Editing Costs and Expectations: Insider’s View of My Editing Process

It would appear that yet again I have found myself in a situation where a client might have had different expectations regarding the cost of editing. It was actually a disconnect between what I was contracted to do (and my editing process) vs what they thought I should be doing. However, regardless how you look at it, everything comes down to the cost and value of the editor's time.

I see it time and time again. There is this expectation for the editor to do more work than they have time allotted for and to be paid the same amount of money for that "more" work. This results in a devaluing of the editor's time. Believe it or not, this is the Number 1 gripe among editors.

We want to be of value to our clients, but we also have to make a wage that will actually pay the bills. So, many editors will develop practices that assist them to get through the workload faster.

Today, I want to discuss what my editorial process is like—how I do things.

My process is based on over five years of experience of working as a developmental editor. It is about ensuring that I provide the best value for money while at the same time keeping the number of hours required to do the job to a minimum.

Please note that every editor is different, so my process is not necessarily the same process as another editor.

My Process: The First Read Through

Regardless of the type of editing contract involved, my first step in the editorial process is to print the manuscript out (though, soon I'll be moving to a Remarkable tablet for the same purpose to save a few trees). I then read that manuscript from cover to cover, making notes and comments as I go, marking up the manuscript with my trusty red pen (which is actually purple).

I circle random sections, highlighting odd grammar or punctuation and awkward sentences. I write questions and comments on things that didn't work for me—and I include notes on those sections that I thought were well done. If I notice repeated sentence constructions or any grammatical errors that occur throughout the manuscript, I make note of those too. Basically, I'm going through that manuscript and highlighting everything that throws me out of the narrative as a reader.

That first read through is about my reader reactions. And as an editor, I will see different things to other people, simply because I have been trained with that eye.

Even when I casually read a story (not client work), I tear the writing apart. I can't help it. I struggle to turn the editor off. For published stories, it's about understanding what I like and what I don't like, and learning how others construct their stories. But when I'm reading client manuscripts, if that editor brain switches off at any time and I just read... That is a sign of a well crafted manuscript—and possibly one that didn't need my input.

When reading client manuscripts, I need to make notes during that first read through. And I have learned long ago to do this first read through on paper, away from MS Word. Reading from paper forces me to keep my comments to a minimum, keeping my reading time to a minimum. I circle parts of the document, write my questions and notes in the margins, and I have a notebook beside me for general comments.

Notes about what the individual chapters are about find my trusty notebook, and these notes in particular are important for the later stages of editing. If I notice any issues with story structure as the reader, I can go back and look at what might have gone wrong. Those notes include details about where my eyes glazed over and I had to push my way through a section.

Yes, people, it happens. I lose interest in the story and I have to get a jolt of caffeine to keep going. Those sections are vital to identify.

Had I been an average reader (not one whose job it is to find issues with manuscripts), those sections would be the points where I would put the story down and likely never go back. Those are the sections that need the most editing to keep the reader engaged. As such, those are the sections that will need the most attention in subsequent reads, depending on the nature of the editorial contract. (For some contracts, it's just a comment given and nothing else. But I'll get to that portion of the process below.)

If I don't make these notes as I go, the time needed to complete an editorial contract easily triples, mainly because I lose track of what happened in various parts of the manuscript and I spend forever hunting through the manuscript itself for the specifics. (Trust me, as a client, you don't want me wasting time hunting through your manuscripts for specifics.)

Reader Reactions

In my opinion, reader reactions are vital to the editing process. They highlight where things might not have gone as planned: missing details, details that might not have translated to the page properly, or elaborating on unnecessary details. And just as important is understanding the emotional response from the reader if they're engaged.

Your average reader is going to read through your story only the once. So you have one shot to capture their imagination and take them on a journey. If there is any point in which you could potentially lose the reader, regardless of the reason, then you, as the writer, need to know.

That is why my first read throughs are so thorough. I'm hunting for any reason that the story might lose reader engagement.

Under ideal circumstances, with a manuscript that is incredibly tight and well edited, my comments will consist of "I want to know more, so I kept reading." There are times when I have that desire to know more, but I have the feeling that I know the answer will come. I don't feel the urge to have that information at that moment. It's writing that's keeping me engaged. And I always comment when I have that feeling.

However, most manuscripts I see are still in early development, so that "want to know more, but I'll wait for the answer" feeling is rare. There are patterns to my comments, because I tend to see the same issues again and again (perhaps topics for future blog posts). But those reader reactions are still valid and important to the writer.

How those reader reactions are presented to a client will depend on the nature of the contract.

More on My Process: Moving from Notes to Editing

What I do with my notes from my first read through and how I progress into editing on the computer will depend entirely on what I was contracted to do. I'll do what I can to break it down for you based on the type of editing involved.

Manuscript Assessments

Most of the contracts I do are for manuscript assessments. This is the cheapest form of editing that I offer.

I read through a manuscript and break it down, highlighting issues that will negatively impact on the manuscript's readability, providing suggestions on how to move forward. Reports will often include a chapter breakdown alongside a structural analysis, especially if there were significant structural issues identified. There will be comments on characterizations, narrative style chosen, and a list of copyediting issues identified that the writer needs to be aware of.

And I always include key reader reaction comments throughout the manuscript, annotated using Track Changes in a MS Word file.

Transferring of my notes to the computer is my second read through. And there are times when I'll see something during that second read through that was missed during the first read through.

But that second read through during a manuscript assessment is about ensuring that the suggestions I'm making (which are often connect to story structure and characterization) actually make sense for the story that is in front of me.

That second read through is fast and nowhere near as detailed, but ironically, it takes the same amount of time as that first read through does. This is because I'm not focused purely on the words in the manuscript. I'm reading the subtext and processing how passages could be reworked so they read better. And I'm adding all of these comments to that annotated MS Word file.

Substantive Developmental Editing

On a rare occasion, I'm contracted to do a substantive developmental edit on the full manuscript. In these instances, I start my process as though I was doing a manuscript assessment. But do you remember how I said that it was vital for me to identify those passages during the first read through where my eyes glazed over? Well...

For a substantive developmental edit, during a third and fourth detailed read through, I'm looking at the nitty-gritty on how chapters transition to the next chapter. I'm assessing the usage of show for a given passage and examining the level of backstory presented. And for those sections where my eyes glazed over: it's a full breakdown of those sections, isolating the important information and making suggestions on possible rewrites to keep the reader engaged. I'm reworking and expanding on suggested ideas.

This is detailed and focused work, and without those notes from the first read through, this is also the bit where I get bogged down and could potentially waste precious time.

Reports

It doesn't matter if I'm providing a manuscript assessment or a substantive developmental edit. The time it takes to write those reports seems to be constant. There will be slightly different information presented, but they still contain my analysis on story structure, characterizations, and narrative voice. And there is always a list of copyediting issues identified that the writer needs to be made aware of.

Because I tend to comment on the same issues time and time again, much of my report is now templated. Chop and change things around so they relate to the particular manuscript, but at times I feel like a broken record. Without those templates, I would hate to think how long it would take me to write an editorial report. Those templates have cut hours out of that part of the process.

Disconnect Between Expectations and the Value of My Time

The main difference in the editing services that I offer come down to that third and fourth detailed read through. And those read throughs often incorporate five read throughs of just one passage on its own—and there could be in the order of sixty different passages that require that detailed focus. All of this takes time—time the client is paying for.

Through experience, I have worked out formulas to give me an indication of how much time it will take for a given contract, incorporating the read time for the various read throughs, the time to write the report and any client mentoring follow-up incorporated into the contract. I have a base rate in mind (hourly rate), and with some complicated math (using formulas in spreadsheets that are constantly refined), I work out what the contract would be worth.

The client is given a fixed quote for a given project. But built into that quote is a certain number of hours for the job.

If a job takes longer than the hours that I've allocated to that project, then I'm the one who suffers. My effective hourly rate goes down. And when that contract is done, I go back and look at my process for that contract, identifying where I perhaps spent too much time. If I genuinely underestimated the time involved for a given task, that's when I go back to my funky formulas in my pricing spreadsheets and refine the process.

And for those of you wondering, if I come in under hours—no, I do not discount based on this reason. In truth, I have yet to come in under hours. Most of the time, I'm lucky if I went over the time allotted by 10 hours. It's usually much more than that.

But because I work based on a fixed quote, I feel that some clients don't understand that they are actually paying for my time. As such, if I go over time, I'm earning a lower hourly rate.

The Comment that Sparked this Post

As part of my process, when I complete a contract, I ask for clients to fill in a questionnaire, providing me feedback on how they think I did. In a recent feedback was the comment, "It appears to me that you were editing while reading."

Well, dah! It's part of that initial read through. I am tearing that manuscript apart as I read, hunting out anything that is throwing me out as the reader.

This will result in me having questions that might very well be answered sentences, paragraphs, or pages later. And if I have questions about something that was presented in the manuscript prior to that point, then that's an indication that the description or introduction of that thing was inadequate and my eyes likely glazed over the details.

My comments could be resulting from a favored sentence construction that once I see it, I can't unsee it, and it irritates me. Or it could be the odd punctuation that is driving me up the wall.

It could be characterization that doesn't match what would be expected for the character based on how they were described in the manuscript. Or perhaps it's story structure that is missing beat points and leaving me feeling unsatisfied.

I said it earlier, but I'll say it again. While reading your manuscript in that first read through, if my editor brain is switched off for one moment and I just read, that is a sign of a manuscript that is well written and likely not in need of my feedback. (I have yet to encounter such a manuscript in my work as an editor.)

You WANT me to be editing while reading. I'm not a copyeditor, so I'm not looking at the nitty-gritty of wording choices, at least not to the level of detail that a copyeditor does. I am looking for things that are having a negative impact on the reader experience.

And that, my dear reader, could be almost anything.

Based on the recent client feedback on the perceived validity of my process, I'm NOT going to change my process. But I will be adding a disclaimer to my comments going forward, highlighting that some comments ARE first read through comments and reader reactions. And I will probably add a statement in bold stating that you might not agree with my comments or suggestions, but an editor's job is to highlight where there are issues in your manuscript; it's a writer's job to decide on what to do about those identified issues.