How do you handle situations where you feel a manuscript needs substantial changes, but the author is resistant to those suggestions?

I begin by explaining why substantial changes may be necessary, presenting my suggestions with kindness and understanding. Ultimately, I respect the author’s vision and ensure they have the final say. My priority is balancing professional guidance with a commitment to their satisfaction.

It's always the author's choice to follow a suggestion or not. As a developmental editor, my suggestions are always geared toward strengthening the novel whether it be through plot, character, structure, pacing, etc. I'll state my case in either the marginal comments or the editorial letter, but it's up to them to decide whether or not those suggestions fit their vision for their novel. 

At the end of the day, it's not my story and the author gets the final say.  I can offer my professional advice, explain why I think the story isn't working as it is, or why I think it will be unlikely to be published as it is, but if the author doesn't want to change things then this is their choice.  With writing there is a good deal of subjectivity and personal taste which comes into it, which I understand, but when it comes to the more technical aspects, all I can do is hope I've explain why something isn't working enough for the author to understand and to want to take my advice onboard.

In situations where I feel a manuscript needs substantial changes and the author is resistant, I approach it with a blend of professionalism and empathy. I start by explaining why certain structural or formatting changes are critical, not just for readability, but to meet industry standards.

I’ve come across manuscripts that need significant improvement, which can be challenging as a copyeditor. By the time a book reaches the copyediting stage, it should already meet certain structural standards. For example, I’ve received manuscripts that had no paragraphs at all. This tells me that the author might be in the earlier stages of their writing journey or a first-time author. There’s nothing wrong with that, but a book needs proper paragraphing and other foundational elements before it goes to a copyeditor.

If a manuscript has dialogue, it should already be formatted correctly, with quotation marks, and each new speaker starting on a new line. (If multiple characters are speaking in a scene, their dialogue shouldn't be grouped into one long paragraph. Each character's dialogue should be separated into its own line or paragraph to make the conversation clear and easy to follow.) While I do correct punctuation, like adding missing quotation marks, adding a comma instead of a period for example, the basic structure of the dialogue should already be in place.

If fundamental elements like proper paragraphing, dialogue formatting, or basic structure are missing from the manuscript, I typically won’t take on the project. In those cases, the author would be wasting their money on copyediting when what they really need is to address these foundational issues first. I would suggest that they either implement those missing elements on their own or work with a developmental editor before getting their book copyedited.

When it comes to developmental issues, such as problems with pacing, underdeveloped characters, or a lack of worldbuilding, I’ll usually leave suggestions in the comments. In these instances, I recommend the author work with a developmental editor or get feedback from beta readers to resolve these deeper narrative issues before moving forward with copyediting.

Backing up suggestions to the author with real-world examples might open a new and fresh way of thinking about the changes needed. It is important, however, not to push your opinion too far if an author is resistant and steadfast about the changes not being done. Remember to always be open and honest with the author to ensure a good working relationship.