SEOClerks

Critic or editor. Which would you choose?



Enter a reason for deleting this comment

Critic or editor. Which would you choose?

Many writers are in their beginning, and they can't afford to pay a professional editor, and in this situation, they would choose us the readers, to give them our opinion about their work. If you would be a writer and need a review of your book, what  you want ....an editor or the critical reader?
In general, a critique reader won't take your work to the same level as a professional editor, but it's a good start. Proofreading is only a tiny function of good editing. A professional editor will help you with story development, spelling, syntax, grammar,  narrative.
Be aware, though, that a good critique partner should do more than proofreading.

Comments

Please login or sign up to leave a comment

Join
Fuzyon

A professional editor, definitely. A critic is only there to see if what you're writing is relevant and worth posting in a certain context, but an editor can do so much more. It can take an article from mediocre to highly reputable quality by fixing the wording, intonation and the way information is presented on the page.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

wallet

You are right Fuizon, a professional editor will help you with story development, spelling, syntax, grammar, narrative as I have said but a professional editor must be paid. What happens if you don't have the money? Would you want to show your work to online readers and critics for free? Do you think their opinion would count for you?




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Tronia

An editor. Because he can view my work from a different point of view than just a normal critical reader. The problem with a critical reader is that they don't have education about this and yes, they critique your work but often their critique isn't constructive at all. Just saying something like ''that is bad'' doesn't help you. You have to know how to give a critique and it isn't easy.

That's why an editor is the right choice. He knows the business. He knows how to help and he knows how to take your work to the next level.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

vinaya

I will always choose an editor. An editor will make corrections and brush up my writing. Critics may be good because they help you to brush up your writing skills, but sometimes they are too harsh and you may end up being frustrated. having said that critics may not always criticise your work, they may also appreciate you for what you have written. However, critics do not have direct hands on your work. Contrarily, editors are there to correct your mistakes.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

TheArticulate

As everyone else has mentioned, an editor will have more of a vested interest in helping you improve your writing in the long run. I think someone who's job it is to correct writing errors and the likes will do a better, in depth critique of your work than someone who is simply acting as a critic. A critic will most likely not have the same level of expertise, and depending on what you're wanting to do with your writing, it'll probably be a better option go with the more professional of the two in the long run.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

vinaya

The editor will correct your mistakes, the critics will point out your mistakes. There is a lot of difference between these two concepts. The editor will polish your work, an editor will suggest how to polish your work by applying "these" changes.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Corzhens

If I would choose which work then I would prefer to be a critic than an editor. As you have mentioned, an editor does a lot of work that includes suggestions and advice on how to improve the writing. But for my writings, I would, of course, choose an editor because a critic will just give his opinion regarding his taste but not much with the improvement of the manuscript or whatever I am writing. Especially if the editor is professional, he can be of great help in improving my writing skills. But I understand that editors charge a fee and not cheap.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

vinaya

I think becoming a critic is a lot easier than becoming an editor. The editor has to work on the manuscript. he will make small corrections such as replacing a with the, or major changes like rewriting the entire paragraph.
The critic will work on your manuscript, or book, and suggest ways to improve the written work. They do not look for minor mistakes, however, major mistakes like changing the point of view, giving more space to a certain character. The critics might even suggest to remove or add the entire chapter.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

peachpurple

I prefer to be the editor. Editing the article to check on the spelling, grammar and thesaurus. At least the person who hires would be pleased with the result and give good review. Will get positive comments. If critics, some may not agree.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

DenisP

I think I'm going to go with the popular opinion on this one, and join the editor crowd as well. For starters, I can appreciate the role an editor plays more than that of a critic. The whole purpose of an editor is to help correct and improve your content, polish it in a way which makes it the best it can be. They not only improve the content you've already made but help you improve as a writer. They work with you from an objective perspective, unlike a critic. More often than not, critics are there to state their opinion of the work as a whole as opposed to contributing something on a technical level.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Neiltarquin

I would definitely be an editor. Editor's can see a creation at its raw form. Being an editor, you are helping the writer polish his work.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

wallet

Not what you want to be, the post was about who you want to review your work. You want as a professional to review your writings (but, you must pay him) or a critic (who will not need to be paid) to review your work. You should read the post before to answer and post a comment!




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Kharyode

An editor rearranges thoughts sothey make more sense but still represent yourtone and voice. A good editor adds value byrecognizing what you’re best at and pushing youto do more of that.
A great editor knows theperson they are editing and truly understandstheir passions and what makes them tick.
WHILE
A critic has tobe a friend you trust or the criticism will neverget through your natural defenses. And tells you what to do (in whatever toneyou are capable of hearing) when you are off key ..




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Joshmoy

I would go with a professional editor a thousand times. An editor will help you paraphrase your sentences that need it. A professional editor will edit hour write up or journal with the recommended writing guidelines. The critic will only tell you what he or she feels about it. This could be sentimental and could make the writer feel less confident.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

wallet

I think we all would make the same choice, but what if you cannot afford to pay the editor? If you don't have the money how would you make a professional to check your work?
Thank you for your answer!




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

arachnophobik

If you have the budget for it, get a professional editor. This is because professional editors can function the same way as a critic, but with added improvements. But if you're on a tight budget then I suppose getting a critic is decent enough as long as you know how to pick them right. There are a lot of good ones out there who just don't have enough experience to be a professional editor and are trying to get experience by taking small jobs like these.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

coolavender

I would prefer to hire an experienced editor who can give valuable inputs towards the completion of a project. A critic will generally just state his/her opinion on the finished work and you'll just have to take it from there. A good editor can help you polish your work before it gets published and he can provide specific solutions to weaknesses on your written work. This professional interaction can help you grow as a writer.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

iamawriter

I assume a critic will not be paid and if that be the case no justice will be done to one's writings. Editor on the other hand will not be willing to do a free job and therefore would be committed to his task and the author can question him if he finds that he is neglecting his works.

Having said that I would be a critic rather than an editor as I would not be bound by any contract.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

mcbryan080990

I believe those two have there own pros and cons but ill go with editor. I choose editor because it has no limit in terms of level of job and creating impossible to possible. Unlike critic their just sitting, reading and watching and telling what is wrong. Is it boring? Being and editor is being a joyful man. You can make sad things transform into happy one. You can make poor people transform into wealthy community. Editor is a job that no one can explain only professional can do.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

MariaC

Well, there's no comparison between an editor and readers criticism. An editor would be good at correcting the overall content while criticism only talks of storyline and development.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

wallet

Hi, MariaC is true there is no comparison between those two but the money can make a big difference for those who cannot afford to pay an editor. Would they please them a little less? I guess that some of them it would but the rest would pay for a strait and accurate opinion for their work!




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

JoeMilford

I guess that, as a reader, and because I am an English major, that I have a pretty tough time separating these two roles. A book could be the best in the world, in terms of content, but if the grammar and punctuation is a mess, the message can't successfully get across. Also, on the other hand, a book could be written with pristine grammar and punctuation; however, if it is not interesting or compelling, it's not worth the read. I guess, to be honest, at this point--if I had to choose between the two professions as they are outlined here--I would take the one which paid the most and adjust to it...




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

vinaya

English is my second language, therefore, mistakes are common for me. I sometimes don the role of editor for newbies, however, I cannot become an editor because I am not very best with language and grammar. Therefore, I need an editor. However, becoming a critic seems easier because all you should know is the craft of writing, form, substance, all in all, and what works and what does not in terms of the market. I have never sent my book to the critics. I believe the readers are the best critics. before it got published harry potter was rejected 6 times. The readers are the right people to judge the book




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Laibrown

I will choose critics. Critic will give me overview and thought on the work from a critical angle. And I will still get back and apply correction where they are correct in their criticism. And I will still retain my work without acknowledging any one. And other thing is from the financial aspect of it, it will cost to get an especially for the beginners but critic will do almost same job for me without incurring any cost. And of course if I am to employ the service of a professional editor I will probably can't afford more than one but I can get more than one critics.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

goldlady

I think I am a little bit old school about it. I will always prefer editors. It is true that nowadays it's really hard for beginners to be able to pay for an editor... but it is a good investment, totally worth it. Still, I think it's great to have other options like critics.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

augusta

I think the two should walk hand in hand,an editor is a professional to proofread and add to your write-up,they may not criticize one.A critic in the other hand criticizes and if you heed to the criticism.you become better.So I think none should be excluded.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

JoeMilford

augusta,
I completely agree with you here. Most of us small time writer, like myself, so to speak, can't afford to hire personal editors, so we have to rely upon our own skills in this department. I do have a publisher, and she is also the head editor of her small press, so she gives my work a good read-over. Also, I have a small community of writers who are willing to proofread my work, but, ultimately, I have to be my own toughest critic in order to be my own successful content-creator. This is tough because it can be difficult to step back from your own words and look at them with real objectivity.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Corzhens

Pardon me for this comment but I don’t think an editor is one who is to proofread the manuscript. The proof reader does the proof reading which means he sees to it that the document or manuscript has no wrong spelling and no grammar mistakes. The editor reads the manuscript to evaluate if it is good for publication. The critic is another animal that does the bias and prejudice on the article or story.




Are you sure you want to delete this post?