Excellent advice, Teymour. I’ll add this food for thought if I may… ANYONE CAN WRITE. Few people write well. Even fewer can tell a good story. IF YOU CAN TELL A GOOD STORY, and you’ve been working on a book but your writing skills are a little rusty, you need an editor who actually cares about your success, who cares about making your book the very best it’s capable of being. That usually takes an editor who instinctively goes above and beyond what’s expected. Every single author, every single story is unique. Each deserves the undivided attention of the editor.… Read more »
I was going to tell Blake that his figures are actually a little low. The EFA uses lower prices than Writer’s Market (which is what I use as a starting point for my pricing). Two tenths of a cent (.002) per word? That comes out to $100 per 50,000-word book. It’s a rare editor who can accurately process 50,000 words a day, so that would be dooming an editor to living off of about $50 a day. If an editor is earning such low amounts per book, then one of two things is happening: that editor has someone else to pay the bills (thus not needing a real income), or that editor is blowing through books far too quickly in an attempt to earn enough money to survive, and is leaving errors—in which case it’s pointless to hire that editor. Undercutting on prices is unethical and it hurts everyone in the industry. I would not trust that editor. Anyone who pays such low prices is exploiting another person, which is also wrong. Authors, be prepared to pay fair prices. Editors, charge enough to survive and don’t undercut the industry standards, because you’re causing harm to everyone in the field, including yourself.
Work in house first. That’s the best way to learn all you can about editing and proofreading and make good connections. I have met several people I’ve worked with from hanging out in Twitter and responding to tweets asking for an editor or proofreader, but I have had the most success from business connections I made while working in in house. Other things – a web site, professional associations such as the SFEP and the EFA (though I can’t say much more on these as I am not a member of either yet!), social media.
We’ve set up a unique “first chapter critique” service which includes up to 5,000 words (which should actually include 2~3 chapters… or a prologue, preface or intro). This will be an deconstructive developmental edit, pointing out exactly where your weaknesses lie and what you can do to make them better, but will not include a full edit or proofread. We will, however, edit your blurb, bio or query, as long as they fit within the 5K word limit.
I have over 18 years of experience writing about, researching, and analyzing complex public policy, historical, political, and international affairs subjects ranging from UN peacekeeping to ancient Rome and my work is regularly published online by a variety of websites. Published in Newsweek, the Modern War Institute at West Point, Mic, The Jerusalem Post, The Jordan Times, and other publications.
Blake, that’s wonderful info. Thank you. I completely understand the response about guaranteeing the work. That was just something that popped in my head as I read a book written by a screenplay consultant I hired years ago and he wanted a review so I read it to help him out but found maybe 5 or 6 error’s myself in the 200 page book. I felt like it was unprofessional but didn’t have the heart to tell him. But the errors stuck out like a sore thumb so I was curious if that is normal or not.
The key historical factor that enabled the U.S. to become a world economic and military power after WWII was government leadership in funding high-risk research and development (R&D) and the education of generations of scientists and engineers. Since 1967 the Federal government has steadily reduced funding in these areas and now is a relatively small player in our national R&D enterprise. This puts our future prosperity at risk. The book goes into great depth as to the factors that have caused this change in government policy.
Check out freelance websites like UpWorkor even a great site called Scribendi. (Warning: if you source an editor from these sites, make sure you hire another, professional editor to go over it afterward. There is no way to know what you are getting otherwise. Just because the draft comes back better than it was before, does not mean it was well-edited!)
ROUND TWO: an in-depth, comprehensive, line-edit that includes rewriting sentences, improving word choice, organization, plotting and pacing. We’ll make the dialogue stronger and more believable, the action more tense and nail-biting, and the emotional peaks less melodramatic and cheesy. For non-fiction, we’ll strengthen your argument and make the writing more engaging.
Due to popular demand, we’re adding a low-cost manuscript review + passive developmental edit to help you find and fix the “cause of death” before you invest in editing or proofreading. You’ll get expert eyes on your manuscript, and while we won’t focus on or fix every little issue, we’ll help you identify the big red flags that are killing your book slowly. These are the places readers will give up and agents will ditch your manuscript into the slush pile. In-depth comments and suggestions will be provided to help you clarify and restructure your book, but this feedback is “hands-off”: we won’t go in and actually make changes, though we will point out signs of weak writing, repetition, and provide tips on how to improve as a writer. If you think your manuscript might be a mess, or you want to focus on the large, important stuff that matters most, this is for you.
Obviously there is a big difference. I actually started with screenplays (with some mild success) partly due to hearing that as long as you have a good story, the grammatical errors won’t be a big deal. Well, that was not true. Maybe if a producer liked the story or I was already established but every contest I entered always came back with feedback about the grammatical errors. Even if I won or placed as a finalist, I always received critique on that. Very little is spelling error, it was more about structure, etc.