If a person is incapable of editing their own manuscript, do you think he/she is a publishable writer?

In general, no.

If you're going to be published, you need to learn to edit your own work. (What are you going to do if your book is accepted, and the editor asks for revisions? Re-hire the same editor?)

On the other hand, in certain special cases, hiring an editor can be useful. For example, if you're a noted authority on some subject, and you've written a non-fiction book, but you aren't much of a writer, it might be a good idea to hire an editor. (Not in general, though, since the publisher will assign an editor to your work, at no cost to you.)

And, famously, Vladimir Nabokov (Lolita, et al.) hired an editor before submission; Nabokov wasn't a native speaker of English, and he knew it.

Still, publishers and agents have a word for edited slush. They call it "slush." And nothing strikes greater dread into the hearts of editors than the words in the cover letter, "This work has been professionally edited."

Stephenie Meyer was published. She obviously didn't have anyone edit her work, paid or not. She definitely didn't edit it herself, even, and she's crazy popular.

Realistically, no, someone who doesn't edit themselves will probably not do too well in publishing and earning profits, etc. But at least paying a professional editor is something better than not editing at all. And, anyway, you ask this question making the assumption that a person *must* be incapable of editing their own work if they want help from a professional editor. Who's to say that the people who want to find professional editors haven't already edited their own work and are just looking for the best outside source of help in editing?

@Redstar: Yeah, people have some incredibly strong opinions on what writers should and shouldn't do and what they should and shouldn't be like. I don't think my opinion is very popular so I'm not surprised at the TD. Anyway, Stephenie Meyer. If she really did edit, her bad editing shows. But she's popular because of her storytelling skills. Anyone who does have good storytelling skills and who sought help from an editor would at least have one up on her, who didn't try very hard at all.

I guess this might be a weak comparison, because we all know how bad Meyer is, but my point is that you don't know what a person may or may not have already done before having an editor look at their work. And in an age where books with bad grammar *do* sell in all genres and all age groups, can we really say that asking for some help from an editor is a bad idea? I do believe that one should do their own editing first- after all, you know your own story best. But additional help from a legitimate source isn't a bad thing.

I completely agree. That's a major part of the process, I think, and something that should be the author's responsibility. And of course, there's the cost of hiring an editor. They don't come cheap! I would think that alone would be enough to deter someone from getting an editor and instead work on the manuscript themselves. I think a lot of times, though, people think they need an editor or a publisher isn't going to take their manuscript seriously or something. I think a lot of people get done with a first draft and immediately look to get onto the publishing stage, not realizing that its going to take several drafts to get anywhere near publishing quality. There are so many misconceptions about publishing, it seems, and the whole editor thing is just another one, I think.

You never really know how much work someone has done before they seek a professional editor-- or even if they have done any real work at all! They may have already spent months or years self-editing, and rewriting and reworking their ideas, redefining plot and structure until they are blue in the face. They may already have a few rejection letters and have fixed their manuscript to address the issues in those rejection letters. When they feel they have done all that they can, they seek out additional help to get their manuscript "ready for prime-time".

Then there are those writers who have edited and rewrote a few drafts-- but want to try and submit their work as it is and get an editor to better their manuscript and really gauge their chances. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but for me I need to dive deep into myself as a writer and grown and change before I dare believe I am ready to find an agent and my see my work as publishable.

I don't think there is anything wrong with seeking an editor. After all, just because you can write, doesn't mean you can critique your own work. Your manuscript is your Holy Grail---personal and special to you. A lot of people can't see the faults in their own writing that another person could point out as clear as day maybe even within the first few chapters! I hesitate on a professional editor for my own work and want it to be the last and final resort only after I have exhausted my own creativity.

For my own writing, I am determined to get down to the nitty-gritty and polish my baby until its ready for submission. Writing is a careful process and everyone needs to be realistic and understand you have a big task ahead of you. I, for one, welcome the challenge with open arms.

I have books on structure, plot and characterization, take writing classes and read as many classics as possible to learn to apply those ideas to my own manuscript and better myself as a writer.

But hey, what can I say? We all write differently and I'm just a ridiculous perfectionist.

No, I don't think they're ready or a publishable writer if they're incapable of editing their own work.

In my opinion it is the mark of a lazy writer when they would rather pass off their work to someone else for editing when they can take the time and effort to learn on their own. I know full well self-editing is challenging and we as writers are apt to miss several errors. However, that is no excuse for passing it off to someone else.

Admittedly, many of my blog posts likely have errors I have missed but the words still flow properly. If I find I missed something a few weeks or a month or two later I correct them. If I am not certain I wrote something correctly I take the time to learn it and learn it well.

A writer who cannot be bothered with learning how to self-edit is in no way ready for publication. You know as well as I do this business is hard work and if you try to take shortcuts or pass it off to someone else writing may not be for you. Yes, an editor/proofreader is helpful but they should not be used to edit an entire manuscript simply because the writer has little or no interest in editing their own work.

"What I really meant was someone who only writes one draft and assumes that the next immediate is not 'start work on draft 2' but 'pay a professional to polish a turd.'"

Completely agree with this aspect of what you meant with the question. But usually these are young people - the same people who think books are written in a week - who need to be told otherwise.

Totally agreed. Apart from proof-reading and correcting spelling and grammatical mistakes, any farther professional help an author seeks is a sign of his incapability to write.

I think that depends on your definition of "edits". I _do_ know a not only publishable but published writer who is incapable of editing his own manuscript to a professional level - he is quite severely dyslexic and needs an editor to help him with his spelling. (FWIW, he doesn't pay her - she is his wife.)

But I do think you need to be careful of twisting this into "published writers don't need editors" (or beta-readers, or proofreaders, or indeed "published writers don't need to edit".)

No. There has to be some input by the writer, the creator, or it doesn't really stay their own work does it? It turns into a collaboration (at least with regard to structural/plot changes).