A funny thing happened on the way to editing a large manuscript for a friend and book publisher . . . A case of first impressions — not good ones — ended the editing effort before the end of the first chapter . . . section . . . it was hard to tell. The submission had come from someone who was not a writer but the publisher was anxious to acquire the subject matter for publication. This meant, for me, a book doctoring job more than an edit, but it was proposed as a straight edit, sight unseen, and thus the rate to do the edit was less than half the lowest going rate, largely as a favor to the publisher, who happens to be otherwise quite visionary and aggressive in what he chooses to publish. But the manuscript was in bad shape on arrival and impossible to follow. Even after being informed of the problems, the publisher wanted me to take a shot at a fix. When it takes months to plow through one “chapter” of the book of undefined scope, it is not an editing gig. This book forced me to wear two hats: developmental and copy editor — in basic terms — a book doctor with a patient on life support.
So how did it go with the author? After offering detailed feedback and many recommendations — the fixes — via the publisher, not great. While most authors are typically overwhelmed by criticism and more or less grateful for the inputs, this was not the case and the author responded defensively; it was anger. Trying to cure a manuscript as bad as this one was is a daily headache. To get this reaction from the author, who clearly believed that nothing was wrong with the work submitted, was stressful. In my experience, this writer reaction to critique is rare. The publisher was also dismayed at the reaction.
To attest to how bad this was from the start, after months of trying to whip the manuscript into shape, it was only fair to inform the publisher that while developmental editing and rewriting entire sections would continue, there was no way the publisher’s money could be accepted for the effort. To that point, the rate agreed to with the publisher, again, was well below the going rate for book doctoring. This was a $15,000 to $25,000 job — easy. The publisher knew this after seeing pages of comments from me regarding the manuscript. Reports to the publisher on a regular basis are important because the publisher is your partner in the effort to get a writer on track.
So, what stood out and what can you take away from it: Two things stood out immediately:
- the overall submission lacked proper construction. There was no proper introduction and no narrative arc — a proper beginning, middle, and end — to the work. This submission struck me as a body of research that required division into at least FIVE+ books. To organize the book for writer feedback, an order of the book was crafted by me to make the point the material carved out to a single book should flow and a template would achieve this.
- An edit of the entire body of research — in excess of 600,000 words — yes, you read that correctly, was not possible. Rewriting heavily in the first chapter/section to demonstrate proper use of subject reference, sentence structure, and narrative flow ate up the limited budget for the edit gig.
Other problems drew quick attention and criticism: When you make a statement on your book or devise a premise to some of the research material, you must cite at least two and preferably three sources to corroborate the assumption/finding. No spurious or conspiracy theory is needed/required. Just document thoroughly and be accurate in your endnotes and bibliography (which, in this edit job, required an entire verification of EVERY source and proper formatting) as to where you gleaned the information. From the introduction to the blurb for the book cover, the author must make it clear why the author’s narrative — your “take” — on these subjects should be published and thus read. What makes it stand out. If you don’t know, the publisher and editor can’t do it for you. Convince us. Make your argument. The author of this aforementioned work had not done the heavy lifting. Citing others’ works one after the other without much original thought on the subject matter isn’t what publishers of full-length manuscripts need to see; they need more than aggregation. Think like and of your editor when you write; it can save your manuscript from costly delays in the pre-publication phase and make you a better writer.
Amy Waters Yarsinske is the author of several best-selling, award-winning nonfiction books, published regionally, nationally, and internationally. Amy’s proposal technique was featured in literary agent/author Peter Rubie’s Telling the Story: How to Write and Sell Narrative Nonfiction; she also did a National Press Club panel with Rubie during the No One Left Behind press tour. She has been a regular contributor with international, national, and regional media, to include continued guest spots on national radio. An American in the Basement: The Betrayal of Captain Scott Speicher and the Cover-up of His Death won the Next Generation Indie Book Award for General Non-fiction in 2014, and No One Left Behind: The Lt. Comdr. Michael Scott Speicher Story earned her literary awards, an incredible press tour, and national/international recognition. With over 30 years in the publishing industry, Amy has published over 85 nonfiction books, most of them spotlighting current affairs, the military, history and the environment with a few biographies and corporate histories interspersed. Amy graduated from Randolph-Macon Woman’s College in Lynchburg, Virginia, where she earned her bachelor of arts in English and economics and the University of Virginia School of Architecture, where she earned her Master of Planning and was a DuPont Fellow and Lawn/Range resident.
Leave a Reply