Sunday, June 10, 2018

publishing - At what point does an author deal with an editor?



I'm just wondering: at which point do you have to deal with the editor, and what are the (possible) consequences? That is, when is the editor's involvement greatest? After or before a deal?


I'd suspect after, since before something is agreed upon, it would mean cost for the publisher who pays the editor's wage without any benefit, not even the potential benefit of making money from selling the book (potential because you can never be sure something sells, at least not with an unknown author)


But what "recourse" do you have then? The contract is signed... what could or does usually (as per said contract) happen if you don't agree to some or all of the editor's (proposed) changes?


I have googled (yes, just now) and haven't found much.



Answer



Editors don't get involved until a contract is assigned and your manuscript is sent to them for editing. The amount of leeway you have regarding their changes is going to vary on a couple things. The first being your reasoning. Why don't you want to go with their change? If you have a justifiable reason (ie not "I just don't like it) then they'll most likely go with you. If for some reason the author and editor can't agree on something, it'll go up the chain to the Editor-in-Chief or another senior member of the editing staff. They tend to side with the author unless it's something that's going to reflect poorly on the manuscript or the publisher.


Most contracts have a stipulation in them that the publishing house cannot make major changes to the manuscript without permission from the author. This means they can't rewrite entire scenes, add/subtract a character, etc. without your okay. But this doesn't mean they need your permission to add a comma here or a semi-colon there.


If for some reason you just can't work with an editor, don't hesitate to email the publisher and request a different editor. Sometimes an author and a specific editor just don't mix well.


Generally, at least three different people should be looking over your manuscript to look for ways to improve it. The first person would be a copy editor or a content editor. They're going to look at the overall picture of the manuscript. Does a character magically disappear? Are there plot holes? Does this chapter add to the manuscript? The next person is the line editor. They're going to go over it line by line for grammar/punctuation/spelling. They will sometimes make content related notes if something jumps out at them. (IE something doesn't seem realistic, etc.) The last person is a proofreader. They're mostly looking for anything that the other two missed - namely, typos.


No comments:

Post a Comment

technique - How credible is wikipedia?

I understand that this question relates more to wikipedia than it does writing but... If I was going to use wikipedia for a source for a res...