There was a certain amount of pushback (is that phrase too popular yet?) to my statement the other day that good copyeditors are “creative.” Many of you knew exactly what I was trying to say—my favorite curmudgeon had posted a simpatico riff before the e-ink was dry—but others were alarmed, and I can’t say I blame them.
“Creative” bookkeeping, “creative” word processing, “creative” nonfiction—dubious ventures all. And I’m sure the last thing a writer wants to hear about his new copyeditor is that she’s famously “creative.” He can just imagine the frustrated wannabe writer festooning his already pretty good prose with decorative adverbs and multiple exclamation points.
But creative copyediting is not creative writing. Rather, it is creative thinking, reacting, and decision making. It’s seeing the inspired solution instead of the obvious one. It’s the ability to maneuver and negotiate and make choices that the writer would have made herself, had she been able to see past the content to the prose. It’s more about knowing when to leave well enough alone than about decorating. And I still say it’s fun, a grown-up kind of fun, bobbing and weaving through all that on the way to an elegant product.
And yes, Melissaipsa, the author’s ownership of the text is fundamental. Handling it with care and respect increases the challenge, because it imposes limits on our choices. We didn’t write the song: we accompany it, correcting the sour notes, building on the harmonies. Professional writers will hear when the results are good and accept them gladly. If the writer has a tin ear, well, it’s his song.
If his ego gets in the way, well, that’s an issue for another day.
______
Image: from Pixabay by Mudassar Iqbal.
I agree completely, and it's one of the reasons I love copyediting, but I think this could benefit by having some examples. Without them, this all seems a bit nebulous...
Posted by: Shmuel Ross | 07/15/2010 at 10:17 AM
Isn't all of this implied in the term copyediting? Anyone billing themself as a copy editor should know the parameters of their function.
Posted by: Judi Brown | 07/15/2010 at 10:22 AM
Judi: of course, but I assume these posts are meant for the uninitiated. I certainly have friends and relatives who think I have the most boring job ever.
Posted by: Shmuel Ross | 07/15/2010 at 10:46 AM
I do occasional amateur-level editing of bilingual (English and Spanish) material. One is usually a translation of the other so part of my work is to improve the occasional clumsy translation to better reflect the original meaning. There are plenty of times when a comma here or there isn't enough to fix an awkward paragraph. It's always a judgment call between respecting the author's original and making it as good as it can be. Fortunately, we're all focused on the final product more than on our respective contributions.
Posted by: Joe Eugene | 07/15/2010 at 11:53 AM
"If his ego gets in the way, well, that’s an issue for another day."
I'm curious to hear your take on this! What do we do with the writer who thinks his prose is infallible after one draft?
Posted by: Toma | 07/15/2010 at 12:36 PM
Editors are definitely a creative breed. Though we have rules upon rules to follow, we have to oftentimes find creative ways to implement those rules in practical ways.
Editors must also be creative because they sometimes have to rewrite, and this must be done in the author's voice. A non-creative person could not write in another person's voice.
Posted by: April Michelle Davis | 07/15/2010 at 12:42 PM
This is a great post and I think people may not get it. I agree that the creative part is the fun part. I can be cruising along changing the usual when all of a sudden I stop, back up, and go, "that's not right!" I will then spend several minutes trying to reconstruct a sentence so that it makes sense and stays in tune with what the author is trying to say. It's hard to explain but that is the really fun part!
Posted by: Jonathan | 07/18/2010 at 08:19 AM
Great
Posted by: Kontraktor pameran | 11/30/2023 at 09:59 AM