I'm Not a Copy Editor: What Developmental Editors Actually Do

As the title states, I am not a copy editor, and I don’t really want to be. As many avid readers do, I have built a sort of innate understanding of grammar. I can usually spot typos or grammatical errors, but I have no interest in learning the minutiae of grammar or syntax. It confuses me, it frustrates me, it vexes me—especially when all I want to do is sprinkle commas and em dashes everywhere like I’m seasoning my writing, even when that’s (probably) not grammatically correct.

What Copy Editors Actually Do (And Why I Don't Do It)

Copy editors work at the sentence level. They work with:

• Grammar and punctuation

• Spelling and typos

• Consistency (is it worldbuilding or world-building or world building throughout?)

• Style adherence (Chicago Manual of Style, AP Style, etc.)

• Syntax and sentence structure

It's extremely detailed, meticulous work from someone that genuinely enjoys the nitty-gritty of grammar rules. That person is not me. I know this because I once attempted to become a copy editor/proofreader, and it didn't work out so well. My love of commas, em-dashes, and parenthesis overrode all attempted education regarding the "correct" usage of the above.

Copy editors polish your prose. They're one of the final layers of editing before publication. They're essential.

It's just not what I do, though that is what most people think I do when I say I’m an editor, even if they don’t have the proper terminology for it. People start asking me about grammar or if I can look over an email for typos. When I try to explain what I actually do as an editor, their eyes sort of glaze over, and they nod—eager to get this conversation over with, which admittedly has turned from conversation to quasi-lecture.

It turns out not everyone has an enduring fascination with stories, and how they work, and why they work—with breaking down stories, analyzing them, and putting them back together again. Not everyone creates a comprehensive (and possibly, overcomplicated) methodology to do so.

And that’s fine. If everyone had the same interests and hobbies, the world would be a very boring (and probably dysfunctional) place. The world needs architects, and engineers, and lawyers, and cleaners, and bus drivers, and doctors, and writers, and so on and so forth. And if the world needs writers, surely it also needs developmental editors as well—or at least I hope it does.

What Developmental Editors Actually Do

You could go up to twenty different developmental editors and ask them what developmental editing is and you could easily get twenty different variations of the same answer.

In Developmental Editing: A Handbook for Freelancers, Authors, and Publishers, author Scott Norton defines developmental editing as:

… significant structuring or restructuring of a manuscript’s discourse. The DE’s role can manifest in a number of ways. Some “big picture” editors provide broad direction by helping the author to form a vision for the book, then coaching the author chapter by chapter to ensure that the vision is successfully executed. Others get their ands dirty with the prose itself, suggesting rewrites at the chapter, section, paragraph, and sentence levels. This hands-on approach is sometimes called substantive editing or line editing (1).

Norton also mentions that “in the industry, opinions vary as to what constitutes ‘significant’ restructuring,’ which I find to be very true (2). Norton mentions later that it’s a luxury for a developmental editor to work with a “novelist before a first draft has been completed” (253). Sophie Playle of Liminal Pages defines such work more as more of book coaching than developmental editing, and that DE “helps authors identify and solve the big-picture storytelling issues in a completed draft of their book [emphasis mine]”.

As for me, I see myself as a perfect mix of the two. I like to start with a completed draft from the writer, preferably one that has been revised by the writer, maybe even with input from a beta reader or critique partner. I take that draft and do the restructuring and solving required, and then I work with the writer as they revise based on the feedback I presented to them. So, best of both worlds, really.

I like to say that I break stories down to their component parts and put them back together again. I look at all of the storytelling elements within a draft and offer data-driven feedback on how to make the story the best it can be, tailored to the writer in question. I analyze:

• If the Beginning, the Middle, and the End of the novel serve their functions; if the inciting incident is interesting and encourages the audience to read on, if the midpoint builds tension, and if the payoff at the end is actually cathartic.

• If the main character is fundamentally changed by the end of the story, or if the story just happens to them.

• If events, relationships, and conflict happens because of choices made by the characters, rather than because writer wants things to happen a certain way.

• If the worldbuilding remains consistent and coherent within the narrative and serves the story in some way.

• And more!

This is the work that happens before copy editing. Before you worry about whether that comma is grammatically correct, you need to know if your midpoint actually functions as a midpoint. Before you focus on typos, you need to know if your character's arc makes sense. If we focus on the presentation of the content before the content itself, that could mean that a manuscript has to be copy edited twice because scenes, chapters, or arcs need to be rewritten to fix story problems and the previous copy edit no longer applies because the draft is now drastically different.

Copy editors make your sentences better, but developmental editors make the story itself better.

Why This Confusion Probably Exists

To be clear, I'm not saying the confusion doesn't make sense. It absolutely does, especially when you consider that most people's experience with editing is people (teachers, tutors, etc.) reviewing their work for grammar, errors, or typos.

So when I say that I'm an editor, that's what they picture. And they're not wrong, not necessarily—those types of editors do exist. I'm just not one of them. For the average person, they don't need to understand the difference. It has no impact on their day to day life. But if you're a writer working on a novel, you should understand the difference, and hopefully, this article helps to articulate that difference.

If you weren't familiar with different types of editing before coming across this post, did you believe that "editing" was synonymous with revising grammar, punctuation, and/or style?