If you’re reading this, I assume you’re either an editor yourself, or someone who’s close to one.
Whether you work for a small or large publishing house, you’ll be familiar with the term ‘editing’ (or ‘copyediting’ as it’s often referred to informally).
Editing is the process of going through a manuscript – sometimes many, many manuscripts – and making them ready for publication. In some cases, this could mean making minor copyediting adjustments and tidying up spelling and punctuation. In others, it could involve rewriting substantial chunks of text, or adding extra illustrations or examples to make a particular point more clearly.
While it’s important to learn the basics of copyediting and editing, what sets a good editor apart from a bad one is the approach they take and the level of skill they demonstrate. It’s a combination of the two that determines whether or not your manuscript is going to be edited to a professional standard, and whether or not you’re going to enjoy the publication process. If you’re looking for an editor to help you improve your work, read on.
The Role of the Editor
As the name would suggest, an editor is there to help you edit your work. In an ideal world, you’d come to them with as close to finished product as possible, and they’d take that final version and make it the perfect one. In practice, this might not always be the case, and while there are many cases of successful collaborations between writer and editor, the truth is that not all of them are born equal. Sometimes, it takes a bit of arm-twisting to get the best out of an uncooperative writer.
Many times, the uncooperative writer is the one who finishes first and hands the completed work to the editor, who then has to scramble to get it done on time. On the other hand, there are cooperative writers who will work with the editor to make sure that the final product is what they’d envisioned all along. Regardless of the nature of your relationship with your editor, you’re both there to make the manuscript the very best it can be. This requires a level of collaboration and mutual respect that isn’t always present in all editor-writer relationships, but it certainly doesn’t hurt.
When you’re in the process of working with an editor, it’s important to remember that they are not your friend or partner. On the contrary, they are there to help you improve your work so that it can be as perfect as possible. To this end, they’ll be looking for all sorts of things – clarity of expression, organization, narrative, et cetera – and will be pointing out all the places where you could make your work stronger. While you might not always see it this way, your editor is actually your enemy in the sense that they’re trying to make you a better, more confident writer.
What Is the Editing Mark?
When referencing a particular passage or section of your manuscript, you’re going to see two different types of marks used: one for the final copy, and the other for the original. The first and most commonly used of these is the editing mark. This is the passage or section that the editor has worked on, and it serves as a kind of ‘watermark’ for the material they’ve been involved in shaping.
As mentioned above, editing is the process of taking a manuscript (sometimes called a copy) and making it ready for publication. When an editor is working on your manuscript and makes a significant change (be it major or minor), they’ll usually indicate this by inserting a little note in the text, or making a note in the bibliography. For instance, the note might read “[Title]: The Role of the Editor,” or “See the appendix for further reading on the subject.”
If you’re curious as to what these notes mean, it usually just means that there was some sort of change made in that particular section of the manuscript. Bear in mind that while these changes might be significant, they’re not always going to be made obvious to the reader. Sometimes, the only indication that something has been edited is the editing mark, which stands for “this section has been worked on by multiple people.”
In addition to the editing mark, you’ll see a sourcing mark (also known as the ‘sourcing footer’) in the original copy of your manuscript. The sourcing mark indicates where the copy came from – either directly from the source, or indirectly through another copy. If you’ve ever seen the footer at the end of a magazine or newspaper article, this is probably what it looks like. In some cases, there might not even be a note, as the editor could simply choose to leave that part of the text unchanged.
Why Is It Important To Note The Editing Marks?
When in doubt, leave it out. Whatever you do, don’t put anything in writing that you don’t want to see published. It’s as simple as that. Before you knew that your editor was going to be a real jerk and refuse to publish certain parts of the manuscript, you’d probably written the equivalent of the entire book in your head without ever putting it on paper. The fact that they’ve agreed to look at your material doesn’t mean that they’ve changed their mind about all of it, but rather that they’re willing to give it a try. If you feel that there’s something unsavory about your manuscript that you don’t want to see published, it might be best not to force them to reconsider – at least not without good reason. When it comes to your work, there are rarely any acceptable reasons not to publish. To that end, it’s important that you make it easy for them to understand what your intentions were when you began writing the material, and why you think it could end up being inappropriate or unsuitable for publication. If you’re unclear about why something was left out, or why a particular passage was rewritten, it can make the whole process more difficult. Furthermore, if you’re not careful, you could end up sabotaging your own work. The last thing you want to do is ruin your own story because you weren’t able to successfully negotiate an agreement with your editor. Remember: they’re not your friend or partner, they’re there to help you improve your work and have the last say on whether or not it’s worthy of being published.