Developmental editing develops PEOPLE

Every book I edit is different.

Every author is different.

Every idea is different.

Most interestingly, every author fails in a unique way. They may write too long, forget to include context, fall victim to the Curse of Knowledge, be unable to write grammatical sentences, repeat their ideas, be too formal, be too informal, repeat words, overuse exclamation points, ramble to hide that they haven’t focused on a point, be too defensive, miss a chance for greatness, or any of a thousand other shortcomings.

I’m astounded at every new manuscript I get. I always think to myself, “Wow, this person managed to write a book that falls short in a new way I never saw before!”

I can usually fix any of those problems, including the ones I’ve never seen before. I think:

1. What is this author trying to do?
2. Why is what they wrote not effective at trying to do that?
3. What change would allow them to do that, but still sound like them?

Improving manuscripts is enjoyable, but improving authors is even better. When a developmental editor or writing coach explains why a different way of writing would be more effective, the author lights up. They are smarter on the next draft. That is worth doing.

When I posted on LinkedIn about this, my friend and former colleague Fatemeh said, “Josh, we don’t just become better writers when you are involved. We become better thinkers.” That may be my favorite compliment of all time. Put it on my epitaph.

AI writing is a lost opportunity

I’m editing a book right now. It’s full of sentences that need help. It’s repetitive. It’s confusing.

It’s also filled with greatness. The author has a unique point of view and valuable experience and has shared it in an engaging format. When I’m done with it, the problems will be deleted or fixed, and it will still sound like the person who wrote it. I have no doubt that it will be popular and useful. There’s a great book inside that draft, and I intend to reveal it.

I’ve also edited AI-generated books.

Unlike the human-authored books, they are deficient in all the same ways. They are logical and boring. They lack wit. They’re rarely engaging and never funny. A page of nice, even prose like that could be useful if, for example, you’re fixing a leaky faucet. A whole book of that stuff is mind-numbing, regardless of the topic.

In an AI book, the author’s voice is missing. You can’t fool the reader. They’ll notice.

When I’m done with these “books,” they’ll be less tedious, but I can’t inject the author’s personality if it’s not there in the first place. They’ll probably sound more like me, which is a shame, since they’re not my books.

Writers with personality and writing problems can be helped. They have a lot to offer, and they’re more capable than they think. They’re worth coaching, because it makes them better.

Writers using AI can’t be helped. They don’t become more capable. There’s nobody to coach. I can make the books better, but without the author’s voice to hang onto, that’s as far as I can go.

As the old ad slogan for the UNCF said, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.“

Yeah, using AI to write is easier. But if you want a better book — one that’s not just dead prose — it’s not the right way to write it.

And it won’t make you any better.

Don’t miss out on the chance to turn writing a book into a way to grow, learn, and become amazing.