Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader
  • Home
  • Resource library
  • Services
  • Courses
  • Books
  • Podcast
  • Blog
  • Training login
  • Contact
The Editing Blog: for Editors, Proofreaders and Writers

FOR EDITORS, PROOFREADERS AND WRITERS

Thoughts on proofreading and the art of leaving well enough alone

4/6/2014

20 Comments

 
If you're tasked with proofreading designed page proofs, annotating for change is not always the best course of action. We're into the realm of when to mark up, when to query and when to leave things be.
Change, query or leave alone?
Picture
A Facebook discussion about the role of the proofreader working on copy-edited proofs got me thinking about the issue of leaving well enough alone.

​This was something that was addressed by my proofreading training course (via The Publishing Training Centre), and it’s a tricky nut to crack, one that on occasion still stumps me, even though I have years of practice under my belt.

To clarify, this article is framed within the context of the proofreader who is working with page proofs, because this is the case where the artistry of sensitive and sensible proofreading practice really comes into play.

What are page proofs?
The mainstream publisher will usually require the proofreader to work on page proofs:

“Page proofs are so called because they are laid out as exactly as they will appear in the final printed book. If all has gone well, what the proofreader is looking at will be almost what the reader sees if they were to walk into a bookshop, pull this title off the shelf and browse through the pages. The layout process has been taken care of by a professional typesetter who designs the text in a way that is pleasing to the eye and in accordance with a publisher’s brief” (Not all proofreading is the same: Part I – Working with page proofs).

In this case, the proofreader does not amend the text directly. She annotates the page proofs.

Why is proofreading an art?
Proofreading entails finding solutions to any final problems that have escaped the author’s, copy-editor’s, and typesetter’s attention. These professionals are only human, and it’s unusual not to find at least a few problems in a set of page proofs, despite the fact that the manuscript has been reviewed multiple times. In fact, precisely because there are so many rounds of review, the opportunity for errors to be introduced is higher.

The artistry comes in because it’s not enough to be able to spot those final pesky typos, misplaced apostrophes, incorrect running heads, missing captions, poorly aligned table figures, and so on. The good proofreader needs to know when to leave well enough alone.

The Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP) says: “… Part of the job is light editing within tight limits, but professional proofreaders do not re-edit the material. They intervene only with good reason [my emphasis]” (CIEP, n.d. FAQs: Proofreading). Here’s a brief summary of why proofreaders need to take care with the extent of their mark-up:

  • Intervention can be expensive – Some publisher clients will ask for “minimal” mark-up for reasons of cost. Depending on what arrangements they have with typesetter, amending page proofs can be an expensive business for a publisher.

    For example, one of my clients is charged per line for any amendments to page proofs; others are charged per amendment; and still others negotiate a fixed price for the job. Thus, in the case of the per-line deal, one change in each of five separate lines will be five times as expensive as five changes in the same line.

  • It’s not necessarily the proofreader’s call – Copy-editors will have worked extensively with the author on the pre-proof manuscript. Certain decisions will have been made, such as how deep to edit, grammatical preferences, and overall style.

    Even if the proofreader doesn’t agree with the preferences, she needs to mind our own business and get on with the job in hand within the framework of these agreed decisions. If these preferences jar with the brief supplied to the proofreader, she should query the issue with the project manager or the copy-editor rather than making assumptions.

    Of course, as an editor colleague commented when reviewing this post, this is a clarion call for the proofreader to be supplied with a detailed style sheet, and I’ll be taking a look at this issue in more detail in the near future.

  • There could be serious knock-on effects – Here’s the CIEP again with some wise advice: “Judge the need for changes in view of the budget and schedule. Changing just one word can have drastic knock-on effects” (CIEP, n.d. FAQs: Proofreading).

    For a more detailed discussion of the issue, take a look at Proofreading designed page proofs: knock-on effects.

  • There isn't always a simple solution – At some stage or other, and even when working with the finest of editors, every proofreader will be faced with an inelegant piece of writing. Perhaps the subject–verb agreement is a little confusing in a complex sentence; perhaps the sentence is structured such that its meaning is cloudy; perhaps the author’s meaning is clear even though one could argue that the way it’s been expressed is grammatically “sticky”.

    Given that we’re not supposed to re-edit, that decisions have already been made by the copy-editor and author, and that there could be expensive knock-on effects as a result of our changes, we’re looking for simple but elegant solutions.

    However, it may be the case that a simple, elegant solution to the problem is impossible to achieve by, for example, simply adding/removing a letter or changing the punctuation slightly. Indeed, the proofreader might think their simple amendments have made things better, but if their solution is equally (or even more) uncomfortable for the reader, or the author’s meaning has been clouded for the sake of pedantry, then they've done more harm than good.

A cautionary tale and a lesson learned
Have I ever over-marked? Have I intervened when I should have left well enough alone? Alas, yes. And I wasn't an inexperienced proofreader when it happened. I’ve elected to share my tale of shame in the hope that any over-enthusiastic proofreaders reading this will be able to learn from the mistake I made!

A few years ago I proofread an academic book for a regular publisher client. The book was copy-edited by an editor with whom I’d worked on several occasions. She always does a super job. And, really, that should have been the only alarm bell I needed. The page proofs arrived and I noticed that the book was littered with whiches – rather than thats – being used for restrictive relative clauses. 

I changed them all. In pen. After all, I reasoned, even though in British English this usage is acceptable (though not always preferred), my publisher client is a stickler and the book’s market is international. Satisfied that I’d done a very fine job indeed I posted back the proofs to the copy-editor, who went on to collate my changes with the author’s.

A week later I received a very polite email from a frustrated copy-editor. She informed me that though she, too, would have preferred to change every appropriate “which” to “that,” the author was particularly sensitive to having his copy amended and she’d had to settle for a lighter edit. She’d notified the in-house project manager and the decision had been agreed. “In future, if any extensive changes need to be made, would you be kind enough to check first? I'm going to have to stet a lot of your mark-up.”

On an embarrassment scale of one to ten, I rated at least fifteen. My face was redder than my proofreading pen. I’d wasted my time and I’d wasted hers. And if I’d simply checked with her (or the in-house project manager) before I’d let my pen run wild, the problem could have been avoided. I still work for that publisher and I still proofread books for that copy-editor. But I learned my lesson. 

A note: A colleague who reviewed this article argued persuasively that the embarrassment shouldn't have been mine alone – in this situation I wasn't given a comprehensive style sheet detailing the decisions made.

Either the copy-editor or the publisher could have supplied one – certainly many professional editors consider this to be not only good business practice but proper business practice. At the very least, someone could have emailed me with a brief heads-up.

Nevertheless, since the proofreader cannot guarantee that they’ll receive such a style sheet, and busy editors and publishers are only human and sometimes forget things, my point about querying stands. 

It’s always, always better to clarify than to assume.

Amend, query or move on?
Editing is an art. But proofreading is, too. Sometimes we need to stop and think before we amend; sometimes we need to put down the pen and either query or move on. Knowing when to leave well enough alone can be a tricky call to make.

​We’re not here to re-edit. What we do sits in the context of a chain of decisions that have already been made by other professionals – decisions about budget, schedule, style, brief and design. Failing to acknowledge this fact can lead to time wastage at best, and harm at worst.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.

She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast.

Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
20 Comments

    BLOG ALERTS

    If you'd like me to email you when a new blog post is available, sign up for blog alerts!
    Proofreading stamps
    ALERT ME!

    WHAT DO YOU NEED?

    • Training courses
    • ​Books and guides
    • Editor resources
    • Author resources
    • ​Monthly newsletter
    Picture
    SIGN ME UP

    PDF MARKUP

    Proofreading stamps

    AUTHOR RESOURCES

    Proofreading stamps

    EDITOR RESOURCES

    Proofreading stamps

    BOOKS FOR EDITORS AND WRITERS

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    MORE BOOKS

    TRAINING COURSES FOR EDITORS

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Blogging for Business Growth course
    MORE COURSES

    TESTIMONIALS


    Dare Rogers

    'Louise uses her expertise to hone a story until it's razor sharp, while still allowing the author’s voice to remain dominant.'

    Jeff Carson

    'I wholeheartedly recommend her services ... Just don’t hire her when I need her.'

    J B Turner

    'Sincere thanks for a beautiful and elegant piece of work. First class.'

    Ayshe Gemedzhy

    'What makes her stand out and shine is her ability to immerse herself in your story.'

    Salt Publishing

    'A million thanks – your mark-up is perfect, as always.'
    TESTIMONIALS

    CATEGORIES

    All
    Around The World
    Audio Books
    Author Chat
    Author Interviews
    Author Platform
    Author Resources
    Blogging
    Book Marketing
    Books
    Branding
    Business Tips
    Choosing An Editor
    Client Talk
    Conscious Language
    Core Editorial Skills
    Crime Writing
    Design And Layout
    Dialogue
    Editing
    Editorial Tips
    Editorial Tools
    Editors On The Blog
    Erotica
    Fiction
    Fiction Editing
    Freelancing
    Free Stuff
    Getting Noticed
    Getting Work
    Grammar Links
    Guest Writers
    Indexing
    Indie Authors
    Lean Writing
    Line Craft
    Link Of The Week
    Macro Chat
    Marketing Tips
    Money Talk
    Mood And Rhythm
    More Macros And Add Ins
    Networking
    Online Courses
    PDF Markup
    Podcasting
    POV
    Proofreading
    Proofreading Marks
    Publishing
    Punctuation
    Q&A With Louise
    Resources
    Roundups
    Self Editing
    Self Publishing Authors
    Sentence Editing
    Showing And Telling
    Software
    Stamps
    Starting Out
    Story Craft
    The Editing Podcast
    Training
    Types Of Editing
    Using Word
    Website Tips
    Work Choices
    Working Onscreen
    Working Smart
    Writer Resources
    Writing
    Writing Tips
    Writing Tools

    ARCHIVES

    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011

    RSS Feed

Alliance of Independent Authors
Picture
Picture
CIEP Advanced Professional Member
The Publishing Training Centre
INFO ABOUT ME
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions
Contact form
Code of practice
Qualifications
​Portfolio ​ 
​Bio page
Louise's fiction
About Louise
INFO FOR INDIE AUTHORS
Editorial services
Contact form
Can you expect perfection?
Books and guides
Transform Your Fiction series
Free resources
​
Order form for books
Testimonials
Self-editing book

Want to sign up to my monthly newsletter, The Editorial Letter? 
INFO FOR EDITORS
Training courses​
Books and guides
​​Business Skills for Editors series
Transform Your Fiction series
Free resources
1:1 business consultations
Order books and courses
​The Editing Podcast
​The Editing Blog