General Philosophy of Editing

Does my voice sound funny?

When you hear yourself speaking on a recording or in a video, your voice sounds different to you than it usually does. This is because your vocal cords are no longer vibrating your eardrums and ossicles from the inside; your voice is literally outside your head, and that makes it sound funny to you. Writing has exactly the opposite effect. Your voice on the page is identical to the voice in your head, and that makes it nearly impossible for you to identify things that sound odd to other people. A good editor smooths these wrinkles so readers remain focused on the content rather than tripping over awkward turns of phrase, run-on sentences, and commonly confused words.

No one likes being corrected

Many writers are put off by the idea of working with an editor. That’s why I edit in a spirit of helpfulness, not in a spirit of correction or remediation. An author who is ready for copy editing has put in hours and hours of hard work already, and I respect that. I’m here to make sure authors’ final versions are the clearest and most appealing reflections of their minds possible, and I don’t care whether they learn to place semicolons properly in the process. It won’t be me who instructs them directly. I fix things and keep moving.

Are authors obligated to accept all the changes?

Absolutely not. As an editor, I assume no enforceable authority that isn’t granted by an author or a publisher. I won’t tell authors what they can or cannot say in their work, nor will I tell them how they must say things in their work. All substantive suggestions I make are merely that: suggestions. They can be accepted, rejected, or modified freely without giving offense to me.

I offer more than corrections

My practice is to suggest alternative vocabulary and syntax in places where I think the text would benefit. I will rewrite a sentence or an entire paragraph if I see a need for improvement. Such intensive editing may sound invasive or overbearing, but authors receive the full markup, and that makes it easy for them to take what they like and leave what they don’t.

It’s all about the work; don’t worry about me

I take no umbrage when my suggestions are rejected. Because I offer many possible changes, I am never surprised or hurt when some are further emended and some are left on the cutting room floor. The goal is the best possible published product, and sometimes the process is messy, but that’s just the business of rhetoric. I know it isn’t personal. In fact, my best work renders me invisible. I don’t edit to push an ideological agenda or attain recognition for myself. Ideally, readers will never know I had a hand in bringing the work to market.

What do I know, anyway?

Grammar and syntax, certainly, but in terms of engaging subjects about which people like to write, I am a true generalist. As an editor of material in many subject areas, it behooves me to be conversant in a wide range of topics. I traverse Wikipedia in my spare time, keep current on national and international news, and read mostly nonfiction. On grammar, syntax, and usage, I highly recommend Dreyer’s English, which is a surprisingly lighthearted and funny read.

Crafting quality arguments

Helping authors think outside their echo chambers, no matter their ideological perspective, is the most delicate and rewarding part of the editing process. Whether my views align with an author’s or not, I play a friendly devil’s advocate with 20 years’ experience in diplomacy and tact. I always encourage authors to expand their consideration of opposing views so their text anticipates and preempts arguments that may arise in readers’ minds. This is important in nonfiction, but the best fiction writers have their audiences in mind as well, and they too anticipate and manipulate reader expectations.

One and done, right?

It is a rare document that benefits more from proofreading alone than from a combination of copy editing and proofreading. My editorial process usually comprises three rounds: my initial edit (to which the author responds by making changes to my changes if desired), my proof of the resulting version, and then my proof of the galley after it has been through design and layout (because design and layout can introduce errors). If you want a single round of proofreading only, without any substantive suggestions, please be clear about that. Such a one-time proof is not my usual practice, nor is it the kind of work on which I generally base my rates. 

Don’t DIY

Every text needs more than one reader before it goes out into the world. Maybe your text has had several readers already. Your colleagues, friends, and loved ones may have read drafts and offered their thoughts. Great! A copy editor gets out of the margins and digs in directly—line by line and word by word—to make changes preliminary readers only suggest, then fades into the background to let you take all the credit. Put an extra mind to work on your prose. You’ll be amazed at the result.