Botheration Levels
I was very interested in Boettger’s study of copyediting tests, where he looked at the frequency of error types and at professionals’ perception of error types. Since I may want to pursue a career in copyediting, it was helpful to learn about the kinds of items most likely to be tested. But I was more interested in the discussion of botheration levels for various types of errors. A previous study found that status markers like “brung” resulted in the highest botheration level, followed by misuse of apostrophes. In Boettger’s study, it was apostrophes and misspelled homonyms that caused the highest botheration level. I had to chuckle because apostrophes tend to be my biggest pet peeve as well. And now “botheration” is my favorite new word.
We are the Tail, Not the Dog
Dreyer’s “Everything you’ve ever wanted to know about copyediting in less than 300 words (or fewer than 300 words, if you’re that sort of person)” is a comical collection of his editing pet peeves. For example, he believes in trimming “and then” to “then” and deleting words like “suddenly” and “actually.” But his last 14 words are the kicker: “Good copy editors keep in mind that they are the tail, not the dog.”
This might be the most important lesson I learn in my editing class.
Carol Saller talks about this a lot, as she describes how bad editing happens. She says the biggest factor in producing great copy is the writer’s knowledge of the subject. So we need to respect and defer to that knowledge instead of assuming the author is wrong and we are right. Sometimes editors struggle with that respect and deference because we are rule-oriented. That’s what makes us want to be editors. And it’s good that we know the rules. But we also need self-awareness. We should assume the writer knows best and acknowledge that something that looks different isn’t necessarily wrong. There’s a good chance we are ignorant of the particular topic. So Saller concludes that when we see something that looks unusual, we should do nothing. The first rule of copyediting, she says, is to “Do no harm.”
First Do No Harm: Problems with FIND and REPLACE
I like the “Do no harm” analogy because my family is a medical family. My surgeon father is well-acquainted with this part of the Hippocratic Oath. Who knew it applies to editors as well? But it makes sense. Why would I want to do “surgery” on someone’s work and make it worse than before I started? Or fix some things but mess up some other things?
I do love the FIND and REPLACE tool in Word. But I’m careful to look at each suggestion. Inevitably there’s something that shouldn’t be replaced. Yes, it takes longer that way, but it gives me peace of mind. I have a handwritten list of things I use FIND and REPLACE to check for when editing (like double spaces and smart quotes).
Editors Toolkit Plus (ETKP)
I had never heard of this amazing tool before taking a TECM editing course. I can see why it would be worth the investment (in the cost of the program and in the time required to set up the macros) to automate certain processes. But I’ll need time to learn and practice. My first experience wasn’t flawless, and I did some harm.
The MegaReplacer, for example, can get you in trouble if you don’t add character symbols for the Whole Word restriction. Lyon (the creator of ETKP) himself says it’s like dynamite: “very powerful and thus very useful—and very dangerous if used carelessly, as it will make all the changes in all the documents exactly the way you tell it to.” Playing around with the MegaReplacer was enough to teach me to always have backups of originals.
During the tutorial, I even did harm with the Text Tool. With one click I turned all headings to title-case. But if this were a real copyedit assignment, I would have had to check them all manually. One example of harm I did was turning “Statutory Reference(s) to “Statutory Reference(S).”
I also had some trouble with the track changes feature in ETKP. Some of the changes I made weren’t tracked. I kept re-setting the track changes. And it was confusing when I moved between ETKP and Word—maybe the ETKP track changes were turned off when I left ETKP? Clearly I need more practice.
I was disappointed to learn that ETKP has several features that don’t work on Mac. Hopefully that will change in the future.
For my current editing assignment, which is an employee handbook, I’m going to focus on improving my Word skills. For example, I think setting up AutoText for common comments and queries would be worth the time investment. And I’ve never used Word to generate a Table of Contents, but that tool would be very valuable for this particular project.
In the future, I’d like to become proficient with ETKP. I’d also like to learn to create and use macros. And then I hope to learn something about MadCap Flare. I don’t know what it is, but it seems like something I need to learn.
What to Charge
I read through Lyon’s introduction (120 pages!) to Editors Toolkit Plus 2018. He convinced me that it’s better to charge by the project, or number of pages or words, than by the hour. My current position as a resume writer is also piecework. I’m paid a certain amount for each resume. Some take more time, others take less. And as I get more practice, I’m able to work more efficiently, which means I can make more in the same amount of time.
As an editor, I can also make more by using a computer as a teammate, as Beverly advises. Computers are quick and consistent, but not always accurate. Everyone knows not to trust spell check or grammar check implicitly. Computer applications can often check mechanics, but they can’t interpret meaning. We human copyeditors will always be needed. But if those applications can help me be more efficient and make more money, I’m all for it!
Calculating the cost of an editing project is complicated, though. I appreciated learning about the Effective Hourly Rate from Adin. For my current employee handbook project, my team had to determine what levels of editing are needed, what the appropriate hourly rate for each level of edit is, and how many pages can be edited in an hour—and then do some math. If I’m taking the advice of Lyon, I would then use this number to price the project, maybe even without sharing the hourly rate I used to calculate it.
I appreciated Adin’s comment that he edits the same, whether a project is described as needing heavy, medium, or light editing. He says he does the same job, but those levels give a clue for how bad the writing is. This makes total sense. I’m going to fix the same errors whether a project is labeled “heavy” or “light.” But I should know enough to charge more for the “heavy” project because there’s likely going to be a lot more to fix. The takeaway: I shouldn’t bid on a project without seeing a significant sample of it!
The Employee Handbook Project
For my current project, I’ve thought about Pope’s 10 copyediting principles. I should probably print these out and keep them somewhere handy. His first principles speak to determining the scope of a copyedit. I need to know my audience (new employees at the company, primarily factory workers) and advocate for the reader (make sure the content is well-organized and easy to read). Next I need to adopt efficient and effective processes, looking things up that I don’t understand and reviewing the document at least twice. Next, I need to know how and when to mark copy. Every change needs a reason, and for reasons that aren’t obvious, I should leave a comment. The tone of queries should be pleasant. And again, do no harm. Pope’s final principle is to remember it’s not my name at the top. I need to know my role, and it’s not the author/writer.
Nicholson also talks about taking multiple passes, and I like his breakdown of 6 different passes: blatant typos, meaning, format/layout, computer checks, print and proof again, and finally, read again as if it’s the first time.
With one exception, I think this is the approach my team will take with the employee handbook project. I don’t believe there are many blatant typos so we will save that for a later pass, probably with computer checks. First I will look at meaning/content and organization as I do a structural edit. Then my teammate will work on formatting and layout. Then we will divide the document and each do computer checks and at least 2 more passes to our respective sections.
Nicholson also suggests controlling the reading/editing environment by removing distractions and not editing when tired. My takeaway here is that my editing needs to happen in the morning and early afternoon hours when I’m home alone. Once my kids are home from school, I can’t focus on editing, or much of anything. And by that time of day, I’m tired. I also need to get into the habit of turning off phone notifications. I’m easily distracted and think I can multi-task. But I really can’t. Nicholson’s other piece of advice is to not rush or take shortcuts. I wonder how he feels about the MegaReplacer! I think the takeaway for me here is to be careful and deliberate in my approach.
Hopefully these tips will serve me well as I approach this comprehensive edit project.