Blogger: Rachelle Gardner
Often when I talk to authors about a publisher’s editorial process, somebody responds with the “fact” that publishers no longer edit. Others talk about the terrible mistakes they find in published books, and decry the publishing industry’s lack of standards.
From my perspective, having been in the trenches for 20 years now, I believe this is an erroneous generalization.
Publishers vary widely in their approach to editing.
There are publishers who spend an incredible amount of time and money on editorial excellence, even these days. I know because most of my authors have had to sweat through rigorous edits.
There are other publishers who give a manuscript a quick once-over and call it good. Authors who are with these publishers might have an easier road, but it can be a disappointment in the long run.
And of course, there are publishers who are somewhere in between.
Have budget cuts affected editing?
Many publishers, regardless of where they started on the “editorial spectrum,” have had to cut their budgets, and so there may be less attention to detail. It’s an unfortunate by-product of the difficult financial structure of publishing. But in my experience, the publishers that have always had a commitment to editorial excellence retain that commitment even today, amidst budget cuts.
What about mistakes in published books?
You’re always going to find a mistake here and there in a published book. Most of us can’t afford perfection. And I agree there are more mistakes now than there used to be. (See “budget cuts” above.)
So is it true that “publishers no longer edit”?
I don’t think so. Many are needing to spend less time and money on editing than they used to. But overall, I think most publishers maintain a commitment to editorial excellence.
If there’s something that makes you think “publishers no longer edit,” what is it? What have you personally observed? If you’re published, tell us about your editorial experience with your publisher.
Richard Mabry
I’m fortunate to have had novels published by two respected publishers. I’ve never seen an absence of editing with either, although now much of the work is contracted out to an independent editor.
I’ve always received an editorial letter from someone at the publisher, providing what amounts to a “macro” edit of the work. After that comes the line edit (which, depending on the editor, sometimes turns into another macro edit). Then there’s proofreading and work by the production editor.
In my limited experience, publishers still edit–but they may outsource the work.
I’d add a word of caution to anyone thinking of self-publishing their work. I thought I could get by without heavy editing of my novella–it didn’t work. Better to get it right the first time (as happens when an author goes through the multiple edits from a traditional publisher or the self-published author spends the money for an editor). I learned my lesson there.
Rachelle Gardner
Doc, you’ve had the advantage of working with more than one publisher, as well as self-publishing, so you’ve seen some of the differences. Thanks for your perspective!
Nick Kording
I wonder if the perception comes from all the self-published books… I’m not bashing indie books but I’ve experienced this with an author with one book published traditionally and one published indie. The indie contained several typos. I know it’s hard, even as someone with editing experience, to self-edit. It just happens. If the book is good, it doesn’t bother me.
Rachelle Gardner
Yes, I think self-pub books tend to have more errors because the editing process usually isn’t quite as rigorous. This complaint about “publishers not editing” has been floating around for the last ten years, well before self-pub books became common. I’m with you – as long as the errors aren’t egregious, I don’t let them bother me.
Norma
I have only published one book and it was published through a vanity publisher. I had to pay for everything. There came a point when I had to stop myself from spending more money. At the end of the process I kept finding errors after I had signed off that the galley proof was okay. It became soooo costly at that point. So now I have an imperfect book, but much better than it was before I went through it over and over again and paid hundreds of dollars chasing after it. So, the indie author may know there are errors but not have the funds to perfect thir work. It’s a shame. Hopefully, I’ve learned my lesson.
John Wells
A generality comes to mind: With the huge number of books being published, editing is becoming a lost skill. Word processing has made many authors from a host of would-be writers, who have good stories or “how-to” credentials but seem to lack a basic understanding of English 101. Modern publishers seem to be placing the burden of editing on authors and agents, so the result is a manuscript gets a once-over by the word processer’s spell checker, and that’s about it. Even newspapers often fall victim to sloppy editing. Several weeks ago the front page of the prestigious Washington Post featured a story about the impending replacement of “Andrew” Hamilton’s face on the ten-dollar bill by a woman. Andrew? Syntax is sometimes laughable, especially misuse of dependent clauses, a la the old classic goof, “Walking down the Avenue of the Americas, the Empire State Building can be seen shining in the sun.” Oh, those walking buildings! I tend to believe that the sorry situation won’t improve. C’es la vie.
Andrew Budek-Schmeisser
Yeah, but Andrew is still a cool name.
Rachelle Gardner
John, I think you’re seeing a complete lack of editing, in some cases. When you combine that with many writers’ lack of facility with the English language, the results can be horrendous. Those errors in syntax and sentence structure, are funny, aren’t they? I agree with you that the situation probably isn’t going to improve. Thankfully, there are still many of us who care about language and will keep fighting the good fight.
Karen Porter
Hi Rachelle. Good words. As a small publisher, I can tell you that we do several edits. From comprehensive and content to lineproofing, and yet we find errors in the final book. It is my personal nightmare. One good thing is that we don’t do huge runs so corrections can be fixed quickly. Wish we could guarantee perfection. Great blog
Rachelle Gardner
Hi Karen, I feel your pain. Even the big publishers, who put their books through multiple rounds of edits, end up with errors. Recently one of my authors had a book release, and we had to send the publisher a memo listing literally hundreds of errors (that were not present in the original draft). Luckily they fixed them right away, but it wasn’t a fun situation. Who knows what happens when so many editors, copyeditors, and typesetters handle the manuscript.
peter
I don’t know what happened to an earlier comment, but I know I would feel as cautious as any good publisher would feel about broaching an unknown world without co-crafting the finished product with people who know all about the nuances of publishing. That is like asking me to traipse through a minefield, walking backwards. Thanks for the honest realism Rachelle.
Rachelle Gardner
So true, Peter. I’ve been a professional editor for years, but definitely need an editor for my own writing!
Rachel Newman
I’ve never met a good editor who didn’t need their own work edited. I’m right there with you, Rachelle.
Andrew Budek-Schmeisser
The errors that I find most glaring – and that I tend to remember – are technical. Four examples, from recent military histories (I won’t mention titles or authors, because the books were otherwise good and well-researched):
* The British Lancaster bomber used in WW2 was described as having a skin of thin sheet steel. Not so; it was aluminum. There were a few airplanes that did use steel skinning, for strength, but this wasn’t common.
* The Waco CG-4A assault glider of WW2 was described as having a having a nylon covering. It was actually cotton, tautened, stiffened, and weatherproofed by dope.
* The 30.06 cartridge, the standard US rifle and light machine gun cartridge for most of the 20th century, was described as having a bullet .3006 inches in diameter. “30-06” actually means ,30 caliber,and “-06” signifies adoption in 1906. The bullet’s diameter is actually .308 inches, identical to both the 7.62 round used for many years in the West, and the Combloc AK-47 round.
* The codename for Germany’s attack in the Ardennes in December 1944 was given as “Watch on the Rhine”; that was the name of an earlier version of the plan, but the operation as launched was “Autumn Mist”.
* It may seem like quibbling, and perhaps it is, but this does point to a lack of technical knowledge among editors. The problem was that the errors were, in a technical sense, fairly central to the subject matter.
* I can understand that publishers can’t carry experts in everything on staff, but outsourcing to a qualified beta reader would have solved most of the problems fairly cheaply.
Rachelle Gardner
Andrew, it’s hard to know where things are going wrong here. In my view, when it comes to technical things like the ones you’ve mentioned, it’s the author’s responsibility to have their manuscript vetted by beta readers who are experts in that particular field. The publisher can fact-check and do legal vetting in addition to traditional copyediting, but an author can’t expect the publisher to do their technical research. At a certain point, publishers have to trust their authors are getting it right. Perhaps you should offer yourself as a beta reader for military histories!
Jackie Sommers
After my novel sold to HarperCollins/Katherine Tegen Books, my editor and I changed ALMOST EVERYTHING ABOUT IT. So the idea that “publishers don’t edit” makes my jaw drop. Absolutely the opposite of the truth for me!
Rachelle Gardner
Jackie, that makes me smile, because I know so many people with the same story! Aren’t you glad for the editing, though?
Jackie Lea Sommers
TREMENDOUSLY grateful! I love how my book turned out! Comes out September 1st, two months from yesterday. Can. Not. Wait.
Terri
One of Karen Kingsbury’s books from the Take 5 series had a lot of mistakes, both grammar and facts. I believe the publisher was Zondervan. An example: The main character received something as a Christmas present; a few lines later, it was a birthday present. That book surprised me.
Rachelle Gardner
Sounds like they definitely had some editing problems there. Bummer!
Southpaw HR Sinclair
One of my favorite authors has two series out. They are published by different imprints of the same publisher. So each has a different editor as well. The results were quite different too. I think one maybe did with out the last proofing. 🙁
Rachelle Gardner
Interesting how you can tell the difference!
Mandy Mikulencak
My novel, published by Albert Whitman and Company this fall, went through two stages of edits: substantive with my primary editor and then a thorough copyedit. So, in my experience, YES, publishers are still editing.
Rachelle Gardner
I’m glad to hear about your editing experience, Mandy. I think good editing benefits both authors and readers.
Elizabeth Torphy
I think publishers, and agents (sorry to throw you in the soup), are more concerned about making a quick buck than putting out good literature. I am not trying to be unkind, but pointing out a fact that the literary world has changed. Writing is no long a noble pursuit to excellence, but has become just a business of pushing wares. For this reason, editing has been cast aside. Poor writing is accepted if the book is titillating, provocative, or controversial. A big name will sell no matter how good the writing. That shouldn’t be okay for a literary field. But it is. I am not so haughty that I don’t understand their motives. I am a business woman by trade and can appreciate making money as a reason to exist. But I am also one who believes that things should be done correctly and at the highest standards one should be capable of. The book work has sunken to a lower level over the years. And now…anyone with half a skill can get published. That is sad to me. We should be close to perfection as possible because writing and words are our business. Editing should be at the top of the list…no matter how shiny the penny is. I say this coming from the perspective of a reading (not a writer) because I have read so many poorly written books and found many obvious mistakes. As a writer, I am tormented by the expectation in querying and story guidelines that are NOT happening in today’s published books. Now, with all this said, I know that is not ALL publishing/agencies…but it is a generalization of what going on…from my perspective. Blessings to the publishers and agents that remain true to their “ART.”
Elizabeth Torphy
And please excuse my typos/poor grammar….was dealing with a plumber and writing! Shame on me!!! I should edited before I published! Hee hee
Rachelle Gardner
Elizabeth, the “make a buck” approach to publishing is nothing new, it’s been prevalent for at least 20-30 years now. Many publishers are huge multinational corporations with an obligation to be profitable.
However, it’s important to remember that the majority of people who work in the trenches of publishing… the editors and agents… are in it because of the love of books and literature, and would love nothing more than to publish only the very best work (not just the most sellable). And we’d all absolutely LOVE the luxury to spend as much time as necessary to edit and revise each and every book to perfection. Sadly, that luxury doesn’t exist in the publishing world. Still, we soldier on, doing our best to put out the very best books we can.
I know you didn’t mean your comment to be unkind and I didn’t take it that way, but the truth is, most of us reading your words agree with you, and WISH the utopian, ideal world of publishing existed – the world in which putting out great literature is all that matters. But sadly, it doesn’t exist.
And while we all have bills to pay and need to make a living like anyone else, the truth is that anyone who is mostly interested in “making a quick buck” would not be working in publishing as an editor or agent. There are SO many careers more lucrative than this. But we can’t help it. We love books.
John Wells
You have a point, Elizabeth, but try to remember this: While making a goodly profit is nice rarity for modern publishing houses, I don’t think that they’re trying not so much “making a quick buck” as they are trying to remain solvent. They prestigious publishing houses of yesteryear are gone (as are their experienced staff members who maintained their high publishing standards), replaced by corporations that have to answer to investors. The few houses that do try to due justice to literature are strapped to remain in business. The majority of publishing houses treat novels as secondary products (and we don’t even try to submit a collection of poems). Face it: As entertainment Literature has given way to television and films. Reality sees us fictionists as romantic relics, and literary publishers as kinsmen to horse and buggy manufacturers. Yet we persist, swearing as we do to “Do not go gentle into that good night.”
Rachel Newman
I respectfully disagree with you, John, when it comes to entertainment literature giving way to television and films. The publishing industry is simply going through a new season of change. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been surprised by video-gaming young people who tell me they love to read. Literature hasn’t been replaced as a form of entertainment, it has just had to move over a bit to make room.
Jamie Chavez
Thank you, Rachelle. From my perspective as a freelance editor who previously worked for a publishing house, your article is spot on. Some houses do a better job of editing than others (and some do very little, sadly).
In my opinion, the houses doing the best job right now are the ones who farm out editorial to freelancers, and I say that not because I am one but because those budget cuts you mentioned have forced in-house editors to wear so many hats that something has to give. Editing of any sort is time intensive, something many in-house editors just don’t have any more.
Rachelle Gardner
So true, Jamie. Most in-house editors simply don’t have the time for solid hands-on editing. I’m thankful for good freelancers like you!
Jean Kavich Bloom
As a former managing editor in a publishing company, I cannot imagine skipping any of the traditional editorial stages. If I were an author, I would engage a qualified freelance editor for my work and self-publish before I would publish with any company I knew had staff willing (or forced) to skip quality editing and proofreading. As a freelance line editor, most of my projects come from publishers because the editors do not have the in-house staff or time to complete all the editing stages in-house. Instead, they spend the money necessary for quality work from an experienced editor who happens to be an independent contractor. I not only appreciate their trusting freelancers with their authors’ work, but that they care enough to ensure editorial excellence for their authors in the first place!
Shirlee Abbott
I haven’t worked with a publisher, so I’m speaking from business and personal experience. Errors creep in unnoticed when editing changes are made late in the process. I’ll have something ready to roll, proofread by several eyes. Someone suggests additions or rewording. Those changes bypass some of the early and best proofreaders. The errors make it to the final version, and I am horrified (and humbled).
Kara Isaac
I’m currently on my fourth round of edits for my debut novel. My macro and line edits were done in house by my acquisitions editor, then a second round of line edits in house by an associate editor. My copy edits were then outsourced to someone external.
I don’t know if my experience is unique, but I’ve certainly been impressed (sometimes grudgingly!) by the insight and rigour every single one of my editors has contributed. In every aspect, because of them, Close to You, is stronger than it was when they acquired it.
Dan King
I’ve done self-pub and traditional publishing. And I thought the editing process with my traditional publisher was fine. I think we landed with a good, clean product. The only beef I have with publishers is more on the marketing side, but that’s a whole separate conversation. My self-pub work (nearly 4 years old now) still FAR outsells my traditionally published work, and the publisher isn’t really helping the marketing process at all. But like I said… that’s another conversation.
I also help people publish (either me publishing them, or helping them self-pub), and good editing is definitely something we harp on quite a bit. I feel like small and self-publishers CAN put out high quality content, and a good editing process is a HUGE part of that. I agree that self-pub can contribute to that perception. And it makes sense what you share about cut-backs… even a little skimping on something could cause a handful of error that end up glaring out for readers.
Good conversation! It’s definitely helping me remember the importance of a commitement to good editing! I’m definitely a believer!
Peter DeHaan
Regardless of how much editing is done by publishers, we, as authors, need to submit our book in the best possible shape.
J.Willis Sanders
I certainly hope so but sometimes a person wonders.
Something I read today in a non-fiction book:
They shot a buffalo standing in the water for food.
Now I get it, but still.
What was wrong with:
They saw a buffalo standing in the water and shot it for food.
Oh well. lol
Iola
This might be getting a little detailed, but it’s been bugging me. I’ve recently read a lot of books in which the authors begin sentences with “so,” (with a comma after ‘so’).
I know it isn’t wrong to start a sentence with a conjunction, but my understanding was any comma should come before the conjunction. So (ha!) there would be no comma when so is at the start of a sentence, unless the comma is to set off a parenthetical expression.
Is that correct?
I suspect some of these authors and editors were taught what I was taught at school: insert a comma to indicate a pause. It might be a common idea, but the grammar books I’ve read say it’s 100% wrong.
J.Willis Sanders
Comma splices sort of drive me up a wall, but I’ve seen plenty in well know books. To me, if a writer can achieve the same things by writing correctly, for the most part anyway, why not do it?
And I just noticed I missed a comma in my other post. Ten lashes!
Seriously though, I get why some authors write certain things. Sometimes they want a sentence to rush at the reader, to be read quickly, so they leave a comma or commas out. My mistake could count as that … maybe.
It all really is very interesting.
Rachel Newman
You are right, Iola. The only time a comma should follow a conjunction is when it is followed by a phrase that should be set off by commas.
Jackie Calloway
I have an excellent editor who is a retired English teacher and personal friend.