Editing Communication

[Rilbur]

How do you handle the editor / beta reader / author cross communication?

 

In the past I've used e-mail to mail the story back and forth, and have the editor place easily searched for tags (bla bla lba @@bla not lba!@@ bla bla bla) in to point out places that need commenting (typos, ideas, etc etc). This works fine for one - to - one communication. For group efforts (i. e. having two editors, or a beta reader who notes down the ocassional really bad typo) it can mean some duplication of comments and effort; and of course there's the possibility the author will review his own work, fix a flaw, but not get the corrected copy to his editor for whatever reason.

 

My current editor has me hooked on google docs ( docs.google.com ) for editing work. It works great, it's easy to update if I make a change on my end without flooding his e-mail box, and if he forgets and simply corrects a typo rather than throwing a comment on it, I can see that using the revisions menu. The only downside I've seen is the possibility of google docs going offline, and of course some formatting doesn't translate very well between a .doc and whatever internal format google docs uses. (Tables inside my 'note' files, for example).

 

So, how do you guys out there communicate back and forth?

 

 

Just curious

[rec]

As an editor, I rely on an exchange of Microsoft Word documents (though any other word processor probably has the same features. The author sends me an unedited version. I edit it and return it in what is called a "red line" version--a version that highlights every change with the new words alongside the old and with all punctuation marked by lines along the side of the text. [i put comments in brackets within the text, and they show up in red, though I could use and have used the comment feature within Word.]

 

There is a Combine feature in Word that allows the author to assemble all the edited versions into single document.

[rec]

One other note:

 

I exchange with the author an Author/Editor Understanding document, which I believe is among the writing resources here. That document identifies a number of options for editing-- such as "red, white, and blue" versus "red, white and blue"--to make sure we are using the same editing choices. With several editors, I would make sure each of them has your understandings on these choices.

 

As an editor, I have the Understandings of all my authors, so I can refer to each one's document to make sure I'm doing what each author wants, rather than impose my view on them.

[David McLeod]

I'm hooked on MS Word's "review" feature, which can use either comment balloons or the "red-line" identifier of changes. I've never worked with more than one editor/beta reader at a time, and would like to hear more from those who have two or more paople providing input and suggestions.

[Libby Drew]

I've used Google Docs before, but exclusively for co-writing/collaborative writing projects, not for editing. Although I agree it's an excellent tool if several people are involved in a project. I recommend it highly.

 

I have several editors/betas and accept all their suggestions/line edits via MS word doc. Some use the 'Track Changes' feature, others don't. I'm not fussed, honestly. Their input is what's important. I keep one master copy of my document and apply changes to it as necessary. That way I never lose sight of the newest, corrected version among all the others.

 

It sounds like rec has a great system. It's always a good idea to have a statement or, even better, an understanding with new partners on what's expected and also, what to expect. Communication is key.

[kitten]

 

I have several editors/betas and accept all their suggestions/line edits via MS word doc. Some use the 'Track Changes' feature, others don't. I'm not fussed, honestly. Their input is what's important. I keep one master copy of my document and apply changes to it as necessary. That way I never lose sight of the newest, corrected version among all the others.

 

 

I have only one editor and one beta-zeta reader and I use the same system as Libby - a master copy to which I apply changes based on their input. That method may be more time consuming but it ensures that I think about each change as it is made and also consider how different suggested changes interact with one another. Also, I guess the method fits my need to feel in control at all times.

 

Kit

[Libby Drew]

Also, I guess the method fits my need to feel in control at all times.

 

Kit

 

I call it necessity, otherwise I'd lose track of what copy had all the updated changes. Plus I like to keep a record of what changes were made by each person. (That's a great learning tool, by the way.) And, to be honest, I don't always agree with every single suggestion. For example, one reader may feel a certain conversation needs more fleshing out. Another may say it shouldn't be, that what's being left unsaid ratchets up the mystery. In these cases, I consider everyone's opinion and go with my gut.

[TalonRider]

As beta reader for CJ, I think I get to see a chapter after its been been returned to him from another beta. Changes are made, then sent to me and the process continues ending with the Zeta Reader.

 

As an editor, and this goes back to what Libby Drew and Kit have said, when I receive a file from an author, it goes into a folder set up for the author. Inside that folder is more folders, one for the Original file sent and at least one more called Edit 1. Because of the filing system I use, my authors know that I act as a back up for them.

 

Hehe, I have had authors contact me and ask if by chance I would have a copy of a chapter that may have gotten accidentally deleted. I also change the file name slightly so that the author doesn't get it mixed up.

[rec]

I'm going to suggest a slightly different approach from Libby's and based more on what Talonrider has posed.

 

I think you have your editors/beta readers work on your pieces serially, and there should be some method in the madness of how they are scheduled.

 

First, it would be useful to have an "alpha" reader who goes through your manuscript and simply says things like "This works" "This doesn't work" "This needs to be fleshed out" "This can be contracted" "This is extraneous" "Too much description" "Too little description." "Didn't this person drive a Ford earlier in the manuscript?" You get the idea: have someone look at your work on a gross-cut basis. I confess that I will need someone soon to do so on my novel Palouse.

 

Second, send it out to however many beta readers you want, but serially, with the first mailings going to those whose principal objective is content and the latter mailings to those who are more interested in grammar, word usage and so forth. I think you should move from structure and plot to word usage and grammar, which is how I would recommend this ordering.

 

Finally, find a final editor, someone who will leave your story largely intact but will correct the remaining punctuation, grammatical and word-usage errors (possibly with suggestions for alternative wording). I do this stage with several authors now, and it's important that someone has the final eyes on the document before turning it over to the author. The reason is practical, at least for me. I edited an 80,000 word novella in which I found over 3,000 changes (Microsoft Word counts them for me, fortunately) and I just completed a chapter of another author -- 10 pages -- in which I found over 100 changes. Most of the changes involve punctuation, but many of them involve consistency, which is hard to achieve when you have several editors / beta readers working on a manuscript at once. For example, one editor may use "red, white and blue" as the preferred punctuation while another uses "green, yellow, and brown." Either of these is correct, but the usage, in my view, should be consistent. A good author can make the consistency check, but a good author should be writing, not having to worry about the intricacies of editing issues.

 

By the way, there is no reason that the "alpha" reader couldn't also double as the final editor, but he/she would have to keep the functions straight.

 

I'll shut up now.

[kitten]

I'm going to suggest a slightly different approach from Libby's and based more on what Talonrider has posed.

 

I think you have your editors/beta readers work on your pieces serially, and there should be some method in the madness of how they are scheduled.

 

First, it would be useful to have an "alpha" reader who goes through your manuscript and simply says things like "This works" "This doesn't work"

<snip>

 

Second, send it out to however many beta readers you want, but serially, with the first mailings going to those whose principal objective is content and the latter mailings to those who are more interested in grammar, word usage and so forth. I think you should move from structure and plot to word usage and grammar, which is how I would recommend this ordering.

 

Finally, find a final editor, someone who will leave your story largely intact but will correct the remaining punctuation, grammatical and word-usage errors (possibly with suggestions for alternative wording).

<snip>

 

By the way, there is no reason that the "alpha" reader couldn't also double as the final editor, but he/she would have to keep the functions straight.

 

 

While I agree with most of this in principle, especially the last 'BTW' part, as described in the above post it all seems overly complicated. The degree of complexity seems to me to be related to the number of beta readers and editor(s). Personally, I don't see why lots of beta readers would be necessary. More is not always better - recipes with lots of different ingredients do not necessarily taste better than recipes with fewer ingredients. 'Many hands make light work' but 'too many cooks spoil the broth'.

 

I would prefer one good and versatile beta reader to several beta readers who each have their own 'special interests'. Of course, the exact job-descriptions of editor, beta reader, etc will be decided by the individuals concerned. For me the tasks of alpha reader, editor, and zeta reader are carried out by one person (Richard). The tasks of beta reader and zeta reader (is that the same as 'final editor'?) are carried out by a second person (MikeL). Both of those people are capable of checking everything from plot flaws to punctuation. They very rarely (possibly never?) have to correct my grammar or word usage. However, I suppose it's possible that authors who are not so skilled with grammar and word usage might need more beta readers or editors.

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that IMHO it is better to take time and find a compatible editor plus one or two versatile high-quality beta/zeta readers than to have lots of beta readers with 'special interests'. That way the editing communication is much less complicated. Quantity does not necessarily contribute to quality.

 

Kit

[Libby Drew]

I think the bottom line here is that there are many methods, and they are all successful...depending on who's employing them. My best advice to Rilbur is the ever popular, sometimes painful, but usually successful, Trial and Error. Find a system that plays to your strengths and refine it. Good luck.

[TalonRider]

Well said, Libby.

[Rilbur]

I think the bottom line here is that there are many methods, and they are all successful...depending on who's employing them. My best advice to Rilbur is the ever popular, sometimes painful, but usually successful, Trial and Error. Find a system that plays to your strengths and refine it. Good luck.

 

You make it sound like my approach doesn't work... As I said, I'm 'just curious'

[Rubilacxe]

I am an editor for several authors. In most cases, there is more than one editor. In two cases, the edits were to raw files, TXT or DOC. In one case we used Google Docs. The remaining four authors use the Reviewing aspect of Word. In some cases, the author would approve or deny whatever edits and send the newly edited version to the next editor.

 

One author had another editor who undid every edit I made regarding quotation punctuation. This became ludicrous when I corrected the author's original quote mistakes, then received the new version after editor #2 had worked on it for final edits and found that he had put back all of the author's incorrect punctuation.

 

We finally got that resolved but in the end there are just every kind of combinations for editing. Some work well, some require more work by the editors or the author, and some just are too cumbersome to use. I really do not thinks there is one perfect way although Google docs makes much more sense to me.

[kitten]

 

One author had another editor who undid every edit I made regarding quotation punctuation. This became ludicrous when I corrected the author's original quote mistakes, then received the new version after editor #2 had worked on it for final edits and found that he had put back all of the author's incorrect punctuation.

 

 

Which illustrates my point - too many cooks spoil the broth.

The more complex a system is the more things there are to go wrong. One has to wonder what exactly the second editor contributed that you couldn't and was that contribution worth all the extra time and effort sorting out the problems?

 

Kit

[Rubilacxe]

Which illustrates my point - too many cooks spoil the broth.

The more complex a system is the more things there are to go wrong. One has to wonder what exactly the second editor contributed that you couldn't and was that contribution worth all the extra time and effort sorting out the problems?

 

Kit

This was a lesson the author had to learn and correct. That editor no longer works with this author.

[TalonRider]

I've often wondered why some authors had more than one editor, when one good one is all they need.

[Libby Drew]

You make it sound like my approach doesn't work... As I said, I'm 'just curious'

 

Well, actually, my point -- sorry if it wasn't clear -- was not to become too wrapped up in what works for this person vs. what works for that person. All that's important, to be frank, is what works for you, whether that be Google docs or MS Word, one editor or one hundred.

 

It's not my place, or anyone's, to tell you whether your system works. That's your call to make, as everyone goes about the process in a slightly different manner.

[Rilbur]

I've often wondered why some authors had more than one editor, when one good one is all they need.

 

Because it's easier to find three mediocre editors than one good one?

 

Because even the best of editors can miss things and make mistakes?

 

Because sometimes, I swear, the only people who bother to tell me anything about how they liked my story is my beta readers / editors? (Moreover, by having more people, I have more viewpoints to find flaws in the story)

[TalonRider]

Yes, even the good editors can miss things. I won't argue that. That's why it's good to have a Beta Reader go over it after the editor is done.

[kitten]

Because it's easier to find three mediocre editors than one good one?

 

Because even the best of editors can miss things and make mistakes?

 

Because sometimes, I swear, the only people who bother to tell me anything about how they liked my story is my beta readers / editors? (Moreover, by having more people, I have more viewpoints to find flaws in the story)

 

There is doubt it is often hard to find a good and (more importantly) a compatible editor. However, a great editor for one author might be a mediocre editor for another author - it's not just technical skills that make a great editor, it's also how much he/she is compatible. Also, three mediocre editors will still not be as good as one good one. Are three mediocre novels as good as one great novel? If you put a lot of work into writing your story, don't you think that it's worth the time and effort to search for the right editor for you?

 

Indeed, even the best editors and best readers can certainly miss typos, and no matter how many editors you have typos are still likely to appear in the final version. Other minor grammatical mistakes might possibly also slip through. However. as for other more serious 'mistakes' (e.g. plot flaws, continuity errors) I'd be very surprised if a good editor or beta/zeta reader missed those. Actually, the author should try to make sure there are none of those serious mistakes even before sending them to an editor or beta reader. It is lazy and inconsiderate for an author to send something to an editor or beta reader unless he/she has first properly checked through it himself.

 

As for getting feedback on whether they like a story... if your editors and beta readers read it in the same way as a 'normal' reader then they it's not surprising they miss mistakes. Also, 'liking' a story can mean several things. Would they 'like' it better if the plot was different, if the protagonist lived happily ever after, if the lovers didn't die in a suicide pact,etc.? Different readers have different likes and dislikes. A good editor will spot technical errors, will tell you if it's well written and if it makes good literary sense. They should not be projecting their own tastes, moral values, likes, or dislikes onto the story. e.g. A strongly religious editor should not try to get the author to write less antagonistically about religion.

 

The idea that more viewpoints might find more flaws in the story seems odd to me. If the flaws are spelling, grammar, typos, word usage, and that sort of thing, then a good editor and a small number of beta readers should find those. The idea of sending out a story to beta readers which has so many flaws that it needs lots of viewpoints to find them is pretty shocking.

 

If the 'flaws' are whether they like a story or not then because different readers like different things you will always end up either with 'flaws' that some people won't like or a very bland story that no one will actually dislike. From that 'liking' point of view, I personally would find that any story dealing with vampires or magic, no matter how technically well written, would be 'flawed'. Unless the author is writing to make money, when it comes to plot and story line the only thing that really matters is whether or not it is satisfying and coherent for the author.

 

As others have said, authors should employ whatever system works best for them. However, they should always ask themselves, "doses this system really work best or is it just the best system I've tried so far?"

 

Kit

[TalonRider]

I found that when I slowed down my speed of reading, I missed few things during the editing process and it helps in the end with my comments on the story.

[Rubilacxe]

I think Kit's response is well reasoned and parrallels my thoughts on editing. Talon's comments re the value of slow reading also strike a home run for me. I also find that if I do one or more passes without editing to check on story continuity, plot and character development, that subsequent editing passes are more fruitful and actually easier. While I sometimes wish that my authors would do a better job at cleaning up some of the grammatical elements they always seem to clobber, at least I know those authors well enough to be prepared to deal with them.

 

This leads me to my question. Kit spoke to this, but I think further discussion would help writers especially those looking for an editor: What is the best way for an author to ask for, evaluate and select the best editor for themselves?

[Libby Drew]

What is the best way for an author to ask for, evaluate and select the best editor for themselves?

 

In my experience, a good way to do this is for the writer to be upfront about their needs, their expectations, and their product. Give potential editors an idea of what kind of material you write. Believe it or not, this makes a big difference. Some people are uncomfortable or dislike certain genres. Going into an editing job with an inherent dislike of the general subject matter is no good for anyone. That isn't to say your editor has to fall in love with every story you write. But I've found this to be one of the most common reasons for failed writer/editor relationships.

 

Tell potential editors, in detail, what level of review you're looking for. If you feel comfortable with your plotting/execcution (or perhaps already have someone for this), then make sure you say that all you want is a thorough copy-editing, and vice-versa.

 

On the flipside, make sure your expectations are clear. If it matters to you how a person makes changes to a document (track changes feature, etc.), then say so. If you like a consistent turnaround time of forty-eight hours, say so. Negotiate and compromise ahead of time. This point probably can't be stressed enough.

 

Finally, I always suggest providing any potential betas/editors with a sample of your unedited writing, along with the information from above. It's only fair.

 

A bit of a personal aside: Just because you're not issuing a paycheck, doesn't mean you should accept less than someone's best efforts. There are plenty of editors out there who will and do give their all, and for no other reason than they enjoy what they do. By the same token, appreciate that this is time freely given and be flexible with your timetables.

 

I hope this helps.

[TalonRider]

As the Editing Lead for the Editor/Beta Reader Program, I do some of what Libby stated above. When I receive a request from an author, I will ask the author what the genre is, this helps me select a candidate to contact. I also ask for a brief description of the story along with a snippit that I can send along.

 

If the selected candidate indicates they are willing to work with the author, then I have them contact the author and make the working arrangements. I also contact the author and let them know who will be contacting them.

 

As a result of this method, I've had a good success rate at matching an author with an editor.