Editing Process
Editing hasn't always been intuitive for me. I know what a story should look like, but getting turning that concept into tangible edits is where I struggle. However, the five-step process below has helped me streamline my process to not just edit staffers' work, but help coach them to fix common errors.
01.
Read through
Should I even be editing?
02.
Big-picture
Can I find the story?
03.
Medium-size
How is the flow?
04.
Small-scale
Is everything clear?
05.
Conferencing​
What does the writer need?
Read-through
This is something I haven't always done, even though leaders on staff have always preached its benefits. Before I even touch my keyboard, I like to read the story, which does three things for me. Firstly, it gives me a sense of comprehension, which helps when giving suggestions to writers. Secondly, this helps me think like a reader -- I'll miss big edits when I only have my editor's cap on. Finally, this helps me answer a crucial question: do I need to read on? If the story is clearly not up to standard, this allows me to have a conversation with the writer about their process rather than trying to fix a broken story.
Above: The photo shows me looking at my laptop during an ODYSSEY press conference, reading through staffers questions before they're asked to determine their efficacy.
Big-picture edits
Of all the steps of my editing process, this has been one that I most often struggle with. Historically, I've been so eager to dive in and start fixing the piece that I miss larger, holistic concerns with the piece. To remedy this, I use my first read-through to gather big-picture ideas about the piece -- is it too long? Will the reader understand the story? Did the author do their due diligence? All of these are questions I attempt to answer before moving on to the next round of editing.
.jpg)
Above: The left photos show examples of big-picture edits I've left on various pieces, while the right photo shows me communicating with a staffer who I wanted to have a conversation, rather than an editing conference, with.
Medium-size edits
Flow, flow, flow. When I think about medium-size edits, I'm thinking in terms of the way quote- transition blocks fit together in the story. I'm less worried about the actual words and moreso thinking about the general idea of each paragraph and whether these form a cohesive and compelling narrative. This is the domain that I feel really makes or breaks a story -- if a story flows together well, then the details inside each transition are fixable.
.jpg)
Above: The photos show edits I've left on stories that focus on flow and paragraph blocks with an aim to improve cohesion of ideas.
Smale-scale edits
My bread and butter when it comes to editing is the small scale, sentence or even clause-sized edits. In this go around, I think about each individual clause and whether the words make sense in that order. If I, an editor who has read the piece at least three times, have any uncertainty about what the author means, an edit needs to be made. This is also the place where I will make edits relating to AP or ODYSSEY Style, to which all our stories must adhere.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Above: The photos show small-scale edits I've left on a variety of different stories.
Editing Conference
All that is well and good, but after three rounds of actual editing, there's often upwards of 30 edits on the Google Document, which is overwhelming to the writer. As an editor, it's my job to synthesize these edits into cohesive boxes that a writer won't just fix, but learn from -- something I haven't always done well. As early as this year, I was told that my editing conferences were confusing and left the staffer unclear. To remedy this, I've started writing a little summary of my edits at the top of every document, focusing on the main ideas I need the author to fix. Additionally, when a story is particularly troublesome, I'll write cliff notes for myself about what needs to change so I have something tangible to speak on in the conference.
