Editors are frequently asked about the differences between various types of editing, or the levels of editing. We go over this with every new client, unless they are experienced authors who are thoroughly familiar with the process. But even then, if the author and editor are new to working together, a conversation is probably still a good idea to ensure that there is an agreed definition of what these various approaches to editing entail from a specific editor.
I’ve written about the levels of edit on my blog before, to define them, but I thought it would be advantageous to write a post about how my process has progressed with self-publishing authors in particular—and what seems to work for most authors I work with.
The levels of edit are:
Developmental editing (sometimes called content or substantive editing)—looks at the overall subject, argument, research, and purpose of the book and how well it’s presented from an organizational/structural perspective (large sections of text or full chapters might get moved around and significant rewriting or deletion may occur.
Line editing—closely considers the communication of the writing, word choice, voice and tone, effective dialogue, tension, pacing, redundancy, cliches, and anachronisms.
Copyediting—addresses grammar, syntax, variety of structure and language, consistency, and style guide compliance.
Proofreading—checks for errors as typos, incorrect grammar, extra spaces and repeated words, spelling, frequently confused words, inconsistencies with formatting and font, other types of document inconsistencies, and style guide compliance.
Traditionally, it’s always thought best practice to keep these levels of edit as separate and distinct processes with different editors. And sometimes that’s how they are applied to a document. There are many reasons for why this is the recommended approach. Each level requires a different mindset, even if they have commonalities. Additionally, editors who have pored over a document at the developmental, line, or copyediting levels have become too “close” to the document to catch the errors as a proofreader. When your mind knows what something is supposed to say, we have a tendency to “see” it that way on the page. The advantage of a fresh pair of eyes becomes essential.
However, while publishing houses may have editorial teams to focus on these levels of edit—and even there they may tend to be a little more of an idealistic theoretical notion than real-world practice—self-publishing authors often find themselves choosing between their budget and recommended editorial approaches. So they try to eliminate a level or two. Sometimes they try to skip over developmental editing and sometimes they try to replace proofreading with copyediting (or the other way around) and hope it will be enough.
It rarely is and it isn’t meant to be. The system just isn’t designed that way and it’s too much responsibility for one editor to take.
But many of the editors working with self-publishing and independent authors aren’t insensitive to this dilemma, and they do what they can to accommodate requests for some sort of compromise. Usually this is an offer for some sort of bundled service. That’s why many editing and proofreading professionals are now offering services like the “proof-edit,” which is a relatively recent term even if the concept has been a real-world practice for some time.
I don’t offer the “proof-edit” because—although I have experience working with articles, blog posts, and essays that require an eye toward at least copyediting and proofreading—I don’t think it’s a great idea for books. My minimum recommendation is to work with an editor and a proofreader (different people). After a number of authors approached me for copyediting, insisting that they weren’t interested in developmental editing, with manuscripts that clearly needed at least some reorganization, additional research, and thought or plot development, I considered my options (and theirs). At first, I would ask if the author would like to hear some developmental suggestions if I had them to offer, and I found that most of the time it wasn’t a matter of the author not wanting developmental editing—it was just that they could only afford one service. But the problem quickly became that, in addition to copyediting, I was offering free developmental comments, and my time, energy, and income were divided. It’s not not the most effective way to edit. Or run a business and make a living. The industry term for this notorious tendency is scope creep, which can happen working with publishers, proofreading & editing agencies and companies, or self-publishers.
So, I started offering an editing service that works by prioritization. I offer a two-round edit—the first round of editing considers developmental questions, and if those are resolved satisfactorily after the first revision, I’ll use the second round for copyediting. (Line and copyediting have been frequently bunched together for quite a while now—to the extent that the terms are sometimes used interchangeably).
This approach is not nearly as effective or thorough as a full developmental edit followed by a line edit and then copyediting. It’s pretty bare bones, honestly, and I let the authors I work with know that. I also add the caveat that if there’s just too much developmental work in the document, I still might need to recommend another copyedit by another editor.
But, it’s a less expensive option, and in my thinking, it’s preferable to trying to replace a developmental edit with a copyedit. At least several angles of the draft receive some attention.
That’s not to say that there aren’t self-publishers who are in a position to take the traditional approach and want their book to go through each level of editing with different editors—but quite a few just aren’t able or willing to consider it. Likewise, many editors aren’t in a position to say, “Oh, that’s fine, I’ll just throw in a free developmental edit.” (Sorry.)
So, we make the most of what’s available to us and within our means.