|
Post by RickW on Jan 4, 2020 1:34:38 GMT -5
Do you have any good resources on “how to copyedit.” It appalls me that I still find typos even after I have read something several times, and I also, when I have stepped away from a manuscript for a while, still come back and find logic and flow problems.
I don’t know if there is an actual methodology nor not.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Jan 4, 2020 8:53:44 GMT -5
Send everything to Willium before posting.
|
|
|
Mr. Bill
Jan 4, 2020 10:23:33 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by RickW on Jan 4, 2020 10:23:33 GMT -5
It's for my book. Just about done.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 4, 2020 10:40:52 GMT -5
Do you have any good resources on “how to copyedit.” It appalls me that I still find typos even after I have read something several times, and I also, when I have stepped away from a manuscript for a while, still come back and find logic and flow problems. I don’t know if there is an actual methodology nor not. I can't cite any physical resources, but I can offer my own approach. When I am reading or writing something, three systems are in play: my eyes, my ears and my brain. Eyes, obviously, are to look for things that are missing, transposed or doubled up, misspellings, a homonym gone rogue, etc. Ears are for hearing each sentence -- in fact, if your situation allows, I highly recommend that you read aloud as you write or edit, or at least whisper the words as you traverse the terrain. This helps to imprint the task deeper into your consciousness and to create the optimal flow of words. (BTW, it's also why I can't edit while listening to music via headphones or any nearby sound source. I've got to "hear" what I am editing.) The brain part is probably the most underappreciated by the general public. Copy editors are so often seen as proofreaders, spelling and grammar checkers, but a major part of our daily tasks is thinking through the piece -- its theme, its mission, its completeness, its fairness, its accuracy (I verify name and title references literally hundreds of times a day, for instance), its tone, its flabbiness or sleekness. You think all this through as you go, marking little points that you might want to revisit as you proceed through the first read. Then you get to the end, go back and revisit the troublesome points and address them. THEN you go back to the beginning and read it all over again, slowly, watching it closely, hearing it clearly and thinking it through. We also have a program called Tansa that we run on each story. It is set up to sync with our stylebook and preferred dictionary, and flags trouble spots. It's not perfect, but it's helpful. We typically use it before starting to edit a piece and then again at the very end, because as much as we might not like to admit it, we sometimes generate typos in making changes to copy. Hope this helps. Happy hunting!
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 4, 2020 10:43:13 GMT -5
Oh, and one more tip. Pay double close attention to the last paragraph, and the last sentence, of each and every piece. It's amazing how often there are errors there, as the writer was signing off on his or her task, and you are about to, as well. Guards get let down.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jan 4, 2020 10:47:11 GMT -5
Bill, I wish the copyeditors I've dealt with had been more like you.
The author usually has an advantage that copyeditors don't--the ability to put the piece aside for days or weeks and come back to it with fresh eyes.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 4, 2020 10:54:21 GMT -5
Bill, I wish the copyeditors I've dealt with had been more like you. The author usually has an advantage that copyeditors don't--the ability to put the piece aside for days or weeks and come back to it with fresh eyes. And I wish some of the reporters I've dealt with were more like you -- writing is thinking, after all, not just tossing words into a bowl.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jan 4, 2020 10:57:45 GMT -5
Do you have any good resources on “how to copyedit.” It appalls me that I still find typos even after I have read something several times, and I also, when I have stepped away from a manuscript for a while, still come back and find logic and flow problems. I don’t know if there is an actual methodology nor not. I can't cite any physical resources, but I can offer my own approach. When I am reading or writing something, three systems are in play: my eyes, my ears and my brain. Eyes, obviously, are to look for things that are missing, transposed or doubled up, misspellings, a homonym gone rogue, etc. Ears are for hearing each sentence -- in fact, if your situation allows, I highly recommend that you read aloud as you write or edit, or at least whisper the words as you traverse the terrain. This helps to imprint the task deeper into your consciousness and to create the optimal flow of words. (BTW, it's also why I can't edit while listening to music via headphones or any nearby sound source. I've got to "hear" what I am editing.) The brain part is probably the most underappreciated by the general public. Copy editors are so often seen as proofreaders, spelling and grammar checkers, but a major part of our daily tasks is thinking through the piece -- its theme, its mission, its completeness, its fairness, its accuracy (I verify name and title references literally hundreds of times a day, for instance), its tone, its flabbiness or sleekness. You think all this through as you go, marking little points that you might want to revisit as you proceed through the first read. Then you get to the end, go back and revisit the troublesome points and address them. THEN you go back to the beginning and read it all over again, slowly, watching it closely, hearing it clearly and thinking it through. We also have a program called Tansa that we run on each story. It is set up to sync with our stylebook and preferred dictionary, and flags trouble spots. It's not perfect, but it's helpful. We typically use it before starting to edit a piece and then again at the very end, because as much as we might not like to admit it, we sometimes generate typos in making changes to copy. Hope this helps. Happy hunting! Thanks Bill. I saw someone else recommend the reading aloud part, and that makes sense to me, especially for catching typos and missed words. The whole flow part is so huge, the “thinking through the piece.” I think I’ll need a pass just focusing on that; it’s always on my mind when I write, which has really helped my technical and business writing over the years, but a novel is a whole other ball of wax, did I set something up properly, did I hint in the right spots, did I even mention it all, or did I use if differently? Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 4, 2020 11:26:07 GMT -5
I not only toss words into a bowl, I made the bowl.
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Jan 4, 2020 12:08:30 GMT -5
Hoosiers swear by the book, “Writin’ Real Good for Fun and Profit: Make Them Words the Goodest.” You can get it at Cracker Barrel.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 4, 2020 12:29:19 GMT -5
What Bill describes is at least two kinds of editing. Proofing is a particular skill that is, in my experience, distinct from the kind of editing he describes in his third paragraph. Decades of essay-grading have made me into a decent proofreader, and I proof my own copy before giving it to C. (who has been grading for fifty years now) for a going-over--and I still will sometimes later catch something that we both missed, though it's usually a matter of style than correctness.
Editing for everything else is, for me, mostly a matter of that virtual ear, and I don't know how to describe it except through metaphors. Not that it can't be analyzed--a long-ago seminar on linguistics and rhetoric showed me the descriptive/analytical tools, but I haven't kept them up, and since I'm not trying to teach the skill any more, my ear is good enough.
Right now I'm finishing a review column, and I start every writing session by reading the whole section I'm working on, to regain a sense of its pace and rhythm and to make sure that every unit--phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph--connects to the previous one and that the nature of the connection (logical, rhetorical, musical) is solid. Even this post it getting that treatment. (The previous sentence was written just before hitting the "Post Quick Reply" button.)
I don't write fiction, but I get to watch the process and serve as test audience, so I can testify that the generating and editing processes for that are quite different from what goes on with non-fiction.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 4, 2020 13:18:43 GMT -5
When we disagree, I tell myself that you do.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jan 4, 2020 13:35:08 GMT -5
What Bill describes is at least two kinds of editing. Proofing is a particular skill that is, in my experience, distinct from the kind of editing he describes in his third paragraph. Decades of essay-grading have made me into a decent proofreader, and I proof my own copy before giving it to C. (who has been grading for fifty years now) for a going-over--and I still will sometimes later catch something that we both missed, though it's usually a matter of style than correctness. Editing for everything else is, for me, mostly a matter of that virtual ear, and I don't know how to describe it except through metaphors. Not that it can't be analyzed--a long-ago seminar on linguistics and rhetoric showed me the descriptive/analytical tools, but I haven't kept them up, and since I'm not trying to teach the skill any more, my ear is good enough. Right now I'm finishing a review column, and I start every writing session by reading the whole section I'm working on, to regain a sense of its pace and rhythm and to make sure that every unit--phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph--connects to the previous one and that the nature of the connection (logical, rhetorical, musical) is solid. Even this post it getting that treatment. (The previous sentence was written just before hitting the "Post Quick Reply" button.) I don't write fiction, but I get to watch the process and serve as test audience, so I can testify that the generating and editing processes for that are quite different from what goes on with non-fiction. Proofreading is in theory the final review before it goes to the printer, so the actual copy formatted and ready to go. Does everything line up correctly, diagrams and pics nicely located and captions in place, page breaks good, footers/headers, etc., along with a final review of spelling/grammer. Copying editing is a combo of checking spelling/grammer, and the flow of the logic/prose. I’ll only have to do the first if I go with self publishing, which is a distinct possibility.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 4, 2020 13:38:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 4, 2020 13:51:22 GMT -5
When we disagree, I tell myself that you do. I prefer "alternate facts."
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 4, 2020 13:56:32 GMT -5
When we disagree, I tell myself that you do. I prefer "alternate facts." I prefer alternating.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jan 4, 2020 13:56:58 GMT -5
What Bill describes is at least two kinds of editing. Proofing is a particular skill that is, in my experience, distinct from the kind of editing he describes in his third paragraph. Decades of essay-grading have made me into a decent proofreader, and I proof my own copy before giving it to C. (who has been grading for fifty years now) for a going-over--and I still will sometimes later catch something that we both missed, though it's usually a matter of style than correctness. Editing for everything else is, for me, mostly a matter of that virtual ear, and I don't know how to describe it except through metaphors. Not that it can't be analyzed--a long-ago seminar on linguistics and rhetoric showed me the descriptive/analytical tools, but I haven't kept them up, and since I'm not trying to teach the skill any more, my ear is good enough. Right now I'm finishing a review column, and I start every writing session by reading the whole section I'm working on, to regain a sense of its pace and rhythm and to make sure that every unit--phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph--connects to the previous one and that the nature of the connection (logical, rhetorical, musical) is solid. Even this post it getting that treatment. (The previous sentence was written just before hitting the "Post Quick Reply" button.) I don't write fiction, but I get to watch the process and serve as test audience, so I can testify that the generating and editing processes for that are quite different from what goes on with non-fiction. Proofreading is in theory the final review before it goes to the printer, so the actual copy formatted and ready to go. Does everything line up correctly, diagrams and pics nicely located and captions in place, page breaks good, footers/headers, etc., along with a final review of spelling/grammer. Copying editing is a combo of checking spelling/grammer, and the flow of the logic/prose. I’ll only have to do the first if I go with self publishing, which is a distinct possibility. Never type and watch hockey at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jan 4, 2020 13:57:34 GMT -5
To reinforce what Bill and Russell said about the two types of editing: I similarly find it helpful to divide editing into (1) copy editing, which includes the punctuation, grammar, etc.; and (2) what I call polishing. That's where the editor materially improves the piece in ways that Bill and Russell suggest - or makes suggestions that allow the writer to do it him or herself.
To this distinction I would add this: I find it best to take at least two journeys through a piece of copy (whether your own or someone else's): at least one for each type of editing. They are almost left-brain/right-brain acclivities, best done separately. Of course, time limitations rarely allow this luxury on a busy newspaper copy desk. But, given time: polish first, then copy edit. And when you're copy editing, examine each and every word and punctuation mark.
To take it one step further: Each time you read through a piece of writing in "polish mode," you're likely see things you hadn't seen before. It's like seeing smaller patches of weeds you didn't notice the first or second trip through the garden because there were larger patches that claimed your attention.
Repeat the process of polishing numerous times until there are no weeds left.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 4, 2020 14:03:36 GMT -5
To take it one step further: Each time you read through a piece of writing in "polish mode," you're likely <to> see things you hadn't seen before.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 4, 2020 14:04:02 GMT -5
"To take it one step further: Each time you read through a piece of writing in "polish mode," you're likely see things you hadn't seen before. It's like seeing smaller patches of weeds you didn't notice the first or second trip through the garden because there were larger patches that claimed your attention."
Want to take another try at that one?
|
|