What an Editorial Letter Actually Says

Manuscripts and books · 796 words · about 4 minutes to read

Nothing in an editorial letter tells an author what to write. The letter reports what the pages are currently doing, and the difference between those two things is where most of the damage after a structural edit gets done.

Editors Canada's Professional Editorial Standards ask that queries, memos, and author letters be clear, tactful, succinct, and actionable. They also ask an editor to request clarification of meaning and intent, to explain changes as appropriate, and to propose or negotiate significant editorial changes.¹ Propose and negotiate are the operative verbs. A letter that instructed would have exceeded the standard it was written to.

What the letter is reporting on

A structural edit assesses and shapes draft material to improve its organization and content, and its tasks include revising, reordering, cutting, and expanding.² They ask the editor to reorganize material to achieve a coherent structure and sequence, with a logical progression of ideas and a narrative or expository flow. They ask the editor to revise, cut, or expand text, or suggest changes, to meet length requirements. They ask the editor to identify and either recommend or make deletions and additions so the material is suitable. And they ask the editor to recognize and either query or resolve instances of questionable accuracy, inadequate research, imbalanced content, and lack of focus.³

Read that list against a letter and the letter becomes legible. Every finding in it belongs to one of those four categories, and knowing which one a finding belongs to tells an author how much freedom they have in answering it.

Three kinds of finding, and they are answered differently

The first kind is an observation of fact about the manuscript. Two chapters make the same argument. A section is announced in chapter one and never delivered. A stated count does not match what the text lists. These are not opinions and they do not need to be agreed with. They need to be fixed or explained.

The second kind is a diagnosis. The book loses momentum in the middle third. The argument arrives before the evidence that supports it. A diagnosis is a reading, and a good letter says what produced it: which chapters, which pages, what the editor noticed. An author who disagrees with a diagnosis should look at the evidence offered for it rather than at the diagnosis.

The third kind is a proposed remedy, and it is the one authors act on too quickly. A suggestion to move chapter seven earlier is one solution to a problem the letter has already described. There are usually others, and the author is better placed than the editor to know which of them the book can afford.

The mistake that costs a draft

Treating all three kinds as instructions produces a revision that answers the letter rather than the book. The signs are recognizable. Chapters get moved without the transitions being rewritten. Material flagged as thin gets padded rather than cut. A voice that was consistent becomes uneven, because the author has been writing to a specification instead of writing.

The professional standards guard against this from the editor's end by asking that changes maintain a consistent voice, tone, and register without altering intended meaning.¹ An author revising can hold themselves to the same test. A change that fixes a reported fault and alters the book's intention has traded one problem for a larger one.

What to do with a letter, in order

Separate the findings into the three kinds before answering any of them. Facts first, because they are cheap and unarguable, and because several of them are questions about how the book is assembled. Diagnoses second, with the evidence read alongside them. Remedies last, and only after deciding what the underlying problem actually is.

Where a remedy is rejected, the useful reply says which problem the author is solving differently. An editor can then check whether the new solution works, which is a shorter conversation than defending the original suggestion.

The Editorial Freelancers Association notes that a brief sample edit can help evaluate copyediting or line editing, but that developmental editing is too large in scope to be captured by a short sample.⁴ The same asymmetry applies to the letter. It cannot be skimmed, and a first reading is for understanding rather than for deciding.

What the letter cannot do

It cannot tell an author what the book is for. It cannot decide which of two possible books the manuscript should become. And it cannot substitute for the author's own judgment about which readers matter.

EditFast reports what the pages are doing and proposes rather than instructs. Everything a client sends is treated in confidence, including unpublished manuscripts, outlines, and correspondence with an agent or a press. Our book editing and structural work are quoted on the whole manuscript, and the letter comes with it.

A letter read once and acted on immediately usually costs an author a second revision. A letter read twice, a week apart, usually does not.

References

Editors Canada, Professional Editorial Standards 2024: A. The Fundamentals of Editing. https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/ ↩
Editors Canada, Definitions of Editorial Skills, June 2019. https://editors.ca/hire-an-editor/skills/ ↩
Editors Canada, Professional Editorial Standards 2024: B. Standards for Structural Editing. https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/structural-editing/ ↩
Editorial Freelancers Association, Hiring an Editor: A Guide for New Authors, revised July 2022. https://www.the-efa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/EFA-Hiring-an-Editor-A-Guide-for-New-Authors_REV-7-2022.pdf ↩

EditFast charges by the word: 3¢ to proofread, 3.5¢ for a light edit, 4¢ for a medium edit and 5¢ for a heavy edit, with a $50 minimum. What each level covers and what a full manuscript costs, or estimate your own.

Get a Free Estimate

« All articles | Questions, answered