Just adding two more cents to Kate's response about developmental editors: A developmental editor's job is NOT to get you an agent. Their job is to help you make your manuscript the best it can be.
In the"olden days" of the mid-20th century, the story goes, editors in publishing houses had more time to be hands-on with their writers and work with them to reshape manuscripts or even turn a vague idea into a manuscript. That may or may not be myth, but it is clear that most editors today don't have a lot of time or leeway to spend helping writers develop ideas. As writers, we are unlikely to find a 2021 version of Hemingway and Fitzgerald's famously hands-on editor Maxwell Perkins... and agents/editors today want to see manuscripts that are "ready to go"... so one option is to hire a freelance developmental editor for that kind of editorial guidance before starting the query and submission process.
If you have the money, it can be a really worthwhile investment! BUT I suggest only spending the money to hire an editor after you've taken full advantage of free or less expensive sources of critiques, such as a writing group, writing class focused on works-in-progress, beta readers etc.
It's also really important to be clear on what your expectations are from the editor and what they are going to provide, as well as your and their preferred communication styles. I had two awful experiences hiring editors in my younger days, when I spent a lot of money on a "big name" editor who had formerly worked at a major publishing house. In each case, he dumped a critique on me that I could barely absorb at the time of our conversation, and then we were done. No follow-up. I felt like someone had dropped a bag of rocks on me and left. What I really wanted was more of a coaching process--not just the critique, but someone I could continue checking in with about how to implement the changes they'd suggested. I ended up abandoning both those manuscripts.
For my current book, I was older and a little wiser and looked for an editor who felt more approachable, less intimidating, and was willing to engage in follow-up. I chose someone whose contract explicitly included a certain number of hours of conversation or follow-up review after her initial critique of the manuscript. I found the experience terrifically helpful and recommend her. (By the way, she is Diane Glazman.)
Just adding two more cents to Kate's response about developmental editors: A developmental editor's job is NOT to get you an agent. Their job is to help you make your manuscript the best it can be.
In the"olden days" of the mid-20th century, the story goes, editors in publishing houses had more time to be hands-on with their writers and work with them to reshape manuscripts or even turn a vague idea into a manuscript. That may or may not be myth, but it is clear that most editors today don't have a lot of time or leeway to spend helping writers develop ideas. As writers, we are unlikely to find a 2021 version of Hemingway and Fitzgerald's famously hands-on editor Maxwell Perkins... and agents/editors today want to see manuscripts that are "ready to go"... so one option is to hire a freelance developmental editor for that kind of editorial guidance before starting the query and submission process.
If you have the money, it can be a really worthwhile investment! BUT I suggest only spending the money to hire an editor after you've taken full advantage of free or less expensive sources of critiques, such as a writing group, writing class focused on works-in-progress, beta readers etc.
It's also really important to be clear on what your expectations are from the editor and what they are going to provide, as well as your and their preferred communication styles. I had two awful experiences hiring editors in my younger days, when I spent a lot of money on a "big name" editor who had formerly worked at a major publishing house. In each case, he dumped a critique on me that I could barely absorb at the time of our conversation, and then we were done. No follow-up. I felt like someone had dropped a bag of rocks on me and left. What I really wanted was more of a coaching process--not just the critique, but someone I could continue checking in with about how to implement the changes they'd suggested. I ended up abandoning both those manuscripts.
For my current book, I was older and a little wiser and looked for an editor who felt more approachable, less intimidating, and was willing to engage in follow-up. I chose someone whose contract explicitly included a certain number of hours of conversation or follow-up review after her initial critique of the manuscript. I found the experience terrifically helpful and recommend her. (By the way, she is Diane Glazman.)
So, to be clear: I don't need a platform for fiction as a general rule?