Don't write in a vacuum

Aside from commissioning books, a big part of my job is to ensure the content works for our readers so I'm always asking authors to see content. From developing the proposal at the very beginning to giving feedback on chapters later, my aim is to make the book the best book it can be on my list. This translates to making comments and edits in the manuscript, whether at a granular or structural level. At first, authors can find this difficult and they might not want my input, but I do genuinely believe it makes better books.

For instance, authors always breathe a sigh of relief when I say that I'm happy to look at a pitch before they send the full proposal. Our Proposal Guidelines run to quite a few pages but it doesn't make sense for you to complete them fully before getting feedback, so I would always tell you to send me just the Pitch section first. There's no point you spending hours on crafting something, only for you to send it to me and then receive a raft of changes and suggestions. If we get the concept right at the beginning, it makes the rest of the writing much smoother, and the best way is to do this iteratively.

It's the same with the manuscript: I don't want authors to disappear and write their whole book in a vacuum. A very few times it's ok, but more often than not, I have feedback which means the manuscript needs a few changes. And sometimes there's a big issue which affects the whole book but it could have been sorted if I'd seen chapters early on. If we only find this out close to your deadline then it either means you won't have much time to make the changes and it can disillusion authors. By being iterative and incorporating changes early on, it speeds up the editing and writing process and I find a lot of my authors deliver their manuscript earlier and in better shape.

I view my editorial input as a way to read your book as your reader would. If I don't understand something, am confused, or need more information, then it's likely your reader will be too. You are undoubtedly the subject expert but because of all that knowledge, you might not see the detail as you're focused on the bigger picture. You might not like all I've got to say but it's with the intent of improving things and if you disagree, we can have a conversation and discussion.

A good traditional publisher should give you lots of editorial input and feedback. You might not need it (or want it!), but it's nice to have that working relationship and a sense that they're committed to the book. If not, I question their workload and it makes me a little sad.

If you don't have a traditional publisher or are self-publishing, then I highly recommend trying to find yourself an editor. It could be a freelancer editor or even a good friend - but someone with a critical eye who will be objective and straightforward.

But what should they be checking?

• Is it easy to read? And is it a good read?
• Is the Table of Contents organised appropriately - chronological, thematic, or instructional?
• Do the chapters flow logically?
• Is the content covered in appropriate detail? Are there any errors, gaps, or unsubstantiated claims?
• Did the book achieve its aims?