An editor new to the business wondered in an online forum what other editors do when their editorial comments and revision suggestions are rejected by the author.
The query provoked a discussion, and it occurred to me that it might be interesting for writers to be privy to something editors talk about when you’re not around.
The In-House Editor & House Style
Whether or not the writer incorporates suggested revisions seemed to be a big concern for the in-house editors in the forum. These are editors employed by publishing companies, magazines, and journals as staff or freelancers.The job of those editors is to communicate house style and ensure the work consistently meets house standards.
Although you can always question and seek clarifications from an in-house editor, there may be limits. When an author is uncooperative, the in-house editor may have no recourse other than to give up and turn the manuscript back to the acquisition editor with a list of recommendations.
You can discuss, but you usually can’t fight house style or all the suggestions, and as a writer, you should know that when you turn the revision process into a fight with an in-house editor, the magazine or publishing company you thought would be publishing your work may not publish it after all. (Publishers want to work with professionals.)
The Independent Editor & the Self-Publishing Author
The relationship between an independent freelance editor and a self-publishing author is different.
Editors in the forum told about writers (no names were used!) who rejected their suggestions and produced books riddled with errors or who rushed to self-publish books that were clearly not ready. Every editor, it seemed, had stories like that. It became clear that the original poster and some others worried about how their client’s work would affect their reputations as editors.
But as the forum discussion progressed, there seemed to be some consensus that the reading public understands the author is responsible for the book’s content, not the editor. Experienced editors know that once they’ve given the writer thoughtful advice — and backed it up with standard guides like the Chicago Manual of Style along with conversations with the writer about how their choices affect the reader — that what to do with editorial remarks is the author’s decision.
One experienced editor in the forum wrote that “editing is a diplomatic awareness-raising exercise, not a battle of wills.” I tend to agree.
I enjoy working with a writer who will push back on my suggestions. It keeps me on my toes when I have to explain myself, and my experience has shown me that a conversation between editor and author can help the writer clarify their vision and generate new ideas.
Whose Book Is It, Anyway?
The consensus was that the independent editor’s job is to offer suggestions and other information that enables the self-publishing writer to make good choices more confidently. The goal of the editor should be to help writers achieve their vision for the work. A good editor does not give orders or impose her own style or vision on the author’s work.
Editing is two-way conversation, not a sermon from the mount.
Yes, you might work with a dictatorial editor, but they are not as common as the movies and New Yorker cartoons would have you believe. (But that’s why a pre-hire chat about to learn more about how the editor works with writers is a good idea.)
Editors want to help the writer achieve their vision for their work. Editors want to help, not hinder, the writer.
Back to the Original Question
So back to the original question the forum member posed: What do editors do when their editorial comments and revision suggestions are rejected by the author?
The fact is, we cannot do anything but cringe when our names appear in the book’s acknowledgements, and the reviews point out problems we know could have been avoided had the author adopted our suggestions and taken more care to revise.
But it’s the author’s name on the front of the book, not the editor’s. And that’s as it should be.
Editors have no control over the self-published author’s output, nor should we. Some of the saddest words in the world are, “My editor made me do it.” The author is the decider and should remain in control of their work.
We editors can only offer the best of our experience and knowledge to our clients. We can explain the reasoning behind our revisions and suggestions and discuss alternatives.
Editors can only hope writers will truly listen and carefully consider their advice before they decide to act on it or reject it. We hope our suggestions will not be dismissed out of hand, and we hope that writers will give their work all the time and effort it deserves. But we cannot do anything to make sure that happens.
So what do editors do when their editorial comments and revision suggestions are rejected by the author? We release our mental attachment to the final product with the words “not my book.”
Elle E. Ire
Great post! I’m with a small traditional press, so I do have “house style rules” to adhere to, and I totally get that. One of the best things that you mentioned above is something I love about my three-person editing team. For the first three books they worked on with me, every time they left a mechanics (grammar/punctuation/spelling) comment, they also cited the Chicago Manual of Style or Webster’s or whichever source they used for the editorial suggestion. I likely wouldn’t have argued anyway, but this helped instill a deep trust in me for my editors, and now they rarely need to cite references for their comments because I am quite sure they are right. On the very rare occasions I question their comments, usually for something more complicated like phrasing or a plot element, or a dialogue choice, they are 100% professional in discussing them with me and giving their reasoning. Sometimes I do “win” the discussion, but most of the time I see their point and go with it. When I do convince them, they explain how they can now understand where I’m coming from with my choice. One thing I ALWAYS try to remember to do is take full responsibility for any remaining errors in the book by stating that in my acknowledgements when I thank my editors. A good editing team is like gold. They deserve so much more credit than they are often given.
Charlene Edge
Sure appreciate this wonderful post about what goes on behind the scenes with editors and writers. I’m a self-published author who is deeply grateful for the editors who’ve made and continue to make my work shine.
There’s nothing like a competent, experienced, diplomatic, trustworthy, and good-humored editor!
J.J. Clarke
Stephen King said, “The editor is always right.” But, I’m sure he went through a few editors to make sure his voice and style were preserved. I’ve had several sample edits done, and work closely with an editor. I don’t always take her advice. She says, “It’s your book.”
Tricia Pimental
Thanks for an informative and thought-provoking post, Mary Ann. As a self-published author in need of an editor in the past, I had tremendous success and took all the advice I could get. I also had an excellent working relationship with in-house editors at the major publication I worked for over the past few years, but I must say their attention to detail often paled in comparison to freelance editors.
Veronica Helen Hart
Great post, Mary Ann. I work on both sides of the aisle. I am self-published, traditionally published, and also edit for a publisher and independently for self-published authors. One circumstance came immediately to mind while reading your post. I worked on two autobiographies. One of the men was arrogant and fought every suggestion, often rejecting all but comma placements. The other was a gentle, humble man and allowed me to help him. In the end, the first man’s book has sold less than ten copies; the other man’s book just keeps selling and selling. I still cringe that the first man thanked me in his acknowledgments. Then there’s the smile for the second man, who never considered mentioning me but I see him at book signings from time to time and he always introduces me as the “lady who really wrote my book”.
Lee Gramling
The answer, of course — as everyone here seems to be saying — is “mutual respect.” The worst thing a writer can do is be so rude and arrogant that the editor simply washes her hands of the project and leaves the author to sink or swim on his/her own.
Anne
Great insight! Many thanks!
Paul
Two comments on this from both sides of the fence—
1. From Colum McCann who says to editors’ he disagrees with: “Thank you. I’ve used 95% of you suggestions.” But he only incorporates 5% in his final draft.
2. From my response to the the FEW self-published authors with whom I’ve worked: “Thank you for using 5% of my suggestions…but don’t include my name in your book’s credits.”
Ovid Priffer
I read your article with much interest. I might agree on some of the points you made. But you’re remarks concerning “The Chicago Manuel” is totally not correct. Using that system, I believe is a disaster. I have first hand experience with it and I believe that using it brings you into the realm of grammatical ‘Funny English’. Sorry, but that comes from first hand experience. It seems to change all the rules of grammatical rules that I’ve learned. I verified it by the grammatical rules stated in the Oxford Dictionary: The Chicago Manuel is a sham: It basturdizes the English language.
Bob
Who is Chicago Manuel?