Emily De Silva

Editing, like writing, is an art. It requires close attention to a manuscript's details, stylistic choices, and structural foundations. When done thoughtfully, it can meaningfully support a writer's journey toward publication; however, if handled carelessly, it can just as easily undermine both the work and the writer's confidence. For this reason, editing must be approached with delicate precision, intention, and respect for the author's vision.

​

Good editing is not merely a matter of rereading text and correcting grammatical errors. It is a way of examining a document from multiple angles in order to determine what it needs in its current state. Since no two manuscripts share the same goals or challenges, effective editing is inherently flexible. Some projects may only require careful attention to spelling, grammar, and mechanics, while others will demand a deeper engagement with structure, argument, or narrative coherence; perhaps even a complete rewrite. Editing is not about rigidly applying rules, but about understanding the author's objectives and shaping the manuscript to produce the intended response in its audience.

​

While the process may vary, there are a handful of core stages of editing that every manuscript benefits form, regardless of how much revision the author has already undertaken. The first of these stages is developmental, or structural, editing, which addresses the manuscript at a macro level, focusing on structure, organization, clarity, and cohesion. In fiction, chapters are examined in service to the overall narrative; each must accomplish something essential to the story's progress, whether that be advancing the plot, developing character, deepening theme. In nonfiction, the emphasis lies on content, logic, and organizational flow.

​

To evaluate a manuscript from this wide-angle approach, editors must ask critical questions, such as: What purpose does each chapter or section serve? Do the characters grow or change in meaningful ways? How does this portion of the text contribute to the work's overall arc? When the answer is "very little" or "not at all," it becomes the editor's responsibility to identify the issue and bring potential resolutions to the author's attention. It is at this stage that plot holes, gaps in logic, and large-scale inconsistencies are most easily identified, allowing the manuscript to be reshaped into a coherent and effective whole.

​

Addressing these foundational concerns first allows editors and writers to strengthen the manuscript at its core before moving on to finer details. Once substantial revisions have been made, line editing can begin.

​

Line editing is the second step in the editorial process, as it examines the manuscript sentence by sentence to ensure clarity, consistency, and stylistic cohesion. At this stage, editors focus on language, word choice, rhythm, and flow, eliminating redundancy and sharpening expression while remaining attentive to the manuscript's established voice.

​

It also requires an awareness of tonal consistency, as abrupt shifts in style or voice may indicate deeper issues, such as unintentional plagiarism or the unethical use of AI-generated content. As artificial intelligence grows increasingly present in the world and writing landscape, it is essential that editors understand how such tools influence creative work and remain vigilent in preserving authenticity and authorial intent.

​

Finally, copy editing, which should occur only after all larger structural and stylistic issues have been resolved, prepares a manuscript for its intended audience and use. It addresses surface-level errors in spelling, grammar, syntax, and mechanics. These errors are a natural and unavoidable part of the writing process; even experienced writers produce drafts with humourous errors that require correction. There is a common misconception that those who are "good at writing" are automatically adept at copy editing, but the two skills are distinct. Copy errors are not a sign of carelessness or incompetence—they are simply evidence that writing is a human endeavor.

​

This reality underscores the importance of collaboration and mutual understanding between writers and editors. Writers benefit from having a foundational awareness of editing practices, just as editors benefit from understanding the writer's creative process. This shared knowledge allows both parties to work towards the same goal: producing the strongest possible manuscript.

​

Despite these stages, however, editing is rarely a perfectly linear process. While it is ideal to complete developmental editing before moving on to stylistic or mechanical concerns, revisions often overlap. Occasionally, a copy edit may reveal a structural issue, just as a developmental edit may necessitate later line-level adjustments. This back-and-forth is not a failure of the editing process, but an inherent part of it.

​​​

Ultimately, an editor's role is not to correct what's "wrong," but to recognize what already exists in the manuscript and to help make it better. Editors work in partnership with authors, offering guidance rather than imposing changes. Ethical editing prioritizes the author's vision above the editor's personal preferences (and sometimes structured guidelines) because the manuscript belongs to the writer; any and all suggestions should be framed as options, not mandatory obligations.

​

For this reason, I believe effective editorial feedback should follow three essential steps:

​

1. Clearly identify what the issue is,

2. Explain why it is an issue, and

3. Offer two or three ways the author can resolve it.

​​​

This ensures the editor respects the writer's agency while providing concrete, actionable guidance.

​

Editing is a complex and demanding practice. It requires time, experience, and a deep respect for both the craft of the writing and the people who undertake it. Editors must balance reader expectations with authorial intent, address both what a manuscript already does well and what it lacks, and communicate all of this with care and clarity. Above all, editing is an exercise in collaboration.

​

My strongest advice to aspiring editors is to apply these principles to your own work. Revisiting a project after some time away—ideally, four to six weeks, if possible—or reviewing unfamiliar material can help stimulate the perspective of an ideal reader. Fanfiction, in particular, created by others is a great place to start, so long as you are not sharing your revisions anywhere without the author's approval. Approaching your own writing with the same analytical rigor used on others' work can be invaluable training.

​

Every writer benefits from a second set of eyes. Whether through self-editing or collaboration with a professional editor, the editing process can be challenging and, at times, exhaustive. It may even require substantial revisions or a complete rewrite. Still, any work worth publishing is worth shaping with care, clarity, and intention. That's where the art of editing truly lives.