Who Has the Final Say—Authors or Editors?

Can a copyeditor ruin your book? 10 editors respond

So I’m scrolling through the weeds of the Internet. A post by a relatively well-known author appears, and it says a variation of something I’ve heard innumerable times:

I wanted to write the word “X” in my novel, but my copyeditor refused to let me and said I had to write “Y.” Now whenever I read that sentence in my book I cringe.

The implied coercion in the phrase my copyeditor refused to let me spurred me to write this post. I find that writers sometimes seem to imagine their copyeditor as a big, bad boogeyman who, after a novel has cleared the gates of a literary agent, acquisitions department, and in-house editor(s), gets to determine whether the writer’s last, shriveled remnants of creative expression will survive to publication.

As a copyeditor, my own experience is different: I am a freelancer who is providing a service. I come to a manuscript with no set agenda, and I follow the directions of a publisher and/or author to help them improve a text. If I were to try to “refuse to let” a writer do something, I would be dismissed by their publisher (and likely laughed at).

(Here’s what I suspect happened in the case above: The copyeditor did their job by suggesting a change that they felt would improve the manuscript. The author didn’t realize that this change was only a suggestion; rather than speaking up, they accepted it in silent resentment, and wrote a post online implying that they were forced to do something that they were not actually forced to do.)

Is a Copyeditor a King or a Jester?

Where does the misconception of the almighty copyeditor come from? I have an inkling. Authors often don’t have a clear idea of what’s happening behind the scenes of their book’s publication, and they may not understand all the roles involved in traditional publishing. They likely don’t realize that their copyeditor is viewed as disposable by the machine that is publishing—that is, the publisher can replace the copyeditor with another copyeditor, but they can’t replace the author’s unique manuscript.

Publishers sometimes contribute to this lack of transparency. After a manuscript is copyedited, it’s sent back to the author for review, but publishers might not explain what an author review is or how an author should conduct one. Subsequently, I sometimes see authors uniformly “accept” all of the changes I make in their books, even replying to my suggestions with comments like “I defer to the expert!” or “Whatever you think is best!”

This isn’t ideal; the editing process is inherently collaborative, and I want authors to think critically about the words that their names (not mine) will be attached to.

On the other hand, I’ve had a couple of situations where authors have been rude in Word comments or emails, perceiving edits as challenges to their authority rather than collaborative suggestions.

In both cases, the copyeditor’s role has been incorrectly imagined.

How to Avoid This

Ideally, publishers would send authors instructions explaining how to conduct an author review—which would clarify that copyedits are mostly suggestions made to improve the manuscript and that the author can accept or reject them accordingly.

When publishers do send these kinds of instructions (I always include them in my own letters to authors), the next step is that authors must read them—which they often don’t.

Expanding the Conversation

The editorial process differs for self-publishing and traditional publishing; it also differs for nonfiction and fiction, for commercial works versus scholarly works, et cetera. Because I’m just one editor with my own particular niche, I opened up this question to the broader editorial community, asking copyeditors: Who has the final say—the author or the copyeditor?

Who Has the Final Say? Editors Respond

Here’s what editors said (answers condensed for clarity):

• “I’m long retired, but during the 25 years I spent copyediting, the author had the last word. If it was contrary to the publisher’s standards, someone higher up the food chain would do any arguing.” — Joanna Sandstrom, who was the editor of the Institute of East Asian Studies publications at UC Berkeley for many decades

• “I submit a letter with all my edited manuscripts that tells the author that my changes are suggestions only based on my knowledge of writing and its rules, and that what I have done makes the manuscript grammatically correct. But ultimately it’s their choice what they do with it. (I just don't want to be associated with a book that rejects my changes to obvious errors.)” — Hazel Hardie, copyeditor

• “[There’s] a difference in perception. The CE [copyeditor] believes they are giving suggestions or opinions, but the author perceives them as changes they have no choice but to accept. I remember feeling that way as a first-time author.” — Michelle Waitsman, editor and author of Be As Happy As Your Dog

• “Whether it’s one of my indie clients or a client through a publisher, I always schedule a phone call or Zoom chat to discuss the project and my process. [Hannah’s note: A pre-edit chat is very unusual for a copyedit! Take note if you’re interested in this service.] During our chat, I ask the client if there’s anything they do not want touched, whether it’s voice- or style-related (such as the use of sentence fragments or specific word choices). Then I record this on the style sheet. I also ALWAYS let the client know that my edits are suggestions and they have the final say. Obviously, the publisher’s house style comes into play as well, but again, I note that on the style sheet. And because I work with fiction and narrative nonfiction, which allows flexibility with the ‘rules,’ I have a gentle hand. Preserving the author's voice is the priority.” —Danielle Lange, editor

•  “Most of my work is copyediting for university presses. The ones I’m currently working with all follow this same basic procedure: We send the edited manuscripts back to the project manager [PM], who locks the files so all changes by the author will be tracked.
  
  “After their review, the author is supposed to send the files directly to the editor (but they often don’t read the instructions and send them back to the PM instead), and then we work with the author to clean up the files, asking any necessary follow-up questions and responding to their questions or comments. Some require that we include a cover letter to the author, and I include this for all edits even when it’s not required.
  
  “I begin by noting some positive things about the writing or the amazing research they did, explain the types of edits I made and that I followed The Chicago Manual of Style [CMOS] and Merriam-Webster [M-W]. I also explain some reasons for revisions in comments in the files, such as dangling modifiers and CMOS guidelines. These presses vary as to how much of a stickler they are for the rules. Some allow authors to deviate from CMOS and the M-W preferred spellings if they so choose, while others are more firm about following these, at least during the initial edit. But if an author is insistent, the latter will give in on most style points, though they refuse to publish actual grammatical errors.
  
  “I ask the PM about cases when an author won’t concede and let them decide how to handle it.” —Joyce Bond, giving a great overview that many copyeditors, including myself, confirmed is familiar to them

•  “I work primarily on translated academic text, so I work with the translator, not with the publisher or author. But I consider every comment or suggestion I make to be optional, to be accepted or rejected or somewhere between. I’ve never insisted on anything—I suggest, I explain why I made the suggestion, and I might also explain how a native speaker might misinterpret something. The end product does not belong to me. I don’t usually see the final work until it’s printed.” —Kelly King

•  “A publisher will have a house style and a preferred dictionary, and they’ll ask that spelling follow the dictionary. It’s possible for a copyeditor to follow the dictionary very strictly (and thus possibly frustrate the author). But I usually give the author some latitude if they want to use an alternative spelling, and publishers are generally okay with this. I would only put my foot down on obvious misspellings. If the author wants an acceptable spelling, I add it to the style sheet so that the production editor and proofreader know that it is a deliberate choice.” —Leslie Saffrey

•  “Once I turn in a copyedit to either of the two Big Five publishers I copyedit for, I have no further say. The production editors have made it clear that each and every suggestion, whether a direct edit (a tracked change) or a query, is up to the author to take or leave. The exception is if the author’s version violates a house rule, which is rare.* There are many style preferences and few rules. Breaking a rule might cause harm to an oppressed group or expose the publisher to legal action, such as with copyright infringement. An author with a major publishing house has their own editor in their corner. I report to a production editor. There are layers between us. I doubt many (if any) Big Five authors whose works I copyedited know who their CE was. When I get feedback, it’s through the PE. (Though some authors have requested my name from the PE to thank me in the acknowledgments, which feels wonderful!) Whereas when I work with a hybrid publisher or independent author, I have direct contact with the author. It’s a different dynamic.” —Sheryl Rapée-Adams

*I would like to add, based on my own experiences with Big Five publishers, that if an established author has a strong stylistic preference that is contrary to house style, the publisher will often record that and let all future editors know about this preference before they dive into a new manuscript by that author.

You’ll notice that a number of copyeditors mention letting publishers and project managers deal with author pushback. Karen Van Sleet Grove, who worked as an in-house acquiring editor, gave an overview of what that might look like: “It was my role to review all the work copyeditors did on my [acquired] books. I fielded the complaints and questions by the authors regarding the copyediting, and I had the final say. Although authors in general can get pretty heated about copyediting, I think in the majority of instances we’ve been able to work things out to a compromise we were both happy with. It becomes a case of talking authors off the ledge and reviewing things together in order for me to give the ‘whys’ for the suggested changes or to come up with a different way to recast the sentence.”

I myself have negotiated changes with authors. Sometimes, what “sounds” correct doesn’t work grammatically. Catching those errors is the “science” of copyediting. But how to revise the sentence so that it retains its intended meaning and its flow and tone? That’s the art of copyediting. Often, there are numerous ways to “solve” an error in a text, and that’s why I always want the copyediting process to be a collaborative one.

I hope this post has been helpful in shining light on who has power where when it comes to the final decisions and word choice in a manuscript.

Until next time,

Hannah Varacalli

Copy & Developmental Editor
www.hveditorial.com