Quote Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie View Post
If you're a writer, there is no excuse for hiring an editor, and as an editor, I don't want anything to do with a writer who hires an editor. If you can't edit, you also can't write well enough to edit.

If you aren't a writer, but a person who wants to write a memoir or autobiography, or a nonfiction book on a subject where you're the expert, you may well need an editor.

Good ones do not come cheap because chances are you need a book doctor, not a regular editor. Either way, expect to spend well over a thousand dollars, and probably at least two tousand for someone of quality and proven experience.
There's more than one poster with this pov in the thread and I've seen it elsewhere on the site and I don't get it, honestly.

If it were the case that writers, by which I presume you mean good writers, didn't need editors, there's a whole boatload of people who have fooled industries for more than a century.

The NY Times generally hires people who can write well, and yet no copy gets on those pages without passing through at least two editors.

Publishing houses have editors on staff for a reason, as do magazines and etc.

I agree writers should learn as much grammar as possible, and learn to cut and rework and etc., their own work. Then they should have an editor look at it; even editors use editors.