Hi,

I wonder what level of editing you are talking about? A small press usually employs professional editors. The editing I do is mostly structural, the gun disappearing mid scene, but also stylistic. All the work I have done that has been published professionally has been absolutely covered in mark ups. Like I said in the last couple of paragraphs, writers often can’t see the prose for the words, they’ve spent so much time working on it they need outside input. Generally if you are writing long explanations as to why something works – it doesn’t. If it’s still not clear to the editor after 3 or 4 edits don’t hang on to it – it’s unclear! I may well write a follow up piece with more examples. Thanks for these comments.

When I see a manuscript marked chock-full of red lines, my first assumption is the adviser is a frustrated writer and is attempting to rewrite it in their style, which makes it difficult to separate out the good advice from the control issues, even if the editor is savvy about what she’s doing. I say this as a third-party witness to some bad criticisms and truly have encountered situations in which I would recommend the author to reconsider working with that company/editor. I’ve met some professionals with some really bizarre ideas about what is good writing, just recently one informing me that he just added ‘ums’ and ‘ers’ to the dialogue and then it was golden.

It would be interesting to hear more about your experience in telling when to listen, when to discuss, when to stand strong, and when to find a new home for your work.