Two popular types of bad copyediting are (1) editing that didn’t need doing in the first place, and (2) needed editing that didn’t get done. Both types can be accomplished with or without the aid of a computer, but there are reasons why a copyeditor deploying a word processor is likely to end up committing both.
Put simply, the reason for type 1 is “Because she can,” and the reason for type 2 is “Because she can’t.”
Perfectionists are helpless to resist the tweaking and refining that comes at the peck of a few keys, even if it’s ultimately unhelpful to the publishing process, even if the original was good enough, even if errors are introduced in the meddling. It’s just so darned easy, and it takes only a few seconds. Well, maybe just a few more—oops—that wasn’t what I meant to happen, but that’s okay, because I can fix it . . . oops—wait, I’ve got it now! Sorry, where was I? Oh, yes: talking about editing that didn’t need doing.
More laid-back types are no better off if they haven’t mastered the word processor. Freelancers regularly send me work that isn’t properly cleaned and coded. Are they simply blind to all the little e-boogers? Or does it not occur to them that there’s an efficient way to fix them? Either way, we get the type 2 problem of editing that goes undone.
The solution doesn’t lie in editing on paper any more than the problem lies in the machine. If all the copyeditors in the world throw themselves in front of that train to Technology, it’s still going to roll on by.
Might as well get on.
______
Photo: Jonathan Cardy, Bullet Train in York, licensed under CC BY-SA
The solution seems to be, then, to have a firm set of guidelines on what to edit and what to leave alone and to know how to use your tools!
Posted by: Erin Brenner | 06/07/2010 at 11:05 AM
I've been lucky to have a career that's spanned the era from manual typewriters and carbon paper to now, and I could never be persuaded to go back - but I was a better writer when I had to work more slowly and deliberately, I was a better editor when I had to do thoughtful markups with no "undo" key, and I was a better proofreader without the safety net of a spelling checker.
Posted by: Donna | 06/08/2010 at 10:06 PM
That used to be the bain of my writing existence, correcting errors and generally being finicky. Took me quite a while to stop it.
http://www.gogomywalkingpup.info/
Posted by: Thomas Shaw | 02/06/2011 at 09:25 AM