All About Books discussion

Editors are often featured on the first page or even the front cover of books. But really, what the heck do they do to warrant getting their names up there?

I'm especially curious in the context of a classic famous works. Is this just an edit for spelling mistakes or something? A grammar edit if a new translation from another language?

Why is "edited by" often more prominent than "translated by"? Don't translators have a far more important role?

I think people in the book industry could answer better, but I'll give my semi-ignorant answer. I do think good editors do an awful lot.

An editor was basically the difference between Harper Lee relasing To Kill a Mockingbird, the book that made her famous, and Go Set a Watchman, the version she'd originally written. Editors give advice, do editing, find errors, suggest changes, etc. A good editor can be a great boon, helping to tighten the story, etc, as well as helping a story find its audience.

What editors of classic texts do, I think someone else can answer better. In those, the text is often fixed, though there can be different versions floating around to reconcile in some cases.

But as far as translators, I completely agree they don't get enough attention!! The translation can make or break a book in my opinion. One thing that annoys me to no end is when a library catalog entry or an Audible catalog entry doesn't bother to list the translator. So annoying! Without knowing the translator, I don't know which one to pick. The translator should be listed very prominently - second to the author in my opinion. Extremely important!

Zoomorph wrote: "Editors are often featured on the first page or even the front cover of books. But really, what the heck do they do to warrant getting their names up there?

I'm especially curious in the context o..."

I'm not an editor, but I work close to a girl doing editing and trust me she does great job on books: you can't even immagine how things can be confused, not uniform when out of an author's hand!

Editors are so important because they make an authors work accessible. For example have you ever written an essay and asked someone to read it? They will, 9 times out of 10, find something that makes perfect sense to you but not to the rest of the world. Writers know what they are trying to say so its so easy to skim over work and think 'hey what a great sentance.' When in fact it makes no sense in any language.

I certainly agree that translators do not get enough credit, this is mainly due to my everlasting regret that I (being typically English) can only speak and read my native tongue. So much respect goes to everyone here on AAB who has 2 or even 3 languages. To translate a whole book well, its so far beyond me that I have to bow to those of greater minds.

I worked as an editor for a while (not long, unfortunately), and I was editing only essays, not novels. However, as the others said, it's such an important figure you wouldn't even have a readable book without them, most of the times. Don't think for a moment authors are able to write, especially those who write non-fiction (that's my experience, at least). That's why editors are so important. And I wish they were here in Italy too, whereas I've only seen their names mentioned by a couple of publishers - unless, of course, they are very famous editors.

As for the work of the translator, I am one! Although I translate technical stuff, not books. But I do agree with you they do not get enough credit, I think they should always be mentioned alongside with the author, because it's thanks to them we can read most books at all.

Zoomorph wrote: "But really, what the heck do they do to warrant getting their names up there?"

I'll add my perspective, as a professional editor credited on book covers, to those points already made by others.

There are many types of editors, but the ones given cover credit by seasoned authors are most likely developmental or contributing editors rather than line or content editors who do much of the formatting, grammar, etc.

A good developmental editor is like an orchestra conductor...they didn't compose the piece, and don't play the musical instruments...they create an atmosphere which produces a compelling, moving flow; capturing and mesmerizing an audience long after the performance has ended. What some authors believe is a final manuscript is barely passable as a rough draft when handed over to an editor.

Editors have reputations that can help an author. For instance, one publisher (familiar with my work) requested that an author use me as editor. In addition to editing, I kept the author on track; meeting deadlines, submitting material per contractual obligation, etc.

An editor's reach stretches far beyond a single work...they can make or break an author's career. One hit wonder or series mastermind? An author's reputation is only as good as his/her current/previously published work(s). A quality editor is worth her/his weight in gold. Some of us are fortunate to have worked with authors who recognize that (paraphrasing from personal experience) "Without you, this book would not have been published"."

I'm not an editor but I do a lot of beta reads, which is basically editing "light". The book that an author writes is a raw product that most of the times only one pair of eyes have seen. Depending on the skill and the experience of the author, and the amount of time and plotting and oitlining and revising the author has put in the work, the effort the beta reader or editor gets to read can be anywhere from very poor to pretty much ready to be published.

Have you ever read a really bad book? One that wasn't just not your style, but that was simply poorly written, and had a style so annoying you couldn't fathom how it got published in the first place?

An editor or beta reader does more than a proof reader. He spots passages that don't make sense or scenes that simply don't fit in the book for some reason. Some parts need to be revised, others have to be left out. If the author repeats the same word or metaphore again and again, it's annoying and distracting and has to be changed.
Also, if the story isn't coherent, changes are made. For example: at the beginning of the story, Susie is looking for her mother. But than she meets a nice boy and they fall in love and the mother is never mentiomed again. That doesn't make sense, so it has to be changed.
One especially common thing for authors to do is to overwrite. One big rule of writing is 'show, don't tell'. Right now I'm reading a book that breaks this rule all the time and could have used a better editor.
At yhe beginning of the book, instead of making the reader understand the post-apocalyptic world setting slowly on their own, the narrator explains pretty much everything in a very long and tedious ten-page passage.
Readers aren't stupid. Actually, most readers like to feel like they figured something out on their own.
Example:
"Who invited you here, fatty?" Sarah said condescendingly, raising her nose looking perfectly snobbish.

Now this is how it shouldn't be done. The words Sarah uses to insult the other character are demeaning and signal quite clearly that she is both talking condescendingly and being snobbish. So why put that in the description? It's unnecessary.

An editor needs to spot something like this right away and have the author change the parts. Novels, even badly written ones, can be transformed into readable, interesting and gripping novels if all the bothersome parts are removed. Editing gives a story a better structure and can improve the style greatly.
If you want to find out how editing can change a book, compare a generic but well-edited YA vampire book from an established publisher to a self-published book of the same genre. The difference is clearly visible in many books.

Monica wrote: "Zoomorph wrote: "But really, what the heck do they do to warrant getting their names up there?"

I'll add my perspective, as a professional editor credited on book covers, to those points already m..."

Thanks Monica, I'm so glad one of our professional editors responded! I had a vague idea of what editors did from author interviews, but many things in my mind weren't very precise. The one thing I knew for sure: every author I've heard speak has been very, very grateful for the good editors they've worked with!

Caro wrote: "If you want to find out how editing can change a book, compare a generic but well-edited YA vampire book from an established publisher to a self-published book of the same genre. The difference is clearly visible in many books.
..."

True Caro! Thanks for your beta reader perspective as well.

Thanks for all the comments. I knew a good editor was very important but now I understand more

Oh, and also, the work of an editor of classical texts is often commenting on the work. The editor writes the note at the beginning and the end of the book, adding an explanation of the work and the time it was written in. In the text, difficyult words get an explanation in a footnote. Also, some texts are abridged by editors, because they are too difficult to read or too long or simply impossible to understand for a modern reader.
Some editors also perform "translation" work on the classical text, changing the language to fit modern understanding.

Thanks for all the responses. In terms of making books appealing in terms of their structure, flow, etc, I'm sure that editors play a crucial role.

When they merely provide footnotes and an introductory essay, their claim to fame is a lot more dubious.

As someone who tends to judge books on their intellectual and creative content more than anything else, I guess I tend to downplay the role of editors compared with authors.

I find translators important mainly because there are many different translations of some texts and it's important to know which version you're reading or purchasing. The translations often vary greatly from one another.

Editors only sniff the glue of books as far as I can tell.