Do you hire a freelance editor for your manuscript before you look for an agent?

storiesweaver

Writing Everyday
Registered
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
37
Reaction score
3
Location
My imaginary world.
Is it necessary? I googled it and found out that they're really expensive, I don't have that much money. I'm just a high school student! No one should expect me to have $1000+
 
Last edited:

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,170
Reaction score
15,732
Location
Australia.
No, you don't. You proof and proof and proof again, and if you can you find another set of eyes to proof, and use them as well. And then you send it out with an excellent query letter, and cross your fingers and start thinking about the next one.

If it gets picked up, there will be editing happening. Trust me on this. :)

ETA: And good luck - High School is a great time to start being a writer!
 
Last edited:

CameronJohnston

Great Old One
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
119
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Website
www.cameronjohnston.net
Definitely not required. Work on your writing to improve your skills, proofread and polish and then submit it. Publishers will get editors to scour it for typos and errors anyway...after they ask you to change bits here and there (that you would have paid to be edited beforehand)
 

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
4,584
Reaction score
1,412
Location
The land from whence the shadows fall
Website
www.sunyidean.com
Necessary, no, but it is immensely helpful.

Writing, even more than most careers, is largely a pursuit for desperates and dilettantes. It hugely favours those with money and connections. Every edge you can get will help and increasingly I notice that a lot of people who snag agents or publishers are able to do so in part because they paid for an editor, who either helps the MS shine in a slush pile or else directly recommends them to someone in the industry.

However, given that you're just out of high school, I wouldn't worry about it for now. There's years ahead of you to perfect your craft and find your feet with writing first.
 

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,170
Reaction score
15,732
Location
Australia.
Writing, even more than most careers, is largely a pursuit for desperates and dilettantes.

No, that's not true.

It hugely favours those with money and connections.
Nor is that - sorry ;) It favours good writing.

Every edge you can get will help
Well, yes, but -

a lot of people who snag agents or publishers are able to do so in part because they paid for an editor, who either helps the MS shine in a slush pile or else directly recommends them to someone in the industry.
- do they? I do know a lot of writers and I don't think any of them used an editor before they went agent-hunting. Different if OP was planning to self-pub, but I think paying for an editor before or during the submission process is muddying the water. Part of the writer's skill-set should be editing: and the agent is expecting to rep the writer - not writer+editor.

ETA: Mind you, I'm pretty old and maybe it's all changed now. But how can there possibly be a living in it if you have to support an editor with every book?
 
Last edited:

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
4,584
Reaction score
1,412
Location
The land from whence the shadows fall
Website
www.sunyidean.com
Not an editor for every book--for the first one, when you're learning and you're new and have (usually) no track record.

An editor is a huge help for teaching craft. Saying a writer should just know how to edit is silly; no amount of self editing can compensate for a second set of eyes, and there is a world of difference between professional eyes and beta reading ones. Besides, an editor can teach someone how to self edit. Not everyone has the background or intuitive sense to grasp this all on their own. You can get there without an editor, or a creative writing class, or a mentor, or whatever, but it'll take a lot longer usually.

Agents routinely edit for their writers, so they take over that role once you have one.

What I said IS true, in my experience at least. There is a lot of privilege in writing. Like most things, it's less difficult to break into if you're able to afford a good education, have spare time, the luxury of continuing to try, and space to fail as part of the learning process.

I am thirty. I've spent a year and a half writing two books; I am subbing; I've paid for an editor; I have a very good education; I am able to keep trying until I succeed. These things are privilege. The majority of people my age do not have those advantages.

If I succeed, it will NOT be because I am good--but because I can afford to keep trying; because I am privileged in my advantages; because I am able to start young (the sooner you start, the more time you have to learn and succeed); because I have room to fail; and because in part, yes, I can pay for an editor, who helped to improve my craft.

An editor is part of that privilege; it helps, it all helps. Necessary, no. Very useful, yes. Unfair that it's useful, double yes. But what can you do *shrug* The whole world is like that. To believe that writing is somehow exempt would be madness.
 
Last edited:

Putputt

permanently suctioned to Buz's leg
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
5,448
Reaction score
2,980
Necessary, no, but it is immensely helpful.

Writing, even more than most careers, is largely a pursuit for desperates and dilettantes. It hugely favours those with money and connections. Every edge you can get will help and increasingly I notice that a lot of people who snag agents or publishers are able to do so in part because they paid for an editor, who either helps the MS shine in a slush pile or else directly recommends them to someone in the industry.

I'm very curious to know where you're seeing a lot of people who paid for an editor. I only know one writer who paid for an editor, and she did that because she was planning on self-pubbing her books. Everybody else just relied on unpaid beta readers. And of all the agented writers I know, only one snagged her agent through a referral (that same writer who self-pubbed her books, heh).

I think most careers favor those with privilege, whether it be a high education, money, or connections. I don't see how writing is any different. The connections, like in most careers, only get you so far, though. I will say that when I interned for an agent, quite a lot of the queries he said yes to were personal referrals from other agents, clients, or publishers. But he only offered rep on 1 of them. The rest were rejected with form Rs, or at the very most, with a one-sentence personalization. Connections get you read faster, but they don't really do much else.

Anyway, OP, you don't need to pay for an editor. You've found the best resource there is for writers: Absolute Write. I did a Masters in Creative Writing, and honestly, I learnt WAY MORE on AW than I did in my Masters program. I'm actually quite jealous that you found AW so early on in your writing path. :) Hang around and you'll make writing buddies who are pretty much indispensable to your writing journey.
 
Last edited:

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
Lots of editors and agents are put off when they hear someone has paid for an editor. We want to see what writers can produce on their own, not what they can produce with paid-for help.

And I agree that connections might get you read more quickly, but they certainly won't get you representation or a contract if your writing isn't good enough.
 

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
4,584
Reaction score
1,412
Location
The land from whence the shadows fall
Website
www.sunyidean.com
More than half of my local novelist group have used literary consultants or other paid help. Most writers in my personal immediate circle have either studied writing in a formal way (creative writing or English, etc), and/or have had an editor. I don't know a lot of trade published writers, but 3 of the 4 don't have agents; couldn't get them, and went the small press route. The rest self publish.

Getting read faster is huge, especially in an industry where months or years to get read is the norm. Of course you still have to have merit to get somewhere beyond that, but a lot of people have merit. All things being equal, in terms of merit, the connection gives an edge nonetheless. The more polished something is, also makes a difference.

I said in my first post that you don't 'need' it, but I refuse to cede that having an editor is somehow not an advantage. It absolutely is. As you say, privilege is in everything.
 

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
4,584
Reaction score
1,412
Location
The land from whence the shadows fall
Website
www.sunyidean.com
And yet agents/editors don't object to people who study creative writing or do a degree?

That's paid help, too. Especially in creative writing where you're potentially querying something you put together with the assistance of a class and professor.

My MS could not have been completed without my IRL partner, my two critique partners, my many beta readers, my many crits received and many MS that I read. Should agents and editors also look down on that because I didn't write in a vacuum?

I feel that a developmental editor, if you are new and can afford one, is a pretty decent stand-in if you've not had a degree or more formal training in writing. The problem being that not everyone can afford them, naturally.


I should bow out, otherwise I'll keep arguing the toss, and I can't really afford to burn AW bridges!
 
Last edited:

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
23,912
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
Disclaimer: I've been given some colossally bad advice in this business, but I don't think about this.

And yet agents/editors don't object to people who study creative writing or do a degree?

It's not that they don't object.

It's that they don't know.*

An agent, when they read your work and decide whether or not they can sell it, isn't going to know about your formal education unless you've proactively told them. Neither will an acquiring editor. (The editor who bought my stuff makes a point of trying to avoid all information about the author. I'm not sure it's possible for him to avoid salient details, given how books are subbed to him, but he wants to be reading the book as "cold" as possible. He's said all this on Twitter, so I'm not betraying his trade secret. :))

You're right that a more saleable book is better, and you may be one of those people an editor can help with that. But you can bet at some point in the rep process, your prospective agent is going to ask. And if you say "Yes, I hired a developmental editor for this," their calculus may go from "This person can write multiple books with me and we can all get rich, yay!" to "Ah, this may be a one-off, and I need to think about whether or not it's worth investing the necessary time and energy for that."

Or they may not. :) But having an editor go over your MS is not the same thing as any kind of training, formal or informal, that you go through yourself. Having an editor say "XYZ works/doesn't work for X reasons" is hugely helpful, yes; but if your work needs that level of changes before it can even attract attention, there's a possibility your skill set just isn't there yet. For an agent who only cares about selling one book? Yeah, they probably don't care. For one who'd like to stick with you for a while? It's going to matter.

My MS could not have been completed without my IRL partner, my two critique partners, my many beta readers, my many crits received and many MS that I read. Should agents and editors also look down on that because I didn't write in a vacuum?

Nobody writes in a vacuum. But I'd argue that a back-and-forth with crit partners, informally or in a classroom, is fundamentally different than paying an external third party to professionally edit your work.

That said: I'd originally planned to self-publish, and in that situation I would have absolutely hired an editor. If I self-publish in the future, though...I'm not sure. An editor--even a really, really good one--isn't a magic bullet. They're not going to turn a book that's unworkable into something that sweeps the bestseller lists. I'm unconvinced they could turn a book that an agent wouldn't look at twice into a book that multiple agents would scramble over. IME it's a last step, not a first one.

You're right that there are a lot of pieces involved in producing a book, and the best methods will depend on the author's goals as well as the particular book in question. But I do believe it's not the thing to do if you're gunning to trade-pub your first novel.

*IME there are cliques around schools and workshops, but they're not going to help you pre-publication.
 

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
4,584
Reaction score
1,412
Location
The land from whence the shadows fall
Website
www.sunyidean.com
Thankyou, I appreciate the long answer (genuinely, not snarky! I like long answers.)

But... I would argue that if agents really do look down on FT authors hiring editors, then they're being discriminatory and irrational, for a few different reasons.

The first being--that's essentially saying that some kind of privilege is more acceptable than others. Got a good education? Grew up with access to books and writing and general support? Cool, no problem. But if you didn't grow up weaned on novels, didn't get tertiary education, and instead saved up for a dev editor or writing mentor to teach you craft (there's a lot of overlap in many cases), suddenly that's not okay. For no reason other than Just Because.

Second reason; disability. My partner is dyslexic and wants to write in future (he hasn't got time now). My father is dyslexic, and *has* completed a novel. My partner would absolutely use an editor, and my father did as well. It's all well and good saying, get a beta reader, but that's an awful lot of dyslexic grammar you are asking someone to slog through, not just once but every potential revision.

People who haven't had the same educational background, who have dyslexia or other issues, shouldn't be penalised because of irrational bias.

And I think it IS irrational for the reasons I mentioned already; mostly, that it's not really any different from the other tools available to writers, such as groups, betas, alphas, critique partners, degrees, workshops, classes, on and on. An editor cannot make a diamond out of a turd; you still have to do revisions yourself. A good writer can take revisions and crits and make a MS shine. A bad one accepts changes blindly and goes nowhere.


I guess fundamentally, I'm also dubious that so many agents have this bias. One of my critique partners found her (very good) agent through an editor recommendation. It meant she could skip the query letter and long que to get the MS read in its entirety, and clearly the agent in that situation had no issue with the MS being edited, since they take recommendations from various editors.

As a second example, a LOT of agents also double up as book doctors or offer MS assessments/reports. Like John Jarrold, who is a very well known SFF agent and book doctor/editor. If agents really do look down on FT authors hiring industry professionals to improve their craft, then these people--like John Jarrold--must be massive flaming hypocrites of gargantuan proportions. (NB: I don't think they are, incase John Jarrold is reading!) >.>
 

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
365
Location
Beautiful downtown Mordor
I've had four books edited now by professionals. Three were what I'd have called 'light' edits, where line edits were done, facts were checked, and some suggestions made about timelines and such. The fourth edit was like being beaten to death with a couch. I'm pretty sure my writing didn't abruptly degrade, and the plot wasn't more complex (less, really), so I have to assume that my last editor was simply far more into developmental editing.

Couple of things about that: first, it makes my story better, removes inconsistencies, etc; and second, it teaches me things. Having your novel edited by someone who is willing to go in and do more than SPAG is an education. Of course, such editors will be more expensive, so you have to decide if it's worth your while.

But here's the thing: if you submit a story that's really well edited in every sense but not particularly novel or captivating, and another story that desperately needs editing but is absolutely fascinating and can't-put-down, it is the latter that will get you a contract first. So be more concerned about producing the best story you can. The nice thing is, that doesn't cost anything.
 

Anna Iguana

reading all the things
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
925
Reaction score
219
Location
US
If an author produces a great book by working with an editor, I want to read it. End of story. Yet I'm not persuaded that it's irrational for an agent to carefully consider whether to enter a business relationship with an author plus an unknown editor who won't be signed on *for sure* for future projects.

Editors get busy, get popular and raise their rates, etc. An agent wouldn't be able to assume the editor would continue to be available, and editors (at least, editors who are doing enough work that it makes a difference to whether a book lands representation) aren't interchangeable any more than authors are.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
23,912
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
I wrote a big long answer that ended with "What do you think a developmental editor does?" and I realized I should check that myself. :) So I looked up developmental editing on Wikipedia, and this is their definition:

A developmental editor may guide an author (or group of authors) in conceiving the topic, planning the overall structure, and developing an outline—and may coach authors in their writing, chapter by chapter. This is true developmental editing, but not the most common way of working. More commonly, a developmental editor is engaged only after someone (usually the publisher) decides that the authors' draft requires substantial revision and restructuring. In these cases, developmental editing is a radical form of substantive editing.

I'm not sure I've ever had a true developmental edit on anything I've done. And if we work with this definition - yeah, I'd say this is something you ideally ought to learn how to do yourself if you're planning to make a career of writing fiction. You could even convince me that hiring a developmental editor is a good way to learn - but if I were an agent looking for a long-term client, I'd want to make sure you had learned, and that you weren't going to need such a high degree of assistance for everything you wrote.

But I suspect neither one of us meant anything this radical (although I could be wrong). I'm guessing we've both been thinking of what they refer to here as "substantive editing" - the sort of finish work a publisher routinely does with a manuscript they've acquired.

The first being--that's essentially saying that some kind of privilege is more acceptable than others. Got a good education? Grew up with access to books and writing and general support? Cool, no problem. But if you didn't grow up weaned on novels, didn't get tertiary education, and instead saved up for a dev editor or writing mentor to teach you craft (there's a lot of overlap in many cases), suddenly that's not okay. For no reason other than Just Because.

If you're looking for an editor as just another person you're getting feedback from, I think that's different than expecting them to make your book publishable. But if you're looking at them that way, I'm wondering why you're spending the money. A good editor of any kind is not cheap; I'd think you'd want more out of it than what you'd get from a really conscientious beta reader.

Second reason; disability. My partner is dyslexic and wants to write in future (he hasn't got time now). My father is dyslexic, and *has* completed a novel. My partner would absolutely use an editor, and my father did as well. It's all well and good saying, get a beta reader, but that's an awful lot of dyslexic grammar you are asking someone to slog through, not just once but every potential revision.

This is a special case (and also, I think, different than the sort of editing we've been discussing). I'd argue that this is an accommodation issue and likely wouldn't bother an agent at all (although I'd disclose it, because my future work would probably need the same kind of editing before the agent could sub it).

I guess fundamentally, I'm also dubious that so many agents have this bias.

This is very possible. :)

As a second example, a LOT of agents also double up as book doctors or offer MS assessments/reports.

If they're taking money for it, it sounds a lot like a conflict of interest, and would worry me. If you're talking about unpaid editing - yes, there are a lot of agents who do that for their clients, with varying degrees of skill.

I don't actually have an issue with people hiring editors, even if they're going to sub to agents. My bias comes in because I see an awful lot of people (not necessarily anyone on this thread) who believe all they need is a professional editor, and they'll somehow magically have something they can sell. Most of these people are not the kind of people a professional editor is going to be able to help enough, because the reality is they're still learning. (And yeah, if they can learn from a professional edit, that's not a bad thing, but in most cases that professional edit is not going to be the final step before fame and fortune.)

So I guess where I fall is this:

If you're self-publishing, I'd suggest hiring an editor if you can afford to do so - not because you need them to make the book good, but because they're your last buff-and-polish before the buying public gets their hands on it. (In addition to many fabulous self-pubbed books, I've read a few that were one or two polishes away from being outstanding - these were writers who could clearly do the work, but for whatever reason had stopped just a bit short.)

If you're querying or subbing to small presses, the case for an editor-for-hire is (IMHO) much weaker. All you're doing there is putting off learning to do the work yourself, and you're better off saving your money and taking more time.

In any case, I think it's not cut and dried either way.
 

Jan74

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
136
Location
Canada
This has been a very interesting read. I have a folder dedicated to editing agencies I happen across when I'm on amazon and see a book I like. The majority seem to be self published so they list the editing agency and the cover art agency.

For me if I decide to try and obtain an agent I won't spend money on an editor. If I decide to go the self publishing route then absolutely I will have a thorough edit done on my work.
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
But... I would argue that if agents really do look down on FT authors hiring editors, then they're being discriminatory and irrational, for a few different reasons.

I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick, Harlequin.

Agents and editors most certainly don't "look down on" writers who hire editors to knock their work into shape prior to submission. They just are wary of it, because it's impossible to know how much the book owes to the writer and how much to the editor; and if that editor isn't always going to be available, there's no guarantee the writer will be able to produce publishable work in the future.

The first being--that's essentially saying that some kind of privilege is more acceptable than others. Got a good education? Grew up with access to books and writing and general support? Cool, no problem. But if you didn't grow up weaned on novels, didn't get tertiary education, and instead saved up for a dev editor or writing mentor to teach you craft (there's a lot of overlap in many cases), suddenly that's not okay. For no reason other than Just Because.

I think most editors and agents can spot raw talent when they see it. We'd all rather work with a rough but brilliant book than with a perfectly edited dull thing. And some tertiary educations are not worth having--there are several writing MA courses that I know of where the students never get to work with good writers, and it shows. The work those courses puts out is not necessarily good. (I speak as someone with a writing MA, so do not have a bias against them.)

Second reason; disability. My partner is dyslexic and wants to write in future (he hasn't got time now). My father is dyslexic, and *has* completed a novel. My partner would absolutely use an editor, and my father did as well. It's all well and good saying, get a beta reader, but that's an awful lot of dyslexic grammar you are asking someone to slog through, not just once but every potential revision.

I know quite a few writers with dyslexia. Me, for one. Katie Fforde has made no secret of her dyslexia, and she's a multi-bestseller; I can think of others, but I am not confident they've come out with their dyslexia, so won't name them. My son has really bad dyslexia, and I know how disabling it can be. But there are ways round it.

People who haven't had the same educational background, who have dyslexia or other issues, shouldn't be penalised because of irrational bias.

It is not an irrational bias to want to know what a writer can produce without help.

Having dyslexia will not stop you getting published if you can tell a really good story.

I guess fundamentally, I'm also dubious that so many agents have this bias. One of my critique partners found her (very good) agent through an editor recommendation. It meant she could skip the query letter and long que to get the MS read in its entirety, and clearly the agent in that situation had no issue with the MS being edited, since they take recommendations from various editors.

As I said earlier, I think you're reading too much into this.

It's useful to know that a writer can produce a competent draft without the services of an editor.

It's worrying to know that a writer depends on an editor to get to that stage.

That's all.
 

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
4,584
Reaction score
1,412
Location
The land from whence the shadows fall
Website
www.sunyidean.com
But how is that different to me being dependent on my crit partners and beta readers? If they die, stop having time to help, or just otherwise disappear, then theoretically the same risk is there. I'm not trying to be thick, I just don't see the difference.

I guess I don't see an indie editor as something trade writers depend on regularly, any more than other support systems. If an editor is having THAT much input then surely it's not editing and has crossed the line into co writing.
 
Last edited:

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,170
Reaction score
15,732
Location
Australia.
I refuse to cede that having an editor is somehow not an advantage. It absolutely is. As you say, privilege is in everything.
I think carrying the skill-set yourself is a far greater advantage and privilege than having the money to pay someone else to do it for you. I say that as someone who doesn't have and has never had a novelists group, or mentors or a degree in writing - or indeed a university education or even a High School diploma. And still feels pretty privileged, thanks very much. To my dear old mind, privilege* has less to do with those things than not living in a war zone, having good health and supported healthcare, having books and time and thoughts - and a place to write.
 
Last edited:

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
4,584
Reaction score
1,412
Location
The land from whence the shadows fall
Website
www.sunyidean.com
What constitutes privilege is probably a separate discussion. Regardless, I think we're talking at cross-purposes at this point, and I'm not likely to convince anyone else (since I cannot, it seems, even set out my own position with clarity).
 

Fuchsia Groan

Becoming a laptop-human hybrid
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
2,867
Reaction score
1,392
Location
The windswept northern wastes
I recently interviewed a professional writing coach who speaks at Writer’s Digest conferences and has a craft book out. In the book, she describes pro editing as an absolute prerequisite for querying.

When I told her my doubts about this advice, and that I myself had never paid an editor, she seemed genuinely surprised. Then she sort of shrugged and said something implying that I must have been lucky to have an agent who didn’t mind my unpolished ms.

Actually, I think my ms. was pretty darn polished, at least on the surface level (I am myself an editor). It still went through a LOT of developmental editing (re-plotting, etc.) before publication.

But that’s neither here nor there. My point is, some influential folks are now describing the hiring of a professional editor not as an option but as a necessity, without which your submission won’t be taken seriously. And some of the same folks who hand out this advice to writers are themselves freelance editors. So that, I think, is kind of a problem.

Of course pro editing should be an option, but it is NOT a sine qua non. None of the trade published writers I know have talked about sending their books to a freelance editor. Which doesn’t mean it doesn’t ever happen or shouldn’t happen, just that it isn’t the expected norm.
 

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
4,584
Reaction score
1,412
Location
The land from whence the shadows fall
Website
www.sunyidean.com
Sorry, I missed your response earlier, somehow!

I'm not sure I've ever had a true developmental edit on anything I've done. And if we work with this definition - yeah, I'd say this is something you ideally ought to learn how to do yourself if you're planning to make a career of writing fiction. You could even convince me that hiring a developmental editor is a good way to learn - but if I were an agent looking for a long-term client, I'd want to make sure you had learned, and that you weren't going to need such a high degree of assistance for everything you wrote.

At the risk of sounding provocative, isn't that sort of the point for things like PitchWars Mentors? Authors and other industry professionals picking up diamonds in the rough, giving them a good polish, snazzing up the query, presenting them to agents with recommendations?

Should agents not be concerned that said mentees won't be able to replicate the same product, without the input of mentors? One of the mentees (Ian Barnes) has two mentors this year. What happens when he sits to write his next book and they're not there, looking over his shoulder, putting spit-shine on his query? The agent he's now landed, didn't seem particularly concerned ;-) I personally think he'll be fine.


But I suspect neither one of us meant anything this radical (although I could be wrong). I'm guessing we've both been thinking of what they refer to here as "substantive editing" - the sort of finish work a publisher routinely does with a manuscript they've acquired.

If you're looking for an editor as just another person you're getting feedback from, I think that's different than expecting them to make your book publishable. But if you're looking at them that way, I'm wondering why you're spending the money. A good editor of any kind is not cheap; I'd think you'd want more out of it than what you'd get from a really conscientious beta reader.

I can only speak for myself, here. I do mean dev editor, at least in relation to me. I learn best by practical example; having a project to work on, with some assisting every now and then. Editing at that level effectively works in that way for me.

"a really conscientious beta reader" - right, but those are golddust. I've mentioned before that I've had more than twenty betas I found over the past year, but of those the first fourteen or so bailed by Chapter Three. Finding a good beta is hard. Finding a good beta in my very niche genre, even harder. Getting them to stick with my incomprehensible early drafts, proved impossible.

I could have gone for paid betas, but those aren't cheap either. A 'professional' beta reader can set you back several hundred quid easily, and I tend to think if you're shelling out that much, you might as well just get an edit. So I had an alpha editor, and I see nothing shameful in it at all. I used to be an academic editor, pre children, and I considered it quite a natural course of action to seek out the fiction equivalent. There was a lot to learn, and it helped me get my head around structure, to understand the way I write and what worked for me.

Once I got the MS to a point where people could work out what the fresh hell was going on, then betas could help. It was by no means a polished MS, but it pulled me out of the chaos, and onto the ladder at least. (NB, I realise that's not normal; most people go to editors *after* betas, for a less comprehensive edit. Mine was very much alpha stage.) All the betas who've stuck it out, have done so post-editing.


I don't think I'd seek out an editor for current wip, but then i'ts much more straightforward; single pov, linear, no philosophy, primary world, standalone. Otoh, I have no particular plans to seek one out for the rest of the first series, either.


If they're taking money for it, it sounds a lot like a conflict of interest, and would worry me. If you're talking about unpaid editing - yes, there are a lot of agents who do that for their clients, with varying degrees of skill.

Quick note on this--you can be John Jarrold's client or you can hire him for editing, but not both. All the reputable ones who offer this service don't mix and match.

I don't actually have an issue with people hiring editors, even if they're going to sub to agents. My bias comes in because I see an awful lot of people (not necessarily anyone on this thread) who believe all they need is a professional editor, and they'll somehow magically have something they can sell. Most of these people are not the kind of people a professional editor is going to be able to help enough, because the reality is they're still learning. (And yeah, if they can learn from a professional edit, that's not a bad thing, but in most cases that professional edit is not going to be the final step before fame and fortune.)

Fair observation, and I'd agree.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
23,912
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
At the risk of sounding provocative, isn't that sort of the point for things like PitchWars Mentors? Authors and other industry professionals picking up diamonds in the rough, giving them a good polish, snazzing up the query, presenting them to agents with recommendations?

To me, there's a world of difference between a mentor who's acting as a teacher, and an editor who's performing a service. But I can see why that would seem like a fuzzy line.

Should agents not be concerned that said mentees won't be able to replicate the same product, without the input of mentors?

I imagine they are. I imagine agents are worried about any client reproducing what they've done with their first book. But as I say above, a mentor is a teacher. One hopes that the student will be learning, and eventually evolving beyond the need for that teacher.

One of the mentees (Ian Barnes) has two mentors this year. What happens when he sits to write his next book and they're not there, looking over his shoulder, putting spit-shine on his query? The agent he's now landed, didn't seem particularly concerned ;-) I personally think he'll be fine.

I'm sure he's marvelous, but you can't judge a thing by how people are on line. On Twitter, nobody knows you're a dog - or a gifted writer, or an agent full of doubts. Everybody in publishing these days knows how to play the social media game, and the pros play it really, really well. (Which isn't to say that many - even most - of them aren't sincere, but you can't know based only on their online presence.)

I'm also guessing Ian Barnes is in much less need of mentors than he thinks, but a) I could be wrong; and b) one counterexample doesn't change my point anyway.

Quick note on this--you can be John Jarrold's client or you can hire him for editing, but not both. All the reputable ones who offer this service don't mix and match.

Yes, I'm aware of a few like this. Just thought it was worth the mention - don't pay someone who you want to be your agent. :)

ETA I've been thinking, and really, I'm not sure if we're actually arguing, or if it just seems like it. :) I do think in general a pro editor is going to have less of an influence over a book's success or failure than folks tend to think. As a learning exercise? Sure, why not? Different people are going to find value in different types of learning.

(And for what it's worth, I'm not a big fan of the "Oh, you must have an MFA/do Clarion/do Hedgebrook to get anywhere" argument either, but I bet they'd be fun to do.)
 
Last edited:

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
To summarise:

1) No, you definitely don't need to pay anyone to edit your work if you're hoping to find an agent or trade publishing deal.

2) Yes, it can give you some advantage to submit work which is more polished; but on the other hand, many agents and editors prefer to see what your work is like unaided, so it can also count against you.

3) Having an MA or MFA in writing can also give you a leg-up, but it can also count against you if the course you take isn't one of the best.

4) Beware of experts who tell you you must have your work professionally edited prior to submission, especially when they provide the services they're suggesting are essential.

5) If your book isn't already brilliant, all the editing in the world isn't going to make it so.

6) If your book is brilliant but rough, paying to have it edited might count against you as the edit might take it in a direction that makes it less saleable, rather than more.

7) If your book is brilliant agents and editors won't care how rough it is, they'll just want it.

I think I've covered everything there.