Filed under:

Rosemary Shipton

What Should an Editor Be?

editor_definition

We were nearing the end of a Stylistic Editing seminar — a group of about 30 people of varying ages and experience working in-house or freelance for book publishers, magazines, businesses or governments. A woman in the third row raised her hand: “In my work I’m the only editor,” she said, “so I don’t really distinguish among structural, stylistic and copy editing. I do them all.”EAC_conference_Vancouver

I put the question to the whole group: How many of you are “it” in terms of editing? Most people indicated they were the only person who worked on the texts they edited. Several explained they did only copy editing, and one young man, a textbook developmental editor, said he was responsible for that task alone.

Yes, that’s how it is, isn’t it? In Canada at least, only the large trade and educational publishers and those government departments with extensive publishing programs hire both structural and copy editors, with one or both of them taking care of the stylistic editing. Most of the other clients — small and mid-sized publishers, academic presses, corporations, non-profit organizations and the burgeoning group of self-publishing authors — don’t have the budget to hire two different editors to work on one manuscript. Some would be confused by the idea. Surely a professional editor, they’d argue, can look after the whole job? We all go to family doctors to diagnose and treat our ailments, and we’re referred to specialists only for severe problems. Shouldn’t editors fit this same pattern?

But what happens if the editor is comfortable, for instance, only with copy editing?  The copy-editing bible, The Chicago Manual of Style, has little to say about stylistic editing, never mind structural work. In this scenario the editor would not be able even to diagnose problems of the larger kind and would spend the entire editorial budget meticulously polishing a text that might have serious structural and stylistic flaws. Is that fair to the client? Does it give editors a good name?

editor_definitionAs a profession, we’ve divided editing into the three tasks of structural, stylistic and copy editing. The division works well as a teaching device and as a guide to us as we initially master the skills in each division. But in the real world of editing, is it too much to expect that editors will be full-service professionals, able to assess, give advice on and work to a fair degree of competence in all three branches of editing? The majority of clients today have scant knowledge of the traditional publishing industry, so listing the “tasks” we will perform has little meaning for them. To complicate matters, many clients refer to all kinds of editing by the term “copy editing,” even though they expect service in every area to improve their texts. They simply want to hire one person to look after the editing for them.

What’s your experience as a professional editor — in Canada and perhaps in other countries too? Let’s have a good discussion on this topic as we enter 2014. It’s important not only for us individually but, as new technologies and different kinds of clients make ever more demands on editors, for our reputation as a profession as well.


Discover more from The Editors' Weekly

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

About the author

Rosemary Shipton

Rosemary Shipton edits trade, scholarly and art books as well as commission of inquiry reports. From 1990 to 2007 she was the founding academic coordinator of the publishing program at Ryerson University in Toronto.

26 Comments on “What Should an Editor Be?”

  • Claudine Laforce

    says:

    This is an excellent discussion. As many be the case of many outside Ontario and BC, I fell into an editor’s position because I am a fairly good writer and copy editor. I am the only one in my government department that does editing and often I find it quite challenging as I am not a trained editor yet I’m responsible for the complete editing function.

    Unfortunately, as government budgets are cut, the first item to go is training so I am trying to grow my editing knowledge and skill at minimal cost and with little available time. It is challenging but I hope to make it work.

    Reply

    • Arlene Prunkl

      says:

      That’s how I started too, Claudine. Then I grew my editing knowledge, without much time and with little money for courses at first, by using the Internet. You can do that too. 🙂

      Reply

      • Rosemary Shipton

        says:

        In every seminar and workshop I teach, I’m amazed to discover the variety of ways in which the people in the audience are using their editing skills and making them their career. Aim high, Claudine, and your dream job will probably come true.

        Reply

  • Anita Jenkins

    says:

    Everything you say in this piece is true in my long experience as an editor in Alberta. And you very astutely identify a big problem with this situation – one that I worry about a lot.
    “But what happens if the editor is comfortable, for instance, only with copy editing? The copy-editing bible, The Chicago Manual of Style, has little to say about stylistic editing, never mind structural work. In this scenario the editor would not be able even to diagnose problems of the larger kind and would spend the entire editorial budget meticulously polishing a text that might have serious structural and stylistic flaws. Is that fair to the client? Does it give editors a good name?”

    Reply

    • Rosemary Shipton

      says:

      Thanks, Anita – yes, I worry about it too, and that’s why I wrote this little article. I hope we’ll get lots of comments, especially from editors in other countries who can tell us if the same division of editorial skills – substantive, stylistic, and copy editing – is respected among their clients or whether they automatically tackle the editing at all levels.

      Reply

      • Anita Jenkins

        says:

        A famous book editor in Toronto spoke to the members of EAC at their annual conference. I was puzzled because she said that editors were “the nice ones.” I think we’re often too nice, to the detriment of the finished product. We agree to fix glaring grammatical errors and make the style consistent, as requested by the client. But so many documents need – to use the house analogy you chose for one of your substantive editing workshops – a new front porch or a wall knocked out. A bad or weak text that is made perfectly correct and consistent is still a bad or weak document. We editors have to stop being nice and more frequently tell the author/client, “Let’s go back to the drawing board.” We might not win popularity contests at the outset, but when the client sees how much better their product is, they will be back, saying “Hit me again.”

        Reply

        • Arlene Prunkl

          says:

          I heartily agree, Anita. When I began editing 12 years ago, it seemed the quality of writing was better. The last few years, it has seemed to go downhill. I don’t know if that’s just because I’m editing more bad fiction or whether it’s a sign of the times. In any case, I agree we have to move away from the nice-guy image. Although I’m still polite, I’m much more straightforward (even blunt) with my queries than I used to be.

          Reply

          • Rosemary Shipton

            says:

            Sometimes you can combine the “nice” with the “tough.” I’m working with an author right now who can be difficult. In one section I thought he was not only unwise in what he was saying but also obscure in one or two sentences. I had no idea what he meant. I asked for clarification, and he didn’t reply. So early this morning I suggested a new idea to develop, and he did that quite well. As I blended the new material into the section, I also deleted the two paragraphs with problems. Then I got a bit sneaky: I sent him just the clean edited text and a note saying I had left out a few sentences as I thought they were no longer needed in the new version – which was succinct and perfect as it was. He replied that he liked it very much – and now we’re both happy.

  • Arlene Prunkl

    says:

    As you know, Rosemary, I do all three levels of editing all the time for my self-publishing authors, as well as proofreading. I think this is the future for editors. Yes, find a niche, but make sure you can edit at all levels within that niche. And while there’s a case to be made for having a different set of eyes doing, for example, the proofreading, often my authors trust me and want to stick with me throughout the process.

    That said, when an editor is editing on three levels at once, I don’t think it’s possible to catch every error in one pass. In fact, if it’s determined early on that structural editing will be necessary, I sometimes stop editing at that point and change the parameters of the project into a MS evaluation to begin with. And if light structural editing is needed, a second or even third pass of editing may be necessary, preferably by the same editor, who is by then familiar with the project. The point is that every self-published project is different and should be assessed on its own merit (and on the author’s budget), and not just be stuck into a one-size-fits-all package that includes structural, stylistic, copy editing, and proofreading. And the other point is, as I mentioned, that in future editors should have the skills to edit at all levels in their particular niche.

    One thing I disagree with a little is your young man’s statement that he doesn’t distinguish between the three types of editing. Even though I work on all levels, I still distinguish between the different levels of editing. It’s helpful to the client to know exactly what types of editing are being addressed.

    Reply

    • Rosemary Shipton

      says:

      I agree, Arlene – We all have our preference for one kind of editing or another, but given the market right now, I think we should be able to operate professionally at all three levels. You’re wise to do at least two passes on each manuscript – it’s impossible to cover all three levels at once.

      Reply

  • Gael Spivak

    says:

    Claudine, most of what I learned about editing came from a combination of practice and talking (a lot) to more experienced editors. That’s not to say that courses are not important or good. But there are other ways to learn, if they suit you.

    Usually when I take an editing course, I discovered that I already knew most of the stuff. I think because I am highly engaged in talking to people and because that is how I learn best (a combo of listening and doing).

    The places I talk to other editors: the EAC listserv (for EAC members only), LinkedIn, and Facebook. I find the EAC list to be the most reliable and useful.

    Did you see the article I wrote for the Government of Canada’s CCO (Communication Community Office) on using social media to get professional development? Since you are a government employee, you have access to CCO articles. If you didn’t see it, email me and I will send it to you.

    Reply

    • Rosemary Shipton

      says:

      I agree, Gael, that talent and practice are most important for editors and that different people learn in different ways. The four volumes of Meeting Professional Editorial Standards prepared by EAC for its certification texts are all excellent resources for self-study. That said, taking a seminar with a good instructor should provide an efficient introduction to the subject at hand. And, if people considering a career in editing take fairly in-depth graded courses, such as those in the classroom or by distance education at Ryerson, they get knowledge plus the opportunity to have their editing assessed in some detail – all in a supportive and safe environment.

      Reply

      • Gael Spivak

        says:

        And every time I have taken a course where I realised I already knew much of what was being taught, it was reassuring (that I was on the right track). So not a waste (that has always been a nice feeling!) but it’s not how I seem to learn.

        If people are short of money, or no longer have a training budget (as has happened to many government employees such as me and Claudine), or just don’t learn well in courses, these other options are important. What is great is that you can use any combination of these options that suit your personality and your budget.

        The best editing course I ever took was an online one (Adrienne Montgomerie’s course on editing PDFs). That shocked me. I thought I’d hate learning that way. But I loved it. However, it worked well for me because of multiple factors , which may not be there for everyone.

        Reply

    • Hi Gael
      I’m struggling to develop a social media strategy for my research/writing/editing company. I’m no longer a GOC employee–have gone full-time into freelance work and loving it!–so don’t have access to the piece you wrote. Would you share? vmcgowan@writeeditgroup.com
      Thx Ginny

      Reply

  • Sarah Boon (@SnowHydro)

    says:

    I’ve worked with many graduate students on thesis and manuscript preparation, and have of necessity had to cover all three levels of editing. I find that Arlene’s advice is right on track: the first pass is for structural editing, as it’s just not worth doing any stylistic/copy editing or proofreading if the bones of the work aren’t properly defined. Once the structure is fairly coherent, we can move on to stylistic/copy editing – but again with several passes, as you can’t catch it all at once. Sometimes you discover that more structural edits are required – usually by developing new ideas as Rosemary noted in one of her comments above. So it’s a multi-faceted process that requires several iterations at each level of editing.

    I also agree with Arlene that in today’s market it’s important to be able to do several types of editing within a particular niche (fiction, a specific scientific discipline, etc.). Though I’m relatively new to the world of professional editing so my thoughts are best taken with a grain of salt!

    Reply

    • Arlene Prunkl

      says:

      Thanks for your comment, Sarah. My views largely stem from the work I do with self-published authors, who often want to work with one editor only. And in today’s market I see more and more authors self-publishing. Even agents often want a book edited before submission.

      But if an editor wants to exclusively do developmental editing or copy editing or proofreading and can carve out a career that way, then go for it. As someone aptly said, not all of us are generalists, and each individual editor should follow their strengths.

      Reply

      • Rosemary Shipton

        says:

        Yes, what Sarah says is the ideal – but it takes money and time, and these two items are not always on offer in the “real world.” So, as Arlene says, editors and clients will make their own choices. My hope is twofold: that all professional editors will have sufficient knowledge of all levels of editing at least to be able to advise clients on the kind of editing they need – even if they are not able to do it themselves; and that all clients, especially those new self-publishing writers who have little knowledge of the process, will become sufficiently aware of the way editors work to enable them to make wise choices.

        Reply

  • Peter Erikson

    says:

    By structural, do you mean substantive? Maybe they call it different things depending on what country you’re in. As a journalist who wished to become a freelance editor, I know that it’s essential to be able to handle every aspect of editing — and do it well. You must be a proofreader, a line editor, etc. It seems like there are just so many branches of editing, so specializing in one just one thing might be very limiting. But I’m thinking of branding myself as an editor who can see the big picture. Is a key fact buried in the writing or perhaps missing altogether? This is what I’ve always loved doing. Any thoughts on this?

    Reply

    • Anita Jenkins

      says:

      ” Is a key fact buried in the writing or perhaps missing altogether? This is what I’ve always loved doing. Any thoughts on this?”

      Me too. Copy editing and proofreading, not so much. But as you say, in most situations an editor usually has to take a stab at doing all of these things.

      Reply

    • Rosemary Shipton

      says:

      Yes, Peter, “structural” is the same as “substantive” editing, just as “line” is the same as “stylistic” editing. If you want to set up a freelance business, you’ll likely get far more opportunities if you can work well in all three areas of editing – substantive, stylistic, and copy editing. As so many people have said above, the majority of clients want to hire only one editor to look after the project for them.

      One way around the problem is to set up as a group of editors – with one or two others who specialize in areas other than your own preference. Another way to expand is to offer allied skills, such as writing, proofreading, indexing, and layout services or to assist writers with whatever they need to self-publish. There’s really no limit to what you could do – so long as you have the knowledge to do it well.

      Reply

      • Peter Erikson

        says:

        Thank you for the reply, Rosemary. I have a question: In trying to market myself, is the plain-vanilla title “copy editor” sufficient, even if I want to also do substantive editing, proofreading, etc.? Can I leave it as “copy editor” on my minimalist business card and go into greater detail on, say, my own website or the profile page of an editing group?

        Reply

        • Rosemary Shipton

          says:

          You said above that you enjoy substantive editing above all. Why brand yourself on your business card as a copy editor? Wouldn’t “editor” or “editorial services” give you more scope? Then on your website and your profile page you can set out your full range in greater detail.

          Reply

          • Peter Erikson

            says:

            Editor is probably the best choice. It does have some noneditorial connotations these days, but it’s simple and accurate and is general enough so that you can’t be pigeonholed.

  • Viola Funk

    says:

    Where I work now (for a publisher of technical guides), my title is “Editor,” and for all of my publications I do stylistic and copy editing and input the marked-up edit, as well as proofread the equivalent of laid-out pages, desktop-publish the material, and proofread printer’s proofs. When I worked at Douglas & McIntyre, there would generally be a separate person (or people!) to carry out each of those discrete steps. This does seem to be the way the world is going. I consider copy editing and proofreading my forte, and would rather just stick with those, but it strikes me as difficult to make a career out of editing that way.

    Reply

    • Rosemary Shipton

      says:

      You’re right, Viola. As I said in the original little essay, the large Canadian trade and educational publishers and the government departments that publish a lot of materials do separate the tasks, but they represent only a small fraction of all the editing / proofreading that is done in this country. All the other employers and clients seem to expect that one person will look after all these tasks – whether they work in-house or freelance. So that gets us back to the question: Should professional editors be expected to work competently at all levels of editing – or at least be able to recognize problems they can’t deal with themselves and give clients the appropriate advice?

      Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To top