Who needs an editor?

(Um…everyone.)

I just read a fascinating blog from Carole Baron about the need for book editors (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-baron/do-you-really-need-an-edi_b_476612.html). She writes very astutely, if you ignore the handful of grammatical errors, about this rising misconception that digital books mean the end of publishers, and more specifically, the end of editors. This idea that editing is on its way towards obsolescence is something that has been plaguing me for a long time, and it was nice to read about it from the perspective of a working big-house editor.

I mean, what better example of the importance of editors than a blog post written by an editor that has mistakes? If she can’t produce flawless writing, what makes anyone think that an author is suddenly capable of producing error-free writing? Digital format did not suddenly make us better writers, did it? I think not.

As publishers, we are more than just the human version of spell check. We decide what to publish, and then become accountable for its success. We act as the filtration system for the over abundance of work that is produced. In the grand publishing scheme, editors are the fine mesh that ultimately sifts the good out of the heaps and heaps of mediocre.

Or, at least, that is how it is supposed to work. With so many books produced every year, the market is already saturated with a whole lot of nonsense. Some work bypasses the filtration system already, due to the relative ease of self-publishing (for those with the finances to support the endeavor).

Now more than ever, editors are necessary to uphold the integrity of published work. Imagine what the bookstore shelves would look like without someone standing by to say “no” to the crap.