As a one-man band juggling blog posts, podcasts, and everything in between, I very rarely ask for feedback on things I’m working on. Usually I just try get whatever it is I’m working on to “good enough“. and then publish it.
Get the thing to 80% with 20% of the effort and move on. But earlier this week I found cause to share something I was working on with some friends/collaborators. It had already reached my usual ‘good enough’ threshold, but I knew it could be better. And the feedback I got back was really transformative! It massively improved the piece.
The thing was though, that final 10% of polish, addressing the feedback I got back, took just as long as writing and editing the first draft from scratch! So the final text was double the effort to move it another 10% up the hockey stick curve know as Quality. I don’t mind though, the piece is better for it. But the cycle of feedback and editorial input and reworking took it from “good enough” to “much better” was a little eye-opening, and a good reminder of how useful it is.
With the end of the 301 format looming, and wanting to creatively move on into more ambitious audio projects where strong narrative structure and clear scripting will be key. Cycles of feedback are definitely something I need to think more about. Who can I bother regularly? Volunteer via email or in the comments lol
Of course, ‘Having an editor improves your writing’ isn’t exactly breaking news to anyone who writes. I’ve been lucky enough to have had some great editors for several pieces I had published in books etc, and always appreciate feedback about my writing—what could be improved etc. (Though this certainly wasn’t true when I was younger). I think all writers know that the joy of writing is in the edit, and a good editor is worth more than their weight in gold.
But it got me thinking a little about web publishing and traditional publishing. The Pulitzer-winning writer Tracy Kidder, co-wrote ‘Good Prose: The Art of Nonfiction’ with his long time editor Richard Todd and I really recommend it. It’s about how to write, structure and edit long form writing as well as being packed with a lot of wisdom. With the gates to publishing blown wide open by the web in the late 90’s, editorial passes aren’t something that anyone who writes online receives. I think this might be due to the twin role many editors had in the 00’s as gatekeepers as well has creative partners.
Anyways, I’ve thought for a long time that there are some really good writers that I read on Substack who, if they worked with a good editor could become excellent ones.
All this got me thinking this morning about something I missed in my long ‘Alms Race’ blog post on the creator economy I wrote a few years ago.
For writers serious about honing their craft and elevating their work, it just seems obvious to me that Substack should facilitate some kind of editorial market.
I’m imagining some kind of Reedsy-like directory of editors whose services other writers on the platform could engage. They could even build better collaborative tools right into the back end editor. (Interestingly, WordPress is currently building collaborative tools just like this for blogs). It should support direct feedback on your draft, with seamless comments and revisions: anything from from big-picture structural advice down to the nitty-gritty line edits. They could even take a leaf out of Metalabels book and implement / handle payments / splits / revshare for editors without any faff.
There’s a big opportunity here it think. It’s a glaring hole in modern creator economy. Out in the real world, creative work has never really been produced by atomised one man bands. It’s an expedient lie that culture sold us and has carried into the networked media age.
This would benefit writers, readers, and make getting editorial feedback on online writing more common. Having an editor already benefits lots of other kinds online writers: serious fanfic authors, indie writers, and there’s plenty of freelance guns-for-hire editors who are already sought out on professional platforms like Reedsy.
Substack (for better or worse) is already home to a lot of good writers, and some of them (I assume) might be gifted editors. I mean some IRL friends I know who are published authors are better editors than they are writers! And as I said, I think there are countless good writers online who could become truly great ones, if only a connection to an editor were easier to make.
But in the mean time, speaking of one-man bands striving to make good work almost entirely without an editor, why not subscribe to my zine so I can get from good to great?
Leave a Reply