My intake questionnaire for prospective clients is long.

That’s not an accident.

A good intake questionnaire saves both me and the author a lot of wasted time, frustration, and mismatched expectations by filtering out prospects before we ever meet for a discovery call.

Because not every author is the right fit for every editor.

The First Filter: Will You Even Fill It Out?

One of the simplest but most effective filters is this:

Will the person actually complete the questionnaire?

I won’t schedule a discovery call with someone who refuses to fill it out.

Why?

Because if someone isn’t willing to spend a little time helping me understand their manuscript, goals, and process, then they probably aren’t serious about the collaborative work developmental editing requires.

Why I Ask So Many Questions

Some questions are practical.

I need to know things like:

• What stage the manuscript is in
• What genre you’re writing
• What your goals are
• Whether you’ve worked with editors before
• What kind of feedback you’re looking for

That information helps me tailor recommendations and also gives me a permanent reference point if we decide to work together.

But some questions are there for another reason: To identify Red flags.

Now, a red flag does not automatically mean I won’t work with someone. But it does mean I’m going to look more closely.

Because certain answers strongly predict whether the editing relationship is going to be productive… or frustrating for everyone involved.

Here are a few of the biggest red flags on my list.

🚩 Red Flag #1: “I Don’t Use Any Craft Methods”

One question on my intake form asks what writing craft methods or systems the author has used.

I list several popular approaches and include an “Other” box.

And no, I don’t care which system you use.

Save the Cat, Hero’s Journey, Snowflake Method, KM Weiland, scene-sequel structure, whatever.

All systems are welcome.

The red flag isn’t which system you use.

The red flag is when someone says: “None.”

Now, that alone is not disqualifying.

There are two very different reasons someone might answer that way.

Reason #1:

“It never occurred to me that craft systems existed.”

Totally fine.

I’m happy to work with anyone, from first-time writers to experienced professionals.

You don’t need an MFA or years of study for us to work together productively.

But then there’s the second reason.

Reason #2:

“I think structure is stupid and all craft books are nonsense.”

That’s a problem.

Because developmental editing is structural analysis.

That’s literally what we do.

We analyze:

• Structure
• Character arcs
• Pacing
• Reader expectations
• Genre conventions
• Emotional payoff

Especially as a genre fiction editor, I’m constantly asking:

What promises does this genre make to readers, and is this manuscript delivering on them?

If an author fundamentally rejects the idea that reader expectations matter, they’re probably not going to value the feedback I give.

That doesn’t make them wrong.

But it means we’re trying to accomplish different things, and a working relationship would not be productive. 

🚩 Red Flag #2: Literary vs. Genre Fiction Confusion

Another question on my form is designed to help me determine whether someone is writing genre fiction or literary fiction.

And this matters a lot.

Because I’m a genre fiction editor.

That doesn’t mean literary fiction is bad. I enjoy literary fiction.

But it’s not what I specialize in.

If someone is writing something highly experimental, exploratory, or intentionally unconcerned with genre expectations, my feedback is probably going to feel restrictive instead of helpful.

Because my instinct is always going to be:

• What shelf does this belong on?
• What audience is this for?
• What promises is the story making?
• Is it delivering on those promises?

That mindset is extremely useful for genre fiction.

It’s much less useful for fiction that intentionally resists categorization.

Again: Neither approach is inherently superior.

But compatibility matters.

🚩 Red Flag #3: “My Book Is For Everyone”

This is the answer most likely to make me decline a project.

One of my intake questions asks who the target audience is.

There’s an “Other” option.

And technically, yes, there are valid uses for it.

But honestly?

The “Other” option is a trap.

Because most writers who choose it are using it to avoid narrowing their audience.

And that’s a huge sign that the author will not be receptive to my feedback.

Because no book is for everyone. Not even the biggest books in history.

The Bible is the bestselling book of all time. Plenty of people have no interest in reading it.

Harry Potter is one of the most successful series ever written, and there are still people who dislike it, refuse to read it, or actively object to it.

Every story has an audience, and genre fiction especially depends on understanding that audience’s expectations.

Now, can a book have spillover audiences?

Absolutely. Again, Harry Potter is a great example:

• kids read it
• adults read it
• men read it
• women read it

But J. K. Rowling wrote it to satisfy the expectations of middle-grade fantasy adventure readers—not everyone.

If a writer refuses to identify an ideal reader, they’re often going to resist the very changes that would make the book stronger for the audience most likely to love it.

Why This Matters

Good editors don’t just evaluate manuscripts. We evaluate fit.

Because the wrong editor-author pairing can waste:

• time
• money
• energy
• momentum
• enthusiasm

A strong intake questionnaire helps prevent that before contracts are signed and frustration starts building.

So if you’re an editor, build a solid intake process.

And if you’re an author looking for a genre fiction editor, I’d love to schedule a discovery call with you.

…as long as you fill out my intake questionnaire first.