Editing Principle 18: Bad Editors are Doubleplusungood

Some editors are more equal than others. But it can be difficult to know mid-process whether you’ve been saddled with an editor incapable of truly elevating your work. Imagine hiring a gardener and watching her work in early spring. She might be great. You won’t know till midsummer.

There are telltale signs in conversation, however, that you’re in a less than ideal author-editor relationship:

— His every question interrogates the ideas presented in your piece. This is done in the interest of prompting you to refine your argument. He’ll ask a series of questions in the manner of a college classroom discussion. This is not editing, but spinning wheels, or intellectual showmanship. A good editor knows the true text lies elsewhere, and tries to help you develop the original inspiration.

Not to mention that trapped in the above dynamic, you’ll soon find yourself operating as if answering all of your editors’ queries or objections — presumably arriving at an airtight argument — is what compels readers to keep reading. This is rarely the case. You may still wind up with terrible, lifeless prose, and a piece no one cares about.

— After talking to her, you feel misunderstood. A good editor’s conversation is curative and invigorating.

— He immediately presents a solution to every writing problem you’re facing. As if some knots don’t take a while to work out. (Some take weeks. Others take months.)

Of course, much of this last dynamic involves phrasing. A good editor will never be short on ideas for how to improve the work, but is more interested in the assist, not scoring the goal himself. So he’ll say something to the effect of Bear ____ in mind or Here’s one possibility.