Writer, Editor, Helper

An E-Mail Diet: EOM NNTR

 

Photo by ajft@flickr

Finally, instead of just whining about overstuffing on e-mail, I can promote some easy and practical ways to start slimming down.

We are gorging ourselves on e-mail, and like any other form of excess, the bloating of our inboxes with a relentless feed of incoming messages can be harmful to our health. I know it raises my blood pressure when I’m in a hurry and forced to deal with thoughtlessly framed or formatted messages that cost me time and trouble before I even start dealing with the content.

But David Pogue at the New York Times recently pointed readers to a refreshing remedy at emailcharter.com.

The Email Charter is a ray of hope. Started by TED colleagues Chris Anderson and Jane Wulf, it consists of ten simple guidelines that, if universally—or just generally—practiced, would save us from e-mail obesity.

My own favorite is number 8: “Give These Gifts: EOM NNTR: If your email message can be expressed in half a dozen words, just put it in the subject line, followed by EOM (= End of Message). This saves the recipient having to actually open the message. Ending a note with ‘No need to respond’ or NNTR, is a wonderful act of generosity. Many acronyms confuse as much as help, but these two are golden and deserve wide adoption.”

An example of EOM would be a subject line reading “2 pm meeting changed to 3pm, EOM.” If the note required no response, NNTR could be added after EOM. (If it required response, the old standby RSVP would do.) Someone replying to the message could type “See you at 3 EOM” in the subject line. In all cases, the body of the e-mail would be blank and no one would even have to open it.

Read the charter and keep it in mind when e-mailing—it’s noncommercial, nonfat, and gluten-free.

Tech Tip #21: A Shortcut Writers and Editors Can’t Live Without

 

If you’ve ever Any writer or editor who worksed in a document “redlined” inwith MS Microsoft Word’s “tracked changes” feature, you’ve certainly reached a stage where you has encountered the difficulty of reading through a tangle of editingsomething like this:.

Most of us have figured out how to go to the Reviewing toolbar or ribbon and choose “Final” in order to view what will result if we decide to accept the editing: 

Any writer or editor who workswith Microsoft Word’s “tracked changes” featurehas encountered the difficulty of reading through a tangle of editinglike this.

As you can see, viewing the final version is helpful—often essential—for seeing where adjustments still need to be made.

Assigning a simple key command to toggle back and forth between the mess and the clean version will take hours off your editing time and make you feel happy and competent whenever you use it. Take five minutes to set up and master this supereasy trick.

—Find the Customize > Keyboard Commands box. (In Word 2007, click the Office button in the top left corner, and then Word Options, then in the left column, Customize. At the bottom click Keyboard Shortcuts > Customize. In earlier versions, go to the top menu called Tools > Customize > Commands > Keyboard.)

—In the Categories list, scroll to All Commands. In the Commands column, scroll to “Show Insertions and Deletions.” In the Press New Shortcut Key box, type the command you want (I use Alt-n). Click Assign, and then Close.

You’re done! Open a tracked doc and see what happens when you use the key command. Are you happy? View mess. Alt-n. View final. Alt-n. View mess. Alt-n. View final.

Alt-n, Alt-n, Alt-n, Alt-n. I’m happy! And congratulations—you’ve already mastered it.

Writing to Authors by “Feel”

 

Photo by Janek Mann

Do you ever start to show someone how to do something and then realize you aren’t exactly sure how you do it, that you do it differently every time, and that ultimately it’s as much a matter of intuition and experience as it is of following instructions? Like making pie crust? Or juggling? Or explaining to a writer everything you’d like to change in her manuscript?

Me too.

After all, each work is unique in the amount and depth of editing, the degree to which it’s  negotiable, the amount of time the writer will have to respond, and (the chainsaw in this juggling act) whether the writer is thick-skinned or touchy. What’s the recipe for dealing with all that?

Well, I don’t have a recipe, but I have some ingredients. And don’t worry—this is not some pukey “start with a cup of care” conceit. (Although care with chainsaws is something that, as a mom, I always recommend.) Rather, here are some of the ingredients I keep in the air while editing, so that when I’m finished, I can incorporate them to the degree I sense is needed.

—My style sheet, where I note spelling or style questions I want the author to resolve.

—Again my style sheet, where I keep a separate list called Issues that I might or might not draw attention to in a cover letter (e.g., overuse of a word or phrase or construction; capitalization of items in a category like art movements or job titles; decisions to run in or set off quotations; odd use of “ibid.” in notes; misplacement of note superscripts; renumbering of figures or tables).

—The editing I show by tracking in the manuscript. If I find myself tracking the same change repeatedly, I might decide to stop tracking it. I’ll either note it in a comment (“Hereafter changed silently”) or add it to my issues list for mention in the letter.

—The comments I add to the manuscript. When I finish editing, I review my comments in the first chunk of the MS in light of what I’ve learned since I wrote them. They always need revising, sometimes for accuracy, sometimes for tone. I delete a good number of them; others I might transfer to the editorial letter.

—My correspondence with the writer. If it has been constant or lengthy, I’ll have a sense of the writer’s personality. I sometimes review the correspondence to get a feel for what tone is appropriate in my letter. If contact has been minimal, my letter will be more polite and restrained.

In writing the letter, I start with a template that includes some boilerplate, and from there I incorporate my ingredients. Issues might go into a bulleted list. A larger issue might go up front in a paragraph of its own. A comment from the MS might get pulled out and into a bullet point. Finally, when it’s time to stir in the chainsaw, I read the letter objectively and remove any hints of impatience, pedantry, condescension, or snark. If I can be honest about it, I convey enthusiasm for the project; if I can’t, I find something kind to say.

Knowing when to stop is key. Too much water, and the crust is soggy. Not enough, and the chainsaw, well . . . I had a feeling the chainsaw was a bad idea. (It usually is.) The point is, learning how to summarize and explain and persuade with a tone of respect and maybe also a little charm is a skill that, like any other, takes practice.

And just like good pie crust, it’s worth the effort.

Questions for Me?

Photo by MrCTeach

I’m so pleased that many of you have been submitting questions at my Questions and Suggestions page. But there are two little problems.

(1) For contractual reasons, I’m not able to answer style and grammar questions. I urge you to send them instead to the Q&A at the Chicago Manual of Style online.

(2) I can reply to you privately only if you leave an e-mail address. Which almost nobody does.

I feel bad that I’m not able to acknowledge your letters because I have no way to reach you. Please consider leaving an e-mail address. I promise it will never appear in the blog. For safety, you can type it into the body of your note instead of in the form.

Thanks so much for your interest.

Yours,

Carol

 

Dear Carol: Journals vs. Books Editing; Copyeditor vs. Copy Editor

Dear Carol,

I am an experienced proofreader and beginner copyeditor who would like to work with academic publishers. I would like to get started with journals and move into books. Do you think this is a good approach?

Anonymous

Dear Anonymous,

Not necessarily. When we hire in our department (books), we are wary of journals copyeditors, whose editing instincts and training can get in the way. We do hire them, because they’re smart and understand academe, but all else being equal, we prefer editors with book experience. Here’s why:

Academic journals usually have more strict requirements for conformity than books, and their chosen style is not always CMOS. Articles are tailored to a journal’s standard format, and there’s pressure to edit quickly to rigid deadlines. In this fast-paced workflow, copyeditors have little flexibility to organize their chores otherwise. In technical publications, or at journals where there is little or no contact with the author, copyeditors aren’t encouraged to engage deeply with the material, even though they often have advanced degrees and specialist knowledge. Finally, journals rarely make it a goal to produce lovely prose; there simply isn’t time.

Book editors experience more variety and have more discretion. Each book is different in size, content, tone, and schedule. The copyeditor decides whether to accept an alien citation style and how to organize the work. Schedules tend to stretch, as editors juggle several books at difference stages of production. It’s usual to have constant contact and negotiation with authors. Although copyeditors routinely work on content they have no knowledge of, experienced book copyeditors know how to nudge incomprehensible prose into something more lovely, and nonspecialist manuscripts invite more substantive editing.

I hope this helps you decide which path to follow. You might love journals editing, and if you do, why switch? In any case, here’s more advice on breaking in.

Dear Carol:

In your book, you use copy editor but in your blog you use copyeditor? How inconsistent! One doesn’t write substantiveditor or stylisticeditor (stylistickediter??) or lineditor, so why copyeditor? I also prefer the clear distinction between copy editor and copywriter, which can be so easy to confuse at a glance when both are closed up. (I suppose that closing up copyeditor to match copywriter could also be an argument for consistency . . .) I’d be very interested to know why you have chosen to use the closed form in your blog, especially given the visibility of the open form on your book. Thanks.

Michele

Dear Michele,

I’ve been on the lam from the truth ever since the book came out. But you’ve got me cornered. The jig is up. I’ll spill.

Sometime after The Subversive Copy Editor had gone to typesetting, I was reading the first draft of the manuscript for the 16th edition of the Manual of Style, and I came across the word copyeditor, all one word, and nearly had a heart attack. I searched the whole text and it was the same everywhere: one word. CMOS 16 was changing it to one word, and as a result my book title wouldn’t be in Chicago style! I got hysterical and started shooting e-mails to stop the presses, which of course I didn’t have the authority to do. And in any case, it was simply too late.

What I didn’t know but soon learned is that Chicago style for copyeditor had always been one word. I had simply gotten it wrong. I had been following Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, our designated dictionary, and I had never noticed that the style in the manual was different. To help me out, Russell Harper (the principal reviser of the 16th edition) went through the draft of CMOS 16 and eliminated every mention of copyeditor that he could. I think there are only four left, and two of those are in book titles. It was a heroic gesture that I will never forget.

Ever since, I’ve been confused. I write it every which way.

So you got me. I’m at your mercy. Shootin’ or hangin’, please. (Anything but tweetin’!)