How Much Bad Writing Do Academic Editors Read?
To avoid suspense, the answer is not much! Basically none at all!
I’m taking the time to answer this question because, since I started editing scholarly work full time, I’ve been asked it many times. It’s often the first, and only, question people pose when they hear about my job.
Them: What do you do? [I am now back on the East coast where people ask this question.]
Me: I’m an academic developmental editor, helping scholars prepare their writing for publication.
Them: Wow! Do you read a lot of bad writing?
Me: No!
Them: [Thinking - This conversation just became boring. Rapidly changes subject.]
Let me set the record straight. I work with a range of clients from many different disciplines (anthropology, African studies, Black studies, gender studies, literature, history, material culture studies, political science, sociology, etc.) at many different stages in their careers (contingent professors, assistant professors, full professors). None of them are bad writers. In fact, some of them are dazzling writers who craft vivid, compelling prose. All of their work contains exciting ideas and I can’t wait for their books to be published so that I can encourage all of you to read them and teach them!
But, all that aside, I think this is an interesting question for a couple of reasons. Obviously, it suggests that many people believe that a lot of academic writing is bad. We would need more space to debate what even constitutes bad writing, but I think most readers would agree that some scholarly writing is dense, difficult to penetrate, and characterized by arguments that are hard to follow. I’ve written before about how academics are often not trained to write and how we all can benefit from continuing to hone our writing skills. But I don’t think this belief is the main reason why people ask me this question.
Instead, and I think most importantly, it reveals a stigma against working with editors. By asking this question, my interlocutors imply that my job is to work with bad writers and thus improve their writing. By extension, the implication is that “bad” writers hire editors, while “good” writers do not.
This assumption reminds me of struggles at my previous institution to get students to use the writing center. As writing instructors, we visited it with our students so they could learn about its services and emphasized its benefits in our classes. This was because there was a stigma amongst students about employing the writing center’s (excellent!) services since they worried that doing so would brand them as poor writers. In fact, studies at our institution revealed that often it was high-achieving students who used the writing center; thus “good” students used its services to make their “good” writing even better.
So let me correct the record! Editors work with people who want to improve their writing and who want their writing to be the absolute best it can be. All writing can be better. So the people who work with editors are not bad writers, they are people who value the fact that writing is hard and that having other people on board to help allows them to achieve the level of writing they want to. This doesn’t have to come in the form of a developmental editor; colleagues, friends, partners, and writing group members can all also help improve your writing (I’m offering some writing groups myself starting in 2023).
I think some of the stigma about working with an editor may be unique to academia. After all, the academy emphasizes producing work that is our own and avoiding plagiarism or adopting other thinkers’ ideas without correct attribution. Scholars are often self-conscious and do not want to admit their work could be improved. But remember in many areas of publishing, including the trade publishing world, it is common to work with editors, often many editors. For example, this insightful article that details Jessamine Chan’s publishing process for her best-selling first book, The School for Good Mothers (a chilling dystopian novel that I highly recommend), highlights the many rounds of editing she went through. After signing with her agent, they “began several rounds of revision.” Once a publisher picked up the book, she and her editor “embarked on round after round of edits.” The article leaves out the many readers (friends, workshop participants, writing group members, etc.) who commented on her manuscript that she details in her acknowledgements page. Indeed, Chan wrote this book herself, but numerous careful readers helped her transform it into a sharper product, one that better matched her vision for the project.
So, no, I don’t sit around all day and read bad writing! I read good writing whose authors want it to be even better. They want to clarify their arguments, refine the structure of their manuscripts, and determine how to tell their stories in the most compelling ways possible. Keeping perspective on these writing projects that scholars work on for years or even decades is difficult. Editors help authors see their work anew and identify exciting directions in which it can go. So don’t try and keep your manuscript out of other people’s hands; this is only hurting you and keeping you from achieving your best writing. Instead, dust it off and send it to someone else to read and prepare to strengthen your already strong writing!
*****
Like this blog post? Subscribe to my blog below for updates on posts about writing, editing, and scholarly life.
