Feedback from external eyes is a vital part of the process for any writer working towards publication. It doesn't matter if you are new to writing or have been writing for decades with multiple publications to your name. Any writer on the road to publication will get feedback about their writing at some point during a book's life cycle.

It might be from critique partners, beta readers, editors, or friends. Those external eyes help us to see what is really on the page.

Let's face reality here: What we thought was on the page might not actually be there. We know our stories so well that what we thought was obvious might be confusing to another person who doesn't know what is inside our heads. They won't see things the way we do. But until we get that vital external feedback, we have no idea if something reads how we imagined it.

While I have written about how to handle feedback before, in today's post, I want to address editorial feedback specifically. I'm talking about the feedback that comes back from editors, either freelance editors that we've hired or editors assigned to our books by the publishing house. While it is still feedback, because it comes from a source that is seen as authoritative, it does carry a different feel.

Working with an Editor

Within my own writing endeavors, I have worked with multiple editors over the years—and at various stages of a project. I have sought editorial advice with a manuscript assessment on a story that I had yet to complete, still drafting and working on rewrites. I've worked with developmental editors, seeking insights on stories that were fully written to the best of my ability, but I wanted to elevate them to a new level. And I've worked with different copyeditors too, as I was preparing manuscripts to be published.

I have experienced both the good and the bad. I have had editors ghost me, but I've also had editors support me in ways I've never thought possible. In every case, I've learned something about myself, my writing, and the industry in general.

If you are not familiar with the stages of editing, I recommend that you read my blog post on the topic. But know now that developmental editing and copyediting are not the same thing. And they often require different editors.

I've written a few blog posts over the years about how to find an editor, including my post titled Finding the Right Editor. But even after you've hired an editor, there could be some aspects of the editing that lead you to question the quality of the feedback or editing. I've been there; done that. And it's this particular issue that I want to address today.

How do we manage feedback from an editor that either feels off or is outright wrong?

It's Still Suggestions

The most important aspect to remember here is that even though you paid for that edit or critique, it is still feedback and suggestions. None of it needs to be applied to your writing if you honestly feel that it's not right.

For any editorial feedback that I provide to clients myself, you will find the following disclaimer in some fashion in my editorial reports.

The advice I give is based on how I see your story working, but only take on board any suggestions that hold true to YOUR vision.

An editor might highlight an issue with a manuscript, but their diagnosis of the problem might not be correct. As the writer, only you can make that decision.

It's that last paragraph that is at the heart of how anyone should interpret editorial feedback.

An issue has been identified, but the diagnosis of the problem (and the suggested treatment) might be incorrect. Only the writer of the story can make that determination.

In my blog post You don't have to use an editor's proposed solution, I've described a few instances that have happened to me where the editor's proposed solution wasn't going to work—either because it was boring or because the diagnosis of the problem was wrong. But the true talent of the writer shines through when we are able to take on board the feedback (understanding that an issue has been identified) and we work it through in a way that is unique to us and holds true to our vision.

Assessing Developmental Editorial Feedback

Exactly how we assess that editorial feedback will depend on a variety of factors, the most important of which is the stage of the editorial process.

If you are looking at a manuscript assessment or a developmental edit, then you are looking at something that is 100% open to interpretation. Every edited line or rework is just a suggestion. If it doesn't hold true to where you want that story to go, then don't do it. Simple as that.

But before you immediately discount the suggested advice, take a step back and look at what they are highlighting.

Is there a plot hole present in your story that you didn't see before? Is there a backstory issue that is a little muddled and needs clarification?

Are you putting too many details on the page, so that it's slowing the pacing of the narrative down? Are you glancing over details, forgetting to paint the picture for the reader, allowing that movie in the head to become a thing?

Are your characters behaving in expected ways? Are any unexpected behaviors backed up by some explanation? Do your characters have a unique voice, or do they all sound the same?

There are so many things that could be going on that is being highlighted during that critique or developmental edit. A good developmental editor (or writing coach) will take the time to explain why they are making the suggestion that they're making, giving you the ability to see the issue being highlighted and to weigh the merits of the suggested treatment.

What you do with that information is entirely up to you.

Assessing Line Editing Feedback

Line editing feedback is a little different to a developmental edit, in that the writing is examined at a paragraph and sentence level. As such, much of the assessment on the suggested edits all comes down to clarity and voice.

A good line editor will do what they can to preserve a writer's voice. Their suggestions should focus on the ease of reading a sentence, sometimes reordering it for clarity. And they might highlight inconsistencies that they've picked up along the way.

For example, unless there is a plot reason for a character's eye color to change, a line edit should be pointing out that you've changed the eye color in Chapter 5 to hazel, when in Chapter 3, a character's eyes were green.

But the moment any of those suggested edits start to remove your voice OR your intent behind a passage, then those edits need to be rejected.

That said, just like with the developmental editorial feedback, you need to look at the issue that the edit is highlighting before you discount it completely.

Is that sentence clunky? If you read it aloud, do YOU trip up over it? Does that sentence actually make sense, or was it something written at 3am and needs a total rework? (I have fond memories of my own 3o'clock-isms… and they are doozies!)

Assessing a Copyedit

Copyediting is slightly different to a line edit, in that the suggested edits are normally backed by a grammatical or punctuation rule. Most copyediting will also include a certain level of line editing, reworking lines for clarity. But for the most part, it all comes down to how the English language works.

If you are a writer who is not familiar with the grammatical or punctuation rules—and most writers have no clue about this stuff—it does become harder to judge the quality of the editing. But look at what the suggested edits do to your voice and the cadence of your writing. Listen to it read aloud by your computer if you have to.

Does it sound smoother? Is that comma adding clarity where there could have been confusion before? And does it sound like something you would actually write?

And that word change: Does the intent of the line remain intact? Did you honestly just use the wrong word? Or does that changed word have a different meaning that you never intended?

The biggest problem that most writers will face in assessing the quality of a copyedit is trying to "read the mind" of the editor. Why was that change made?

Not all copyeditors explain why they are making certain changes—even experienced copyeditors. Some copyeditors will comment on why "big" changes are made, but sometimes, a word change happens with no explanation.

When writers get their copyedits back, we need to look at the changes one by one, assessing their value and going from there.

A writer should NEVER accept 100% of the suggested edits without review. There could have been a change that altered the meaning of a passage entirely. Again, the moment that the suggested edits (and they are suggestions) mess around with your voice, those edits need to be rejected.

Within my own copyedits received back, I've rejected at least 5% of the suggested edits for a variety of reasons. Some of those rejected edits have come back to bite me in the ass, but hey…

(Cue vs Queue vs Line. Yeah, I messed up that one. Oops.)

Get a Bad Edit?

For a developmental edit or manuscript critique, the definition of a bad or good edit is subjective. It all comes down to voice and how close to your vision the suggested edits/reworks are. A good developmental editor (or writing coach) will be able to extrapolate what you had intended based on what is on the page. It's not always clear, but there is a pattern to the way a story unfolds that a good developmental editor is able to foresee. But even with the years of experience, a developmental editor can miss the twist.

This doesn't mean that it was a bad edit. It just means that it wasn't quite right.

For a copyedit or an intensive line edit, in addition to the voice and vision factor, editing quality is also a function of how much "red" is in that edit and how many of those suggested edits or rewrites you're rejecting.

Typically, copyeditors work to 95% accuracy, recognizing that 5% of errors will be missed. This is industry standard and is an accepted accuracy rate. It's why typos sometimes get missed, making it all the way through the editorial process and into the published version.

So… Let's say that your manuscript had 100 errors. 5 of those errors will get missed. But let's say that your manuscript had 10,000 errors. Then 500 of those errors will be missed.

And with 10,000 errors found, I can guarantee that your manuscript will be bleeding red. With that much red on the screen, it's not hard to imagine why 5% of errors can easily be missed. That said, if you are in the post-copyediting phase and you are seeing a significant number of errors missed that go beyond the 5% mark, getting up to say 15% or more, then yeah, perhaps you had a bad copyedit.

But judging a copyedit is not based purely on the accuracy rate, because there is also some subjectivity that goes into writing. As I said above, a writer should never accept 100% of corrections without review. There could be something that alters the voice in ways that are unintended. Even within my own copyedits, I don't accept 100% of the corrections.

In my opinion, if you reject less than say 10% of the suggested edits or rewrites, then you actually got a "really good" edit.

But there is a tipping point here. There comes a certain percentage of edits that you reject when you start to question every edit suggested. If you encounter that feeling, where you are questioning the edits, then you have a bad edit on your hands.

It doesn't mean that the editor wasn't any good. But it does mean that the editor wasn't right for you or your project.

At this point, you have a few options on how to manage this, and it all depends on what you want to happen in the long run.

Dealing with a Bad Edit

Your first instinct might be to go back to the editor and demand a refund (or withhold final payment). This is actually a waste of your time and will ultimately land you on a blacklist somewhere, where multiple editors will refuse to work with you.

Just because you don't like the work that an editor did doesn't mean that they didn't do the work. They deserve to be paid for the work they did.

So, if your instinct is to demand a refund (or withhold final payment), then go back to your contract and look at the deliverables of the contract. If the editor met their end of the deliverables (even if you don't like the quality of editing), then they deserve to be paid in full. But you know for next time to hire someone else. If the editor didn't fulfill their end of the contract… Well, that's a different story, and take the steps that you feel you need to take.

In my opinion, if you had a bad edit, then pay the editor and move on. Don't work with that editor again. Don't recommend their services. And make a note somewhere to avoid them in the future.

And don't go on public channels and badmouth their name. Even if you think you're doing a public service, just don't. Such tactics rarely end in your favor. Please protect yourself and your reputation.

If you really feel that you were scammed and that the writing community needs to know about this, then consider sending a message to Victoria Strauss at Writer Beware. If enough people report the same editor as being dodgy, then she will make it publicly known, bringing it to the attention of the community. She's built her platform around being tactful in how she reports scams and shady practices.

But please remember that even bad feedback still has value, even if the only value is to give you the fuel you need to make everyone eat their words. So, if you are really struggling to see if the editorial feedback in front of you is good, bad, or something else, follow my guidance on how to handle feedback in general: get another set of eyes on it, helping you see the forest for the trees.