Don’t criticize a book’s editing unless you saw the original manuscript

Few things set my teeth on edge more than seeing reviewers criticize a book’s editing.

I do understand the impulse. It’s a shorthand for saying the book is bloated or sloppy. In a famously conflict averse industry, it seems easier to blame a faceless editor than it is to pin it on the author. It’s a way of seeming savvy about the way the business works.

Here’s the thing: Unless you saw the raw original manuscript and the editors’ edits and editorial letter, you have absolutely no idea how well or poorly a book was edited.

Sometimes manuscripts arrive in total shambles and it takes a herculean effort to get them in even passable shape. You think the final book was rough? “Well,” the editor will likely say, “you should have seen it before I got to it.”

Authors also don’t always take their editors’ good advice, or they implement the suggested changes poorly. Yes, sometimes bestselling authors are lightly edited and their books don’t receive the editorial scrutiny that a more inexperienced author might, but authors are still responsible for what’s in the final manuscript. Including the typos.

So when you write a review saying “This book needed an editor,” just know there is probably a really hardworking editor out there putting a hex on you for not appreciating that the final product is a significant improvement over where it started.

And as someone who is both an editor and author, I can say this with authority: blame me for my books’ shortcomings, not my editors.

Need help with your book? I’m available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and coaching!

For my best advice, check out my online classes (NEW!), my guide to writing a novel and my guide to publishing a book.

And if you like this post: subscribe to my newsletter!

Art: Paint Box by Yuzo Saeki