David B. Coe September 25th 2012

On Editors and Revisions

For the past two weeks or so, I have been revising the second book in my Thieftaker series, Thieves’ Quarry (written as D.B. Jackson). Revisions are an essential part of writing.  Every professional writer has to do them; every aspiring writer should.  I revise at several different points in the development of a novel:  I do some polishing as I write my first draft.  I edit heavily in the interval between the completion of that initial draft and my submission of the manuscript to my editor.  I probably do my most extensive revision work upon receiving the manuscript back from my editor (accompanied usually by a revision letter suggesting changes and responding to various aspects of the book).  And I do a good deal of last minute polishing in the copyediting and proofing stages of production.

One of the reasons so many of us here at SFNovelists still believe strongly in traditional publishing is the emphasis on editing, revising, and polishing that is built into the traditional model.  Working with a developmental editor, having a professional copyedit the book, having proof readers in the production department read through the typeset version of the book — all of these things help ensure that our books when published will be as cohesive, as clean, and as readable as possible.  Editing means far more than catching typos and syntactical problems — though copyedits and proofing can be enormously helpful in this regard.  Editing (developmental and copy) also means dealing with issues of character, narrative flow, pacing, setting, detail consistency and a host of other matters that a simple read-through for “mistakes” can’t possible catch.

I have been writing professionally for more than fifteen years; Thieves’ Quarry will be my fourteenth published novel.  And still, despite years of experience, I am still working to develop my internal editor.  Yes, I can anticipate some of what my editor will say about certain things, and I can make those edits on my own, without his help.  I can make substantial improvements in my work without relying on another reader.  But my editor always catches things that I miss.  So does the copyeditor.  So does the proofer.  Let me be clear.  I edit my own manuscripts.  I go over the copyedits and sometimes find things that the publisher’s copyeditor missed.  I proof the galleys for all my books.  This is all in addition to the work of the professional editors and proofers.  Redundancy is built into the system.

Because none of us is capable of editing with complete confidence our own work.  It can’t be done.  I put my manuscripts away for weeks at a time after completing that first draft and before reading it through for revision.  I print out the manuscript rather than reading it on the screen.  I sometimes read aloud my entire book.  I do all of these things to create some distance between my writing of the book and my reading of it, to make that reading experience different enough from the writing experience that I might see the book as if for the first time. This creative distance makes me a more effective editor of my own work.  But still, there is only so much distance I can create in this way.  In the end, I am still an author reading the words I have written.  I need other readers — and not just any readers.  I need professional editors.

The rewrites I am doing right now on Thieves’ Quarry are in response to the revision letter and margin comments I received from my editor a couple of weeks ago.  As I say, some of his comments I anticipated. I knew there were aspects of the manuscript that needed to be fixed; I just didn’t know how to fix them.  He was able to help with that.  He also saw problems that I hadn’t even considered.  And he confirmed for me something that I had suspected, but hadn’t known for certain:  This book is even better than Thieftaker, the first in the series.  Sometimes the benefits of professional editing include not just critiques, but also positive reinforcement.

That said, I will also admit that sometimes the revision process sucks.  As I have written before, I wish that once — just once — my editor would send back my manuscript with a note saying, “David, This is perfect. Don’t change a thing.” But that’s not going to happen in this lifetime.  Notwithstanding all I’ve said about the necessity of professional editing, I don’t think I’ve ever met a writer who enjoys having all the flaws in her/his work highlighted in red ink and picked apart word by word.  This is not a fun process.  It is gratifying.  I do take great satisfaction in reworking a book and watching it come together into a polished, seamless whole.  But sometimes it really sucks reading my editor’s notes and realizing that he’s right, and I do, in fact, have to change that passage that I thought worked so well.

My comments before about the traditional publishing model were not intended to provoke a “traditional publishing versus self-publishing” debate.  Not even a little.  Rather, my point is this:  No matter what route to publication you might be taking, you need to revise your own work AND you should make every effort to work with a professional editor.  As writers, we don’t need to abide by every suggested change an editor sends our way.  In the end, my book is just that:  mine. Actually, my editor is usually the first person to remind me of this.  But I do force myself to consider every comment he gives me, to look beyond any natural defensiveness about my work and see the issue from his point of view.  More often than not, I find that he’s right, that there is an issue there that I need to address.

And in the end, the work he does on my book — the revision work we do together — always improves the project, which, of course, is the point.

Filed under For Novelists, learning to write, our books, writing life, writing process. You can also use this URL to trackback.