfall number two.

Not Learning From Your Editor!

Not all editors are writers, though many are. But even if they are not, they have a striking advantage over you.

Which is?

They tear apart books for a living. And not just books. ALL stories and narratives. Speaking not only for myself but some other editors I have known, we can't watch any show or movie without seeing all the plot holes, all the issues with dialogue, and all the areas where the story could be strengthened.

This is what we do.

You invent and write stories. We tear them to shreds.

A good editor will kick the crap out of your manuscript, and depending on their personality, they may or may not be nice about it.

And a good editor also never expects an author to make every little change they suggest, whether a structural editor, line editor, or even copyeditor. We point out everything we see, so you can make the crucial decisions about what to change.

Why am I mentioning all this?

Because all those suggestions are potential lessons. BUT. They are not lessons until you think on them. Until you look at them critically and decide in your heart whether they fit your book, where they might fit in another book, or if you even think it is good advice.

An editor can offer up their opinion, but it is up to you to turn that opinion into knowledge, one way or another.

That way, you don't have the same problem as the author we have used as an example. If that person had taken the lessons of his first editor to heart and turned them into knowledge, then his second series would not have been as rough as it was.

Because he would have known better.

Instead (again, only hypothetically because I haven't actually talked to him about it), he let the editor make the changes and just accepted them without a thought, making his first series really great (because it was basically ghost-co-written by the editor) and the second series not great (because his next editor was not as good—or he plain didn't get one like we assumed above.)

And this brings us to our 3rd point.

Not Being Conscious of Your Voice. DON'T Let Jesus Take the Wheel.

Yes. I just compared editors to Jesus.

Sorry.

I have not come across this myself, but I realize that it could be a danger, and I have heard of situations from other editors where the authors totally give up control to their editors.

Whether because of publisher pressure or bad advice, these authors decide that once their books are in editing, they can check out.

Perhaps this is fine for you if your only goal is to get the book out, make a little money and never think of it again. But most authors actually do care about their creations beyond a royalty check...unless you write one-off romance. That is another beast entirely.

Askhole Definition Sticker

Buy Now

I think I haven't butted against this because I have always worked in an academic or indie setting.

The larger publishing houses can hold a lot of sway over their writers, especially new ones. Some writers believe that they may lose their publishing deal if they do not adhere to every suggested change.

And in some cases, this could be true.

But, I think it is also a sign of the author's weakness. Like a coercive man convincing a young girl to have sex with him and then looking down on her as just another whore when she does. You will get a lot further and retain more confidence and respect for yourself if you do not give in to changes you don't feel are right for your book.

You may not be able to see it, but your future career will also be stronger. People want to support people who stick to their principles and believe in themselves.

Now there is a second issue with allowing your editor to take over and become a silent "co-author."

Their voice is not your voice. Try as they might match it, no one person will ever say things the way you would have. Your book will lose you.

And like the author we have been discussing, you risk your next book reading like it was written by someone else entirely.

But another reason to not let your editor's voice intrude is....they might be bad.

Not all Editors are Created Equal

Having a certificate does not make a good editor. Hell, having a Ph.D. does not make a good editor. And having "an eye for catching errors" does not make a good editor.

Experience makes a good editor, that and a drive to continue learning forever and ever and ever.

If you find a good editor, hold on to them!

The next one you find might not be half as good. Don't rely on your publisher's editor if you can help it unless you have followed the rest of the advice in this post and are critical and confident in working with anyone without losing your voice or in danger of compromising quality.

Over the long term, I suggest getting your own editor who will work with you before submitting your manuscript anywhere. Someone who you trust, who you work well with, and who understands you.

And most importantly, someone who will be hard on you, someone who has proven to make you better.

Not only can you avoid the fate of our anonymous example author, but any publisher will thank you for saving them money on cleaning your work. (And then you won't owe them nearly as much in the concession department.)

The way the industry is going, this is probably your best bet.

Not all advice is created equal either. In this post I go into some common advice you may have heard before that just isn't helpful. Read More.

Bad Fiction Writing Tips

Finally, we move onto maybe the MOST common pitfall to avoid when working with a fiction editor.

You've Got a Bad Attitude, Sassy

You might not realize this, but we editors chose a job that requires that we deal with a lot of sh!t.

We work with artists, and if artists are known for one thing, it is their egos.

There are two most common types of writers:

Those who think everything they write is gold, and

Those who believe everything they write is the worst load of crap anyone has ever read.

Both can be difficult to work with, but at least the latter will listen to feedback.

Most editors are familiar with the process of editing.

That is:

1. The author sends you their manuscript, and they like you.

2. About 3/4 of the way through editing the manuscript, they F-ing hate your guts (or themselves and begin to reconsider their career choices).

3. Then, when the edit is finished, they LOVE you. You are their favorite person in the whole world.

A good chunk of editing is talking writers off ledges or calming their egos. It is about being half-editor, half-psychologist.

This is all fine, though. We are used to it and understand that we can be hard to like when our job is to tear someone's hard work to pieces.

BUT!

There is another thing editors can agree on: The difference between a good writer and a bad writer. That is a writer who will be successful and a writer who will NEVER be successful.

Want to know the secret?

Successful writers get over their egos. They eventually realize that whether right or wrong, their editor has something to add to their work. They put their ego aside and look objectively at their own writing. It can take a grumble or even a tantrum to get there, but they eventually do.

A bad writer can even be a good writer. But they will never be successful because they never come to that same realization.

They hire an editor, thinking that person will stroke their ego, and when it gets to the point where they hate their editor for criticizing them, they never get past it. They cannot see the value through the red pen marks. They see blood, and they can't handle it.

But this is something that an author needs to be able to do. Not just to get through the editing process but to get through the rejection process, the review process, and reader reviews, etc.

And you know what?

Your editor is the one who is going to be the nicest about it. Because they want to help you, they are the only ones in all of that who actually care about you. The others don't. And their feedback may not be so kind.

So please, if you take one thing from this article, let it be this:

Put your ego to the side. In editing, it isn't about you. It is about the reader, and, most importantly, it is about the book.

That sums it up nicely, so I'll end this one here.

Hope you found value in this somewhere. If you did consider sharing with a writer you know!