*To view part one, go here*
Editors are unique, and fascinating creatures. When they are not scouring manuscripts for their sustenance of choice – improper use of homophones – they spend long hours partaking in elaborate grooming rituals, that appear to mostly involve excessive amounts of coffee and self-loathing. Acquiring an editor demands patience, an awful manuscript, and a certain degree of sadism.
So, I think that sums up my last post in this two-parter. Or at least, that’s the recap playing in my head. Experiences differ based on sanity, and amount of alcohol consumed. Sober up though, because we are about to dive into the deep end. Part two, of the review of the (development) editorial process starts now. Or after this paragraph. Below.
First, you are going to do a lot of waiting. This might sound obvious – editors have other clients, queues, and real lives – but you will be surprised how easy it is to underestimate how long something is going to take. I’ve seen plenty of authors self-create drama by not building enough lead time into their print schedules. And it is very easy in those cases to want to pressure your editor but rushing their work will not do your “masterpiece” any good. These things need time to cook.
In my case, I paid the invoice for my editor on January 27th of 2017, and the work did not begin until February 19, which in all honesty is rather fast. Most will have a queue that can run anywhere from a month, to half a year. Further, principle work on my project ended on April 3rd of the same year, with bounce times between substantial emails averaging roughly three days. This is with my editor stating early that:
“From the sample, I’d say a more accurate maximum turnaround time would be three weeks; there aren’t lots of finicky small corrections there, which tend to slow things down, so the process should hopefully be pretty smooth.”
My editor has been around the block, and he did an awesome job. But even he, with what he felt was a clean manuscript, ended up underestimating the time it would take. So, the rule of thumb here is to give a lot more time, seemingly crazy amounts of time before you put the next step in motion (like querying). Three, or even four months wouldn’t be too conservative I believe.
Now, let’s chat about the actual review. This right here is the thing that most authors dread. Myself included. No one enjoys seeing the work they’ve put heart, blood, and soul (and in cases of demonic sacrifice, not theirs) taken apart. Yet, if you have done your homework, the editor will be a professional. They are invested into making sure that book comes out looking its best. This doesn’t mean you won’t see critical commentary, but it will be in a manner that is constructive. Remember, if the editor didn’t feel you would be a good fit, they would have declined.
To start, they will usually provide a general comment of the manuscript as a whole:
“The short, short version is that I think the story is fundamentally very sound – snappy, engaging and well-paced – with a really strong central set of characters, particularly Niena and Marny, in a setting that has a genuine sense of life to it. There are a couple of tweaks I’d suggest to Calem, who I think shifts personality a little abruptly, Oberon, whose early words/actions don’t seem to match his overall plan, and to the way the dragon behaves during the climax at the castle. However, these are minor things in the grand scheme; the vast majority of what’s here is very good.”
Then, another longer sheet with more specific commentary:
“I like Calem, early on at any rate, and you show how his magic works well. However,
he’s a character I hit real consistency issues with in terms of his motivations and
decisions.”
The purpose of the report is to serve as a sort of outline of where the in-depth review will go, and to keep you from having to read through scores of pages, to piece together a theme. Especially if there is a problem area that needs to be addressed first. The rest of the critique will likely come in version of your manuscript, heavy with comments and corrections. These will be very specific, and designed to both correct the current problem:
“Clarity; I had to read the original a couple of times to figure out the lantern had hit him. I like the imagery of his face reflected in the shards; events just needed to be clearer.”
And to educate; developing your skills as a writer:
“Narrowing eyes isn’t a form of speech, so dialogue and description have to be two separate sentences split by a period.”
“You can use direct references like “yesterday” in present tense; they’re awkward in past.”
“Periphery” has come up more than once before, and I’d be specific instead.”
I believe you get the picture. After the first round, you will send your corrections, questions, and the like back to the editor, and they will give your changes another look. Some editors have a certain number of re-edits they will do. The fellow I hired, and the ones considered otherwise had a policy “until it is done.” More so he even went above and beyond and assisted me with my Synopsis and Query Letter.
In short, the process won’t be short. Having your manuscript reviewed by a development editor (or even a regular one) will take time, involve a lot of work on your part. However, the result should be that not only is your piece as solid as it can be, but you as a writer will come away with knowledge, and an experience to carry with you throughout your writing career.
Now, remember that brief mention of a Synopsis and Query Letter? Well, the next post is going to deal with the latter, and later, the former.
Leave a Reply