T.E.D. Client Showcase
| Copyediting & Proofreading Explored: A Guide for Nonfiction Writers |
 |
 |
|
by Kate Steele  While my work as a development consultant is focused primarily on making sure a manuscript, book proposal, or technical manual is as strong as possible in content and organization, my job as copyeditor and proofreader is to focus only on how that content is presented and executed. This means making sure it’s clean, presented without flaws of language, grammar, style or typography.
While we always prefer to have the opportunity to vet a manuscript for content prior to final line-by-line editing of any kind, we recognize that some authors don’t want anyone meddling with what it is they’re saying; rather, they just want us to make sure they’re saying it properly. A good editor accepts these limitations and works dutifully within the respective boundaries of each task, which at The Editorial Department breaks down like this: Copyediting not only corrects the text but also strengthens the writing and improves aspects of the overall presentation. In addition to standard proofreading, copyediting includes editing for clarity, consistency, and conformity to style. This includes correcting mechanical errors, which means making sure the spacing between words and after punctuation marks is correct and the formatting follows the rules set out in The Chicago Manual of Style, the standard we use here at The Editorial Department. If you’re writing a scholarly piece, we can use the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association or the American Medical Association Manual of Style if your university or journal publisher so specifies. We are competent with all three. Clarity sounds pretty simple, but, to quote Mona Violet Frey Perkins, “Simple and easy are not synonymous.” If the reader cannot be certain whether the babbling in your scene is being done by the heroine or the brook, clarity is not reflected in the writing. The syntax problem may be simple to spot, but not easy to correct with copyediting if the author isn’t certain of the source of the babbling. For example: “The babbling became louder and louder as we approached Felicity and Frank, standing next to the brook,” would be copyedited as “The brook’s babble became louder and louder as we approached Felicity and Frank.” “Consistency,” according to Ralph Waldo Emerson, “is the hobgoblin of small minds.” But if you advise your reader in Chapter 1 that studies show allowing employees to have some control over their workflow makes them happier and more effective, but by Chapter 5 you are extolling the virtues of closely written, step-by-step procedure manuals to ensure efficiency, you are guilty of two errors: one, not knowing the difference between “effective” and “efficient” and two, inconsistency, also known as “sending mixed messages” that confuse and annoy your readers, perhaps diminishing your own credibility in the process. Style is a bit more difficult to quantify. William F. Strunk said, “we approach style in its broader meaning: style in the sense of what is distinguished and distinguishing.” He went on to say, “There is no satisfactory explanation of style, no infallible guide to good writing, no assurance that a person who thinks clearly will be able to write clearly, no key that unlocks the door, no inflexible rules by which the young writer may shape his course. He will often find himself steering by stars that are disturbingly in motion.” Style, then, is very much like class and pornography: very difficult to define, but we know it when we see it. Depending upon which “authority” you consult, one of several people (Mark Twain, Alfred Hitchcock, Jose Dalisay, Gillian Roberts) said fiction/drama/movies are “real life with the boring parts left out.” Nonfiction, being much more “real life” than fiction, need not be boring, either. A proofreader is, by definition, required to leave in the boring parts of a manuscript, but make certain that boring content is as close to letter-perfect as possible. When I am copyediting, I will do my best, by correcting your syntax, and, by putting the modifiers and phrases in the right order, make it clear whether it’s the heroine or the brook babbling. If your research is sloppy (you have Bill Gates inventing word processing, for example), I will substitute Seymour Rubenstein and Rob Barnaby, inventors of WordStar, the first word processing program. I will delete any silly, physically impossible bits of dialogue—the ones where the protagonist ‘chuckles’ something witty, or ‘snorts’ something sarcastic, for example. Some authorities insist that good editors are born and good writers are made. I am not at all certain what that means, but I can tell you that good editors read widely and deeply, and remember a good deal. Really good editors develop a sense of the probable, the possible, and the plausible; we are able to discern whether your advice about how to prepare for a keynote speech is sound or not, for example, or whether your argument for or against a particular idea is syllogistic. Arthur Plotnick, author of The Elements of Editing, explained the craft to an audience of writers this way: “You write to communicate to the hearts and minds of others what’s burning inside you—“ “And we edit to let the fire show through the smoke.” When copyediting nonfiction and business-related works, I consider these issues: 1. The target audience: Most people buy nonfiction books in order to learn something. Books for entry-level readers will contain more basic information, detail, and explanation, while books for more sophisticated consumers will cover more in-depth, theoretical, possibly philosophical approaches to the subject matter. The writing style for every audience needs to be clear, interesting and vivid and deliver everything promised in the “blurbs”. 2. Organization and format: Is the data laid out or summarized in easy-to-follow lists, columns or tables, in logical order? Are the footnotes, chapter or endnotes in the proper order, clearly related to the text, and useful to the reader? Does the overall organization lead the reader forward? 3. Sound information: Does the author differentiate among “facts,” “currently accepted theories” and “opinions”? Are “generally accepted principles” and other guidelines defined as “principles” or “guidelines” rather than “fact” or “opinion”? Are the reasons “Best Practices” are accepted as such explained clearly? 4. Analysis and interpretation of data in the author’s own voice: Are new ideas and/or difficult concepts or hypotheses explained in clear, “not to be misunderstood” language? Are story explanations and examples relevant, revealing? 5. Balance: Are competing theories evaluated thoroughly, fairly and without unfair bias? Is the language used to discuss competing ideas or theories civil, or likely to insult or annoy readers? 6. Originality: Is the text a rehash of the work of others, or are there fresh insights, new applications for existing knowledge, or true refinements of existing knowledge? Content must be readable and: 1. Interesting, at least to the target audience. Is the information presented interesting in its own right, or at least presented in an appealing fashion? Is the reader invited or motivated to keep reading, thinking, or remain engaged when the concepts are complex and daunting? 2. Flow. Are the examples and explanations concrete, clear and written in standard English, with a specific point of view and a message delivered with reasonable authority? 3. Tone. Is the voice active, with strong verbs, colorful or memorable examples or anecdotes to illustrate the points? Or is the tone arrogant, talking down to the reader, unnecessarily pedantic, wordy, laced with jargon or otherwise annoying? Finally, the content needs to satisfy a purpose: 1. Intellectual challenge: Is there real information, presented in a way that asks new questions or answers old ones more fully? Are the discussions stimulating and satisfying, or merely asking inane questions for the sake of argument? 2. Persuasion: Does the data presented support the hypotheses or ideas or applications as the author believes, or are the arguments weak, unsupported or lacking credibility? 3. Relevance: If the author is presenting new methods for manufacturing buggy whips, the book is long out of date. However, if the manuscript addresses current, common, or enduring interests of the target audience, and challenges or rewards them intellectually and/or emotionally, then the book may be said to be relevant, not trendy or lightweight. Copyediting and proofreading require patience, focus, a well-stocked reference shelf (and the willingness to look things up even when I’m sure what you wrote looks right) and a sharp eye for the mistakes that even very talented writers with a great command of their language often make. One thing we bring to the table is simply our skill and our sense of objectivity. Another is our willingness to be ruthless in our effort to identify and fix anything that compromises correctness and professionalism. | |||||
|
Suggested reading (and references): 
Author Testimonials
Sheila Lowe (Author of Poison Pen) Valenica, CA |
Need some professional guidance on a manuscript you've written or are writing? Have you considered hiring TED and want to know more about what to expect? Check out our Downloadable Guide for New & Prospective Clients. (Left click to view or print. Right Click/Save As... to save for future reference.)
