Perhaps a not so uncomplicated question

[LissaSue]

I was wondering if anyone could give me a bit of feedback on different ways to edit? I am a fairly new editor, and, if I've got this right, I'm using the copy editor method. A writer sends me their material, I retype it with the suggested corrections, and send it on it's happy little way. If there is a better way to do this, please let me know.

Thanks for your time!

 

[bronzeage]

I was wondering if anyone could give me a bit of feedback on different ways to edit? I am a fairly new editor, and, if I've got this right, I'm using the copy editor method. A writer sends me their material, I retype it with the suggested corrections, and send it on it's happy little way. If there is a better way to do this, please let me know.

Thanks for your time!

My marking method is fairly simple. All marks are made in red type. Text marked to be deleted is underlined. This leaves the original text in place. The suggested changes are in {braces.} Punctuation corrections, [p] period, [c] comma, etc are in brackets. [Any other notes are in brackets.]

I return the story to the writer and it is their job to go through the text, make the corrections and convert back to black text. If I find a systematic error in a long story, I correct the first page and return it with notes about how to fix the problem. After this is done, I start again from the beginning.

 

[sr71plt]

Never heard of the "retype it with corrections" method. Does that mean you are obliterating the original? That's not a legitimate form of editing. The author should remain responsible for everything, which means when you make a suggested change, you don't get rid of what the author original had, and your suggestions are clearly marked. It's up to the author to accept/reject at that point.

Two forms of editing. Electronic is the easiest to work with and is becoming predominate. And PC Word is the primary publishing platform, with the Word tracking change system the most-preferred editing program.

In this, you can annotate electronically, with what you do showing in a different color (generally red for the first editor and blue for the second if a second one goes through). You can have strikethroughs, but the words underneath will still be discernible. At a keystroke the author then can accept or reject the editorial suggestions.

Or, hard copy. In this, you would mark your suggestions in colored eraseable pencil, making full use of the margins. The author would then do any/all retyping unless you agreed to do the cleanup after they'd been over it to with their accept/reject in a different-colored pencil.

In the publishing world, if the edit was done electronically, it would be locked before going to the author and the author would either annotate electronically (with comments showing in a color other than the original type and edit) or would run a hard copy and mark it with a pencil. Then it would go back to the editor for cleanup and on to the publisher. A file trail would exist of who did what from the point of edit.

If it was edited in hard copy, the author would respond to the edits in another color pencil and then the hard copy would go back to the editor for cleanup in a separate electronic copy--and then back to the publisher.

At the publisher's discretion, copies of the original/edit/cleanup would all go back to the publisher so that they could follow the paper trail and institute their own changes if they wanted to.

 

[sr71plt]

My marking method is fairly simple. All marks are made in red type. Text marked to be deleted is underlined. This leaves the original text in place. The suggested changes are in {braces.} Punctuation corrections, [p] period, [c] comma, etc are in brackets. [Any other notes are in brackets.]

Word tracking change does a variation of this that is loads easier/simpler/clearer than manual marking.

 

[bronzeage]

Word tracking change does a variation of this that is loads easier/simpler/clearer than manual marking.

This method is more for the benefit of the writer, than the editor.

 

[sr71plt]

This method is more for the benefit of the writer, than the editor.

Oh, I don't agree with this at all--from the standpoint of forty years as a maintream editor and twenty as a writer.

I invited anyone interested in editing to go to any publisher and ask them yourself.

 

[_Lynn_]

Word tracking change does a variation of this that is loads easier/simpler/clearer than manual marking.

I agree. After using both methods, I find the Word tracking change option a huge time saver as both a writer and an editor.

This method is more for the benefit of the writer, than the editor.

I disagree. Tracking change provides the writer with clear and simple markings to learn. Trying to remember a different system for each editor would be distracting and annoying for the writer.

 

[Firebrain]

Track changes is definitely the easiest way to go, provided that you both have a recent version of Word.

As to ways to edit, you would usually make these passes:
--full content edit commenting on plot, pacing, character development, genre specifics etc
--line edit where you examine phrasing, sentence structure, inconsistencies and general prose-tightening
--a copy edit to fix mistakes and errors.

As a Lit editor, you would probably do all three at the same time, and probably wouldn't do a very intensive line edit bar a couple of general suggestions.

 

[Scotsman69]

I agree about tracking changes. On the most recent version of Word, it's named 'Review' in the toolbar. Saves lots of time for both editor and writer, and it's clear as a bell, with facilities for both detailed suggested changes, and longer comments in a balloon to the side.

I use it as both a writer and as an editor.

 

[PennLady]

I put in another vote for Word's edit tracking. Much easier to read and see the changes. I usually save a file I'm editing with another name so that I have a clean original, because I'm like that, but I think the edit tracking is so much easier. I've had a couple of editors who manually put changes in red, but I think that's a lot of extra work to be changing text color, etc., when the edit function does it for you.

I'd also never retype the entire thing -- I'm taking the original poster literally, about retyping -- b/c it seems like a waste of time. I worked for a newsletter publisher and worked with edited copy. It was marked up and I made changes, but no one ever retyped the whole thing unless a file was lost.

 

[sr71plt]

Track changes is definitely the easiest way to go, provided that you both have a recent version of Word.

As to ways to edit, you would usually make these passes:
--full content edit commenting on plot, pacing, character development, genre specifics etc
--line edit where you examine phrasing, sentence structure, inconsistencies and general prose-tightening
--a copy edit to fix mistakes and errors.

As a Lit editor, you would probably do all three at the same time, and probably wouldn't do a very intensive line edit bar a couple of general suggestions.

I flip those first two passes. I do the line edit pass first--then when I do the content pass, my attention won't be distracted by the technical issues.

 

[bronzeage]

Oh, I don't agree with this at all--from the standpoint of forty years as a maintream editor and twenty as a writer.

I invited anyone interested in editing to go to any publisher and ask them yourself.

I am not a mainstream editor. It is a simple method which works for me and the writers I assist.

I am not a missionary and have no desire to convince you my way is better or yours is not.

 

[sr71plt]

I am not a mainstream editor. It is a simple method which works for me and the writers I assist.

I am not a missionary and have no desire to convince you my way is better or yours is not.

Your assertion wasn't about only you, it was a sweeping generalization about what was best for editors. If you hadn't been making the assertion for all of editordom, I probably wouldn't have responded.

I can guarantee you, as MistressLynn noted, that you aren't doing your writers any favors by using a personal system and, from experience, I can tell you that you aren't making the best use of your time and effort as an editor by doing so either.

I've had to adjust to forty years of changes on how best to do it. The new methods are light years better for both editor and writer than the older ones were. And I don't mean just in the difficulty of changing to anyone else's system. The system you describe requires manual edits that stick in the text--and at the end of the day somebody's got to slough through all of that and manually change and delete--to get the text cleaned up, which not only takes a lot of time and effort, but it also invites making mistakes and erasing more than is intended. Word's tracking change does all of that automatically with just a few key strokes. Less time, effort, mess, and invitation to make new mistakes.

 

[PennLady]

When I edit someone else, I use Word tracking unless there's a reason I can't, such as incompatible word processors -- Microsoft Works, for example, loses any comments, so I put my comment in those files in brackets and change the the color of the text. Inserts and deletions work the same as Word, just not the comments. Still, it's a bit of a pain.

When I'm going over edits that others have done for me, I actually open my file and the edited file and set the changes myself in my original. That's nothing to do with any other editor or writer, it's just me. I'm not entirely sure why I do this, except I'm very hesitant to just accept all the changes and then not have an "original" yet. I know, I could just save my original under another name. And I probably should.

 

[sr71plt]

When I'm going over edits that others have done for me, I actually open my file and the edited file and set the changes myself in my original. That's nothing to do with any other editor or writer, it's just me. I'm not entirely sure why I do this, except I'm very hesitant to just accept all the changes and then not have an "original" yet. I know, I could just save my original under another name. And I probably should.

When I send an edit, I advise the writer to make a copy of that to work with--and to keep both their original and my edit as separate versions that can be referred to, as needed.

 

[bronzeage]

What is wrong with you?

If you have found a system which suits you, use it. I will decide how to best use my time, of which I have plenty, so it's not really an issue.

It is slow and they do have to slog ( a slough is a mud hole or swampy area, through which one may need to slog) through the text, but that is point. It is their choice to find another editor at any time. What they get for their trouble is an editor who pays close attention to all aspects of the story, including misplaced, but similar sounding words.

If anyone is dissatisfied with my editing methods, I will happily return all the money I earned in the process.

Your assertion wasn't about only you, it was a sweeping generalization about what was best for editors. If you hadn't been making the assertion for all of editordom, I probably wouldn't have responded.

I can guarantee you, as MistressLynn noted, that you aren't doing your writers any favors by using a personal system and, from experience, I can tell you that you aren't making the best use of your time and effort as an editor by doing so either.

I've had to adjust to forty years of changes on how best to do it. The new methods are light years better for both editor and writer than the older ones were. And I don't mean just in the difficulty of changing to anyone else's system. The system you describe requires manual edits that stick in the text--and at the end of the day somebody's got to slough through all of that and manually change and delete--to get the text cleaned up, which not only takes a lot of time and effort, but it also invites making mistakes and erasing more than is intended. Word's tracking change does all of that automatically with just a few key strokes. Less time, effort, mess, and invitation to make new mistakes.

 

[sr71plt]

What is wrong with you?

If you have found a system which suits you, use it. I will decide how to best use my time, of which I have plenty, so it's not really an issue.

It is slow and they do have to slog ( a slough is a mud hole or swampy area, through which one may need to slog) through the text, but that is point. It is their choice to find another editor at any time. What they get for their trouble is an editor who pays close attention to all aspects of the story, including misplaced, but similar sounding words.

If anyone is dissatisfied with my editing methods, I will happily return all the money I earned in the process.

Apparently what is wrong with me is that I responded to the sweeping generalization you actually posted here. So maybe what is wrong is that you can't write clearly--since you want to get snotty about this.

Go back and read your post. You didn't post about what you did, you posted about what was convenient for all editors.

And when you are only concerned about what is convenient for you, maybe you shouldn't be editing for others. (And as I and others have noted, what you do isn't even the most convenient for you--you're just being bullheaded--and, frankly, stupid--about it.)

Next time don't project your personal quirks on all editors, and maybe you won't get negate responses from other editors. And/or, maybe, be more careful about what you actually post.

 

[PennLady]

When I send an edit, I advise the writer to make a copy of that to work with--and to keep both their original and my edit as separate versions that can be referred to, as needed.

That is a good idea, and I usually keep the emails that contain the edited files -- plus I have the sent ones with my original. I think this is a holdover from my previous job, when my boss wanted to make sure you had everything tracked, or traceable.

 

[bronzeage]

I apologize for all my shortcomings.

Your 40 years of experience have served you well, and I congratulate you for the accomplishment.

The statement you label as a "sweeping generalization",

This method is more for the benefit of the writer, than the editor.

is a statement of my opinion and was never represented as anything else. A sweeping generalization would include "all editors", which I omitted. At the risk of sounding snotty, I suggest you find a definition of "sweeping generalization" and read it. I am sure any definition you find on the internet will be better than one I would give. In truth, I am not the least worried about sounding snotty.

The opening post asked for " bit of feedback on different ways to edit." I responded with a concise answer. It was not meant to be the ultimate method.

God forbid anyone should project their personal quirks on all editors. I wonder how that would appear?

Apparently what is wrong with me is that I responded to the sweeping generalization you actually posted here. So maybe what is wrong is that you can't write clearly--since you want to get snotty about this.

Go back and read your post. You didn't post about what you did, you posted about what was convenient for all editors.

And when you are only concerned about what is convenient for you, maybe you shouldn't be editing for others. (And as I and others have noted, what you do isn't even the most convenient for you--you're just being bullheaded--and, frankly, stupid--about it.)

Next time don't project your personal quirks on all editors, and maybe you won't get negate responses from other editors. And/or, maybe, be more careful about what you actually post.

 

[sr71plt]

I apologize for all my shortcomings.

Now you're just being an ass.

Of course your original posting was a sweeping generalization and made no mention of the only editor in question being you. You wouldn't have gotten the responses you did otherwise.

I'll repeat your statement here, just so that one of us isn't into avoidance:

"This method is more for the benefit of the writer, than the editor." (which, in itself, is a fatuous and "let them eat cake" slam at the writer.)

"the editor," not "me, when I edit." (But, as noted several times, this statement wouldn't even be true applied only to yourself, because you evidently have never even tried to use Word tracking change. You already know what's best without giving it a try.)

You're just being silly.

Obviously from the litany that followed, I'm not the only one who disagreed with the statement.

So, remain with your head in the mud. I think those reading this section for indications of what editors do have been helped back on track.

 

[bronzeage]

Yes, I am an ass, and you are a pompous ass who sees insult where none is intended.

Get over yourself. The key word is "volunteer". You are not the Magus of editing. There are a number of idioms which apply to this situation, starting with "You're not the boss of me," passing through "Who died and made you king?" and ending with "Blow it out your pompous ass."

Now you're just being an ass.

Of course your original posting was a sweeping generalization and made no mention of the only editor in question being you. You wouldn't have gotten the responses you did otherwise.

I'll repeat your statement here, just so that one of us isn't into avoidance:

"This method is more for the benefit of the writer, than the editor." (which, in itself, is a fatuous and "let them eat cake" slam at the writer.)

"the editor," not "me, when I edit." (But, as noted several times, this statement wouldn't even be true applied only to yourself, because you evidently have never even tried to use Word tracking change. You already know what's best without giving it a try.)

You're just being silly.

Obviously from the litany that followed, I'm not the only one who disagreed with the statement.

So, remain with your head in the mud. I think those reading this section for indications of what editors do have been helped back on track.

 

[sr71plt]

Like I said, if you hadn't projected practice beyond yourself (which you did), this thread would not have spun out like this.

You obviously just can't take responsibility for what you post.

 

[bronzeage]

Like I said, if you hadn't projected practice beyond yourself (which you did), this thread would not have spun out like this.

You obviously just can't take responsibility for what you post.

Does this mean a pay cut?

 

[sr71plt]

Track changes is definitely the easiest way to go, provided that you both have a recent version of Word.

As to ways to edit, you would usually make these passes:
--full content edit commenting on plot, pacing, character development, genre specifics etc
--line edit where you examine phrasing, sentence structure, inconsistencies and general prose-tightening
--a copy edit to fix mistakes and errors.

As a Lit editor, you would probably do all three at the same time, and probably wouldn't do a very intensive line edit bar a couple of general suggestions.

In professional editing, I usually only do two passes before it goes back to the author (that's usually all a publisher will pay for): a technical editing pass and then a pass that combines content--emphasizing logic and consistency--and a recheck of the technicals--and consistency in applying those.

In a publishing house, the acquisitions editor is formally charged with editing the content--and getting rewrites--before it goes to the manuscript editor (although many are sloppy, at best, at doing this). By the time it reaches the manuscript editor, the publisher is pretty much committed to the content of the work (although I've gotten a few killed at that stage because they supposedly were nonficiton and based on thin air, as shown from some fact checking).

The third entire pass comes after the reviewed manuscript comes back, the corrections are made, and the manuscript has been cleaned up. That too is a combined content and technicals sweep. And sometimes you have to go back to the author with followup questions.

The edits I've done for Lit. and other erotica authors have only gotten two passes. They clean it up and submit it themselves.

 

[sr71plt]

Does this mean a pay cut?

It certainly means something.