You’ve received feedback from two editors, and they don’t agree.
One says your opening works. The other says it needs work.
One thinks you should cut a scene. The other thinks the scene is important.
So which editor is right?
Maybe neither. Maybe both.
Two experienced editors can read the same manuscript and reach different conclusions. They may notice different problems, interpret the same problem differently, or recommend different ways to address it.
That doesn’t necessarily mean one editor is wrong. It means editorial judgment isn’t always going to be identical from one editor to another.
So what should you do when the feedback conflicts?
Why Do Editors See Different Things?
Editors bring different experience and areas of expertise to their work, so they may notice different things in the same manuscript.
One might focus on pacing. Another might notice character motivation. A third might be thinking about the intended reader.
As I discussed in How Does an Editor Know What Your Manuscript Needs?, an editor’s recommendations come from looking at the manuscript in the context of its goals, audience, genre, and individual needs.
So two editors may read the same book and come away with different priorities.
That doesn’t automatically mean one of them missed something.
What If Editors Agree on the Problem but Not the Solution?
This is where things can get especially confusing.
Suppose a chapter moves too slowly.
One editor recommends cutting material. Another suggests moving a section. A third recommends tightening the prose.
They may all agree that the pacing needs attention. They simply see different ways to improve it.
There isn’t always one correct editorial solution. A change that works well in one manuscript may not be right for another.
That’s why it helps to separate the problem from the proposed solution.
You may agree that something isn’t working without agreeing that your editor’s recommendation is the best way to fix it.
What If One Editor Is Wrong?
An editor can be wrong.
Experience doesn’t make an editor infallible. We’re still readers, and we bring our own preferences, expectations, and assumptions to the page.
So when two editors disagree, one may have missed something. But the disagreement itself doesn’t tell you which one.
Instead of asking, “Which editor should I believe?”, ask:
- What is each editor seeing?
- What problem are they identifying?
- Why do they think it matters?
- What is their recommendation meant to accomplish?
- Can they explain their reasoning?
Those answers are more useful than simply counting how many editors agree.
What Should You Do When Editors Disagree?
Don’t choose a side immediately. Examine the feedback.
Ask yourself:
- Is the identified problem actually affecting the manuscript?
- Why does it matter?
- Would the suggested change solve it?
- Could the change create another problem?
- Is there another way to address it?
- Does the change support what I’m trying to accomplish?
Then pay attention to your own reaction.
If a recommendation bothers you, ask yourself why. Would the change weaken something important? Or did the editor identify a problem you simply don’t want to address?
Those are different situations.
You may decide the editor has identified a real problem but proposed a solution that doesn’t fit your manuscript. You may realize the recommendation is exactly what the manuscript needs. Or you may decide the issue doesn’t need to be changed.
The important thing is that you understand the choice you’re making and why.
What If Both Editors Have a Point?
Sometimes they do.
One editor might think your opening needs more momentum. Another might recognize that the information in it is important.
You don’t necessarily have to choose between cutting the material and keeping it as-is. You might be able to preserve the important information while improving the pacing.
Or you might find a third solution neither editor suggested.
That’s one reason editorial feedback shouldn’t be treated as a set of yes-or-no instructions. A recommendation can point you toward a problem without dictating the only way to solve it.
You Don’t Have to Choose a Winner
When editors disagree, you don’t have to decide which one is the “right” editor.
You need to decide what is right for your manuscript.
As I discussed in Should You Accept Every Editing Suggestion? What Every Author Should Know, you don’t have to accept every recommendation an editor makes. Your editor offers experience and an outside perspective. You still have to decide what serves the book.
Listen to the feedback. Ask questions. Consider the reasoning. Then make the decision.
You might:
- accept one recommendation;
- combine ideas from both editors;
- find a different solution; or
- decide not to make the change.
Conflicting feedback isn’t necessarily a problem. Sometimes it gives you a better understanding of the choices in front of you.
You don’t have to choose between two editors simply because they disagree. You have to understand why they disagree.
Once you do, you can make a decision based on your manuscript rather than on which editor sounds more convincing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do two editors give different feedback on the same manuscript?
Editors have different experience, expertise, and approaches to their work. They may notice different aspects of a manuscript or see different solutions to the same problem.
Different feedback doesn’t necessarily mean one editor is wrong.
Does different feedback mean one editor is wrong?
Not necessarily. An editor can be wrong, but two editors can also have different and equally reasonable perspectives. Look at what each editor is seeing, why they think it matters, and what they’re trying to accomplish with their recommendation.
What should I do if two editors disagree?
Ask each editor to explain the reasoning behind the feedback. Then consider whether the identified problem is affecting your manuscript and whether the proposed solution addresses it without creating another problem.
You may accept one recommendation, combine ideas, find another solution, or decide not to make the change.
Should I follow the advice of the more experienced editor?
Not automatically.
Experience matters, but it doesn’t guarantee that a recommendation is right for your manuscript. Consider the reasoning behind the feedback and whether the recommendation fits your book, its readers, and your goals.
Do I have to accept every editorial suggestion?
No. Your editor makes recommendations, but you make the final decisions about your manuscript. The goal is to understand the feedback well enough to decide which changes serve your book.
Is it a problem if I disagree with my editor?
No. Disagreement can be productive when you can discuss the reasoning behind the feedback. You and your editor don’t have to agree on every recommendation for the editorial relationship to be useful.
About the Author
Cassie Armstrong is the owner of MorningStar Editing LLC, a book editor, writing coach, and mentor with more than nineteen years of experience. She works with authors of children’s books, cookbooks, and craft/how-to books, providing manuscript evaluations, coaching, copyediting, and proofreading.
Her background as a teacher and mentor shapes her approach to editing. She believes authors need more than corrections. They need clear, constructive feedback that helps them understand what is working, what needs revision, and why.
Cassie’s goal is to help writers create clear, engaging, publish-ready books while preserving their voice and making choices that serve their readers.
Not sure what your manuscript needs next?
A manuscript evaluation can help you sort through the big-picture issues, prioritize revisions, and move forward with a clear plan.