Editing Software: Pros and Cons

As those of you who read this blog are well aware, I am an avid proponent of writers using editors. Real editors, flesh and blood people, with qualifications and experience in the publishing industry, who can review and edit your work with a human touch and exercise discretion in the way they apply the writing ‘rules’, such as they are, to your work. Editing software is not a replacement for a human editor. 

But that is not to say it doesn’t have its uses, as long as it is used appropriately.

I recently subscribed to the AutoCrit editing wizard, so I’ve had reason to become acquainted with the advantages of the software, and the places where it falls down – and it’s the places where it falls down that mean you still need an editor afterwards. I regard this software as a tool for use during my last set of revisions before the WIP goes to my editor. 

So what is the software good for? I recently did a workshop on the editing process which suggested using extensive checklists for each aspect of the editing process e.g, setting, characterisation, sentence structure, word use etc. I find this a cumbersome process. I can’t possibly remember to look for everything in one checklist on one pass through my manuscript, never mind everything on all the checklists. If I make one pass for each item, I’d be re-reading my 100,000 word WIP forever. 

This approach may be feasible when reviewing a ten page legal document for compliance with a dozen requirements. I don’t find it helpful for editing a 100,000 word fiction novel for dozens of requirements, many of which likely occur on nearly every page. 

I don't know about 5 minutes... it's a bit time-consuming!

Even when I do focus on one requirement, such as overuse of words like was, were, there, is, that etc., I miss some. I know I miss some. I know because I find some of them, but not all, on my next pass, and I sit there wondering how I missed them. 

So the CritMe software is helpful in finding some of (but not all) of these issues. It can’t find characterisation problems, plot holes, or setting problems, but it does:

• Generate a list of overused and redundant words, like was, were, it, there, that, hear, heard, knew, know etc. and give you an indication of how many of each should be removed;
• Identify use of clichés – and boy was I surprised to realise how many there were;
• Identify sentence length to help you find where you’ve fallen into a rhythm that might hypnotise your reader to sleep;
• Identify repetitious use of pronouns to start sentences so you can mix up your sentence openings;
• Find repeated phrases – this is useful since most authors have a favourite phrase they knowingly repeat, and this can help you find them, even if the instances of repetition are quite far apart;
• Find instances of repeated words close together – I was surprised to see I’d repeated the same word in sentences or paragraphs and not noticed;
• Identify sentences starting with conjunctions or ‘ing’ words;
• Identify overuse of adverbs.

This helps me to fix some of those problems before it goes to the editor. It won’t fix all of these kinds of problems, and there are other problems it won’t help with at all, but it’s a useful tool when I’m trying to weed out these issues.  

However, there are some drawbacks to the software:

• It can’t distinguish between dialogue and narration, so it will identify words as overused or inappropriate, when they may be completely natural and fine in a dialogue context;
• It generates a pacing report, but doesn’t explain, only marks the paragraphs it considers has a problem. I have no idea what to do with this information (such as it is) as I can’t identify the specific issue. This one I’ll leave to my editor;
• It doesn’t distinguish between unintentional repetition and deliberate repetition to create more impact;
• It doesn’t suggest alternatives, where an editor often will;
• It applies rules rigidly, and can’t assess the actual impact on a human reader – only the likely impact based on its rules, which isn’t always accurate.

So while I would recommend this kind of software as a tool to help you in your final revisions, to help you weed out some of these problems, I would strongly urge you not to consider this a replacement for your editor. It’s not. It can’t exercise the discretion and judgement of your editor, and it can’t offer the advice of your editor. It’s a tool only; a kind of complicated checklist to help your limited human eye spot patterns and problems you might otherwise not discern in your own work. 

By all means, make good use of editing software; but make sure it’s good use, and use with caution. 

If you enjoyed this post, please feel free to check out my previous posts if you haven't already. If you're finding yourself here often, you might as well join as a member, sign up to the blog through RSS or email, or sign up for the newsletter.

Don't forget to share the love and spread the word on Twitter, Facebook or StumbleUpon (or other social networking site of your choice) if you know other people who might also enjoy this.

Thanks for stopping by and visiting with us.

Growing A Thicker Skin – Feedback Does Stop Stinging!

This thick?

I hate having my work critiqued. Who doesn’t? The feeling of inadequacy, the annoyance (or perhaps anger) when someone makes a comment about your ‘baby’ that you disagree with, and the stupid feeling when you see obvious errors. It’s a hardly a fun experience, and you can come out the other end wondering why you keep putting yourself through the pain.

Despite that, I’ve always considered it a necessary evil and, no matter how painful, an important learning experience. Not all feedback need be accepted, and there are, of course, always those problems the writer is too close to see, but every technical problem shown to you that you didn’t know before adds something to your writer’s toolkit.

After about five years of having my work torn to shreds, starting with the not so flattering comment of ‘Well, it hangs together – sort of’, I still believe that. I’ve come a long way, and cringe when I look at some work from five years ago. But the process never got any easier. 

I would look forward to my crit group meetings, and at the same time I was eager to let someone – anyone – else go first, and would always demur when asked if I wanted to go next. The process of working through written feedback was totally demoralising, and I would procrastinate and find reasons not to start. When I finally opened that document, I was tense the entire time, waiting to be torn down or made an idiot of – even though the feedback was nearly always constructive. 

Or maybe this thick?

When I went on maternity leave a few weeks before the birth of my daughter, I had plenty of time to write. Owing to the ‘pregnancy from hell’ (the topic of a yet-to-be-written future post), typing was one of only two activities I could manage (the other was watching TV). However, also owing to the ‘pregnancy from hell’, I was far too depressed to contemplate reading the feedback on my novel. So I did nothing. 

In short, if I could have found a real way to avoid this part of the writing process, I would have. And all this despite the fact I am not usually a procrastinator, and I spent the first five years of my legal career having every piece of advice and agreement I drafted also torn to shreds. 

And then, two weeks ago, I received a final edit on my short story ‘Dragon Bait’. I opened it, scanned the comments and suggested changes, made the ones I agreed with, finalised the document and sent it off to a magazine. 

It wasn’t until a day later I realised I hadn’t procrastinated, and I hadn’t tensed up. I just did it. A necessary part of the process, and a job to be completed like any other. 

Apparently my skin is now sufficiently dragonhide thick so as not to bruise my ego. 

It only took twenty years!

Logically, it has to happen – if you hope to be a serious writer. If you traditionally publish, or seriously self-publish, you will have an editor. If your editor is any good, they will give your darling back to you covered in red scribble. And this may happen multiple times in respect of multiple books. If it doesn’t stop hurting, it could turn into a very stressful career choice!

But it did stop hurting. It happened, and I didn’t even notice. So now I look back at it and marvel, like a caterpillar turned into a butterfly, or a fading rainbow glimpsed at the end of the storm. 

And I smile.  

 

OK, maybe not this thick after all... And I don't support the slaughter of innocent dragons for gloves!

If you missed it, check out my guest post on POV Rules and when it's OK to break them here. 

If you enjoyed this post, please feel free to check out my previous posts if you haven't already. If you're finding yourself here often, you might as well join as a member, sign up to the blog through RSS or email, or sign up for the newsletter.

Don't forget to share the love and spread the word on Twitter, Facebook or StumbleUpon (or other social networking site of your choice) if you know other people who might also enjoy this.

Thanks for stopping by and visiting with us!

The Faux Editor – Will You Walk Into My Parlour? Said the Spider to the Fly

Some writers swear by editors, and some think editors are the very spawn of Satan. A recent survey shows writers who do use editors, on average, make more than those who don’t. Why the resistance to using editors? There are a multitude of reasons.

1. Retaining creative control (not wanting someone else to rewrite their story) 
2. Don’t see the value 
3. Think their grammar is perfect or they can proof-read their own work 
4. Editors are just evil.

I think 1 and 3 reflect fundamental misunderstandings. You can’t proof your own work because you are too close to be objective. You can never move away from your own knowledge of what you intended. 1 is slightly silly; you always retain control because a good editor won’t want to rewrite your work. An editor’s suggestions are just that – suggestions. Ultimately, it’s the writer’s job to do what he/she wants with the editor suggestions. 

I’ve seen a few really good explanations of the role of an editor recently.

• An editor for a writer is like a coach for an elite athlete – from my husband, and perhaps not completely right, but he kind of got the gist of the idea. 
• An editor helps to make the writing more evocative – for example, instead of ‘the door’, it could be ‘the oak door’ or a ‘carved door’ – Brandon Sanderson, Author of the Mistborn trilogy and the Stormlight Archives. 
• The writer is the architect – not everything they dream up is structurally sound or aesthetically pleasing. The editor is the builder who helps to make the imagination a reality - @sirra_girl

None of these says the editor wants to seize control or rewrite. They are an aid to the writer only. 

As for 2 – see above about the results of the recent survey. That leaves 4. Why do some people think all editors are evil? When I first came across this attitude, I was struck by the impression of a man (or a woman) hating the opposite sex after a particularly nasty divorce. Writers are having bad experiences. Why? Setting aside outright fraud, there are two possible reasons – writers selling their ‘editing’ services when they hold no editorial qualifications or experience, and lack of understanding of the different editing services.

Editing Services

So the first problem is a misconception among many writers that an editor only checks grammar and proof-reading. I have news for you; that is not an editor’s primary role! There are in fact three generic categories of editing service:

Full Edit – Both substantive and copy-edits (proof-reading). Substantive edits look at everything including plot, pacing, voice, and character development. An explanation of a problem is often abstract, so the editor may or may not give some examples of alternate wording. Usually, these would occur first, and the manuscript will be returned to you to decide what revisions to make and to write any extra scenes required, etc. Then the manuscript is returned to the editor for copy-editing i.e. spelling, grammar, repetitive word use and syntax. 

Beta Read – If you are unlucky enough not to know any other writers who can do a beta read for you, you can pay an editor for that as well. This gives you a high-level impression of the book and notes on where the story isn’t working, but it’s entirely up to you to make changes, and even to figure out what changes to make. An editor will probably provide more comprehensive notes than a free beta read by a fellow writer. 

Proof Read – copy-editing changes only. Software is available to check their grammar as well. I can’t comment on its accuracy (although I’ve heard they aren’t 100% accurate) but they will try to correct deliberate grammatical errors. Ever noticed MS Word telling you you’ve used a fragment? Sometimes we use fragments deliberately. You don’t want to spend $150-$300 on software only to have it suck the life out of your story. At best, this kind of software offers a proof-read of poorer quality than an editor’s proofing. 

What’s often not explained is that when a writer is told to have their work ‘edited’, it means a full edit. Hopefully, you’ve already put your manuscript through the beta reading process with critique partners and groups. You probably need to before you engage an editor because professional editing is the last part of the process. The proof-read is the very last (and perhaps least important) part of a professional edit. Don’t be deceived into believing you are paying hundreds of dollars to have your typos corrected – you’re not, or shouldn’t be. 

The Faux Editor

If you do appreciate the different services, then you may run into the faux editor. 

I don’t know what the deal is with this one. There are different types of faux editors. Some are writers who think after a while they know enough to charge others for their wisdom. Um, no. I’ve been around the traps a bit and think I know a lot, but I could never justify charging for it. What I know (and can explain) is but a drop of water in the ocean compared to what my editors know. This is like hanging around with a lawyer for a few years and then thinking you can start charging for legal advice! Writers, you cannot charge for what is essentially a beta reading critique. You do it for free, and others do the same for you. It’s a mutually beneficial arrangement. Karma. Whatever you want to call it. But it’s not a chargeable service. 

You also cannot decide that you have some background in some language related field (law, English, marketing, journalism, or non-fiction editing); and therefore, you can edit fiction work.

The degree of feedback you will get from an editor for a full edit or beta read is significantly more in-depth than what you will get from another writer with no qualifications or experience in the fiction publishing field. Even proof-reading for grammar and syntax, unless the faux editor has some kind of background in this field, won’t be of the same quality as a professional freelance editor. And believe me, your readers don’t need to know your grammar is bad for your sentence to fail to have the desired impact. 

If the editor you are looking at is a writer seeking to charge for editing, or a non-fiction editor offering editing services for fiction, I strongly urge you to go elsewhere. It is highly improbable this person will give you value for money and the degree of feedback an editor should be giving you. Unless, of course, you are well aware of the editor’s background and experience and you are prepared to accept the feedback you get won’t be as comprehensive as it could be – in which case I also hope you are paying a significantly reduced rate. 

What you should look for is some qualification or experience (preferably both) in publishing or writing related fields. The editor should also be a member of the Editors Freelance Association (although some choose not to be a member for various reasons) and/or perform quality work according to their guidelines and charge according to their recommended rates. 

Also, beware legitimate editing companies specialising in non-fiction work. They often operate via a ‘team’ of editors. You may never meet your editor or interact with them in any way and these companies are intended for anything from commercial documents, marketing, in-house policies and procedures to college essays. They are not recommended for fiction, and the only service they offer is technical copy-editing. This service can suffer from the same problems as the software – correcting deliberate grammatical errors for lack of appreciation of the reasons for their inclusion. Even if all you want is a copy edit, this is not a recommended service for fiction.

What are the signs of a good editor?

• Qualifications and/or experience in the publishing industry
• Will tell you if the service you have requested is unsuitable e.g. if your manuscript is still at the beta reading stage and you have requested a full edit
• Will look at plot, pacing, character and voice as well as spelling, grammar and syntax
• Won’t rewrite your manuscript or make significant changes without discussion/permission
• Will explain corrections made and technical problems identified
• May give examples of alternative wordings for problem areas
• Will do the substantive edits, return to you for revision, and then the copy edits (note: lawyers work this way too!)
• Has a professional attitude and doesn’t belittle your work while providing honest feedback
• Has a professional and grammatically correct website

What are the signs of the faux editor?

• No qualification or experience, or asserts qualification and experience which amounts to:

o   A lot of reading/reviewing experience;

o   Experienced writer offering betas or critiques;

o   Qualifications in fields such as law, journalism, communications or similar but not specifically in writing and with no in-house publishing experience;

• Doesn’t offer a choice of levels of editing and offers a one-size-fits-all edit service – this may be a sign the ‘editor’ doesn’t appreciate the need for different kinds of editing
• Rewrites significant portions of your manuscript regardless of need or permission
• Doesn’t suggest changes but dictates a change you must make
• Promises a “full’ edit but doesn’t look at character, plot, pacing, voice, or any other creative writing issues
• Unprofessional in interactions with the writer – not responding to communications, or lack of manners and timeliness, or belittles the writer for their errors
• A website that demonstrates grammatical errors.

If you’ve been burned by a bad editing experience, I challenge you to reflect on the experience and consider these questions. Was your ‘editor’ maybe a faux editor, or was the bad experience perhaps due to poor expectation management? Not all editors are created equal, so shop around for a real, legitimate editor. If they are professional editors, they will be more than happy to provide free sample edits and references. As a consumer, you have the right to ask questions, so don’t be afraid to ask. Ensure that you’re getting the service you paid for and the result you expected. 

If you enjoyed this post, please feel free to check out my previous posts if you haven't already. If you're finding yourself here often, you might like to join as a member, sign up to the blog through RSS or email, or subscribe to my newsletter.

Don't forget to share the love and spread the word on Twitter, Facebook or StumbleUpon (or other social networking site of your choice) if you know other people who might also enjoy this.

Thanks for stopping by and visiting with us!