January 22, 2013 
Much is made about the art of editing, and it is an art. In fact, it’s more art than technique, though technique must be mastered first before one can adequately edit.
For instance, we know there are several levels of editing: content, line, and proofreading. But beyond that, there are points such as:
- Which “rules” should be followed 100% of the time and which can be fudged in a few select instances to maintain authorial voice and not detract from the story via too much intervention? I believe the answer to this comes with experience. In other words, there’s not a “must do it this way” list that’s right every single time.
- Do you edit a manuscript time after time not really knowing what you’re looking for, only to end up finding typos and punctuation gaffs and not much else? If so, I’d recommend a good book on editing such as Self-Editing for Fiction Writers.
- Editing is most effective for me when done in layers. For instance, I do a first pass especially intent on removing filter words or some such, and if I see other things in the meantime, I take care of those too but don’t lose focus. The next time I watch for weak areas such as dialog tags or lack of description, an overabundance of “he turned,” “she spun,” and other annoying phrases, etc. When I feel I’ve cleaned up most of those sort of things, I do a nearing-final pass dealing with specific and beautiful word flow, sentence structure, and try to ratchet up the musicality of the piece so it reads very well. I don’t fly heedlessly through a manuscript just to say I’ve done it; I have a purpose and I approach it armed with knowledge and commitment.
- I keep reading, learning, researching, experimenting with the editing process so I can continue to become a better writer and editor, and ultimately, a better small press owner.
Editing isn’t a one-off pass, and not even a two or three pass wonder. If editing isn’t deep, wide, and repeated, I doubt if the book will be much worth a reader’s time, and certainly not his money.
Your thoughts?
~Chila
I must have edited my novel 30+ times before it was ready–even then there were a few minor errors. I would suggest that any author go through a full-length manuscript a bare minimum of ten times. For me, by the third draft I have something presentable, and by the fifth draft the novel looks somewhat like the finished product–then there is refining, refining, refining.
Well said, Michael. Nearly everyone wants to rush a project and that’s never a good thing. Mistakes happen when we rush. We forget to do things. Time is a key element in producing a quality product. Thanks.
Inspiring, Chila. When I was teaching writing in a classroom environment, the hardest thing in the world to get kids do was get them to proofread their manuscripts. I understand that one prefers to put a “finished” production away. That is all right for a season, but a writer must go back and reread ad nauseum in order to have a quality manuscript.
Yep, repeatedly and thoroughly.
Thanks, Suze.
Editing takes me far longer than writing the book. Maybe because I’m a pantser. I can bang out a novel in a couple of weeks. Might sound impressive until you add about six months of edits to that. It slowly evolves from skeleton into a real story, with complete rewrites to thread tying. It takes me many reads and edits to really turn my writing into that story in my head. And many, many passes before I’m looking at a line edit.
Ditto here, Stephanie. “Many, many passes” of informed editing. It’s a process, a journey, almost more so than a destination, eh?
Definitely agree — editing is never a one pass fix.
I think every editor & writer develops a system that works best for her/him. When editing someone else’s work, I normally start with a general reading for content, characters, continuity, verisimilitude, style. Anything that breaks my reader’s trance gets flagged but not examined at this point. I try to sink into the author’s head as well as into the story to see what s/he’s trying to achieve with it. I “profile” the story as a totality.
Then I adapt the next layer of editing according to the profile. A deep/close POV story will get different editing treatment from an omniscient story (or varying depth, or 1st person, or 2nd person, etc). The flags are checked at this point, whether it’s wording, wrong facts, dialog issues, or personal pet peeves (which may or may not require change).
Next pass is more in-depth, a line-by-line examination. An excess of passive sentences annoys me more than seeing occasional filter words, and dialog that turns into disembodied voices is just as aggravating as having a dialog tag with every change of speaker.
And then, another pass. And another.
One thing that makes editing a lengthy process (at least, for me) is explaining to the author exactly what needs revision and why. If the author can reasonably articulate why s/he wants to reject an editing change, I’m open to discussion. But I do want an author to have some take-away value when I work with her/him that can be applied to future stories.
And sometimes, I learn something new, too.
Glynda, I’m very very glad you’re on our team at PYP. Have I told you that lately? If not, take it for fact now.
Thanks for the input.
Editing in layers — good thought. Better than trying to do everything at once and missing something. Also, taking the time to do it right instead of being rushed to be finished. All great points.
If there was only one thing I could drill into every writer’s head it would be to NEVER EVER RUSH a project. EVER.
Thanks, Lisa.
No rush here, Chila! LOL.
Excellent Points. Roz Morris has a nifty book (Nail Your Novel) with tips on systematic, focused edits. It’s easy to lose your way in a re-write. Then you end up with a revised ms that’s not any better, just different.
Yes, I have Roz’s book and need to pull it out again. I highly value Roz’s input; she’s on our 6-member panel at our ezine, Beyondaries, and I love her articles there. Thanks for the reminder!