In defense of editing

A longtime Chicago Sun-Times columnist resigned over what he considered excessive editing of an upcoming column. 

“Good ‘editing’ does not necessarily mean making wholesale changes,” the columnist commented on his website. “Punctuation, grammar and fact checking are also a part of editing. In column writing, maintaining the writer’s voice and choice — notwithstanding any factual errors — of how to tell a particular story are critical.”

It sounded like he was suggesting that not a word of his writing should be changed, although he also said that everyone needs editing. 

Unacquainted with the dispute beyond what was reported, I want to focus only on the three sentences quoted above. They touch on opinions about editing that vexed me during my career. An editor sometimes, a writer other times, I saw matters from both sides.

Anyone editing the columnist would check punctuation, grammar, and spelling, along with usage and facts. Those are givens, and changes are hard to argue with. A name is spelled correctly or it’s not.

Good editing is broader and involves judgment. Editors delete superfluous words and rework confusing language. We determine whether the content is well organized and sometimes rearrange sentences and paragraphs. We flag potentially offensive statements, inadequate elaboration, and unsupported opinions. 

Ideally, editors make changes to fix problems and not because we think we can say it better. We try to keep the author’s voice, a challenge if significant revision is needed. 

We do the best we can. Writers sometimes aren’t appreciative. As a writer, I once bristled at a colleague’s rewriting an article of mine instead of asking me for a revision. 

Different types of content call for different sensitivities. Early on at Northwestern University, part of my time was spent editing feature articles for the university’s alumni magazine. The authors were professional freelancers, and it was desirable to safeguard their voices and egos. Although I could explain every change, in retrospect I wish I had questioned more and changed less: “This paragraph would go well after the discussion of ____; would you move it?” “I wonder whether so much detail is needed here to make your point.” “I don’t understand what you mean by ____.”> 

When not copyediting the magazine, I edited recruitment and other publications for university departments. Generally the clients who supplied the copy were department administrators or faculty members, not professional writers. Their egos weren’t invested in how things were said, and in informational publications an author’s voice was not desirable. The copy often needed a lot of revision, and few clients objected.

Editing is said to be invisible when it is done well and only noticed when it’s absent. I doubt, however, that changes would not be noticed by the writer. It’s to be hoped that the writer understands why the changes were made and maybe even sees them as improvements. 

I remember a writer for the Northwestern magazine who thanked me for preserving his own words while shortening his article to fit the space. I saved his note because good editing rarely receives compliments.