Let's re-frame this. Not that editors are bad or unnecessary, but 'what should be the role of editors?' In the days of e-mail, comments, and instant news, editors aren't needed to pick a topic that readers want to read, or write the headline. In the days of Grammarly and such we don't need copy editors much. Since we aren't printing on p…
Let's re-frame this. Not that editors are bad or unnecessary, but 'what should be the role of editors?' In the days of e-mail, comments, and instant news, editors aren't needed to pick a topic that readers want to read, or write the headline. In the days of Grammarly and such we don't need copy editors much. Since we aren't printing on paper, we don't need to be limited to 800 words. Regular readers also come to appreciate the voice of particular writers. A Noah or Brad are smarter than 99% of editors, particularly in their specialty. And no writer anywhere, ever needed a hierarchy of several layers of editors.
I don't subscribe to Noah anymore because his posts are too long for me, and oddly because I agree with him 95% of the time and wonder why I should read past the first paragraph. Nevertheless, 100k readers and growing pay him. Good.
So why do writers still need editors? To suggest when that extra point should be a parenthetical footnote rather than a paragraph. And when that word or idea is worth of a link for readers who don't already know it, rather than yet another paragraph. Writers do need independent perspective, not on the content, but to keep the reader moving. We still need editors, but in a limited and defined role.
Let's re-frame this. Not that editors are bad or unnecessary, but 'what should be the role of editors?' In the days of e-mail, comments, and instant news, editors aren't needed to pick a topic that readers want to read, or write the headline. In the days of Grammarly and such we don't need copy editors much. Since we aren't printing on paper, we don't need to be limited to 800 words. Regular readers also come to appreciate the voice of particular writers. A Noah or Brad are smarter than 99% of editors, particularly in their specialty. And no writer anywhere, ever needed a hierarchy of several layers of editors.
I don't subscribe to Noah anymore because his posts are too long for me, and oddly because I agree with him 95% of the time and wonder why I should read past the first paragraph. Nevertheless, 100k readers and growing pay him. Good.
So why do writers still need editors? To suggest when that extra point should be a parenthetical footnote rather than a paragraph. And when that word or idea is worth of a link for readers who don't already know it, rather than yet another paragraph. Writers do need independent perspective, not on the content, but to keep the reader moving. We still need editors, but in a limited and defined role.