Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/35162
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/35162
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Editors edit. Often for the better. Sometimes for the worse.

When an editor edits something in a way that changes the original meaning it is a sign that, however clear the statement was to you, you did not get it across successfully to at least one person -- the editor.

I'm going through the edit process now for my book on Structured Writing and it is a constant back and forth. The editor sends me the edited version of the chapter. I compare it with the original. Some of the time the edits are an obvious improvement. Sometimes they seem to me to make no substantial difference. Sometimes I think they are worse than the original, but not enough to be worth fighting about. Sometimes they are definitely worse. Sometimes they misrepresent my meaning.

The latter two are the only cases where I send changes back. In almost all of these cases, I rewrite rather than restoring the original. In almost all cases, I write a note to the editor explaining why I changed them. In most cases, he accepts my changes. In a few cases he edits my changes and we repeat the process.

That's just how the process works. Writing is a solitary activity but publication is a team sport (and much the better for it, overall). So, yes, you should expect to edit your editor's edits and explain why on every piece, perhaps more than once. That's how the process works.

Remember, the editor is the first person who actually reads you piece and tries to understand it. We all have blind spots (Google "curse of knowledge") and the editor is the one who will find those and try to fix them. But editors are human too, and they make mistakes as well. You are your editor's editor.

Original score: 3