I was once at an event where I met someone who worked for a newspaper. I asked him, “Are you the editor or do you write a column?” He replied, “No, I’m just the proofreader.” The answer made me laugh because it implied that he didn’t think too much about his role in the newspaper; However, in my opinion, the proofreader is one of the most important people in the production of any writing, be it a newspaper, a book, or a marketing article.
You probably know someone, it could even be you, who takes delight in finding typos and telling everyone about it. This person is not afraid to post a comment on their Facebook page or blog to point out the word they misspelled. Even people who are not so rude will often think less of a book or publication when they see that it is full of typos. Errors in a publication claim that the work is of poor quality. And today, with the influx of self-published books on the market, I am more careful than ever to read a few paragraphs and look for typos before deciding whether to spend money on a book.
An editor is a vital part of book production. A traditional publisher will assign an editor to a book, but will also assign a proofreader. Often three or four people will edit / review the book before it is published. Self-published authors doing their homework usually realize that they need an editor, but they don’t always realize that they need a proofreader, too.
An editor can do the proofing as well, but I caution any author to remember that not all editors are the same. Editors have varying qualifications and skills. One can be good at editing content to help you improve your plot and characters, but you might not catch a typo like “lightning bolt” when you mean “lightning bolt” or even a good spelling. Another editor may be able to punctuate sentences correctly, but does not have the creative mindset to know how to develop a story or flow an argument. And it is likely that even the best editor gets so close to the work, like the author, that after the first or second reading of the book, he tends to read with his memory, believing that he knows what is on the page, in instead of reading it. with their eyes, they would actually see what is on the page.
Editors I know who produce quality work are horrified when typographical errors are found in the books they have edited, and they are also willing to admit that they are not perfect, that they may miss a misspelled word or a word that is used incorrectly in a certain context. . And a good editor will not be territorial, but rather pleased that an author hires a proofreader to review the work.
Problems can arise when working with a proofreader, so authors should be honest with the proofreader about what they want. Many times I have heard editors complain about proofreaders because the authors come back to them saying that the proofreader found all kinds of errors in the book; the editor then discovers that the proofreader, instead of correcting, decided to play editor and rewrite the book, not correcting typographical errors but changing sentences according to his own stylistic preferences; the author, in turn, not possessing good editing skills, may not know the difference between rephrasing a grammatically incorrect sentence and a change in style, which may lead the author to believe that the editor was incompetent because the checker was exceeded.
To solve this problem, authors should always inform proofreaders that they simply want the proofreader to look for typographical or grammatical errors. Nothing stylistic should be changed. Additionally, authors should communicate with both the reviewer and the editor. The editor should be able to see the changes or corrections suggested by the proofreader and then approve them or explain why they should not be accepted. The editor should get this second pass so that he knows where he made a mistake and to make sure the proofreader is not introducing new mistakes into the book. I can’t tell you how many times an author who hired a good editor ends up producing a book with typos because the proofreader was incompetent. Remember, just because someone is a teacher or has an English degree does not necessarily mean that they will be a good proofreader, just as a good mechanic will not necessarily be a good person to design a vehicle.
When hiring an editor, let them know in advance that you plan to hire a proofreader as well. If you get argumentative about it, you may want to find a different editor. If you and the editor agree that a proofreader is a good idea, you can ask the editor to recommend a proofreader, maybe you have worked with a proofreader in the past and they have worked well together. If not, ask for recommendations from other authors you know. While you can search for a proofreader online, it’s always best to get recommendations. And before hiring a recommended proofreader, take a look at the book they reviewed. If Mary Jane tells you that Henry corrected her book and did a great job, but you find a typo on the first page, think again: if you read another ten pages and don’t find a typo, Henry might be a good choice; no one will detect all typographical errors. Just be picky and do a little research before hiring a proofreader.
Finally, just as you would ask your editor to give you an editing sample of a few pages to determine if you can work with it, you should ask the proofreader to give you a correction sample to see what kinds of errors or problems it will detect. . If you rewrite your manuscript, think again or realize that you are encountering problems that your editor should have detected. The point is to make sure you know what you are paying for before hiring someone.
A proofreader can be the last line of defense between an author and the reading public. Don’t try to cut corners by not hiring a proofreader. Good proofreading is essential to producing a quality product that will get readers excited about your book rather than ranting about its typos.
