I suggest, in the quasi-world of editing, three Asimovian constants.
The grammar editor may not edit for style.
The style editor may not edit for grammar.
Editing houses may have both in parallel.
Editing can be an almost infinite process. There is no specific point where you can stop and say ― that’s it, it’s as good as it’ll get ― unless you are writing out the alphabet in alphabetical order.
So, the trick is to recognize at what point, given all the attendant variables, one should say that enough has been done. Someone posting a comment might scan it once and add a question mark. Another might have written a 1000 page tombstone of academia and require a team of professors as editorial assistants for a year. It’s all relative.
There are standards, of course. At the least, unless there’s a mobile phone involved, writing should be grammatically correct. That’s the first and sometimes only task of the editor. Because there are objective rules of grammar, different editors would produce a similar result, ceteris paribus, should they edit the same piece of writing for grammar only.
Editing for style, however, is another kettle of kippers. The style editor must recognise the dominant tone of the writer’s voice and seek to maintain that by modifying flaws without deviating from the existing style.
My point is that there’s a difference between editing for grammar and editing for style. The goal of a good style editor is to improve the writer’s voice by adding some light background harmony. Anything more and the cowboy editor is crossing the Rewrite River and heading for Ghost Mountain.
The offerings I’ve seen from independent literary service outfits all seem to promise to take care of both at once while only doing half of each. I think part of the problem is you get what you pay for. The actual editor it’s farmed out to probably receives half (if lucky) and therefore so does the author.
Authors are also part of the problem. The expectations that novice writers bring to the editing process are usually unrealistic. While they bash away at their first draft, in back of mind there’s this thought that so what if the writing is less than perfect here and there; not to worry, some editor-wizard with a magic wand will appear and sort it all out as part of the big-name publishing deal.
I read a statistic somewhere that one in 500 persons have written a book and of which 99.99 % will end up considering self-publishing and therefore also a freelance editing service. Even traditional publishing houses have long since reduced their editorial input and anyway, professionally established writers and their agents do not turn in dog’s breakfast manuscripts to publishers.
So, editing… there’s good reason editors exist – a good editor can do much to improve a manuscript provided the author has pulled his weight up to the point of editorial submission.
The thing with outside editing is that it should be the refuge of last resort. No one knows your manuscript better than you do or has more concern for it. Where novices err is to equate the surprising amount of effort exerted with the quality of the result.
‘Gee, I worked so hard on it, it must be good. In fact I know it is – plus everyone around me says so too.’
Ha.
At this point, editing is just another minor box to be ticked off on the novice’s path to fame and fortune.
Then, the conscientious editor writes back, saying the POV, tense usage and active/passive voices are confused, the grammar is awful and dialogue punctuation a disaster. Never mind getting to the good stuff such as structure, storyline and style, which are also bad and weak. The recommendation is to rework the manuscript; it is not ready for editing.
Shazam, the offended writer finds another online editor happy to take his money or worse, pays his POD publisher to sub the edit out. The blissful results are predictable but I do wonder about that 1:500 statistic with regard to second books.