Comments on: The Art (?) of Editing http://malblog.schlagergroup.com/2007/08/20/the-art-of-editing/ The blog of Marcia Merryman-Means Sat, 19 May 2012 02:17:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Brenda Griffing http://malblog.schlagergroup.com/2007/08/20/the-art-of-editing/#comment-11 Brenda Griffing Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:41:16 +0000 http://malblog.schlagergroup.com/2007/08/20/the-art-of-editing/#comment-11 Marcia quoted from Gary Kamiya's discussion of what editors do and quoted about twenty components of the job description ("craftsmen, . . . mindreaders, coaches. . ."). It's a good list, and one that begs to be supplemented by a set of rules for achieving or maintaining these qualifications. As someone who has reviewed the editing and copyediting of others for many years and perceives a diminution in quality, I suggest the following: Rule 1. Don't change it wrong. Corollary: When it doubt, look it up. Those who choose editorial work usually have considerable self-esteem in the areas of writing and general knowledge. This is essential; but no less important is a level of humility realistically calibrated to balance the editor's experience against that of each author. Absent a sense that perhaps an author had it right, the temptation to change something that "looks funny" can be overwhelming, especially under deadline pressures. It's often worthwhile to consider, however, that a writer who's been publishing in a given field for decades has had the opportunity to acquire a breadth of knowledge not yet attained by the editor. This in turn should lead to the thought of verifying a questionable word, usage, or statement. With the resources of the Internet available to everyone, the habit of checking the unfamiliar, the "funny looking," isn't hard to develop. Here's an example of a phrase that should have been checked. The Wall St. Journal recently published an op-ed piece by a respected expert on environmental matters. The author had come up with a wonderful metaphor: "The Deutschebank building," he undoubtedly had written, "is a vertical Love Canal." But the Journal printed "vertical love canal." In fairness, the perp here may not have been an editor or copyeditor. An overeager proofreader who was 8 years old when the Love Canal disaster was making headlines may have had an attack of assume-itis: "No reason in the world for caps there. Who knows what this horny old fart of an author intended by way of double entendre, but let's be discreet and kill the caps." Google would have made short work of that one. Yet hardly a day goes by without a similar howler seeing print in a world-class publication. We all make mistakes, and in daily journalism some, even quite a few, are inevitable. There's far less excuse for such errors in books. Marcia quoted from Gary Kamiya’s discussion of what editors do and quoted about twenty components of the job description (”craftsmen, . . . mindreaders, coaches. . .”). It’s a good list, and one that begs to be supplemented by a set of rules for achieving or maintaining these qualifications.

As someone who has reviewed the editing and copyediting of others for many years and perceives a diminution in quality, I suggest the following:

Rule 1. Don’t change it wrong.

Corollary: When it doubt, look it up.

Those who choose editorial work usually have considerable self-esteem in the areas of writing and general knowledge. This is essential; but no less important is a level of humility realistically calibrated to balance the editor’s experience against that of each author.

Absent a sense that perhaps an author had it right, the temptation to change something that “looks funny” can be overwhelming, especially under deadline pressures. It’s often worthwhile to consider, however, that a writer who’s been publishing in a given field for decades has had the opportunity to acquire a breadth of knowledge not yet attained by the editor. This in turn should lead to the thought of verifying a questionable word, usage, or statement. With the resources of the Internet available to everyone, the habit of checking the unfamiliar, the “funny looking,” isn’t hard to develop.

Here’s an example of a phrase that should have been checked. The Wall St. Journal recently published an op-ed piece by a respected expert on environmental matters. The author had come up with a wonderful metaphor: “The Deutschebank building,” he undoubtedly had written, “is a vertical Love Canal.” But the Journal printed “vertical love canal.”

In fairness, the perp here may not have been an editor or copyeditor. An overeager proofreader who was 8 years old when the Love Canal disaster was making headlines may have had an attack of assume-itis: “No reason in the world for caps there. Who knows what this horny old fart of an author intended by way of double entendre, but let’s be discreet and kill the caps.”

Google would have made short work of that one. Yet hardly a day goes by without a similar howler seeing print in a world-class publication. We all make mistakes, and in daily journalism some, even quite a few, are inevitable. There’s far less excuse for such errors in books.

]]>