[Gwen Hayes]

My experience with traditional publishing was very different. I did two or three rounds with a very good editor, the same one who acquired my book. Then the copy edits, again very good. And then it was proofread and then it was given to me for proofreading. I didn't feel that any of the steps were missed or not given full weight. And I have not heard any of my author friends not having content edits. Perhaps it's a genre thing?

I know it seems like a lot of people looking at the same thing, but they are three very different skills. Sometimes during copy edits, mistakes get put INTO the manuscript. It happens a lot. You want as many eyes on your book as you can find before you put your name on it and release it into the wild. If you can't afford all three kinds of editors, cultivate as many nit-picky friends as you can to read it over.

 

[Gwen Hayes]

I didn't mean any disrespect. I was just relaying that my experience included content editing. And that the people I know who are published with traditional houses have had content editing happen on their manuscripts as well.

It is perhaps because she is such a well known writer that maybe they don't feel the need to edit her as much? Or that perhaps different genres work differently in New York.

 

[Gwen Hayes]

I was referring to this:

"Here's the biggest secret in all of traditional publishing: Most fiction books have never had a true content edit.

From Big Name's fifteenth bestseller, which the acquiring editor (read company president) is afraid to touch for fear of losing Big Name to another company, to Sweet Young Thing's first novel, which no one has the time (or the budget) to edit, most fiction books get little more than a line edit followed by a copyedit.

I would wager 95% of what you read has never had a content edit. Decades ago, writers started complaining that editors didn't "edit" any more, and by that, writers meant that they never got a content edit."

My experience was different. That's all.