frequently asked questions
. . .
To aid the conversation
I’ve gathered here some of the most common questions I get. If you’ve a question that’s not answered here, feel free to reach out. Perhaps it’s a question that should be added.
. . . . . . . . . .
What is your availability?
I’m generally scheduled out six to eight months for projects of substance. As of February 2023, I’m scheduled out nearly a full year. My general availability appears at the bottom of each Services page.
. . . . . . . . . .
I’m confused about the different kinds of editing. Can you go through it again?
One of the problems with the different kinds of editing — known as the levels of edit — is that not everyone uses the same terms. There is no Grand Academy of Editing that determines the language to be used around editing. I use developmental, line, and copy editing, as over the years I have found these terms and the distinctions between them the clearest, most commonsensical, and widely applicable for the work to be done. Whatever the labels you come across, however, the movement should always be from broad to narrow, from bigger picture to finer-level concerns.
Developmental editing starts the process. After the developmental work comes line editing. After the line work comes copyediting. Following that is proofreading, which is a different skill altogether and not editing.
Developmental editing is all about the big picture. The overall conception of the book, its aims and audience(s). Its structure and organization. For narrative, the story it tells. And so on.
Line editing, by contrast, is all about polishing the text, line by line. That’s why, in editing, it follows developmental work. Why spend time on (and pay for) line-by-line work if chapters might need to be reconceived or reorganized? If material might need to be added or deleted? If something else about the foundation of the work might need to change in some way? Of course, our minds don’t work precisely like that, and so when we’re writing, we’ll sometimes bounce around between different types of concerns on different days or even at different times of the same day. But with editing, the scope must begin wide and then only successively narrow.
Copyediting is all about the mechanics of the text. The grammar of it and also all those visual elements: caps, spelling (including hyphens), punctuation. The sorts of issues that style guides like The Chicago Manual of Style address.
This progression of editorial work — developmental, line, copy — is standard. The only way to be efficient with editing is to take it in order. That’s the best way to get value for your investment.
The levels are not hard and fast: each one shades into the next. Sometimes line editing can be combined with copyediting. So much depends on what the ms needs.
One last point, proofreading. Actual proofreading happens after the ms has been laid out and formatted as a book. The proofreading stage is there not only to catch small things that may have escaped the copyeditor, because something always will, but also to catch any issues introduced with the formatting. Because there will always be those as well. Proofreading is not a stage of editing. It follows editing.
. . . . . . . . . .
And what about manuscript critiques?
In a typical discussion of levels of edit, the manuscript critique often doesn’t come up.
A manuscript critique is something like “dev editing lite.” With a developmental edit you get your manuscript (ms) back with detailed comments throughout — but these will be comments on the conception and the execution of the work itself, not line work — along with a detailed and generally rather lengthy editorial letter that summarizes and lays out the issues. The letter and the ms comments work together, and together they make up the editorial package. With a ms critique, you get only the letter, a high-level letter that explores the main strengths and weaknesses of the work overall. It won’t go into quite the same detail as the dev edit letter.
. . . . . . . . . .
How do I know whether I should do a manuscript critique or a developmental edit?
Great question!
If the work is earlier in its own development — if it’s a first draft and you’re a relatively new author, for example — a manuscript (ms) critique can point out major issues to be addressed at considerably less than the cost of a full dev edit. Conversely, experienced authors often use a ms critique just to make sure that they’re on the right path. Either way, you as author have to be able to take that analysis and feedback, which will include actionable suggestions, and come up with a revision plan on your own. Otherwise, the investment is not fully realized.
And sometimes, an author will elect to do both.
. . . . . . . . . .
Should I think of doing both? And if so, which comes first, the ms critique or the dev edit?
Depending on why a ms critique is done and what the result is, it either precedes a dev edit or replaces it —
Precedes. When a ms has many, many issues, a ms critique can point the way for the author to get to a much improved next draft, which then in turn would be submitted for a proper dev edit, such that the work comes out well polished on story issues. When both a ms critique and dev edit are done, the dev edit often includes also some line work.
Replaces. When, conversely, a ms has few issues, a ms critique can take the place of a dev edit. Following the critique, the ms then goes directly to line editing.
. . . . . . . . . .
How long does all this take? and how much does it cost?
That depends on how long the ms is, how complex the material, and how many issues and of what sort. There are many variables. But, roughly, for a ms of about 50,000 words (about 200 ms pages), a ms critique might run about $2,000, a dev edit could run about $4,000 or more, a line edit might be in the neighborhood of $3,000.
These are ballpark figures. So much depends on the particulars of a project. Note that a ms page is about 250 words.
. . . . . . . . . .
Couldn’t we combine some of that work? like, do line edits along with content and structural edits? Or do copyediting at the same time?
It would be waaaaaaay too messy to try to do development, line work, and copyediting all at the same time. Think of it in terms of architecture: dev editing is like assessing the foundation of a building and its structural integrity, and if there are weak spots, suggesting solutions; line editing is like choosing the colors for the walls, setting the tone and character of the rooms, developing the living space; copyediting is like adding the blinds and the curtains, finding knick-knacks for the shelves, polishing the brass.
Each level of inquiry and refinement makes way for the next: dev for line, line for copy. And after the book has been designed, then the proofing.
But as a by-product of the line work in line editing, it is true that some copyediting issues will also be addressed. Many others may be identified as needing to be resolved later. Some editors combine the two levels in one. I don’t. There’s enough else to be considered in straight copyediting that I think it makes sense to keep them separate. There’s value in another set of eyes doing the fine work of copyediting.
There are other considerations, of course. If you’re prepping a ms to go to agents or acquisitions editors, a good solid line edit by an editor who understands what’s involved in copyediting and who has a good eye can be enough. And maybe that’s all the money you want to spend, because a ms that goes to a publisher will then also go through their editorial process. You pay nothing for that. But knowing that, you’ll want a clean ms to send off yes, with beautiful writing, but if not absolutely every copyediting issue is addressed, that’s unlikely to cause problems. On the other hand, someone who is self-publishing should spring for that separate copyedit. There’ll be no other safety net for catching issues with a self-published book.
. . . . . . . . . .
Are your fees based per word, per hour, or per project?
No matter whether an editor quotes you a per-word, per-hour, or per-project rate, that person is calculating the time it’s going to take her — or is likely to take her, as to some extent that figure will be an estimate — and basing her quote, in the end, on that. She’ll be aiming for a range of return.
If the scope of the project is pretty straightforward, I often set the work up under a project rate, though generally expressed as a range. There’s something nice in that assurance of cost from the author’s side, naturally. We all need to have an idea of the cost of something before committing to it. And what’s that range about? Generally it allows for a range of difficulty. Number or complexity of issues, or both. The sorts of things that don’t become clear — most particularly with dev editing — until one gets deep into the work.
If the scope is uncertain or likely to shift, then another approach is needed. One typical approach is to break the project up into smaller chunks of work, though with dev editing, this can be tricky. The editor really needs the entire work: all the parts within it work together to form the whole. If the nature and scope of the work is open-ended, with the author looking for editorial feedback on work as it’s being developed — that would be less dev and more about other aspects — or if the author is looking for coaching of some sort through a project or a plan, then a common approach is to set up a bank of hours that gets replenished when used. So, the author might pay for five or ten or whatever number of hours up front, and the editor or coach keeps a running tally as she works, supplying whatever incremental reports have been agreed on with respect to those hours and their use and letting the author know when the funds are getting low.
Basically, it comes down to figuring out and agreeing to project scope and then figuring some sort of plan of work that makes good sense to both parties. Coaching is generally ongoing. Editing is more often about working completely through a set of pages, whatever they might be, of a given length and supplying comprehensive feedback of the sort appropriate to the level of edit. An editor can line or copy edit a passage or work of any length. For a dev edit, the entirety of the piece is needed: article, essay, short story, book.
If there’s anything squishy or uncertain about that work to be edited, that complicates things. An editor must be able to come up with a reasonable estimate of the work involved if she’s to price that work before doing it. As coaching by definition is squishy and uncertain, that’s why coaching is so often done by the hour, with the author paying incrementally.
. . . . . . . . . .
do you factor in time for communication? or is that extra?
With respect to phone or Zoom calls, I tend toward the flexible. When I return a ms critique or a dev edit, I like to factor in time as well to go over the work with the author. Sometimes that’s before I return the edit; sometimes, after. Depends on the person, depends on the edit. Typically, that’s by Zoom. If you and I work together, we’d have the option of meeting up in person, though I like to stay masked indoors, which can make long talking a bit trying.
Throughout the process — when we’re talking a straight dev or line edit — there’s generally little reason for phone or Zoom calls. At that point, the author has handed off the ms and is no longer working in it. The editor, meanwhile, is making her way through it. If there are issues that arise for which she absolutely needs an answer to continue, that calls for an email. Now, for copyediting, as the copyeditor will be building a stylesheet at the same time, documenting all those picky little issues that you and she and also the proofreader will need to know, that’s another matter. With copyediting, there’s likely to be periodic email in from the editor with questions. With line editing, the editor can simply gather all those questions and include them in with the notes as issues to be resolved with the copyeditor. None of that is crucial yet. It’s different, of course, if you’re going for some kind of line and copy editing mix, which is a possibility. In any event, if copyediting is involved, there could be regular conversations in email to iron these points out. No need for phone or Zoom calls on issues of that type though.
As to charge, some editors include a call in as part of the price of the edit and some charge separately for it, feeling that it’s an add-on. I consider a call to go over the edit as part of the edit itself. No separate charge. I’m also not averse to hopping on a call if the author needs some further help in going over the edit later. But regular check-in calls would be something else. That’s no longer editing.
Some editors also include a certain amount of email in with their set fee and then beyond that begin to charge. I’m more easy-going on the email. Within reason, I’m fine with email. Usually there’s more of it in the beginning, as the author tries to find her footing in the process.
. . . . . . . . . .
How do I know that you’re the right editor for me?
That’s what the initial consult is all about: getting to know each other, the project, the goals. That discussion is a means of discovery for both of us. You need to understand more about the work I do, how I approach it. And I need to understand more about what you’re looking for. To move forward, we’d both need to feel it’s a good match. You don’t want an editor who can’t give you what you’re looking for, and I wouldn’t want to be that editor.
For line editing, I offer work on short samples that can help to give you a more concrete feel for my working style. That cost is then subtracted from the final project, if we’re going to move forward with it.
For dev editing, it’s not possible to give tastes of the work since dev editing involves the entire work as a whole. For developmental work, it’s all about the initial conversations, about making sure that we align. I’ve also got some testimonials posted.
