I’ll Keep Writing About This…
Yet another Twitter (or X, if you prefer) post asking about paying for a manuscript edit before querying and whether it (a) makes the story better and/or (b) increases your chances of landing an agent.
Way back when (and I remember those days because I’m old), you could send a manuscript off to an agent and, if they saw potential in it, they would help you edit and polish and ready it for publishers to consider. Didn’t cost you more than the paper, envelopes, stamps, and phone calls. It cost the agent those things plus their time, but they considered you and your work worth that investment. They believed they would get paid on the back end when the book sold.
But, capitalism being what it is, and the market and industry being what they are… Things changed.
In order to make enough money to simply live on, agents have to sell a lot of books (or fewer books for bigger bucks, but the advances and payouts aren’t what they used to be). To do that, they have to be able to sell them faster, too, which means taking less time from acceptance to sale. So instead of those diamonds in the rough, they want polished stones. Maybe even stones already cut, which means the author needs to anticipate what cuts are trendy and in demand: princess? emerald? traditional round brilliant? (Okay, I used to work in jewelry, so…)
SO. The result is that, these days, having a really polished, if not nearly perfect, manuscript does better your chances of landing representation. But a lot of authors (a) may not be able to afford that step, and/or (b) figure that, if they’re going to have a nearly perfect manuscript anyway, they should publish it themselves and keep the profits. After all, self-publishing means a shorter timetable to market and faster returns on that investment. (It also means, potentially, a tougher time getting seen, less chance of being in physical stores, and other discoverability/promotion obstacles; authors need to decide for themselves which path makes the most sense and what they want out of publishing their book.)
Should it be this way? Probably not. But it’s the reality.
Old way: author wrote a book, did a little self-editing, maybe had a friend or two look at it before sending it to prospective agents. Agents would see potential, sign the author, work on the manuscript with the author, send it to potential editors/publishers. An editor would like the manuscript, pay an advance and offer a contract, do further work with the author to finalize the manuscript, work with the publishing house’s marketing department to plan promotion and release, and the book would be in the pipeline from there. Basically: the author mined the gem, the agent helped polish the gem, the editor helped determine the final cut of the gem.
Now: the author is expected to mine and polish the gem at the very least. The author may or may not attempt to cut the gem into a preferred shape, but that’s risky because it may turn out that agents and editors say, “We like this gem, it’s beautiful, but that size/shape isn’t our style.” Mining and polishing = writing the manuscript, working with a critique group as you write, finding beta readers after you write and onboarding their feedback as you rewrite, maybe making mood boards or other marketing materials, and potentially hiring freelance editors besides. It’s a much more time-consuming process, and it also may cost the author actual money. Which narrows the pool of potential authors that agents and publishers are willing to sign since people with less time and money may not meet the higher bar the industry has set for entry.
Authors will be told that, if they want to be successful, they have to make the time and be willing to invest in themselves and their work. That anything less means they aren’t truly dedicated to being an author. There’s a belief that this system weeds out the amateurs. That this gatekeeping preserves the level of quality of content that is put out by mainstream publishers. But what it has [also?] done is create a system where more authors are publishing their own work, and some of that work is far more interesting and creative than anything big imprints are pushing out. Sure, some self-published work is dreck that needed better—or any—editing. But there are plenty of mainstream books that show every indicator of having been rushed through the process, too. Once again, capitalism rears its head: in order to make money quickly, they have to get books out faster than ever, meaning they cut corners in the editing process. “Good enough, and we know it’ll sell anyway, so who cares if it’s not, well, actually very good?” In fact, as long as they can sell it, they don’t care if people like it. (Same is true for the film biz these days, too. They got your money at the door, so who cares about your opinion?*)
Again, it’s not a good system, but as long as they keep profiting, it won’t change.
In fact, now they’ll just poach the successful self-published books, too. It’s a risk-averse philosophy; publishers (and film studios) only want sure bets. Which is why their output is so stale. They’re never ahead of trends. Instead they grab what’s hot and try to make more of the same until everyone is sick of it and has moved on to something new. Which the industries then grab, and the cycle continues.
So, to the person who asked if having a freelance editor look at your manuscript before querying is a good idea? In this day and age, if you can afford it, yes. I think the baseline expectation from most agents is higher than it used to be. While there might still be a few “editorial agents” out there, most are not in a position to take the time to walk an author through major revisions. Advances are smaller, so agents need more authors than they used to in order to make the same amount of money. They don’t have time to nurture one tree when they need to take care of a whole orchard. Much as I hate that this is how things work now, I also have to sympathize with the realities of their situation.
In short, if you are querying, you will be up against a lot of other polished gemstones. Even if not fully cut, yours needs to flash and be brilliant and catch the eye. If you can do that without spending money, so much the better. But give yourself every possible advantage (without going broke). I don’t know if most authors would say working with a freelance editor** make their book better, but I think it’s pretty fair to assume it did better their chances of signing with an agent and/or publisher.
* We like to think our opinions, in the form of reviews, have impact and that publishers or filmmakers do care about them. Alas, while that might be true for smaller books and films, the big names are more impervious to bad press. Think of your opinion as a puff of wind. For a smaller boat, it might be threatening, depending on the force of the gale. But for a huge ship? It’ll just keep on cutting through the waters without worry.
** Of course, the editor’s abilities are key. Do your research when finding and hiring one. Best is to find one that has worked in the industry and knows what agents and publishers are looking for.