Editing Online, on Paper
The advent of digital publishing both helps and hinders our editing processes. The automation of individual actions like checking the spelling, grammar, and some stylistic issues speeds it up. Relying on editing on the screen, however, can lead to missing more errors, simply because reading from the monitor is more difficult and tiring. Another limitation is the inability to place pages side-by-side to check for consistency.
A new disadvantage digital publishing brings is the reduction in the number of different eyes that look over texts on their way to production. Where seven or eight different types of editors, proofreaders, fact-checkers and other word workers used to read copy, the number may be down to only three or four. For online publishing and self-publishing, sadly, the number may be only one. In that case, being Number One is not good, especially if that one is also the writer.
The closer it is to the production date when mistakes are found in any length manuscript, the less likely it is that they will be corrected. In the rush to publish, we are sacrificing accuracy and quality for speed and availability. It is difficult to believe James Frey's memoir was fact-checked very well.
My advice when it comes to editing your own work is: don't. Find someone else (who knows all the elements of editing, like an English teacher) to read over your work. If you must DIY, please print out anything over, say, nine pages. Editing on paper is much less tiring, more interruptible, and provides opportunities for several passes. Yes, it takes longer to transfer the corrections to the digital copy, but imagine dealing with typewriters and carbon paper for error correction. Time is stretchy in our minds.
A new disadvantage digital publishing brings is the reduction in the number of different eyes that look over texts on their way to production. Where seven or eight different types of editors, proofreaders, fact-checkers and other word workers used to read copy, the number may be down to only three or four. For online publishing and self-publishing, sadly, the number may be only one. In that case, being Number One is not good, especially if that one is also the writer.
The closer it is to the production date when mistakes are found in any length manuscript, the less likely it is that they will be corrected. In the rush to publish, we are sacrificing accuracy and quality for speed and availability. It is difficult to believe James Frey's memoir was fact-checked very well.
My advice when it comes to editing your own work is: don't. Find someone else (who knows all the elements of editing, like an English teacher) to read over your work. If you must DIY, please print out anything over, say, nine pages. Editing on paper is much less tiring, more interruptible, and provides opportunities for several passes. Yes, it takes longer to transfer the corrections to the digital copy, but imagine dealing with typewriters and carbon paper for error correction. Time is stretchy in our minds.
Labels: editing, technology
posted by Georganna Hancock M.S. | 9:16 AM
3 Comments:
You are so right that everyone needs another pair of eyes - preferably several pairs of eyes - reviewing manuscripts. None of us can catch our own mistakes, and what makes sense to us doesn't always make sense to a reader. A teacher will find grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors, but someone familiar with the genre is also helpful. Teachers may not know enough enough about a nonfiction subject to fact-check or understand the convention of specific fiction genres. I recommend that my editing clients have several other people read the book - a historian or history buff for historical work, an avid reader of the genre for fiction, someone familiar with the topic for how-to books.
I agree! But, finding a second pair of eyes is almost impossible these days, especially someone who is qualified and will edit for free.
When I am writing an article for a magazine, I certainly hope that the editing on the other side (when I pass my work to them) is handled properly. Yet, I do as you have suggested and I print out my drafts to review.
Oftentimes, if I wait a day or two I'll correct a sentence, modify a paragraph, or make other important changes I could have missed.
Computers are wonderfully convenient, but as you indicated they can also cause us to hurry things and be sloppy.
Freebie readings are more for feedback on how the readers like the piece. For serious editorial work that matters, of course, I'm all for hiring professionals.
My attitude is: if you hope to make money from it, you must be willing to invest money in it. If getting a piece of writing edited is your job (by choice or default) and you can't or don't have the time to spend on that task, then you must be willing to employ someone else.
Post a Comment
<< Home