Author Feedback

From Debbie McGowan

     Jonathan is an outstanding editor and proofreader—meticulous, knowledgeable and trustworthy. He has undertaken a great deal of work for me, both in my capacity as a publisher and as an author in my own right. His work is incredibly thorough, with edits explained where necessary; nor is he afraid to point out errors, and he does so with tact and a dash of good humour.


     I work with authors from around the world, and Jonathan deftly switches between the differing conventions (US and UK English, for instance). Mostly, he knows those rules without resorting to looking them up, but he also researches to inform the editing process. He is also familiar with and respects the nuances of house style and author voice.


     Jonathan is, without a doubt, one of the best editors I have worked with, and I recommend his services without reservation.


Debbie McGowan

Founder and CEO of Beaten Track Publishing

Winner of the 2016 Lambda Literary Award for Best Romance 



From Kaje Harper

     I've known Jonathan for nearly five years. In that time he has performed detailed beta reads on half a dozen novels and several short stories for me, and copy edited my self-published novels Second Act, Tracefinder: Contact, and Tracefinder: Changes. He also managed the production of my first audiobook, Into Deep Waters, doing everything from helping select a narrator to editing the audio-script version of the text.


     I would put Jonathan up there with the best editors I have worked with in this field, including my editors from three different M/M publishers. Jonathan is reliable, quick, and positive in all his interactions with me. He shows meticulous attention to detail, and marked initiative in checking sources and verifying inconsistencies. With his detailed knowledge of usage and style, he is able to point out my errors, and he does so with tact and humor as well as appropriate citations. He has always delivered work on time as promised, and has gone above and beyond in his edits of my books, to make them the best they can be. I plan to employ his freelance services again in the future for more of my own self-published novels. 


Kaje Harper



From Edmond Manning

The following essay by Edmond Manning (author of The Lost and Founds series: King Perry, King Mai, The Butterfly King, King John, Come Back to Me, and King Daniel) appeared in the Outside the Margins blog at Prism Book Alliance:



Letter To the Editor


     The editor a writer wants is someone who recognizes genius and says things like, “I wouldn’t change a single word,” or, “You’re amazing,” or perhaps, “I’m going to start recycling after reading your magnum opus. It’s that inspirational.” 


     This is not the editor a writer needs


     Let me backtrack a little bit. 


     It’s fantastic to work with an editor who appreciates you as a writer. Who sees you have talent in some odd, small measure and believes in you enough to want you to be better. That’s actually remarkable and lovely. I just experienced that. 


     I started working with a new editor, Jonathan—new in two senses. He’s been a behind-the-scenes editor for a long time but recently hung out his shingle for business. And this is our first time collaborating on a novel, and so it’s a new relationship. 


     Six months ago, he wrote glowing reviews of my previous books, and we became email correspondents and discussed a possible editing relationship. I was already in a relationship with a powerful editor, though I was a relatively low priority for her as she had more regular clients. (When you produce one book a year, you can’t be a hungry editor’s main client. She is fantastic and deservedly overbooked.) She had already informed me she probably couldn’t meet my timeline for King John.


     Jonathan was specific in what he admired about my stories and the craft behind them, which made me feel as though, if we worked together, I would be trusting my baby to a man who understood what it meant to me. 


     As a test run, I asked him to edit the most recent three chapters of King Daniel, which I was preparing to post on my blog.


     I liked what I saw. 


     Insightful pull-no-punches comments, amazing pattern recognition, duplicate word annihilation, and attention to a million other details that a writer can easily miss. Like, for, instance, overuse, of, commas.


     See, what the writer needs is an editor who collaborates. Despite what the writer wants, what the writer needs is someone to lovingly say, “No. Think this through.” 


     I’d like to present some of Jonathan’s recent edits to show what I love about our collaborative relationship. 


  • My original: …a three-quarter semicircle…
  • Jonathan’s edit: “A semicircle is, by definition, exactly one half of a circle, so, a ‘three-quarter half’ would be confusing.”

     Why did I use the phrase three-quarter semicircle? I don’t know. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Yes, it makes no sense. I’m glad Jonathan didn’t say to himself, “There must be some powerful reason—something important to the mythology of the Lost and Founds—for him to say that dumb-ass thing.” 


     Nope. Say it aloud. Ask. Bring it up. You’re helping me look less like an idiot (except to the people reading this blog post).


  • Jonathan’s comment when inserting a comma: "coordinating conjunction to independent clause"

     I don’t know what the fuck this means! 


     Look, buddy, I like telling stories. I’m not smarts with the words and the constructions of sentence. Clauses. With the words. 


     I want to be. I want to be a better writer next year than I am today. This is important to me. Edits like the one above help immensely. Okay, not that one. But in a previous comment he had explained the use of coordinating conjunctions in various situations, so he really did explain himself well. This comment was to remind me of that conversation. 


     Throughout the novel he would write the word ”cumulative” when referencing cumulative adjectives, a concept he explained thoroughly in a Chapter One edit. 


     Writers, you want editors who try to make you a better writer. I suppose it’s a trait you negotiate in every writing relationship with editors. You let them know what you want in terms of detailed feedback, and they let you know how long it will take them to give you that. There’s no real right or wrong to this, I guess. Just fit. 


     Test the fit.


  • Jonathan’s edit: I believe you intend cactus as plural, here. If you’re reluctant to use “cacti,” I’m completely with you. *LOL* Merriam-Webster’s says that “cactuses” is equally acceptable.


     I love an editor who gives me options. This short edit has “the right way,” his opinion, and another option sanctioned by a reputable source. 


     Holy crap is it nice to have options! 


  • Jonathan’s edit: I think the word you want here is trident, not Triton. Those three-pointed spear thingies? Triton is a sea god.

     Damn it, I know what a trident is. I know who Triton is. He had a magic conch. But I forgot temporarily or AutoCorrect changed it, or whatever. (Let’s blame AutoCorrect.) But look closely at the edit. What do you see? What do you hear? 


     Nothing. 


     That’s the sound of not being judged. 


     Writers need an editor who points out the obvious and doesn’t make you feel like an ass. We make mistakes. Lots of them. Some of us give the editor one-hundred and eighty-seven things to fix in the very first chapter. Heh. Sorry ’bout that. 


     If I were an editor, by Chapter Seven, my edits would read, “YOU NIMROD, YOU DID THAT IN CHAPTERS TWO AND FOUR. QUIT DOING IT. YOU’RE PISSING ME OFF.” 


     Not helpful. 


     Sometimes a writer can’t help but make the same mistake over and over, because the rule or guideline is misunderstood. Of course you’re going to see those same mistakes chapter after chapter. The author can’t magically learn while the editor edits. 


     (Another helpful thing I learned this time: You don’t need a comma after a word beginning a sentence like “however,” or “sometimes,” as in “Sometimes a writer…” Not when it’s three words or less in that clause. You can put it in to draw extra emphasis, or not. It all depends. I did not know this.)


     An editor must be patient, seeing the same mistakes over and over. 


     Especially with me. 


     I don’t know why, but I’m just not good with the rules around commas. I use too many, and simultaneously, too few. This is a growth area for me despite having read rules online and even taking a grammar class. I know, I know. It’s not that hard. It is for me. Patience for my blunders is a gift. An even greater gift is asking, “Is this what you meant?” 


  • Jonathan’s edit: Twice earlier you said there were thirty-three thousand people attending Burning Man in 2002. Now, you’re saying there are thirty-thousand. 

     Attention to conflicting details. 


     What else needs be praised about this type of find?


  • Jonathan’s edit: In King Perry and King Mai, the term “eastern gates” appears five times in each book. In all ten cases, it’s eastern gates—lowercase. It’s in Butterfly King six times, and each of those is capitalized. So, either let Butterfly King be the one outlier, or capitalize Eastern Gates in Books 4–6 and one day go back and fix it in Books 1 and 2. 

     Wow. 


     Unbelievable. 


     Did I mention the valuable quality of pattern recognition? 


     It’s fantastic to have someone who recognizes the patterns in the current manuscript, but to research previous books’ conventions and report back. That’s just cray-cray! Way above and beyond.


     Oh, and speaking of cray-cray, check out this one (skim it—I’ll summarize after his words). The entire discussion relates to a sentence that looks like this: X


  • Jonathan’s edit: In a previous example where you wrote “x?”, the lowercase x has no problem, because it is shorter than the loop of the question mark. But the uppercase X is tall enough that it collides with the question mark unless the question mark is also cocked to the side by being italic. I recommend you break the rule here and have an italic question mark to improve appearance on the page.

     This edit discusses the intentional breaking of a formal italics rule to mitigate the visual distraction of a big fat X that collides with the question mark. Now, THAT is some serious, character-by-character editing. Major league. 


     I would like to write my editor a thank you note. I would like to tell him how it feels to collaborate with someone who is patient with me, fixes my obvious mistakes, educates me on the less obvious ones, and tells me of the options when they exist. I want to thank him for his occasional content notes where he laughed aloud, shared when he cried, told me what he felt as he read some critical plot development. 


     If I attempt to describe my gratitude, I’m only going to create more work for him to do, giving him long sentences to evaluate, demanding they be stretched into reasonable shape, reducing meaningless clauses which do nothing but add to the readers’ confusion the longer they go on, but like a runaway train, seemingly cannot be stopped until they come crashing into the end of the sentence, screeching into a metal-crunching conclusion on a period. 


     See? More work.


     I want him to know how I feel without giving him more work. So here goes: 


Dear Jonathan,


Thank you.


Edmond


 

P.S. I showed Jonathan this article. He liked it and was embarrassed by the praise. Also, regarding a sentence early in this blog, he said: “odd” and “small” both equally and independently modify “measure.” You could reverse their order, and you could replace my proposed comma with the word “and.” Passage of these two tests makes these adjectives equal, or “of an equal order” or (the technical term) “coordinate,” and coordinate adjectives are separated by commas.


P.P.S. He also figured out that I capitalized “To,” in the title just to tweak him.