Editing, like writing, is a type of art. By carefully examining a manuscript for details, stylistic design, and structural elements, it can either miraculously aid a writer in their journey to publication or detrimentally harm their aspirations.

 

For us to understand what makes good editing, however, is to understand what makes poor editing. It is not only about rereading and picking at errors and grammatical typos; it's a way of viewing a document from different angles. Editing is different depending on what your manuscript needs. Some will only require that detailed look for spelling, grammar, and other mechanical errors while others will require more of an in-depth view of the content within. It's more than simply following a list of rules and depends heavily on what the author's goals are and how they want the recipient of the wriitng to respond. However, there are a few specific stages of editing that is required for ALL manuscripts.

​

1. Developmental editing

2. Line/ stylistic editing

3. Copy editing

​

In this order, editors are able to develop the manuscript to a higher level by dealing with much more pressing issues first. Hence why it's referred to as developmental editing.

​

Developmental editing is big-picture work. This is where editors must focus on structure, organization, plot, sometimes conflict, and whether the manuscript makes sense as a whole. For works of fiction, chapters should be viewed both individually and altogether. Each chapter must be reviewed for accomplishment. It is wise to hold a mindset so you're constantly answering the questions: What is being accomplished in each chapter? Do the characters grow in any way? How does this chapter or section add value to the overall arc of the story? And if the answer is nothing, very little, or in no way at all, then it's an editor's job to make note of it and bring resolutions to the author's attention. It's during this stage where plot holes are found and major changes are made so the manuscript is coherent and flows well on a much grander scale.

​

Line editing, on the other hand, should often come after substantial revisions are made. It requires looking at a manuscript "line by line" and  ensures the sentence structure stays consistent and the manuscript is clear and coherent on a narrower level. It involves analyzing each sentence individually, as it comes. Editors are obligated to focus on language, word choice, flow, and remove repetition and redunancy. During this stage, watching out for plagiarism is often easiest because tone and style are not far off from the editor's radar.

​

Copy editing requires a keen eye for detail. It should focus on the nitty-gritty errors, such as spelling, grammar, syntax, and writing mechanics like basic punctuation. Society tends to think that those who are characteristically “good at writing” are good at this, but in reality, this is simply a natural part of the writing process. No matter what writers do, it is impossible to avoid the small mistakes, such as missing words, repeated words, inconsistent spelling, or lack of proper punctuation. In older times, editors would use copy editing symbols so writers know what needs to be corrected, but as everything is mostly digital these days, the editing process has adapted to suggestions and comments made in-line with the manuscript. However, the reason why we copy edit remains the same: to ready the manuscript for publication.

 

Editing copy is always the final stage in the process because it is simply correcting all the tiny, remaining details (i.e.: missing or wrong punctuation, deviations between US and UK English, typos, etc.). Of course, it isn't always quite so linear.

​

As a whole, editing can be an irregular process. While it's true that editors should aim to complete a developmental edit before a stylistic edit, it isn't always this simple. On some occasions, a copy edit may lead to a developmental edit—and vice versa if an editor is bad at their job. This is completely okay! It's part of the process.

​

An editor's job is not to simply correct what's wrong, but to use what's there and make it better. Enhance it. Unified with the author and their goals and aspirations, editors are to create the best manuscript they can by offering suggestions, not by changing anything directly. Editors should not be working alone because it is not a solo proposition! To be ethical in our work, we must consider the author's vision before our own. It is their work after all. We are only to be a helpful guide until publication; that's it.

 

Moreover, an editor must be willing to work with writers—someone willing to put their work on display for criticism—and vice versa. Writers, too, must then learn to work with editors and let their work be criticized, but they mustn't let us criticize so much as to destroy the goals they want the book to achieve. It is a two-way street.

​

It's for this reason that I believe editors should include three crucial steps when suggesting a change. They are as follows:

​

• inform the writer what you’re picking out that isn’t working well,

• let them know why it isn’t working well,

• and offer them options for how they can make it better, ideally two or three.

​

Editing is a tricky business. It's not always easy to get it right. It takes time, practice, dedication to the craft, and devotion to your client's visions. It requires knowing what readers will be looking for and knowing how to ensure the manuscript consistently meets the author's expectations. It's learning to do these things simultaneously without compromising one or the other. It's knowing what the manuscript already has and what it is lacking, and therefore, filling those blanks in.

​
Above all, it's about collaboration and communication. 
 

Every writer needs a second set of eyes, or a third, or even a fourth. An editor will be the first—before you gain a readership.