In recent months I’ve seen a growing number of writers make this statement:
“If your book is good, you don’t need an editor”
Or, in some cases a more aggressive version:
“Only bad writers need an editor.”
Usually these are then followed by the reasons why that writer didn’t need an editor to self-publish their book and come as a response to an (often new) author asking for help or guidance.
Now, self-publishing isn’t the issue here at all. In fact, self-publishing is amazing; it gives writers the chance to get their work out there on their own terms with full creative control. And, while it’s true you don’t need an editor to self-publish, many successful authors (traditional and indie) will advise writers to hire an editor.
The issue here is that these statements are often over-confident and come across as judgemental to other people’s work.
Other authors are not your competition, they’re your colleagues. Writing - as with all creative spaces - is a community in which people can ask for help and get advice and opinions to help them grow.
Further to that, telling someone who is asking for help that their work is probably bad is rude and can dishearten new writers - even force some to put their pens down or close their laptop. I believe we should do the opposite: we should encourage people to write. If you love writing and reading, why crush the spirit of a new writer?
But let’s get to the heart of the statements…
The first question I have is how do I know if my book is good? and truthfully, you don’t. Not until you get some space from it and listen to outside opinions. Beta readers, critique partners, and editors are all people whose opinion will help you turn your book into a great book.
The second thing I’d say is that an editor isn’t there to make your book good or change it in any massive ways. I did a separate post on the different stages of editing and what each type of editor does, but in short no editor is going to ghostwrite, co-author, or fundamentally rewrite your book.
A developmental editor will predominantly work by suggesting ways to improve your story with a focus on big picture elements like characters, plot, and theme.
A copyeditor will focus on your style and help you hone in on the voice you want to present to your readers.
And a proofreader will focus on technical errors like spelling, grammar, punctuation, and consistency in applied styles.
The job of an editor at any stage is to work with the author to help pull all the gems in their story to the front. No matter how good this draft is, an editor will always help make it better.
Coming down hard on others for having a different process to you can be enough to discourage others from writing or sharing their work. We should be lifting each other up, sharing ideas, and celebrating those different approaches.
No matter how many books you’ve published or awards you’ve won, there’s always something more to learn.
If this doesn’t convince you, consider your favourite author. If they’re traditionally published (as most household names are), they have at least one editor. Often more. Is your writing better than your favourite author’s?
A final note…
Editing can be expensive, and there are some bad actors out there (as there are in all fields), but a good editor will always help you get the most out of your work. Most editors will be happy to talk with you before taking on your project and will offer sample edits or similar before agreeing to the project, allowing you to decide if your styles match.
And, if cost is an issue, talk to any prospective editors about payment plans or on working on sections of the book at a time.
What do you think? Are editors only for bad writers? I’d love to hear other people’s opinions on this.