Proofreading & Editing Blog » proofreading

What is the Difference Between Editing and Proofreading?

Clive — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:07:01 +0000

Proofreading is a final check on your work to ensure accuracy, correction of grammatical errors and general presentation are within the specifications you have been given.

Editing is much more than this as it combines proofreading together with revisions that should improve the flow and structure of your work to maximise the impact of the piece.

Some may disagree as Nabakov (he of Lolita fame) once said "By editor I suppose you mean proofreader." Indeed, editing is often referred to as the "butcher's trade".

Editing requires a thorough grasp of English whereas proofreading requires an ability to simply spell. It is also fair to say that editing requires the exercise of the little grey cells to a far greater extent as they will be actively considering the subject matter and how well the piece will communicate with the prospective reader. This contrasts with simple proofreading which is a more mechanical process.

For instance, I try not to proofread a piece immediately after I have completed it. I personally find that if some time elapses between completing the draft and going back to correct the grammar and spelling errors, then I am able to focus my attention on the words rather than the ideas and ensure greater accuracy. If I proof a document as soon as I have finished, I usually end up becoming immersed in the ideas and subject matter which leads to proofreading errors and ultimately, a few spelling mistakes sneaking into otherwise finished product.

Editing courses exist on the internet that will help you deal with the issues involved but for many, editing as a profession is in decline which is technically known as "not a good thing". Modern day editors simply do not have the time to edit, and the sharp suits have taken over with their eye on the cost and bottom line rather than the quality of the work. This doesn't simply affect literary pieces but commercial copy as well as editing is the ultimate peer review you can have.

I read a piece in the Guardian which dealt with the decline of editing and relayed a story concerning Tom Wolfe (not the Bonfire of the Vanities author but the other one) and it made me smile.

Our Tom Wolfe was a prolific generator of words - so exceedingly verbiose in fact that I was instantly reminded of the Michael Douglas character in the film, Wonder Boys when he plays an English professor with writers block and a penchant for smoking dope. His editor, Maxwell Perkins advised that he was going to take the book away from Tom and indeed he did so after receiving a manuscript some two feet high containing 450,000 words. Eventually this was whittled down and published; something that would not have happened without an editor though Ernest Hemingway (who also used Perkins as his editor) proclaimed, "It's 60% shit!"

For many, the editor is a bully boy, larger than life character and their use of the pruning shears on your work can leave it completely altered beyond any recognition. The reality is if you are lucky enough to have someone who will edit your work, build that relationship, devote some time to it and this will pay dividends with your work.

T S Eliot once was asked if editors were simply failed writers to which he replied:

"Perhaps - but so are most writers."

Wikipedia: Fact or Opinion?

Clive — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:02:42 +0000

I've just concluded a writing assignment of a deeply technical nature. The assignment was in two parts, first of all dealing with the need for Solvency II in the context of life insurance companies and secondly, the factors that persuaded the Massachusetts legislature to implement a mandatory universal healthcare system, the first US State to do so.

By now, you are probably thinking "What?" or yawning. For the curious, click on the links above and they will take you to Wikipedia for a brief overview.

This assignment is not totally uncharted territory for me; I hold UK life insurance professional qualifications so grasping the general view and identifying the issues did not mean I was stumbling around in the dark.

My research took me first of all to Google - inputting search terms that related to the topics produced the usual, incredibly long list of results and in both cases, Wikipedia was featured on the top page of my queries.

Now this is one time when you really need to question the value of an online resource such as Wikipedia. Equally, you could be using some other voluntarily compiled reference work such as DMOZ, but my point is, you must question what you are being told by your source no matter who is providing it.

Wikipedia in this instance provided an excellent jumping off point for researching the Massachusetts healthcare legislation, and 90% is my guestimate of how much of the material presented was actually used by me to support my work. In particular, dropping down to the references at the bottom of the listing provided a wealth of additional source material that allowed me to directly access summaries from the lawmakers themselves. Far more valuable than the published press stories and reviews which are loaded with opinion rather than actual hard fact.

Turning to Solvency II and a new European Union Directive in the making, Wikipedia was almost next to useless. The entry has virtually no material, within the entry or the footnotes to help with getting the facts straight for publication to a target audience of senior insurance professionals across the globe. As I lurched around Wikipedia for more information, it became clear that some of the information that was available suffered from a very serious defect - in some instances, material was presented as factual whereas in reality, it was clearly opinion.

If you readership are looking for your work to help them reach a decision on a few billion pounds of investment and assets, be clear, they are the ones that will be exercising opinion, they are only looking to you for some facts.

Wikipedia seeks to counter criticisms that it is not a reliable, objective source of factual information (such as Brittanica or other encyclopedias) by use of NPOV procedures for resolving opinion disputes. In Wiki jargon, NPOV or Neutral Point of View policy requires that articles are written from an objective viewpoint with "no stand taken on the issue". Therein lies the rub, as many contributors are opinionated, some deliberately and some inadvertently.

NPOV disputes abound on Wikipedia, often representing nothing more than childish sibling-type rivalry.

Wikipedia using the term "articles" for their product should also set some alarm bells ringing; articles are not encylcopedia entries. Remember how often Michael and I, along with the rest of the article writing world advise you to be opinionated in your writing? Don't be fooled into believing that just because you see it in print it is in fact, correct!

Caveat Emptor is a Latin phrase which means "Buyer Beware", and as a buyer of the information you are being sold, no matter what your research resource, always question what is being provided.

Wikipedia is a great resource, but as with everything else in life - check the small print!

The Difference Between Editing and Proofreading

Clive — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:57:03 +0000

The writing process is technically made up of five different steps. Prewriting, writing, revising, editing and publishing is one version of those five different steps.

Prewriting, Writing, Proofreading, Editing and Submitting

That’s another variation. Of course, if you look through books and websites you’ll find quite a few other variations. But the bottom line is there is some confusion, the difference between Proofreading and Editing.

Why are there two different steps in the writing process that mean the same thing?

Well, they don’t really. A Supaproofreader will cover both steps. All you have to do is submit what you have written and we’ll take it the rest of the way to the Publish or Submit part.

But, proofreading and editing are different. They are actually two different sides of the same coin, but they have two different purposes. Let’s take a closer look.

Proofreading

Proofreading is actually the tougher of the two in my book. When you look your paper over after writing it, you should look for better ways of writing. You have awkward sentences that need some touching. You have words that don’t quite fit and you could make decisions about replacing them with more effective words.

You’re not just looking for errors in awkward sentences and weak words. You should look for places where you could be clearer. You should try to find places where you could make a stronger argument. Add sentences where explanations need to be. Proofreading is about tightening up your work and making your writing that much better.

Editing

Editing is where you look your work over for the actual grammar and spelling errors. That’s when you look through your document for all the “Red” squiggly lines – I can’t imagine anyone doing it with a typewriter anymore, but I do believe some old schoolers still exist. Just don’t consider every red squiggly line an error. “Supaproofreader” from a few paragraphs up and “schooler” in the last sentence technically are errors. But, I’m not changing them. I meant them just the way they are.

Don’t forget to look at grammar errors too. Subject and Verb agreement, Punctuation, Capitalization…those are the errors you catch when you are editing.

Yes, proofreading and editing can overlap. Let me put it this way, if I find a spelling error while I’m proofreading I’m not going to let it go. But, that’s the difference and now you know. Like the Justice League used to say all the time… “Knowing is half the battle.”

Proofraeding is essential!

Clive — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:54:48 +0000

The caption above is enough to indicate why proofreading is indispensable! Let me share an interesting piece of information with you. You will notice that though a paragraph is full of errors, you catch the essence of the paragraph, and can still understand it. In order to understand what I am saying more clearly, have a look at the following sentence - “Proofraeding is extreemly essnetial.” Well, I am sure you understood what the sentence said, despite the order of the letters being wrong. This is possible as the first and last letters are in the right place, and that’s all our brain needs to process the letters correctly!

Humans do not necessarily read every letter separately, but process the word as a whole. This produces quite astounding results! For the sentence above, we processed it correctly because we noted the first and last letter of each word. Had we taken an effort and read each word out aloud, we might have been able to catch the errors more obviously. Proofreading accurately requires you to concentrate on each word that you are reading, and in the case of longer words, you have to look more intently. The motto is – to look at each word and not just glide over it!

Always try to remember that your mind works faster than any pen, typewriter, or computer. The following tips might prove useful to you for mastering the art of proofreading. They will also make you realize that proofreading is not as easy a job as you thought it would be! So, don’t hesitate to take the help of professional proofreaders if the need arises. In the meantime, you can try your hand at it – no harm there! But be careful – if you’re going to walk the long, difficult path of learning proofreading, you’re going to be reading stuff a lot slowly from here on!

While proofreading, it doesn’t hurt to have the attitude of a detective! In other words, it is more than acceptable to have doubts in your mind while you are trying to proofread. You have to doubt each word in order to catch the mistake and rectify it correctly. In fact, checking once is just not enough. Double-check for those types of common errors which you tend to make repeatedly.

Another cue is never to go through the page in a hurry. You’ll never catch all the mistakes that way. If required, read the passage out loud. You’ll be able to catch errors more efficiently this way. Read one word at a time and don’t just check for spelling and punctuation errors - look for possible errors in the writing style and the formatting as well. Take nothing for granted when it comes to proofreading.

Proofreading your own work is much more difficult than someone else’s. So, have someone else proofread your work before you submit it. A proofreader analyzes your work with impartial eyes, and is sure to point out mistakes that you’ve made with much more accuracy than you would!

Supaproofread offers a range of proofreading and editing services to students, businesses and website owners.