Jan 8
Share

Photo courtesy Steve Johnson

Photo cour­tesy Steve Johnson

OH!!!! It hurts!!!! It HURTS!!!! Enough to shove me out of my almost year-long blog-posting slump to write about it!! Enough to make me use mul­ti­ple excla­ma­tion points, even though that’s usu­ally con­sid­ered improper and annoy­ing in even semi-formal writing!!

What hurts? THIS, from The Daily Beast on Jan. 7, 2016: Read the rest of this entry »

Feb 20
Share

No Trespassing sign

photo by Julie Jor­dan Scott https://​www​.flickr​.com/​p​e​o​p​l​e​/​j​u​l​i​e​j​o​r​d​a​n​s​c​ott/

Mary Nor­ris, a query proof­reader at The New Yorker mag­a­zine, writes in the Feb­ru­ary 23, 2015, issue:

There is a fancy word for “going beyond your province”: “ultra­crep­i­date.” So much of copy edit­ing is about not going beyond your province. Anti-ultracrepidationism. Writ­ers might think we’re apply­ing rules and stick­ing it to their prose in order to make it fit some stan­dard, but just as often we’re back­ing off, mak­ing excep­tions, or at least try­ing to find a bal­ance between doing too much and doing too lit­tle. A lot of the deci­sions you have to make as a copy edi­tor are sub­jec­tive. For instance, an issue that comes up all the time, whether to use “that” or “which,” depends on what the writer means. It’s inter­pre­tive, not mechanical.…

This is so true! As I copy­edit someone’s work, I con­sider my job, first and fore­most, not to be mak­ing all gram­mar and punc­tu­a­tion rigidly cor­rect. In the first place, how — or whether — punc­tu­a­tion is used is, as Nor­ris states, inter­pre­tive, so I’m always striv­ing to under­stand what the author wants read­ers to under­stand. If an author’s comma will lead read­ers to under­stand a sen­tence dif­fer­ently than what I believe the author intends, it’s my job to remove that comma — even if the author really likes that comma! If I’m not sure what the author intends in a sen­tence, it’s my job to query him or her and double-check. Read the rest of this entry »

Dec 8
Share

The copy I was edit­ing was sup­posed to refer to butcher paper. Instead it read (slightly adapted to pre­serve client con­fi­den­tial­ity): “Butcher cut into small pieces.”

Yikes! Yes, proof­read­ers are a good thing!   😉

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Copyright 2009-2013 Final Touch Proofreading & Editing, LLC