How do you overcome perfectionism in editing?
Introductory post about editorial quality
The Short Story
Perfectionism sees mistakes and other shortcomings as failures to achieve an ideal. By contrast, a healthy editorial mind seeks to minimize imperfection but understands that no writing is flawless in every respect. Editorial imperfection is as opportunity to improve the manuscript further (given more time, budget, knowledge, and/or skill).
If perfection isn’t the mark of quality, what is? You can get outside input, sure. But not all editors are equally skilled (or equally skilled at all kinds of editing). AI tools don’t always get it right. Writers who aren’t professional editors must be able to distinguish good from bad (or better from worse) editorial suggestions.
Quality, or what’s “good enough for now", is a matter of expectations—yours and your intended readers’. The more you grow in editorial knowledge and skill, the greater your capacity to judge “good enough” for yourself. Thus equipped, you’ll make the most of the time and/or budget you invest in editing.
The Real(ist) Story
Let’s get into the weeds a bit on editorial realism in practice.
Being extremely detail-oriented is an asset for writers and editors. But don’t conflate thoroughness and attention to detail with the problem of perfectionism. Oversights happen with the best editors under certain conditions—and simply because we’re all human. Eyes get tired. The brain sees what it wants to see. A possibility for improvement escapes us or must be shelved because time and budget are limited. We must prioritize.
It’s good and necessary to have professional and aesthetic ideals and to get a manuscript as close to those ideals as constraints allow. But good writing and editing require acceptance of the gap between our best-for-now and the perfection we desire as room to grow. Perhaps we can develop our knowledge and skills further. Maybe more rest, time, or budget will allow us to get closer to the ideal.
The realist, “good enough” school of editing does not mean low-quality editing. It means editorial quality appropriate to the situation. When you’re talking about a book manuscript or an article for print publication, readers reasonably have high expectations—and post-publication edits are problematic or impossible. In those cases, the appropriate quality is as high as you have time and budget to achieve!
On that note, let’s recognize that editing is a function of time, knowledge/skills, and money. The less you have of any of those resources, the more of the others you need. Writers have two main places to look for outside help with knowledge, skills, and time: human editors and toasters their computer-based counterparts. Of course, all human and AI editors are not equally skilled and knowledgeable when it comes to recognizing and refining the creative nuances and technical intricacies of written English.
It’s quite the conundrum, really. Non-professional and novice writers, including those writing in a genre they haven’t read much, know they need help. But because they’re non-professional and novice writers, they don’t know how to tell which help is “good enough,” either in general or when it comes to specific bits of editorial advice.
Beyond my deep reservations about AI, that’s ultimately why I started this community: to help folks with the knowledge/skills part of the equation. The more you understand how written English works and have a structured framework for making editorial decisions, the more confidently you can make use of help, whether it’s human or machine. That helps you make better use of your time and money—and it makes for better writing.
In the meantime, remember that overlooked errors and foregone opportunities for improvement are not personal, moral failings. They’re not likely professional failings, either. Take comfort that in most cases, an edited manuscript is not written in stone.
Godspeed, y’all, and happy (re)writing!
(Art ©2016 by Clonefront. Duly licensed by Vaporous Realms Publishing LLC.)
Revised November 25, 2024.