Over-editing and under-editing: How to get it just right

When I was training to become an editor, our instructor gave us a writing sample to edit in class. I remember whipping through it, striking out extra letters, adding missing full stops and capitalising proper nouns.

I thought I’d done a smashing job.

At the end of the exercise, the instructor showed us the sample markup on a screen. (It was like the big reveal between renovations – I was on tenterhooks!)

But when I saw the instructor’s version, I was taken aback. There were so many changes. They didn’t just mark up spelling and grammar errors. There were changes to the syntax, paragraph order and word choice.

I was a fledgling writer at the time (and perhaps a tad sensitive to edits), so those changes seemed excessive. Surely the editor was being intrusive or crossing a line. Surely they were imposing their own preferences. At the time, my inexperience meant I didn’t know the difference.

I struggled with this for months, and it’s no surprise that my first edits were … light. I didn’t want to ruffle any feathers. I did the bare minimum to fix obvious errors. I left convoluted syntax because I thought it would change the author’s ‘style’. I didn’t flag any weak transitions or inconsistencies because I thought they were intentional (they usually weren’t).

Over time, though, I realised editing wasn’t about pleasing the author (I mean, it is, but not entirely); it’s about pleasing the reader. If they lose interest, they won’t stick around.

As editor Jessica Stewart writes in Overland, ‘[a]n editor is, first and foremost, the reader’s advocate, their critical eye suggesting changes where the story lags, an action jars, a character does something discordant, or language is not quite right’.

So, putting the reader first was a game changer for me, and it helped me edit (and frame my edits) to achieve a balance between the author’s vision and the reader’s needs. And guess what? When I did that, authors were more receptive to my feedback!

So if editing is a balancing act, how do you know if your editor is over-editing, under-editing or getting it just right? Well, there’s no easy answer. It all depends on the editor, what they were briefed to do and the author’s expectations, but there are a few telltale signs.

Signs of over-editing

Over-editing can happen when an editor is overzealous (possibly to justify their fee), hasn’t been briefed properly or they’re harbouring writerly ambitions. It usually means that too many changes are being made. This can lead to:

• loss of the writer’s voice

• loss of subtlety or nuance

• the introduction of new errors

• suggestions that don’t serve the story/content

• too much focus on grammar rules and style conventions

• the introduction of personal preferences or agendas.

When this happens, authors may feel like their writing has been butchered, hijacked or misunderstood. The best way to avoid this is to get to know the editor first. Ask about their experience, check out their testimonials and, most importantly, get a feel for their style via a sample edit. (If you’re not sure what to look for, see How to evaluate a sample edit.)

Signs of under-editing

Under-editing can happen when an editor is less experienced, lacks confidence or has a tight deadline. It usually means not enough changes have been made. This can lead to:

• lack of clarity

• inconsistencies

• structural issues

• factual errors

• flow issues

• spelling and grammar errors.

When this happens, authors may feel they’ve hired an amateur (and they probably have, particularly if they used a freelancing platform). The best way to avoid this is to hire someone with industry training (bonus points if they belong to a professional association like CIEP or IPEd), and give them enough time to do the job thoroughly. Too often, under-editing happens when editors are given tight deadlines. For more on this topic, see How long does it take to copyedit a book?

You can't hurry an edit – time is key!

Finding the right balance

So how do you achieve the right balance when it comes to editing? Well, it’s not about having a certain number of corrections on each page. (If only it were that easy!) It depends on factors like the author’s experience and how much work they’ve done on the manuscript.

For example, if the writer is inexperienced, lacks confidence or has a poor grasp of grammar, a heavier edit may be required. This is common with first-time or self-publishing authors. If the writer is experienced or has done multiple revisions, then a light edit may be enough.

(Note: This is by no means the rule. I’ve worked with experienced authors who also required heavy editing. While the story or structure was sound, I often found consistency and fact-checking issues.)

You can probably see what I’m getting at here: every piece of writing has different needs. Just because there are lots of corrections, doesn’t mean your writing has been overedited. And just because there are few corrections, doesn’t mean the editor hasn’t done their job.

The right balance is doing just enough to remove errors, improve clarity and achieve consistency – without compromising the author’s style or creative choices.

Does the author have the final say?

In some ways, yes. If the author disagrees with an edit, they can reinstate the original wording. Most edits are suggestions anyway (unless they're obvious spelling errors), so they're not set in stone.

However, if rejecting an edit weakens the story/argument, confuses the reader or may cause reputational damage to the author, then the editor may challenge the decision and explain why, or at least find a mutually agreeable solution.

Of course, heavy markup can be alarming (demoralising?) to newbie writers, which can suggest an editor has gone too far. But if they've justified their corrections, and the text reads more smoothly as a result, then the level of intervention is appropriate.

If the corrections are preferential, unjustified and change the tone or style, then you may need to ask the editor to pull back. (If it's a really poor fit, you may want to go with a different editor altogether.)

That said, editors are sometimes briefed to do more extensive work, like light ghostwriting or book doctoring, which means they can take more liberties with the text. But this is usually negotiated and agreed beforehand.

On the other end of the spectrum, editors may be asked to edit lightly. For example, I recently proofread a book with non-standard syntax, comma splices and italics instead of speech quotes. These were intentional and served the author's creative vision. As a result, errors I would normally correct were left alone – unless they were confusing, in which case I flagged them and suggested a fix.

Summing up: The perils of over-editing and under-editing

Working out if your writing has been overedited or under-edited is tricky, particularly if you're inexperienced or don't know what to look for. Just because a page is full of markup doesn’t mean it’s been overedited – and vice versa.

What it comes down to is making enough corrections to enhance the writing without affecting your voice or style, and catching infelicities (like factual and consistency errors) that can distract readers and pull them out of the story.

If you want the best outcome for your book, find a trained editor, provide a detailed editorial brief (clear boundaries are half the battle) and ask for a sample edit. Then, based on the sample, you can ask for a heavier or lighter edit. Editors are a professional bunch, and we’re more than happy to adapt to your working style and needs!

Looking for a qualified non-fiction editor to sharpen your writing and remove niggly errors? Send me an email through my contact form or request a sample edit.