How do professional editors get started in the business? Though I’ve worked in computers most of my adult life, and though I couldn’t creatively write my way out of a pile of feathers, I think I have great skill at going over the work of others, correcting errors and rearranging sentences and paragraphs into a more effective whole. I know you’re probably thinking that my writing here isn’t free from errors and typos, but that’s out of carelessness and the speed of my typing, not because I don’t know better.
How do editors get started, and how much can they earn?
What you’re describing isn’t just editing – it’s copyediting. Editors are involved in acquiring works, managing magazines/newspapers, etc. They do copyedit, but that’s a small part of their job and actual copyeditors handle it.
As to getting a copyediting job – it probably helps to know someone, though you can get jobs doing technical editing and sometimes pure copyediting at a newspaper or magazine. It is not a high paying job (I know someone who quit as copyeditor at The New Yorker to write full time – a sure sign she wasn’t making much). It can be an entry to actual editing jobs, though.
Editing itself would be way over my head. However, I have copyedited (or “subedited” as it is over here), which is what you describe.
Not a glamorous position at all, and even if you’re established, the pay is pretty bad. And you seriously get no respect: “why are you criticising what I’ve written? It doesn’t matter how I wrote it, it’s full of emotion” (or truth, or creativity, or whatever), even though it looks like it was penned by a seven-year-old. What it actually does is introduce you to the appalling illiteracy of well-paid journalists, and their ingratitude toward the people who make them look good in the background.
Personally I have used this skill to my advantage by combining it with other acquired skills. This is a superb example of someone who has turned the ability to write precisely and creatively into a viable business.
I see. So it sounds like the editors are the “finders” and the copyeditors are the “grinders”, so to speak. From what RC is telling me, you can’t get rich just on mad grammatic and composition skilz.
Forgot to mention that I was once hired as a freelance proofreader for a local textbook company. Basically, they advertised for the job in the paper. If they liked your resume, they sent an editing test. I got the job because I spotted more of the errors than anyone else.
Though it was only proofing, I did some de facto copyediting work. One science textbook listed the inventor of the x-ray as “Conrad Roentgen.” I pointed out that most sources gave his name as “Wilhelm Roentgen” (Conrad was his middle name).
That’s the difference between proofing and copyediting, BTW. Proofing (which is even lower on the editorial hierachy than copyediting) checks that words are spelled correctly, and cleans up grammatical errors. A copyeditor will look at the text and also point out inconsistencies (“On page 32, the frog was name Phineas; on page 375, it is referred to a Phillip. Are they the same frog? Which is correct?”) or errors (“Did you mean to say the sun revolves around the Earth?”).
There are also a lot of different kinds of “copy” and familiarity with that is helpful. I do a lot of copywriting and copyediting for press releases and marketing materials. There are certain ways to structure both that optimize their effectiveness. So it’s not just a matter of knowing the fine points of grammar, spelling, and particular styles guides, but also the nature of the work you are editing and the target audience.
Just do your homework and you’ll be fine in that respect, but it doesn’t seem all that lucrative.
I respectfully beg to differ. It seems that there are about as many definitions of copyediting and proofreading as there are people who do it.
In my world, copyediting means working directly on the manuscript, making mechanical edits to the extent that the client wants them done. A light edit might mean fixing egregious spelling/grammar/punctuation errors only. For a medium edit, you might add making the entire manuscript conform to Chicago style, fixing wordiness and ambiguity, etc. A heavy edit might mean rearranging sentences and paragraphs, suggesting places to cut or add material, and so on.
Proofreading (to me and my clients) means taking a copyedited manuscript and reading it word-for-word against the typeset pages, correcting (on the pages) anything that was not set according to the ms. You may also sometimes make editorial changes (errors that the copyeditor missed), but at this point the client usually wants these kept to a minimum because changes are expensive. The proofreader also ensures that the layout, typefaces, etc., conform to the specs, that art is placed properly, that numbered items are in order, and so on.
Scarlett, wearing both her CE and PR hats this weekend
I’m a subeditor for a national paper (and therefore this post is bound to contain several ridiculous typso ;)). The pay is not great but it’s not bad, either - comfortably above the average wage.
How did I get started? I did a chemistry degree, then got a job on a scientific magazine, which involved both writing and editing, and then applied to the newspaper. That’s not necessarily a “usual” way into the job, but very few people in my acquaintance took the English-degree-followed-by-journalism-course route, either.
Pros:
You get to read cool stuff (I work on the travel and arts sections, so I am never short of ideas for where to go and what to do, and I keep my finger fairly well on the pulse of current culture etc).
You get the satisfaction of seeing your work (sharp headlines etc) read by millions of people.
Cons:
You do a huge amount of work rewriting articles that were originally fit only for the round file, and the original writer gets the byline and the fat cheque.
You have to read some really tedious stuff. Several times over.