Do You and Your Editor Have Different Publishing Goals?
Authors and editors frequently have different publishing goals. Most, not all, of these are rooted in their respective roles within the publishing business. Learn when you should listen to your editor and when it’s better to listen to your gut.
So, you’ve finally acquired an editor. Of course you did, because you’re a stunning artistic talent. Time for a few simple typo corrections, and you’ll be on your merry way to publication fame and fortune, right?Â
Not quite.
See, your editor’s primary job is not to make you happy (yes, even if you happen to be paying for the service). It’s to give you a wakeup call about everything that’s coming next down the publication and release pipeline.Â
Sorry, writers. We’re not here to flatter your egos (although some of us copy editing types might be prepared to tell you that “egos” does not contain a second “e”). We’re here to rip your work apart and help you put it back together. Hopefully, if we do a thorough enough job, the general public and the marketplace of ideas won’t shred whatever is left of you.Â
Plot holes, disappearing side characters, embarrassing data errors, continuity problems, and, yes, typos? We editors are your first line of offense.Â
In short, authors and editors are working from different starting points. If you’re an author, you have likely already put anywhere from dozens to hundreds of hours into your project. You can see the finish line, right over there. All you have to do is sneak past us, and with your natural greatness, that surely will not take too long.Â
If you’re an editor, you see the whole scene from an entirely different angle. Your writer has only put in a couple of laps around the track. Practice is just warming up.
Why the disconnect? Writing is typically a solo endeavor. Even co-writers don’t always work in the same room or even the same state. Professional-quality publishing, however, is collaborative. Advancing to the editorial process requires authors to switch gears from thinking about their draft from their own unique point of view to judging the work objectively as a product that will be offered for sale or consumption in a much, much more publicly competitive space.Â
Although it might not always feel like it when you’re on the receiving end of an especially rough critique, you and your editorial team do share several key publishing goals:Â
- to produce work that is meaningful and high quality
- to preserve the integrity and originality of the work
- to uphold the author’s credibility and reputation
- to finish the work and release it without unnecessary delays
- to push the writer toward financial success
If your editorial team does not prioritize these publishing goals with you, then you need new editors.Â
This, however, is not a comprehensive list of your editor’s publishing goals. Usually, if both parties are behaving professionally but there is still conflict, it’s happening because writers are bumping into one of these. Understanding these additional publishing goals can go a long way into making the entire publication prep experience much more pleasant.Â
Additional publishing goals that are influencing your editor’s guidance typically include any or all of these:
- matching the work to the correct audience
- ensuring the work conforms to standard manuscript or house styles
- fitting the work seamlessly within a larger brand or imprint
- preventing the work from accidentally generating negative press because of major errors or controversial content
- proactively avoiding legal liability from anything contained in the draft
- preserving his, her, or their own business reputation(s)
- confirming a viable purchasing audience will exist for the work upon release
- addressing any concerns that may have been raised by colleagues during pitch meetings and project discussions
- preparing the work for the medium (or media) in which it will be presented
- meeting publication deadlines
- keeping the project costs within assigned budget
- anticipating the public response to the work
Typos, in truth, are the least of it. While your focus as the creator might be solely on the art, your editor’s publishing goals are more commercial in nature, even if that person leans literarily in their personal tastes. The only real exception to this is if the work is patronized or otherwise funded in some way as to give you both full creative freedom. For the vast majority of working creatives, that simply isn’t the case.
At this point, it should be clear that I am referring specifically to authors who want to publish, either traditionally or themselves, and not to students writing assignments. Student essays and the like are intended for an audience of one (the instructor) or for classroom edification. Likewise, I am not referring to commissioned literary works with scholarships, fellowships, or other financial structures in play, and I am not focused on literary journals. Self-publishing a personally valued project for an exclusive friends-and-family audience also falls outside of this discussion. The rules are different because the end purpose of the art is different.
I frequently hear from writers that they don’t want to compromise their visions. Every experienced editor understands this. That’s your “baby,” your treasured work. Some authors even assume they can self-publish without making any compromises or corrections at all. There’s a scene in Tim Burton’s Wednesday where the lead character does just that: pull her novel draft from submission because she doesn’t want to accept any input from editorial. It’s a great dramatic scene that fits the character. Wednesday Addams is a wealthy, slightly spoiled teenager who is actively resisting adult guidance and correction in all aspects of her life. What we see on display there is Wednesday’s immaturity. The adult viewers–and characters–know she has a long way to go if she is to reach her full capabilities.
With today’s technology, any author can, of course, attempt to do the same and allow the cards to fall where they will. Working with your editor is a choice. That starts with the presumption of mutual respect. Why submit your draft at all if you have no intention of collaborating with the publisher? Why hire a contract editor if you already believe your work is perfect?Â
This is a meeting of expert minds, not an echo chamber. In editorial, we’re here to kick all the tires and do the hard work. The difference is, we don’t just want your work to “be good” or show your “true voice.” We need your end product to reflect our standards, too. Those standards are set either by us as independent editors or by our employers if we work for a publisher or publication. In both cases, many publication standards are industry and content specific. You can opt out of the entire process and do it yourself, or you can choose to hire anyone who hangs out a shingle and possesses a decent grasp of English grammar. The results, though, will be noticeable.Â
When to listen to your editor
If you’ve never published before, you should listen to your editor. Part of your editor’s job is to help walk you through that stage of the pre-publication process. Get a second opinion from other, accomplished writers (or from another editor) if something feels off to you.
If your project contains material that could conceivably get you sued, you should listen to your editor. Seek legal guidance if necessary.
If you submitted your work to a traditional publisher, or the draft is a commissioned assignment, you should listen to your editor. Your editor, in these situations, has considerable power to spike the piece altogether. (And usually, if the editor doesn’t, someone higher up the corporate chain is calling those shots.)
If you’re working outside your usual genre, you should listen to your editor.
If your editor disagrees with you about stylistic points, you should listen to your editor. If the editor hired you, it’s the editor’s call. If you hired the editor, it’s ultimately your call, but you should make it with an understanding of why the editor suggested the change.
If your editor is pointing out specific content as problematic, meaning racist, sexist, non-factual, or otherwise concerning, you should listen to your editor. You may be asked to bring in a sensitivity reader, change the work significantly, or even rethink the entire project. Editors may also give you the feedback that they cannot in good conscience lend their names to the work as-is. If you feel such content is necessary for the work to retain its artistic or historical merits, consult another editor.Â
If your editor notes that something in your work appears to be plagiarized, illegal, or already copyrighted (such as song lyrics), you should listen to your editor.
If your editor is pointing out issues in your draft that don’t conform to genre, story structure, or linguistic convention, you should listen to your editor if those choices were not deliberate. If they are, and you see yourself as the reincarnated e. e. cummings, you should have a calm, clear conversation with your editor.
If your editor is adapting your draft for digital publication, you should listen to your editor. This is a common source of conflict, because writing for an online audience is fundamentally different from writing for a print one.
When to follow your instincts
If you’re not concerned about making your work marketable and you are paying your editor, you should make the changes and keep the elements that feel right to you. Before you make significant changes that go against your editor’s advice, though, you should ask your editor to explain the reasoning behind suggested changes.
When to fire your editor
If your editor won’t communicate with you after repeated check-in attempts over several weeks, and your editor has not already given a reasonable status update, you should fire your editor.
If your editor openly and repeatedly belittles you and your worth, and you no longer believe your editor is sincerely trying to help you improve your work quality, you should fire your editor.
If you’ve lost trust in your editor’s capabilities and professionalism, you should ask why that is happening. You may need to fire your editor.
If your editor is not approaching you and your work with a collaborative, “let’s make this better” mindset, you should consider firing your editor.
If your editor is alienating your relationships with other industry professionals, you might need to fire your editor.
There are many reasons you and your editor might have been working at cross purposes. Some of those factors are innocuous, while others indicate deeper dysfunction. Often, referring back to your own publishing goals and sussing out your editor’s can help you determine whether you and your editor are a good professional fit.
