Good content, or good editing?

Reading Marco Polo's "The Travels" this week, I was struck how like a very early Lonely Planet Guide this 13th century manuscript is. Except, the venerable Marco desperately needs a great modern editor to make his chapter titles a bit more zappy, and to create history boxes and culture boxes to highlight features of interest. Maps and some illustrations would make the text a bit less stuffy, too.

That got me thinking ... how much of a book's success is from the original content, and how much is due to the added-value from the editor.

Now, I think nothing can substitute for good content. Even the best editor in the world cannot make poor content interesting. They can dress it up so it appears more inviting, but if the content doesn't satisfy, it is like getting up from a meal after eating a dish that loked nice in the picture in the menu, but disappointed when it reached the table.

But good content that is poorly laid out, can benefit from the editor's skills no end.

Read my review and decide for yourself!