As a professional book editor, clients often send me manuscripts which have gone through an initial round of editing by another editor. The evidence of this is revealed by Word Track Edits, which, if you activate it, records every change and provides space for comments in the right-hand margin. It also records the name of the editor and the time and date of the edit.

As you might expect, the quality of prior editing varies. Sometimes it’s quite good, while other times it’s slipshod or incomplete. That’s life! But what particularly interests me is that book editors seem to fall into two camps: active and passive. Here’s what I mean.

Passive Editing

Let’s first take passive editing. This is when the editor confines themself to making marginal comments about a word, phrase, or idea they find objectionable. Along the margin, you see the Track Edits notes:

“Unclear.”

“Trite. Think of a different word.”

“Confusing. Please clarify.”

“Redundant – see the previous paragraph.”

“Check the facts here – wrong date?”

“Spelling.”

“Write out numbers less than ten.”

You can see that with this approach, the editor sees their role as akin to being a reviewer whose job it is to point out presumed defects and let the author worry about making the correction or improvement.

Active Editing

Here, the editor rolls up their sleeves, so to speak, and makes the changes he or she feels are necessary. The edits may be objective corrections of grammar, or more subjective improvements in syntax and meaning. No comments, no distance – just results that move the manuscript tangibly closer to publication perfection. Using Word Track Edits, the client can see every change and, if they choose, reject it. With active editing, you’re not just tossing the responsibility back into the author’s lap, you’re working for them to get the job done.

As for me, I’m an active editor. My clients are busy people who want results. They tend not to be defensive about their own writing. They rarely reject a change or edit. They trust my expertise and ability to produce a competitive product. I tell them upfront that I’m like a car mechanic: When I see a problem, I’m going to fix it. They want a car that runs, not just a list of defects that they have to worry about.

The Exceptions

Are there exceptions? Yes, primarily with fiction. Here’s why.

Authors of fiction see themselves as artists with a vision, and their work is very personal. They easily become defensive if you just dive in and start re-writing their cherished manuscript. Even if you politely point out problem areas, such as a plot point that’s implausible, they’re likely to respond with an explanation as to why the scene should remain exactly as written, and it’s the reader’s fault for not understanding. You cannot argue with such logic, because who’s to say what works and what doesn’t work in a novel?

So when I edit a novel, I’ll actively correct objective mistakes of grammar and spelling, but I take the passive approach and gently highlight areas where the meaning of the words is off-target or an idea doesn’t work.

In contrast, most non-fiction authors of self-help or business books don’t see themselves as having a unique authorial voice, or if they do, it’s easy for me to preserve it during re-writes. Because their books are intended to have an effect on the reader, non-fiction authors are pragmatic. They want their book to motivate the reader to take action, and they welcome editing that enhances their message. They tend to be busy people who just want to get their book written, polished, and out into the market.

With either approach—passive or active—the goal is to make the very best possible manuscript, ready to take on the world!