# I'm writing a non-fiction piece as my first book. I'm getting scared about the $$$ of



## Yumi Koizumi (Feb 24, 2016)

...an Editor. Not just a copy editor, but a thorough, content editor.

I read this is essential to getting a book even read, but what is the real story on this for non-fiction? And wouldn't I have to find an editor familiar with my niche to make this a good investment?

Gads! :-O


----------



## Greimour (Feb 24, 2016)

An editor isn't 'essential' to reach a publisher. 

An editor will flag issues, highlight repetition, tighten your sentence structure, suggest alterations, provide insight and other such stuff. Essentially, an editor often boils down to one simple thing: An editor is a better writer than you (or at least should be).

I remember reading a piece by an editor who said similar (or same thing) as the above. He also said the cost is so high that it can't be justified.

In fact, I will go find it again. I vaguely remember a few things written so I should be able to find it:

*Returns successful*

http://selfpublishingadvice.org/who-needs-editors/


For a Non-Fiction piece I am not sure what I would do. Unless it is someone like Anne Hegerty, I probably wouldn't be comfortable in believing their brain[knowledge] is worth the cost.


----------



## Patrick (Feb 24, 2016)

Greimour said:


> Essentially, an editor often boils down to one simple thing: An editor is a better writer than you (or at least should be).



If editors were better writers than novelists, they'd be novelists.


----------



## Ultraroel (Feb 24, 2016)

Patrick said:


> If editors were better writers than novelists, they'd be novelists.



Nah. I mean, One can have the great skills of a wordsmith, making great flowery sentences in great structures and whatnot. 
however, if that's the only talent, you won't come up with a good, interesting and solid story or piece that will intrigue people.
To me editors are those that have the talent to write very well, but cannot come up with the stories themselves.


----------



## Patrick (Feb 24, 2016)

Ultraroel said:


> Nah. I mean, One can have the great skills of a wordsmith, making great flowery sentences in great structures and whatnot.
> however, if that's the only talent, you won't come up with a good, interesting and solid story or piece that will intrigue people.
> To me editors are those that have the talent to write very well, but cannot come up with the stories themselves.



Writers have to do many things very well. Editors have to do one thing very well.


----------



## Greimour (Feb 24, 2016)

Patrick said:


> If editors were better writers than novelists, they'd be novelists.



Even though Ultra already answered that....

No. An editor is not necessarily capable of being a novelist. Just because a person may be better at forming prose, structuring the English (or any other) language, and a myriad of other things, does not mean they are capable of writing a story. 

An Editors job is to make your writing as good as it can be. That is their job. That in itself makes the very requirement of their profession to be 'A better writer than the author'.

Perhaps it is just an interpretation thing though.

A better writer = better novelist?
No.

Better understanding of the written language?  
The ability to turn flowery nonsense into clean prose?
A deeper understandin and greater knowledge of/in SPaG?

[True story deleted.] 

Even if I shared it, there is no proof so it would just sound like a made up story to back up what I said. Whatever though. I know for a fact that people can be better at fixing writing than they are at creating it.

Those that can, do. Those that understand, teach.


The scenario exists where a teacher may not be able to become the next Dickens or Dahl or Steinbeck... but that same teacher can pass on their knowledge and allow a different person to become a writer of equal renown. 

*Such a person would have what it takes to become an editor, while lacking the ability to become the author.*


----------



## Flint (Feb 24, 2016)

Yumi Koizumi said:


> ...an Editor. Not just a copy editor, but a thorough, content editor.
> 
> I read this is essential to getting a book even read, but what is the real story on this for non-fiction? And wouldn't I have to find an editor familiar with my niche to make this a good investment?
> 
> Gads! :-O



Someone like Aquilo would be in a far better position to answer this than I would. However, here are some thoughts:

Personally, I have an extreme tolerance for certain non-fiction when it comes to mistakes, 'bad' writing style, poor structure, etc. This is especially so if I know the person is an expert and I know the actual information itself sound. I've quite happily read all sorts of books (trad and self-published) and blogs/sites with all sorts of 'appalling' writing because I was interested in the information. 

I'm not sure how to go about answering your questions because I think it's going to depend on things like what area/subject you're writing in, who your target audience is, whether you're going to self-publish or find a publisher/agent, etc. 

In any case, good luck with the book!


----------



## Yumi Koizumi (Feb 24, 2016)

That link was very useful, even though geared toward fiction. Thanks!


----------



## Yumi Koizumi (Feb 24, 2016)

I notice that your experiences seem to be around novels (fiction genres), and I understand (a bit) and appreciate your views/input. 

But isn't non-fiction a little less about stories, characters, suspending disbelief, compelling story arcs, etc.?

I'm assuming that I will need to put out [draft] chapters as I go to get feedback about accuracy, forgetting aspects of topics, etc. as unless I find an editor who knows as much as myself or more on my topic, copy editing is all I could expect them to do, right?

Sorry mods if this is in the wrong place.

You guys are great for responding!!!


----------



## Patrick (Feb 24, 2016)

Greimour said:


> An Editors job is to make your writing as good as it can be. That is their job. That in itself makes the very requirement of their profession to be 'A better writer than the author'.



The statement by a fellow writer that an editor is a better writer than me is offensive, and you're the only one I've seen suggesting that editors must work with this unspoken assumption that they're better writers than the writers whose manuscripts they're editing.An editor's job is to humbly offer suggestions that might improve the manuscript, and since the average book is around 90000-words long, there is always room for improvement. There is no room for an editor's ego to clash with the writer. If you were an editor (and I don't know whether you are or not), you'd have immediately disqualified yourself from working with me, and I imagine many other writers, just because of your supercilious attitude. And to a person like me, who doesn't need the money enough to genuflect to anybody, it wouldn't matter the size of the contract on offer. The publishing house would have to provide me with another editor or I'd walk away.

As a champion of other writers, I find the attitude very irritating. Writers are crippled by enough self-doubt without you adding to it.


----------



## Greimour (Feb 24, 2016)

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion Patrick, and I am entitled to mine. I base what I say on personal experiences, life lessons and the experiences of people whose words I trust and believe.

Additionally, let's get a couple more things straight.

1. I did not say every editor is better at writing than every author.
2. I did not say that every author needs an editor.

I did say this: A novelist that needs an Editor, should, at the very least, have an Editor that is better at writing than they are. 

Otherwise, what is the point?!

As far as life experiences go, I have a very easy example. One of my English teachers growing up ,that had a huge impact on me and my writing, is a far better writer than I will ever dare hope to be. Despite that, he believed/believes that I had/have a far better chance at becoming a published author than he does. 

And, although it may sound big-headed or whatever else, I agreed with him. He can correct my writing all day, but my stories were way better than his. We joked about it often.

The writing communities I belong to are many and the friends I have in the business are also many. There are plenty of people among them who say things like: "This latest project I am editing makes my eyes bleed. The story is awesome, but the guy can't write for toffee."

Perhaps not those exact words, but comments along those lines with varying levels of extreme have been used. Enough to consider such comments to be 'often'.

So in what way should I assume that 100% of authors are better at writing than Editors?

Novelists that *need* an editor should have/get an editor that is better at writing than they are. That is what I said, and that is what I believe. I stand by it.

Not every author needs a proof reader or beta reader or editor, etc. But those that do, usually need them for a reason.

~~~~~~~

Anne Hegerty [freelance writer and famous quiz champion and chaser on TV show 'The Chase'] is a better writer than me? So what! I couldn't care less. If she offered to be my editor, I would sing and dance all the way to the pub and buy a round of drinks for everyone inside. And I don't even drink.

A published Novelist isn't so crippled by such a comment that they will give it up.

As for Amateur/New writers...?

If a person is so crippled by the fact that 'some' editors might be (and in many cases, probably are) better writers than they are...then I have some advice for them: 

Get thicker skin and toughen up. Sorry to say, but it's a tough world and a lot of punches are coming. If a comment is enough to kill you off, then you're in the wrong game.

>.>


Instead of creating your own interpretation of what I said and getting offended, why not clarify what I meant and try to understand what I intended to get across. 

_"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" —Aristotle.

_It means: Being able to understand the persons thinking and reasoning while still disagreeing with the conclusion. Before misinterpreting and getting offended by my comments, at least try to see things from my perspective first. =;


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 24, 2016)

Greimour said:


> I did say this: A novelist that needs an Editor, should, at the very least, have an Editor that is better at writing than they are.
> 
> Otherwise, what is the point?!


I guess my question is, what do you mean by "better at writing"?  I'm assuming your saying that in a technical sense.  Is that right?


----------



## Patrick (Feb 24, 2016)

Greimour, I have no problem correctly interpreting your posts; I know exactly what you're trying to say. It's insulting to writers serious about the craft, and no I am not arrogant enough to think that only an editor who was also a better writer than me could offer helpful solutions at the level of the plot and that of the sentence. Just like any other human being, I am allowed to be offended, both on my own behalf and on that of other writers, when somebody traduces the craft so carelessly. Apropos of the suggestion above, how thick my skin, how large my ears, how dreadful my claws, etc, should not be of interest in this discussion.

If you'd like to disown your previous remark that it is an editor's job to be a better writer than the writers whose manuscripts he/she is editing, both for the sake of the writer and editor, then there is still room to do so.


----------



## Greimour (Feb 24, 2016)

Tettsuo said:


> I guess my question is, what do you mean by "better at writing"?  I'm assuming your saying that in a technical sense.  Is that right?



In a nutshell, I could sum that up with a simple "Yes". I don't mean the Editor is better at writing stories, anecdotes, providing entertaining literature or a number of other things I could mention.

I could expand further but I am not sure if there is a point.

It is actually not that big of a deal. Different writers need help with different things. Some writers might not need any help at all. I wouldn't know about that, but if there are writers that need absolutely zero help, I would guess that those writers are in the minority.

Among the many things writers may need help with, there is the technical aspects of it. SPaG, Prose, Voice, Tempo, Descriptions, and so on, are all things that writers MAY need help with. IF such a writer gets an editor for help, then that editor needs to be better than the writer. 

If the editor is only as good as the writer, or worse... pointless.



Patrick said:


> Greimour, I have no problem correctly  interpreting your posts; I know exactly what you're trying to say. It's  insulting to writers serious about the craft, and no I am not arrogant  enough to think that only an editor who was also a better writer than me  could offer helpful solutions at the level of the plot and that of the  sentence. Just like any other human being, I am allowed to be offended,  both on my own behalf and on that of other writers, when somebody  traduces the craft so carelessly. Apropos of the suggestion above, how  thick my skin, how large my ears, how dreadful my claws, etc, should not  be of interest in this discussion.
> *
> If you'd like to disown your previous remark that it is an editor's job  to be a better writer than the writers whose manuscripts he/she is  editing, both for the sake of the writer and editor, then there is still  room to do so.*



I take back none of what I said. 

Acknowledging that I am human and make mistakes...I do. Often.
Acknowledging that any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street can point out mistakes I made? I can do that too. And I won't even be ashamed or embarrassed. 

Fixing typos and stuff? A proof reader can do that. Many youths still in high school can do that. Even children in Primary School have the capability to do that.

How well they can do it will vary, for all ages and all people.

I have no problem admitting that I make mistakes. I have no problem with getting 1 proof reader or 7. I don't mind being told what I did wrong by a hundred different people.

None of those people need to be more knowledgeable in writing than me to do so. I will take what they say and with their comments I will react accordingly and appropriately.

However. If I hire an editor, and s/he can do no more with my prose, spag, sentence structure, [etc.] than I can do myself, then I just wasted a ton of money on absolutely nothing.

So yes. If I get an editor...that editor better be damn well better with the technical aspects of writing than I am.


----------



## Patrick (Feb 24, 2016)

The problem is that you've gone from justifying the comment that editors must be better writers than the writers themselves, leaving the best writers without an editor, to saying that they have to be better with the technical aspects of writing. Moving the goalposts doesn't help aspiring writers understand what it is exactly an editor does. And we're now stuck with the problem of ascertaining what is and isn't a technical aspect of writing.

First of all, writers, whether they solicit the help of an editor or not, need to be good editors of their own work. One improves one's manuscript by editing, but one cannot be better than oneself, and so that alone should demonstrate the flaw in your logic. There are plenty of good editors out there who can help you, but it's completely unhelpful to suggest they must be a better writer than the writer who is soliciting their help. Who objectively determines that?


----------



## Blade (Feb 24, 2016)

Yumi Koizumi said:


> I'm assuming that I will need to put out [draft] chapters as I go to get feedback about accuracy, forgetting aspects of topics, etc. as unless I find an editor who knows as much as myself or more on my topic, copy editing is all I could expect them to do, right?



That would seem to be the reasonable conclusion. I would say for myself that I do not really expect 'fine style' in a work of non-fiction but I do expect clarity and cohesion. As long as the material is being presented in a manner that satisfies my curiosity and does not grate on my basic sense of language I am perfectly happy.:encouragement:


----------



## Greimour (Feb 24, 2016)

Patrick said:


> The problem is that you've gone from justifying the comment that editors must be better writers than the writers themselves, leaving the best writers without an editor, to saying that they have to be better with the technical aspects of writing. Moving the goalposts doesn't help aspiring writers understand what it is exactly an editor does. And we're now stuck with the problem of ascertaining what is an isn't a technical aspect of writing.
> 
> First of all, writers, whether they solicit the help of an editor or not, need to be good editors of their own work. One improves one's manuscript by editing, but one cannot be better than oneself, and so that alone should demonstrate the flaw in your logic. There are plenty of good editors out there who can help you, but it's completely unhelpful to suggest they must be a better writer than the writer who is soliciting their help. Who objectively determines that?



Disagree.

Your responses are starting to borderline pedantic.

You are taking a simple comment to an extreme. Any person going through traditional publication will have their work checked by an editor regardless. The publishing companies themselves have editors. Those editors will check the work of every one, no matter how amazing they are.

Do those editors also have to be better than the writer in question? No. And who the hell would judge them to be better in the first place? That editor just has to know what the hell they are talking about. Other duties may include cross-checking facts and stuff. Whatever though, I am not listing everything just to avoid you picking up on another thing to bring up later.

Yumi was talking about hiring an editor. Many (most?) editors charge by the word. When you have 80k words in your book, that's a lot of damn words. 

Ghost-writers, freelance editors and similar professions are expensive. They are there to meet the needs of those they are being hired by. 

The person I quoted [an editor] and I share the same view: If a person is going to hire an editor, the editor should at least be better than the writer (For me I will go further: in whatever is necessary, be it technical aspects or anything else). 

At least that way you will be getting your moneys worth.



> One improves one's manuscript by editing, but one cannot be better than  oneself, and so that alone should demonstrate the flaw in your logic.



When ONE can no longer FURTHER IMPROVE ones Manuscript and HIRES an editor...

Your options are:
A) A person with a better understanding of the language and technical aspects of it than one has.
B) A person that shares equal knowledge to ones self.
C) A person that can spell any word in the language one is using without error.



  This one chooses option A.


----------



## Patrick (Feb 24, 2016)

Greimour said:


> Disagree.
> 
> Your responses are starting to borderline pedantic.
> 
> ...



That place is never reached. A manuscript is never polished beyond a writer's ability to polish it further; it's just abandoned or it would never reach publication.

But let's be civil here; accusing me of pedantry while clinging to the view that an editor should be a better writer than the writer soliciting their help, adding layer upon layer upon layer of justification to that position, is not reasonable. Either you mean what you say or you don't. I don't have the patience for all the semantics and goalpost-shifting.


----------



## Greimour (Feb 24, 2016)

Patrick said:


> That place is never reached. A manuscript is never polished beyond a writer's ability to polish it further; it's just abandoned or it would never reach publication.



Disagree. As a single case, Eragon was polished beyond what Christopher Paolini originally had. Even after his own edits and publication through his family's publishing company, the book was still further edited... Michelle Fray spoke to Christopher and his family about taking over publication of the book. After a FURTHER edit, it was published by Kopf.

Isn't that polishing it further than the author originally had it?

To me, this talk over an editor being better than the writer has been purely aimed at a writer hiring a freelance editor from the very start. The comment I made stating the hired editor needs to be better than the writer in question has also remained unchanged from the start. 

Perhaps my comment lacked a certain amount of clarification, but to me, what I was getting at should have been obvious. An editor might have picked up that I wasn't clear enough in my meaning...who knows. 

If you want to pay a person with no better skill, ability or knowledge in your craft (or work) than you...to edit, fix or otherwise change your work. Then by all means, go ahead.

To me, such an action makes no sense. If I want someone to edit, fix or otherwise change MY work. Then I want that person to at least have the qualification to do so. I will not pay someone who is no better than myself to do it.

— That was all my comment added up to from the beginning. No shifting of goalposts, no changing of meaning. Clarifying what I meant was supposed to broaden your perspective and allow you to see where I was coming from. Even if you disagreed, that is fine. In no way was it supposed to shift your perspective in order to validate my own reasoning.

You say I changed what I was originally saying. I say I only expanded on it further in order to clarify the original intention of the comment.

If we are unable to see each others point of view and agree to disagree, then so be it. 

*
To Yumi*, I apologize. I allowed myself to be drawn into a *cough* 'discussion' *cough* with Patrick and strayed from your original post in a nonsensical clash of views.


I will return to my original comment here and say again: With Non-Fiction, I am not sure what I would do.

Putting thought into it, I imagine I would...

 ...begin by looking up Non-Fiction editors and seeing what work they have done in the past. I would also check what they specialize in: Memoir, biographies, religion, new age, spirituality, inspiration, self-help, how-to ...

I would keep looking until I am confident I found the right person.

That is assuming I wanted the facts and such cross-checked too. I would probably prefer to get all my facts in order myself. I would gather the evidence, cross check the evidence, include the evidence in the work and ensure I stick to those facts throughout. At that point, I can be confident in the material even if I am not confident in my delivery of it.

But that would also depend on what Non-Fiction piece I am working on. Historical, Religious, Sociology ... ... 

I guess—depending on what I am working on and what I felt my needs were—my approach would vary.

Honestly ... not completely sure. As a test run, I did a quick search for Non-Fiction editors and I found a few sites listing various people. Along with some of their past history and specialties, etc.

It seemed to me like a promising place to begin ... if I indeed felt I needed to hire an editor.

To reiterate though. Hiring an editor is not a requirement for your manuscript to be seen by a publisher/publishing company.


----------



## Sam (Feb 24, 2016)

Greimour said:


> Well, you're entitled to your own opinion Patrick, and I am entitled to mine. I base what I say on personal experiences, life lessons and the experiences of people whose words I trust and believe.
> 
> Additionally, let's get a couple more things straight.
> 
> ...



If they were better at writing than the writer, they wouldn't be an editor. 

They would be a _writer. _​


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 24, 2016)

Greimour said:


> Among the many things writers may need help with, there is the technical aspects of it. SPaG, Prose, Voice, Tempo, Descriptions, and so on, are all things that writers MAY need help with. IF such a writer gets an editor for help, then that editor needs to be better than the writer.
> 
> If the editor is only as good as the writer, or worse... pointless.


Maybe it's how you're wording it, but I find what you're saying to be odd.

You don't have to be a better writer than the writer to edit their work.  You just have to well-versed in the written word to know what's wrong and what isn't.  You also have to know all of the rules and how they should (or at times, shouldn't) be applied.  But, you don't have to be able to write better prose or create better stories than the author to be an editor for that author.  I don't think that makes sense.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Feb 24, 2016)

Sam said:


> If they were better at writing than the writer, they wouldn't be an editor.
> 
> They would be a _writer. _​



Haha...that very comment is what started this whole debate.


----------



## dale (Feb 24, 2016)

a lot of editors are failed writers. that doesn't mean being an editor is a useless skill. but this is my opinion
on the matter. if you are a good writer, you shouldn't really need to hire an editor. they have free editing software
if you're worried about typos, spelling, grammar and that kind of crap. i think for non-fiction, this would be the
option i would go with. as far as fiction? editors tend to get on my nerves. i sure as hell wouldn't pay money just
so i could be irritated. i'll just let the publisher pay the money for me to be irritated.


----------



## Patrick (Feb 24, 2016)

The reality is that it doesn't do writers or editors justice to confuse the roles in that way. I have a lot of respect for the input of a good editor. Editors are facilitators; it's not within their purview to write/rewrite a writer's manuscript.

There's enough sentiment out there that writers should be sycophantic, rather than professional, towards professional agents and editors. We're talking about a professional mutual relationship here, not somebody whose boots you're not fit to lace doing you a favour. I don't know where this idea that an editor must be a better writer than the writer who they're supposed to be helping comes from, but it isn't helpful. How is it in any way practical? I have no way of knowing how excellent a writer an editor is or isn't (unless they're a writer and an editor). It's completely irrelevant.


----------



## Greimour (Feb 24, 2016)

Tettsuo said:


> Maybe it's how you're wording it, but I find what you're saying to be odd.
> 
> You don't have to be a better writer than the writer to edit their work.  You just have to well-versed in the written word to know what's wrong and what isn't.  You also have to know all of the rules and how they should (or at times, shouldn't) be applied. _ But, you don't have to be able to write better prose_ or *create better stories *than the author to be an editor for that author.  I don't think that makes sense.



I never said an Editor is better at creating stories. I clarified that once already.
Fixing writing is not creating writing.
There are differences between types of editors ... and differences again between editors and proof readers  ...

Editor — ?

#1


> When hiring a freelance editor, you’re hiring someone to review and  change your text with the intent to improve the flow and overall quality  of your writing.  An editor has the freedom to remove entire sentences  or rewrite entire paragraphs. A good editor will correct any obvious  errors they come across, but their main goal is to use their expertise  and intuition to ensure the document makes sense, cut down on wordiness,  and clarify any ambiguity.


~~~So. Hire someone to improve my writing. Yep I choose someone who is better at it than I am to achieve that aim.

#2


> Editing involves a proactive editor making changes  and suggestions that will improve the overall quality of your writing,  particularly in relation to language use and expression. After editing,  your language will be sharp and consistent, your expression clear and  the overall readability of your writing enhanced. Editing should  ensure that your writing gives the impression that the English language  comes naturally to you, even if it does not.


~~~Again, based on that, I will choose someone who is better at it than I am to achieve that aim.

That might just be me though. Let's not forget either that there isn't one type of editor. A hired freelance editor/copy-editor is more of the 2 quoted examples above. A publishing company editor is different. The Managing Editor of a publishing company isn't the one in the 2 examples above. 

Meh. Forget it. What do I know anyway? Maybe you are right. Maybe Patrick is right. Maybe the web pages I visit were wrong. Or maybe I just interpreted what they said incorrectly. 

Maybe the editor Derek Murphy is just wildly arrogant and doesn't know what he is talking about either. Maybe the friends I mentioned earlier are likewise arrogantly boastful of their own abilities and just like to believe they are better than the 'majority' of writers they are hired by. 

(My friends do not claim to be better writers, they just claim to be able to fix 'sub par' work and raise it to a (very) high standard. Something which the writer couldn't do for his or her self, which to me is pretty much the same thing.) 

Perhaps those same friends, and the information I have been delivered, received and researched so far...has simply caused my view to become narrow minded and lacking.

Or maybe not. *Shrugs* I still haven't seen any reason for my view to change by any of the comments in response.


----------



## Sam (Feb 25, 2016)

Greimour, what you're talking about is syntax, grammar, and punctuation. 

Yes, an editor should be proficient in the technical end of things, so that he can tighten manuscripts and rectify awkward and clumsy writing; so that he can fix choppy and incoherent passages and make the prose flow; so that he can spot mistakes. 

But it's fish feathers to say that he needs to be a better writer than the writer himself. Where are you going to find editors who are better writers than the likes of Proust or Dumas or Fitzgerald or the thousands of world-class writers that this world has known? 

It just doesn't parse.


----------



## Cran (Feb 25, 2016)

Yumi Koizumi said:


> *I'm writing a non-fiction piece as my first book. I'm getting scared about the $$$ of                 *
> 
> ...an Editor. Not just a copy editor, but a thorough, content editor.


Yes; you're right to be concerned about the cost. 

OK. Why do you think you need a non-fiction content editor? 

Are you concerned about your depth of research, or your knowledge of the subject?

Are you concerned about the structure of the work - how the chapters should be laid out, what if any appendices to include, etc?




> I read this is essential to getting a book even read,


I'm a non-fiction editor, and I'm telling you it's not. Anyone who says different is selling something. 

What is essential to getting a book looked at by publisher or a non-fiction market is the credibility of the messenger, the clarity of the message and whether it's something that your niche market is looking for. Non-fiction is a big world, bigger than the world these days, with countless areas of interest looking for something to add to the body of knowledge or just something new.

What is essential is being readable by your niche market. That usually means no weird spelling or grammar or typos or page-long paragraphs, and no waffle or word salads. Know what you write, and write as if you are telling someone who wants to know and who doesn't want to ask questions every few minutes.



> but what is the real story on this for non-fiction? And wouldn't I have to find an editor familiar with my niche to make this a good investment?
> 
> Gads! :-O


Good editors of non-fiction will know how to become familiar with your niche - they have to, it's their jobs and it's how they were trained. Good editors can see if what you want your reader to see is clearly there or if it's clouded for whatever reason. Good proofreaders can spot and/or correct the basics, but good editors can tell you if your message is getting through your writing, or can tell you why not, and what to do about it.


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 25, 2016)

This is not correct.


> _When hiring a freelance editor, you’re hiring someone to review and change your text with the intent to improve the flow and overall quality of your writing. An editor has the freedom to remove entire sentences or rewrite entire paragraphs. A good editor will correct any obvious errors they come across, but their main goal is to use their expertise and intuition to ensure the document makes sense, cut down on wordiness, and clarify any ambiguity._


_
_ 
No editor should delete, change or alter anything without the author's approval/review.  It's not the editor's story to alter.  If an editor does this, they should be fired.


----------



## Yumi Koizumi (Feb 25, 2016)

@Flint Thank you for the well wishes!


----------



## Yumi Koizumi (Feb 25, 2016)

Tettsuo said:


> You don't have to be a better writer than the writer to edit their work.  You just have to well-versed in the written word to know what's wrong and what isn't.



I liken this to someone watching a checkers game, and seeing the triple jump, or to those I give my technical writing to to review, and though they have no idea what I'm talking about, that somehow gives them clarity to see things beyond the content that I am so focused on. Is this close?

I write technical white papers, demonstration scripts for software, copy for recordings explaining things, sales and marketing materials like proposals & such, and I know I am striving for 'tactical' perfection, but there is a big part of me that really tries to see what I am writing with the reader's eyes.

For example, a pet peeve of mine is someone using initials/acronyms and the first time used not saying what the letters stand for. Worse yet, due to forgetfulness or re-arranging content, that explanation for FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) gets put at the 2nd or higher time it showed up. But I have done it myself as a result of reading my draft and seeing that things needed to be moved around to explain the 'thing' better. 

Another example is in banks & retail. The same person does not count a stack of money twice to verify the count; someone else does. This is because the first person will make the same mistake twice. So I see a lot of value in someone looking at my work as words, sentences, paragraphs, sections, and chapters and not as the explanations or contract terms. 

I will be, well am, writing on this very subject, and how to do it. But I might use the same words over and over again to describe, or a lack of variety in adverbs, adjectives, etc. so I see value in that. But like I said initially, these folks are charging 30-50k for doing something, and some out there say beware as they will charge this for 'copy' editing, which should be less. 

It seems easy to get fleeced... or is that just my lack of experience talking?! 

It seems surreal/weird to me to write about my kind of writing...  

It isn't at all at the level you guys & gals are at! I don't need to be creative, just thorough... Thanks again for the threads, I appreciate reading your experiences...


----------



## Yumi Koizumi (Feb 25, 2016)

Blade said:


> I would say for myself that I do not really expect 'fine style' in a work of non-fiction but I do expect clarity and cohesion. As long as the material is being presented in a manner that satisfies my curiosity and does not grate on my basic sense of language I am perfectly happy.:encouragement:



Thank you so much for addressing this. If you ask _me_, I'm wonderful, engaging, and an inspiring after dinner raconteur.  But I know it isn't true... I do voice-overs on video demos of software, and I get comments all the time about the style & voice, excited about the material, etc. ...but... I also hear myself and liken the sound to a gaggle of geese being steamrolled. Slowly. I make up for it by giving otherwise dry material voice inflection and range, and try to leave the listener thinking that I'm actually smiling as I talk. Why? Those are the orators that I find engaging, so it only follows that everyone has good taste like me! 

As a professional writer that writes on a _completely _different different (<--- repeating a word means the phone rang...) planet than you guys & gals, I'm actually very good in my little circle I call _Niche Pond_. But finding someone to critique for a reasonable amount of money is what I started off with on this thread. What you folks do is 100% creative-nothing less. I will hold off on trying that style until after I get a first NF book out there. I know precious little about the fiction world, but I know enough to know that critiquing my work comes with no ego issues as what I write about isn't as creative as it is factual. I mean, the worst critique I can get is when someone says I'm _wrong_.

When it comes to creative writing, any level of critique is bound to hit a nerve because you created all of it-every word. There is no _right_ or _wrong_! And to me, that means there is room for interpretation, style, favoritism for genre, and my own noobie fear of being taken advantage of financially.

As I read these writers I look up to here, I think my path is coming into focus, or at least my expectations! If I can get someone to simply look at my work and let me know what they don't like about it, that will be very valuable to me as it is quite likely they will be learning about the topic from reading the draft. The eyes of a 'learner' will tell me if I am being _confusing_. I like to build from the known as a foundation and extend that to 'point B', so someone who already knows the subject well won't even notice that... they will just breeze over things someone unfamiliar would wade through slower.

So your comment here is right on target, and it's an expectation that 'feels' realistic. 

Thank you so much, Blade, for chiming in!


----------



## Yumi Koizumi (Feb 25, 2016)

Patrick said:


> That place is never reached. A manuscript is never polished beyond a writer's ability to polish it further; it's just abandoned or it would never reach publication.



OMG, @Patrick, this is SO true in what I write for a living. Because it is a technical setting, your perfectionist is center stage! I have had _countless_ all-nighters the day before a deadline because I couldn't do things 'Good Enough'. My struggle is whether good enough implies a compromise in quality. I know everything is a compromise in some way, but I'd like to think I can compromise on the things nobody influential notices! Hahahah 

I know the thread I quoted this from is one you are not directing to/at me, but I couldn't resist... In the military we never said we were 'ready for inspection', as that meant we were perfect. Instead, it was proper to say that you were 'standing by' for inspection...

You know how they say water will fill any volume? I can fill any length of time with editing/extending/refining... 

Working on it? Yes. 
Done? Never.


----------



## Yumi Koizumi (Feb 25, 2016)

@Greimour,

Thanks for writing!



Greimour said:


> That is assuming I wanted the facts and such cross-checked too. I would  probably prefer to get all my facts in order myself. I would gather the  evidence, cross check the evidence, include the evidence in the work and  ensure I stick to those facts throughout. At that point, I can be  confident in the material even if I am not confident in my delivery of  it.
> 
> But that would also depend on what Non-Fiction piece I am working on. Historical, Religious, Sociology ... ...



Here is the weird part... I'm writing about a profession. If anything, I will have quotes from professionals on aspects they like or dislike, but there will be precious few facts to check. That is a wrinkle. I am writing about how to do what I do for a living, from theory to methodologies created along the way, to dealing with the people you have to deal with in the execution of the job. It is also about all the skills needed to be a rock star, how to get a job doing it, and even how to manage those doing this job (I've done that, too).

So it isn't a life's story by any stretch, but an anecdote here & there is possible to keep it humorous & light, but you might see it as some sort of teaching piece, though the word 'teaching' doesn't hit the mark squarely. Struggling for an analogy, a book about, say, being an auto mechanic. What to expect, how things work, how you are paid, how to get hired, what to learn before or during, and what skills that will make you excel at it. But it would also be about cars, their history, when mechanics were first needed, why cars need to be fixed-some more than others. 

That is a poor analogy as well, because you work alone mostly, and in my line of work I'm always either in front of a prospect/customer, or on the phone with them, or WebEx/Adobe Connect/etc., but maybe it helps a little to explain. If that isn't called Non-Fiction, then I welcome knowing the correct genre. 

Thanks again for writing!


----------



## Yumi Koizumi (Feb 25, 2016)

Cran said:


> Yes; you're right to be concerned about the cost.
> OK. Why do you think you need a non-fiction content editor?
> Are you concerned about your depth of research, or your knowledge of the subject?
> Are you concerned about the structure of the work - how the chapters should be laid out, what if any appendices to include, etc?



Thanks for writing, @Cran. 

You're exactly right; I was asking about the requirement to pay a lot for an editor to get a book considered by a publisher. I keep hearing people say _an editor makes a good book great_. And some even say that (citing neither fiction or non-fiction) you basically have no chance without a polished (edited) book presented to a publisher. I read all of this, and I came here with it to get the straight skinny. I hope this answers the first two of the four points/questions above.

As for the third, no. I am certain that I am among the most knowledgeable in what I do. I've been doing it over 20 years, and have approached it as an engineer would, by analyzing it and honing it down by learning the hard way what doesn't work, and what does.

The fourth is interesting, and took me by surprise. In a big way, I explain things in my professional writing. So I've broken this book down in XMind as if I was explaining it to someone, which is just what you said about what I call 'writing to your readers'. I simply broke the subject of what I do into a structure that flows from definitions & history to what the job itself is, and how to do it better than everyone else. But your question makes me wonder if that is how people would learn about it. 

I mean, would people learn about what the job is with the description being written the way someone doing that job would describe it as a deliverable to a prospect? Which makes me wonder... Aren't my readers prospects in a way? Aren't I trying to 'sell' to them the same way that I sell to business prospects? I often say that we are ALL salesmen. We're all trying to convince somebody of something, or convincing your kid to clean your room, or get a better price for something? Ever try to get a date? You're selling!

Your question, to unsuccessfully try to be pithy, is making me examine the way I'm presenting the material... Which is good. But what a good example of explaining through writing to use the book itself as an example of this style of writing? How cool is that? I can share my mind maps, notes, etc. that I used to write the book itself as a real life example of how to break a complex subject down, organize it, and then present it in a way it can be understood by the target audience.

Is that a noble/honorable aim/goal?

P.S. You ask a great question when thinking of the answer makes me rethink what I thought was plain & simple.


----------



## Yumi Koizumi (Feb 25, 2016)

dale said:


> if you are a good writer, you shouldn't really need to hire an editor. they have free editing software
> if you're worried about typos, spelling, grammar and that kind of crap. i think for non-fiction, this would be the
> option i would go with.



Dale, thanks for writing.

"if you are a good writer..."

As a new wannabe writer, I don't _know_ if I am good at this kind of writing.  This is why I am curious about how to cost-effectively put the best book in front of a potential publisher. I want to blow them away the same way I blow folks away today in my narrow form of writing.


----------



## Cran (Feb 26, 2016)

Yumi Koizumi said:


> Thanks for writing, @Cran.
> 
> You're exactly right; I was asking about the requirement to pay a lot for an editor to get a book considered by a publisher. I keep hearing people say _an editor makes a good book great_. And some even say that (citing neither fiction or non-fiction) you basically have no chance without a polished (edited) book presented to a publisher. I read all of this, and I came here with it to get the straight skinny. I hope this answers the first two of the four points/questions above.


It's possible that things have changed so much in recent years, given everything that's happened to professional writing and publishing. It may be that publishers are putting more of the risk load onto the writer. Sad if that is true. But it might further explain why more people choose to self-publish now. 

If publishers no longer have their own editors, either in-house or on freelance contract, then that seems an odd way to do business. Normally the first introduction and the growing relationship would be between the writer and the publisher's editor. Without that link in place, it becomes a guessing game, and you may as well find an editor who suits you and self-publish if that editor doesn't have a connection to an established publisher. 

Such unattached freelance editors are out there, but the risk is then yours as how good that editor might be. And that's where considering the cost comes in. It's no good going for the cheapest if that means getting back poor quality work. That means you'll end up spending a lot of time talking to prospective editors, or you might be lucky and find the right one for you within a day or so. I only know that - the lucky - is possible from my own experience of looking for the right freelancer. 





> As for the third, no. I am certain that I am among the most knowledgeable in what I do. I've been doing it over 20 years, and have approached it as an engineer would, by analyzing it and honing it down by learning the hard way what doesn't work, and what does.
> 
> The fourth is interesting, and took me by surprise. In a big way, I explain things in my professional writing. So I've broken this book down in XMind as if I was explaining it to someone, which is just what you said about what I call 'writing to your readers'. I simply broke the subject of what I do into a structure that flows from definitions & history to what the job itself is, and how to do it better than everyone else. But your question makes me wonder if that is how people would learn about it.
> 
> I mean, would people learn about what the job is with the description being written the way someone doing that job would describe it as a deliverable to a prospect?


Well, are looking to excite a prospect? Or teach a student or apprentice?

Both require capturing and keeping their interest, but each has a different motivation. 

For a prospect, if I understand what you mean by that, you are selling what you can do. For a student or apprentice, you are selling what they can do.




> Which makes me wonder... Aren't my readers prospects in a way? Aren't I trying to 'sell' to them the same way that I sell to business prospects? I often say that we are ALL salesmen. We're all trying to convince somebody of something, or convincing your kid to clean your room, or get a better price for something? Ever try to get a date? You're selling!
> 
> Your question, to unsuccessfully try to be pithy, is making me examine the way I'm presenting the material... Which is good. But what a good example of explaining through writing to use the book itself as an example of this style of writing? How cool is that? I can share my mind maps, notes, etc. that I used to write the book itself as a real life example of how to break a complex subject down, organize it, and then present it in a way it can be understood by the target audience.
> 
> Is that a noble/honorable aim/goal?


Yes. I think that is most worthwhile.




> P.S. You ask a great question when thinking of the answer makes me rethink what I thought was plain & simple.


Thank you.


----------



## ppsage (Feb 26, 2016)

Just from the acknowledgement section of a book similar, it ought to be possible to glimpse, with a bit of sleuthing, how the editing process proceeded. Google some of the acknowledged. Looking at the nonfiction in my library, which is likely very dissimilar, publisher's editors figure large, in getting copious thanks. Colleagues who 'looked over' this or that section and made suggestions also get much kissed up to. And spouses of course. Haven't seen any which thank 'my editor' separate from a publisher.


----------



## Flint (Feb 26, 2016)

Yumi Koizumi said:


> I liken this to someone watching a checkers game, and seeing the triple jump, or to those I give my technical writing to to review, and though they have no idea what I'm talking about, that somehow gives them clarity to see things beyond the content that I am so focused on. Is this close?
> 
> I write technical white papers, demonstration scripts for software, copy for recordings explaining things, sales and marketing materials like proposals & such, and I know I am striving for 'tactical' perfection, but there is a big part of me that really tries to see what I am writing with the reader's eyes.
> 
> ...



Yeah, that's along the lines of how I view it. This has some more in-depth information, which may be of interest:

http://www.sfep.org.uk/about/faqs/what-is-copy-editing/




Yumi Koizumi said:


> I will be, well am, writing on this very subject, and how to do it. But I might use the same words over and over again to describe, or a lack of variety in adverbs, adjectives, etc. so I see value in that. But like I said initially, these folks are charging 30-50k for doing something, and some out there say beware as they will charge this for 'copy' editing, which should be less.



IMO, it's best to get a contract with somebody before you begin which outlines exactly what they're going to be doing for you, their rates and perhaps a maximum amount of hours limit/charge if they aren't charging you a rate per X amount of words.

Depending on what you require somebody to do, how in-depth you want their copyediting and the quality of your writing, it's going to vary on how many pages they can do in an hour: maybe 2, maybe 5, maybe 8, maybe more?

This may be a starting point to get some idea of charges:

http://www.sfep.org.uk/resources/suggested-minimum-rates/


----------



## bazz cargo (Feb 28, 2016)

https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/

Hi Yumi,
I suspect a lot of writers have a day job as an editor, we all have to eat. Writing very rarely pays unless you have a 'name.'

I wonder if your field of endeavour would be better suited to specialist magazines? Over time you would get to know the mag editor group and build a name as an expert. You would also get regular pay.

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## denmark423 (Mar 1, 2016)

Having an editor is a good thing to do especially if it's for your first book. You just need to find a good editor where you can rely on with your book. Some publishing companies do offer editing services.


----------

