How Much Editing Is Needed? Is Publishing a Ready, Fire, Aim Endeavor?
April 24, 2008

I sent a note to Charlie Byrne and Jason Holland about installing more layers of editing in ETR's books and courses.


Here's what ETR's editorial protocol for its daily e-zine looks like: Every essay and article is reviewed and critiqued at least twice: first by Charlie and Suzanne Richardson who look for weaknesses in the "big idea" and then by Judith Strauss who edits for style and usage. Sometimes Charlie asks for my thoughts as well.


But because we are pressed for time, we often do less editing when we publish books and courses. In fact, we need to do more.


This thought occurred to me recently. A few weeks ago, we published an essay on "my early morning routine," (which is meant to be a chapter of a new book I'm writing: How to Master Plan Your New Life. By Wednesday of that week, we had a half dozen letters from readers who had questions and objections to what I'd said. I answered those questions and we're running the responses in ETR. But I realized that we should also include the questions and answers in the book or emend that chapter to include them - or otherwise we will leave our book readers unsatisfied.


So I emailed a note to the editorial team, saying:


Guys: We should talk about the editorial process in general...there are two kinds of editing all our stuff should have...maybe three...


Draft 1: Critical review of the big idea by someone smart....and knowledgeable...maybe Charlie


Draft 2: Review for quality of content by an expert


Draft 2 or 3: CUBA review (Confusing, Unbelievable, Boring, Awkward)


Draft 3 or 4: Spelling, punctuation, grammar


Our products would benefit from a better editing system


Michael


It occurs to me that some people might look at what I'm doing and say: "By adding these extra layers of editing, you are going to make publishing too expensive and slow. You are the king of ready, fire, aim. Why are you advocating so much aiming?"


Fair question. I'm asking it of myself as I write this.


But I can think of two quick responses. First, at ETR our writing is our product. To stay ahead of the competition we have to continuously improve our products. There is no contradiction between ready, fire, aim and continuously improving products. In fact, I talk about the need for this continuous improvement in my book Ready, Fire, Aim.


Ready, fire, aim is about priorities and cash flow in starting and growing a small business. Incremental product augmentation is a perfectly compliant principle with ready, fire, aim.


That's one response. The other is this: In devising these extra editorial processes, we need to find a way to make them inexpensive and fast. Because when it comes to creative production, speed is a critical component. (Another principle explained in detail in Ready, Fire, Aim.)


I can think of ways of streamlining these procedures and making them less costly.



  1. The first review focuses on the "lead" paragraphs of every chapter or lesson. That is, on the big idea. This could be done even before the chapter was written. Charlie could ask for a precis of each chapter be written - 200 words or so - that articulates the "big idea." He could review and comment on those very quickly - 15 minutes per chapter. By critiquing the big idea early - before the chapter/lesson is actually written, we reduce the amount of time it will take them to write each chapter/lesson.

  2. The expert review could be shortened and made less expensive by sending out the chapter with a simple questionnaire: we could figure out three or four key questions that would identify whether anything big was wrong or missing.

  3. The CUBA process - pinpointing copy that is confusing, unbelievable, boring, or awkward - is already efficient. (And this will be carefully explained in the book I'm doing on editing copy with Mike Palmer.)

  4. The final editing process is already very efficient. Judith's job should be easier in the future because the editorial will be stronger.



These are my preliminary thoughts on the subject. Charlie and Jason will have their ideas. As will MaryEllen. At the end I'm sure we will come up with something that ensures that all ETR courses, programs, and books are better edited than anything else in the marketplace.

posted by M. Masterson @ 4:02 PM,

1 Comments:

At 11:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have noticed that many an author of comments, blogs or educational newsletters seem to forget how important good spelling and grammar are. Lots of people just want to be heard, and that's ok, isn't it?

Your writing is concise, well-written, easily understood (by me ayway) and enlightening. I am very glad I subscribed to ETR and will continue to read your information so freely given. Thank YOU!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home