Showing posts with label editorial critiques. Show all posts
Showing posts with label editorial critiques. Show all posts

Should You Use a Book Doctor?

Tuesday, August 25, 2020
As writers, we talk endlessly about revision. Probably because we’re always working, one way or another, on a revision. I mean, even when we’re not working on the manuscript, we have other people working on it…beta readers, critique partners, editors, book doctors.

Wait. Book doctors? Are you thinking—as I did once upon a time—that a book doctor is just a cute name for an independent editor? Yep, I thought a book doctor was a clever marketing title but one day, a writer friend and I were discussing the latest release of another writer friend, and she mentioned that said author had used a book doctor. I learned about book doctors that day, mostly that it had been a wise use of time and money for that author. And maybe a book doctor would be a wise choice for you, too, but first, know what you’re getting into.

Independently contracted editors can give a writer all kinds of services. He or she can give in-depth notes on the first fifty pages or an entire novel. A writer then takes those notes and revises, and sometimes, an editor will work back and forth on the revisions. It’s lots of re-writing for the would-be author, and it can be a time-consuming as well as costly process.

An editor can also do line-editing, which is basically proofreading your fully-revised novel, making sure that your grammar is spit-spot and names don’t change in the middle of the book. Publishing houses do a line edit before sending off the manuscript to be printed; writers planning to self-publish should get a line edit, too, but it’s probably a lot cheaper to ask that friend of yours in the critique group who’s a grammar nerd (and then treat him or her to a nice lunch).

And then there’s the book doctor. Remember when I said that writers had that secret dream of sending off a manuscript for a professional critique and really, we just want somebody to fix it? There’s a way to make that dream come true: hire a book doctor.

A book doctor is not playing around with all that revising back and forth. A book doctor will take your novel and fix those plot holes, clean up the character mix-ups, shore up the settings, tighten the tension and perfect the pace. And a book doctor might do all that and have a relatively quick turn-around. So why doesn’t everyone use a book doctor?

For one thing, a book doctor can be very expensive; doctoring a manuscript is a serious workload, even for a professional. And though a reputable book doctor will get permission from the writer before making massive changes, a manuscript can turn out quite differently. That sort of revision is not for everyone.

Still, there are times when a writer has revised a manuscript so much—either through critique partners, beta readers or paid professional critiques—that the idea of one more rewrite can cause dry heaves, not to mention hair-pulling. It’s that point of hitting a brick wall and maybe a book doctor can punch a way through to make a manuscript sellable. Not that anyone can make a guarantee that a manuscript will sell, but an expert book doctor can certainly push it closer to publication.

And then there’s the writer who’s self-publishing a book to enhance a business; it might be a more cost-effective use of time and money to use a book doctor. But like all writing services, do your homework first. Ask writer friends, check for any “write beware” notices, before committing to a pricey contract. It’s all well and good to invest in yourself but don’t break the bank in the process!

(How about you, dear writers, have you used a book doctor? Inquiring would-be published authors want to know!)

~Cathy C. Hall

Read More »

What a Writer Wants... What a Writer Needs

Sunday, January 20, 2019


                                           Yeah, I get my title doesn't trip off the tongue like the lyrics
                                                      of the Christina Aguilera song, but hey, what can I say?
                                                              It's that pesky extra syllable that's to blame...

Here's an idea of what filled up too much of my time lately during my holiday break--as I waited for feedback from Margo Dill, an editor extraordinaire:

6:17 a.m. Maybe my editor is up early, she finished looking over my manuscript and sent me her critique today. She's had it for 14 days. Yeah, Christmas Eve and Christmas day were two of those 14 days, but two weeks is enough time to critique 50,000 words, right?

12:30 p.m. I went out for four hours, knowing that when I got back, my critique would be in my inbox.

5:20 p.m. Margo has probably parked her daughter in front of a game system for hours and hours so she can finish reading my manuscript. Dinnertime? She can toss her kiddo a bag of chips and a 2-liter bottle of soda and say, "Bon appetit!" Isn't that a reasonable expectation?

8:16 p.m. Ohmygodohmygodohmygod. It's an email from Margo. Oh. It's not about my manuscript. It's about something else. Doesn't she know that whenever I see an email from anyone whose name begins with a M, I start to squeal at such a high pitch, my family's been wearing earplugs? Why is she teasing me like this?

8:27 p.m. A friend emailed me: Margo is busy judging a WOW writing contest, and she has a client who got a book deal, so probably Margo is doing some last-minute edits for them. Why does a national contest and a book-about-to-get-printed-and-put-on-bookstore-shelves take precedence over my manuscript? Ain't I important, too? And I've been so patient...

Yes, this is an exaggeration when it comes to my expectations (although I minimized the 149 number of times I've checked--daily--my email), and I don't advocate parents feeding their child potato chips and sugary soda for dinner, with electronics as a babysitter. When it comes to writers with book deals and obligations like judging a writing contest, I'm at the bottom of the priority list--as I should be. I'm just trying to paint the picture of an impatient writer and show the craziness that's in our heads sometimes... which leads me to thinking what is the difference between what we want and what we need.

I'd love an email from my editor early in the process, something like, "Sioux, the beginning of this story is great. The more I read, the more I'm lovin' it."  The problem? One, that's not how professionals do it and two, what happens if 20 pages into the manuscript, the story tanks? I want some preliminary feedback. However, what I need is critique on the whole manuscript. After all, it is hopefully a cohesive and compelling piece, from the first word to the last line.

I'd love to have an editor who devotes all their time to my manuscript. I want them to put aside their other work, their other clients, their other obligations and focus on just me. The problem? An editor who is not well-rounded and doesn't have a life to live is not going to be a decent writer or critic (in my opinion). And an editor who doesn't have other clients means they lack experience. What I need is an editor who can juggle many different projects at once, who is in demand enough that they have to juggle several jobs simultaneously.

I'd love to get my manuscript critiqued in a few days. A week, tops. Isn't that enough time to read it and make notes of any minor changes that are needed? Yes, I want it fast. Instantly. But what I need is thorough, and thorough can't be done quickly. If my editor rushes through reading my work, they might miss some plot holes, some character mix-ups. They might gloss over the draggy parts in their hurry to get back to me.

And now, I'm off to check my email. Again. I made a little bet with myself: if I took the time and wrote this post, by the time I finished, the critique would be in my inbox...


Sioux Roslawski did hear from her editor in a timely manner and she got a big thumbs-up from Margo. In the next couple of weeks she'll make some minor revisions and then begin sending it out. Sioux got what she wanted--encouraging and constructive feedback and she got what she needed--a critique that missed none of the tiny details but at the same time, kept the bigger picture in mind.


Read More »
Powered by Blogger.
Back to Top