I don't often write about writing, because there are several million blogs out there that already cover that topic. However, this past week, I have been working with my editor in putting the final touches of Rock 'n Roll Heaven, which will be released in about two weeks. (If you want to know when it or any of my stories come out, you can sign up for my New Release Newsletter here. I only send you a note when I have a new story out and of course never sell your address to anyone.) 
     Many writers I know seem to have an adversarial relationship with their editors, and talk about the editing phase like Sun Tzu: My editor wants to take over the story, but I took a rear-guard action against him and I think I've got him in retreat now. This is foreign to me, because editing is my favorite part of the whole publication process.
     For me, "editing" actually starts in the very beginning. Before I ever write the first words of a story, I talk to my editor about it. Not in fine detail, but in big picture. My editor already knows about projects that I won't get around to writing until sometime in 2015.  I'm lucky to have an editor who is willing to work with me at each step of the process. I think of this first step as a developmental edit - refining the concept. What many people think of as "editing" is actually "proofing" and it is the last stage of the process. No matter how sharp your editor is, I don't believe they can effectively edit and proofread the same story. After a while, the brain sees things that aren't there, and after several passes through a manuscript, it's very difficult to catch missing words, homonyms and the like.
     Here's my process: When I finish a manuscript, I let it sit for a day or two. Many writers recommend letting it sit for two weeks to a month. That's probably better, but I'm too damn impatient to do that. I do a quick run-through, looking for obvious orphans (where I started an idea early in the story that I ended up abandoning later) obvious cliches (my constant readers may express surprise that I am aware of these) and other obvious problems. When this pass through is done, I send it off to my beta readers, those kind souls who selflessly give of their time and intelligence to wade through my first draft. Beta readers are invaluable for early feedback. They tell me if they don't like a character or a plot arc, or if something I've written just doesn't make any sense. That happens more often than you might think. (Or maybe not.) 
     I take the feedback from the beta readers and do another pass through the story with their thoughts and criticism in mind. When that draft is done, I am finally ready to send it to Jonathan Kelley, my esteemed editor. I met Jonathan completely by happenstance two years ago - he was the friend of a Facebook friend. That chance meeting has proven to be a boon to me, because Jonathan and I fit together very well as a writer/editor team.
     Jonathan makes an initial pass through the story as a critical reader. After that, he sends me a semi-detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the story. Yes, for the cynical among you, he manages to find at least a few positives in every story! If he feels the weaknesses are glaring enough, he recommends certain changes that he thinks might remedy the situation. On rare occasion, (as in a transitional scene in Second Chance Christmas where I needed to change Point of View) he will simply say "This needs to be addressed, but I'm not sure how." As the writer, it is up to me to have a good enough grasp on the story to fix what needs fixing. 
     Many writers have adversarial relationships with their editors, fearing that the editor will fundamentally alter the voice they work so hard to achieve. I never worry about that with Jonathan. I know that any change he advises is to work toward one goal: to create the best story possible. Once I get through making whatever major changes need to be made, I ship the manuscript back to him. Being sports guys, we call this "passing the football." There can only be one master copy of a story at a time. Plus, we like sports metaphors.
     That's when Jonathan gets down to the hard work at hand. He goes over every line multiple times. He's looking for spelling, word misuse and grammar issues, yes, but more than that, he is looking to untangle the knotty sentences I put together. (Like that one, for instance.) It never ceases to amaze me how he can take exactly the same words I used, reorder them a bit and have them sound so much better. Here's an example: I wrote a short sentence: "Jimmy felt a shiver run down his spine." Jonathan edited it to read: "A shiver ran down Jimmy's spine." Yes, I know, it means the same thing, but it encapsulates several of my bad writing habits and how he fixes them. If you take that simple sentence and multiply it by several thousand, it makes a big difference in the way the book reads. 
     What I love about working with Jonathan is that he doesn't just make changes, but he often takes the time to point out the why of the changes. It feels like I am becoming a better writer with each book I write, and I attribute much of that growth to these teaching moments we share.
     Once he's done with the manuscript, he ships it back to me and I go over every single change, deciding which ones to keep and which ones to reject. I know a writer who proudly proclaims that he "fights for his own words," and rejects over half of the suggestions his editor makes. Hmm. I would be willing to fight for my own story, yes, but Jonathan never messes with that, at least unilaterally. I find that when I look at examples like the sentence above, I accept his changes over 90% of the time.
     Jonathan often says that I give him too much credit in my Acknowledgements or Author's Notes. I feel like I can't give him enough. I would never consider inflicting one of my stories on the public without his invaluable input.