Writing is usually a fairly solitary experience, except maybe when your cats walk across the keyboard and add their contribution. But the publication process can be different, especially if you want to stand out among other authors and deliver a professional manuscript that can compete with the many thousands sent to publishers and agents every year, along with all the novels by indie authors and those already on the shelves.
For many writers, a major part of that professionalization is working with an editor. It’s also a major cost, and not only in cash terms but in time too. You typically send your manuscript to an editor when you’ve taken the narrative as far as you can on your own. The editor might take about a month to go through your text, and then send you back revision suggestions that require you to go through all 80,000 words or so all over again. And that’s where the real time cost can come in.
But, what many authors don’t realize is that it’s possible to spread that time – and the cost. Many editors offer the possibility to work on your book in sections, maybe 10,000 words at a time. That doesn’t necessarily only suit your expenses but also your writing routine.
For example, a staggered process really helps some of the authors I work with who have chronic illnesses and who can’t spend prolonged periods working on their text. Breaking their books down into blocks means they can revise at their own pace while still feeling like they’re making progress. They can then send the next section in their own time, often at moments when they’re in a less productive phase, but with the knowledge that I’m busy with their work, and they can pick up again when they’re ready once more.
Pros and cons
Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. I’ll get to those in a moment. First, let’s look at what I mean by editing in this instance.
There are, of course, different types of editing. In this case, I’m talking about a developmental edit – the most in-depth type of edit, where the editor goes through the entire manuscript, correcting grammatical errors, typos, fact checking, suggesting revisions to improve flow, syntax, perspective and tone, and then analyzing the important aspects of the novel, such as story structure, character development, plot, pacing, presentation and marketability, among others. This is, of course, the most expensive and time consuming type of edit. And it’s the one where the author will have the most to do afterward.
Clearly, the main disadvantage of working in blocks of a few thousand words at a time is that the editor cannot give you feedback on the whole story until that final part comes along. So, how does the editor know if the story is heading in the right direction in those early sections, or if the characters are developing as they should to get to that end?
The answer, of course, is that the editor doesn’t know in those early stages. But neither does the reader, and so the feedback the editor gives after working on each block is more like how the reader would see the story progress too. If the editor finds something that doesn’t quite click, doesn’t ring true, seems out of character for what we know of the protagonist so far, then readers will pick up on that too.
Personalize
This is the kind of feedback you’d get from any edit anyway. The other disadvantage here, however, is that some of the feedback can then come with caveats, such as: ‘At the moment, it doesn’t look like you need that café scene in chapter 12 where we’re introduced to Charles, but if Charles becomes a more significant character later, then you probably need to keep this.’
On the face of it, there’s not much you can do with feedback like that, except that you (the author) know whether or not Charles comes back into the story later and can probably judge whether this scene was necessary or not.
The point then, as with all editing, is to get the author to consider certain choices, to decide if this direction really is the right way to go or whether there might be other, better, options.
And, once the editor has worked on the final section, the last round of feedback will contain the more definite revision suggestions for the whole story.
One major advantage of editing in blocks is that the author can revise the rest of your text based on the earlier feedback. This can mean cutting Charles completely from the story after deciding you really don’t need him at all, even in those later chapters. Or it could be cutting back on speech tags (he said, she said), crutch words (those favorite words every author turns to, and overuses, without being aware of it) or character fidgeting (she turned, he blinked) when they don’t need to.
If you can already revise your next 10K words before sending them to the editor, you’re then sending an even more polished version of your work. This doesn’t mean the editor has less work but means that your polished work gets the chance to have another shine.
It’s a way of working that suits some people, but obviously not everyone. The point is to make the editing process work for you, in the way that suits you best.
Would you consider having your work edited in blocks like this? Can you see other advantages or disadvantages? Have you tried this way of working, and how did it go for you?
About Jim Dempsey
Jim Dempsey (he/him) is a book editor who specializes in detailed analysis and editing of novel manuscripts through his company, Novel Gazing. He has worked as an editor for more than 20 years. He has a master’s degree in creative writing and is a professional member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading and is a trustee of the Arkbound Foundation. Jim is fascinated by the similarities between fiction and psychotherapy, since both investigate the human condition, the things that make us uniquely human. He explores this at The Fiction Therapist website. If you have a specific concern with your novel, send an email to jim [at] thefictiontherapist.com, or visit the website to ask for a free sample edit. You can follow Jim on Instagram @the_fiction_therapist.
I have a question about what is really a side note to this post. We say one task for certain types of editors is fact checking. How is this done realistically? When I think about some of the research I’ve had to do and how hard it has been to find some of the information, how can they realistically fact check? I know different editors price in different ways, but the amount of time that would add to them working on your project seems cost prohibitive. Or do I totally misunderstand what is meant by ‘fact checking’?
I like that there is an option to pace out your editing–it certainly would make it more manageable from a budget perspective. But I’m torn, too. Let’s say you send your book in quarters. As you already mention, they can’t look at the big picture because they haven’t seen the rest of it. But also, I wonder how easy it is for an editor to pick up on the flow of the story when they’re getting it in chunks.
You have a point about fact checking, BK. There are certainly some manuscripts where editors have to have a certain amount of trust that the authors have done their research and probably know more about the subject than pretty much anyone else.
However, it might take an author quite a while to unearth a certain detail. For example, the exact address of Jack the Ripper’s second murder. Such a “fact” can be tricky because there were more murders atrributed to the Ripper than he probably carried out. But, once the author has gone through all the literature and come up with, e.g., 29 Hanbury Street, it can then be fairly easy for the editor to search for that exact detail and verify it from a few sources But it would be more difficult for the editor to discover what the address actually was if 29 Hanbury Street was incorrect because that would mean going through all that literature and, as you say, that would be too time consuming. In that case, the editor could query and say: please check this and cite the relevant sources that shed some doubt on the author’s detail.
Generally speaking though, fact checking often doesn’t go much beyond whether the sun actually set around 4.30PM on December 22, 2019 in New York City (yes). Or: can you really drive from London to Durham in two hours (no, it would be nearer five hours).
As for picking up on the flow when reading in chunks: yes, an editor can do that as the flow might drop significantly at a point where it should be picking up, for example, in any one of those chunks. But then, the editor will read through the story again anyway once all the pieces have been delivered and can then give a final judgement on the flow. So, in my experience, any disadvantages will get ironed out in the end.
I hope that helps.
Don’t we all edit at our own pace? Just because we get feedback on the whole story, doesn’t mean we can’t edit piece by piece.
I agree that there’s no harm in sending the first chunk to an editor without the last. You should get meaningful comments on how that part is read. But I’d be wary of paying the same rate for future chunks. I couldn’t expect an editor to remember the story details enough to give feedback of seeing the forest from the trees, which is exactly what is the most valuable part of an editor. And I think I’d be more likely to dismiss some of the feedback, thinking, oh well, she doesn’t know that I’ve rewritten chapter 1, so this character is now seen in a different way.
On the other hand, I revised a draft by working with a writing buddy as we exchanged 1-2 chapters a week over several months. That was productive and wonderful, but I still needed higher level editor-type feedback later.
Good point, Ada, that authors can always work at their own pace on the revisions, and it’s a matter of pedantry whether we call that rewriiting, revising or editing. My intention was more that you can send your work to an editor at your own pace, and I should’ve been clear about that.
I take your point too that it could be difficult for an editor to remember all the details of a story if it gets delivered in chunks. Personally, I’ve never had that problem (that I’m aware of) because I – and most editors – make lots of notes along the way (I’d written an earlier article about this: Keep your Characters Consistent: https://writerunboxed.com/2018/04/27/keep-your-characters-consistent/). This is useful especially for authors of series, but it also works when the author sends the manuscript in parts.
Also, as I mentioned above, an editor will always read the manuscript at least twice, so any inconsistencies can get addressed at the end.
As I say, editing in chunks is not for everyone, but the extra option certainly suits some people’s circumstances.
Thanks for your contribution, Ada. It sounds like you’ve found a good system too.
All the best.
Jim, I broke all my own rules for the first novel that I completed and eventually published. I exchanged chapters with another writer who had a similar schedule with kids and sports, etc. That she was waiting for the next installment was so great. At the same time I was taking the novel course at ICL and it is designed so that you turn in the first draft in thirds. However, one of the first assignments is to submit a first chapter with an outline, similar to how you’d submit to an editor or agent. I really loved the course because not only do you get detailed feedback as the novel progresses but we go through one round of revision with the instructor. I learned so much! I highly recommend it for anyone who’s interested. Editing in chunks works.
It’s true, Vijaya. I never thought about that before, how you work in chunks on a creative writing course. Although you’re often writing your first draft in those courses, so a little different to the level you’d send to an editor, the process is similar, and can even take a few years, rather than a few months.
Thanks for this, Vijaya. All the best.
When I hired you to edit my novel we broke it into two chunks. That worked well. I also thanked you.
“Also, thank you to Dave King for teaching me how to complete a novel. (We worked through a very rough draft of this book.) And for coming up with the joke about the lamps being shady. Thank you to Jim Dempsey for his editorial advice concerning an earlier version of this novel. (Any mistakes in this manuscript are not his fault.)
Thank you to all the contributors at Writer Unboxed…”
Hi Tina. I didn’t know you’d published American Lions already, but have now ordered it. Such a wonderful story. I loved working on your book, and even find mysef thinking about it sometimes. So, great I can now read it in its final form.
Thank you for your kind words too. That really means a lot. This goes back to that first paragraph in my article, about writing normally being solitary, and so building something of a community, like here at WU, can really make a huge difference.
So thrilled about your book. Can hardly wait.
All the best.
Jim
Thanks for the article! I prefer to have a complete manuscript, both for editing it for others or for getting feedback myself.