There are many things that make someone good at editing. But what makes one a great editor of others? It must necessarily be a love of people and watching them grow.
If you’re visibly invested in that way, those writers can trust you. They’ll allow your feedback in. It’s why they’ll seriously consider an edit they would otherwise have angrily rejected. It’s why they’ll accept your suggestions, play within the container you’ve set, and feel it’s worth fighting to preserve their darlings. It’s what fuses together all the editing craft lessons we’ve covered this quarter.
And it’s why Carina has had such a successful run in her first year as Fenwick’s Managing Editor. I’ve never in my career met someone so genuinely invested in others’ growth—I see it in how transparent she is about how she hires, how thoughtfully she delivers (or kindly withholds) feedback, and how she uses most of our one-on-ones to discuss others' careers. All else can be trained. But that? That perspective is something you must figure out for yourself. But it’s what you’ll need to endure as an editor who writers keep coming back to.
And with that, let’s recap this quarter on editing craft:
Your goal is to improve the writer, not just the writing. If you want to get writers interested and coming back repeatedly, it’s often best to ease into the feedback. Edit lightly at first to encourage their interest. Depending on the writer and situation, I use one of three modes:
Fixer—If they’re rushed or don’t care, I just suggest edits.
Nurturer—If they could be persuaded to care, I lightly question, explain, and encourage.
Instructor—If they want to improve, I edit, question, explain, and encourage in equal measure.
Question edits are Socratic, meaning, you know the answer (or how to find it), but you ask because you want the writer to work through it on their own. A Socratic question has two parts: the issue you’ve identified in their writing and a constraint which narrows the cone of possible answers.
You can modulate the difficulty of your question by how tightly you constrain it. Highly constrained questions are easy. Unconstrained ones, less so. Decide based on how hard you want the writer to work. Examples:
Highly constrained: “Can we provide evidence for this idea?”
Somewhat constrained: “How could this be 30 percent shorter?”
Loosely constrained: “This reads like an overpromise. How could it sound more balanced and less effusive?”
Relatively unconstrained: “Overall, love it. But if we want readers to feel inspired, how might we achieve that?”
Experienced editors know that to ask “Who wants to review?” (first mistake) with the blank check “Please review” (second mistake) is to live a waking nightmare of unwanted critique. That’s why Fenwick uses what we call containers for feedback.
A container for feedback tells your reviewer:
What’s helpful
What’s not helpful
What’s next
Rationale for all the above
This reduces unproductive commentary and furnishes you with just what you need to edit, and nothing more.
Proofreading is never finished—you only choose to call it so. The question is, what level of completion are you happy with and able to enforce? At Fenwick, we’re interested in 90 percent good, and thus we outsource it all to a professional copyeditor, Caroline. This also frees our writers to spend more time on story, structure, and strategy. Could your team benefit from its own Caroline?
Joni the artist has never thought about her customers a day in her life. She is a pure artist. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Tony’s Chocolonely, a Dutch candy bar company that aims to end child slavery and only happens to sell chocolate because that’s what people buy. It’s a chimerical shapeshifter.
Where do your writers exist on this spectrum? I’ll bet they’ll struggle to find their inner Joni until you abolish the honesty tax and encourage radically candid writing feedback by:
Explaining the need for candor
Explaining how to communicate nonviolently
Establishing that you trust them and want the best for them
Asking for radically candid feedback yourself
Getting unreasonably excited when you receive criticism
Encouraging those who withhold to ask what they’d want for themselves
Being consistent. Let them see that this is always your reaction
Writers in that type of environment have no fear accessing their inner Joni, and thus, truly remarkable ideas.
What's next: Content strategy
Next quarter, we talk content strategy. We’re going to weave all this year’s issues into that one tapestry for helping companies achieve their goals with uncommonly clear writing. It’s one thing to write. It’s another to make sales. We’ll explore that through real projects Fenwick has completed.
Pick an installment from the recap which you don’t remember as well. Give that lesson a try.
Chris Gillespie CEO and Editor Fenwick
Longview is inspired by conversations with the Fenwick team. Meet them. And meet our newest Senior Writer & Strategist, Sarah.
In the next issue
We kick off our next quarterly theme on content strategy.
Writing tip
Before editing, listen to the writer talk
Less experienced writers are often better at speaking than they are at writing; it’s something we’ve all practiced far more. You can help them isolate their own voice (and recuse yourself of inserting yours) by listening to a recording of them talk, while also reviewing the transcript. (Best done in tandem.) Note their verbal tics and replicate on paper.
Fenwick launched three free tiny courses
In my mini course on Writing Systems, I share how to reduce unwanted feedback, accelerate edits, and get more done each month.
Why AI Will Save the World by A16Z’s general partner. This is a master class in research, source material, and blithe arguments. It feels persuasive. Logically, however, it’s riddled with hyperbole, ad hominems, circular logic, and the rhyme-as-reason fallacy. He often assumes that the one single historical factor he identified was the deciding factor. Lots to learn in both ways. Can you spot any fallacies? (I’d love to hear.)
Possible. A podcast about what might go right in our near future. The episodes themselves are fine, but I think the topic sings—it is the timeliest, most counterintuitive stance available, and a great lesson. How can your company or clients find an equally counterfactual topic? And get it down to one word?
