Copy editing - a matter of trust


While dealing with the copy edit from hell, a manuscript for another of my books arrived. This one, too, had been copy edited.

By a master. Or at least someone who understands the concept of past, present and future.

Which isn't to say there aren't queries, let alone copy editing, on the pages. There are plenty. But I trust this editor, whether I agree with her or not.

Copy editing isn't about rules; it's about judgment. A writer can only assess the copy editor's judgment from the way the questions are phrased, when they're asked, and the changes that are proposed. It takes only a few pages to decide whether you can trust the editor or not. If you can't . . . you're in edit hell.

STET - which means return to the original, or in the vernacular, stop fucking with my prose - is really a poor and very limited weapon. Even after you do that, you're faced with the question: What did the editor miss that I got wrong? Because you definitely got something wrong.

If you don't trust the editor, you no longer trust the manuscript.

Speaking of no longer trusting manuscripts, the review of the copy edit from hell continues.

I have a question I can't answer relating to my responses: Should FU be capped? What about WTF?

I may have to consult a copy editor . . .