Understanding freelance independent editors

You don’t have to floss all your teeth. Just the ones you want to keep.
—dentists’ motto

Ever since I began this blog in 2009, everyone in the publishing industry has been weighing in on the big question: “Do you really need to hire an independent editor? Don’t agents love you just as much without one?”

This is complicated by the use of “editor” for three different jobs in the publishing industry: someone in charge of the writing staff of a periodical (a magazine or newspaper editor), someone who acquires manuscripts for a publisher (an acquisitions editor), and someone who, independently and freelance, works with an author to translate a manuscript from talented amateur to talented professional.

Most folks point out that the blogosphere is absolutely ripe to bursting with amateur critiquers peddling themselves as independent “editors” without actually offering more than what you could get from a moderately-accurate grammar- and spell-checker.

And this is an excellent thing to point out.

Always hire a freelance independent editor with whom you feel comfortable,
knowing exactly what you’ll get for your money.

I don’t mean they’ve just taped Elmore Leonard’s 10 Rules to their monitor, either.

I mean:

• They know how to read a synopsis and/or manuscript and help the author create from their original vision a concrete, smooth-moving, tension-laden plot to grip the reader from hook to climax.

• They know how to disentangle a currently frustrating manuscript and show the author what’s redundant, what’s sagging, and where to write new scenes to move the plot powerfully forward.

• They know how to find out what’s going wrong when a seemingly beautiful manuscript comes back time and again from agents with a “not quite” rejection letter.

• They know how to line-edit paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of both first-draft and heavily-polished material into professional style without losing the author’s unique voice.

• They see enough manuscripts to recognize rookie mistakes and common overuse of specific techniques.

• They’re familiar enough with the mechanics of publishing to know what authorial tricks publishers are likely to baulk at, especially from newbies.

• They know not to put a comma between a subject and verb, no matter how long the subject or how wispy the verb.

• They’re also keeping a keen eye on the Gutenberg-sized shake-up of the publishing industry.

• And they even know what’s wrong with Leonard’s 10 Rules and why.

I mean they have glowing, enthusiastic, explicit testimonials from previous and current clients, both published and unpublished, explaining exactly what those clients like about their services, posted somewhere easily-accessible to all and sundry. (You shouldn’t have to ask. Why keep such things secret?)

In an ideal world, there’s actually some way for you to engage them in brief conversation about their deeper understanding of the craft before you even discuss their editing services.

I mean they know a hawk from a handsaw, people.

If every manuscript being queried today had been through a really good (not just copy edit) professional edit first, the quality of manuscripts agents saw when they opened their inboxes tomorrow morning would jump like a kangaroo. (Just as the quality of the manuscripts publishers’ editors get from agents is—hopefully—measurably greater than what they get through direct submissions.)

So why doesn’t everyone recommend good independent editors for all aspiring writers?

It’s mostly confusion.

Independent editors are on the cutting edge of the changing face of publishing. Unless you know what you’re looking for, reputable independent editors are impossible to differentiate from amateur critiquers trying to make a quick buck off the industry. There used to be very confident, definitive-sounding explanations out there written six, five, even just four years ago assertively claiming that edited manuscripts are no more attractive to publishers than unedited manuscripts.

Well, this is silly.

Of course well-edited manuscripts are better-written than unedited manuscripts. Even Hemingway’s manuscripts were better after Maxwell Perkins got his hands on them. Even Kerouac’s scroll manuscript was unpublishable before he and Malcolm Cowley spent a month working it over. Even publisher’s editor Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye had to be edited.

Agents and publishers just don’t want you to think professional editing—even really good professional editing—is a guarantee of publication.

It’s not.

There are no guarantees.

It’s also partly a very real sense of responsibility. Although my list of requirements for potential independent editors is reasonably exhaustive, many publishing professionals don’t know where to find such an editor on short notice, particularly one they can personally vouch for.

And it’s also financial.

Independent editors get paid.

In today’s publishing industry, the burden of paying the editor very often falls on the shoulders of the writer. And so—as the number of aspiring writers continues to explode, while traditional publishing houses continue to unload anything they consider ballast in their efforts to make their cash flow as lucrative as possible—the modern aspiring writer takes on yet another chore.

However, you know what? That’s okay. Because decades ago, the aspiring writer expected to spend years and years learning their craft before publishing.

And now they don’t. They expect to be published within a year or two—even less than a year—after they begin learning to write. Amazingly. . .sometimes they even do!

They have freelance independent editors to thank.