This time, we're going to talk about copyediting marks and when/how to query an author during copyediting. This post is a lot more practical in its application, and these are the skills that you'll be using to actually edit.
Now, it must be said, copyediting marks are only used if the publishing house you're working for still edits with physical manuscripts. If it is digital, there will be other protocols for editing that can include anything from using track changes on Microsoft Word, using the commenting feature on Adobe Acrobat, and commenting or suggesting on Google Docs. That will be specified by the house upon hiring, and when doing that, you just make the necessary changes using the specified tool. Any time you want to query, you'll just add it as a comment.
 |
| This displays track changes in Microsoft Word. |
So what is querying? Querying is an important part of copyediting, because it is communicating through worded comments rather than copyediting marks that typically concern things like tone, voice, logic, or fact versus fable.
Let's break that down a little bit further. Say you're reading a piece that is written conversationally for a magazine that has a light tone and talks about culture and entertainment in real-time. Everything is in line, and then there is a sentence with high vocabulary and cultural theory that sounds stilted compared to the rest of the piece. In that situation, you might have ideas of words and expressions that would better communicate the meaning of the sentence without affecting the tone. But, your job is to edit, not to write the article, so rather than making the change with copyediting marks, you would query something along the lines of "These ideas come across as a little bit elevated as is. Perhaps use the words..." and then insert your suggestion.
It's important that you explain why you think it might be a problem, and it's also important that you phrase your query in a way that makes it seem collaborative rather than harsh. An author who feels that their work is being attacked won't react well, and that could lead to them complaining to your employer, making business harder, or simply rejecting the edits because of wounded egos. This is never an easy line to toe, however it is a really important thing to be aware of.
Beyond tone or vocabulary, you'll typically want to query something that reads as illogical. This would be working more on a novel where there is supposed to be a logic to the world, plot, etc. or on a more academic piece. If a conclusion is made, or something happens that doesn't follow the logic of the rest of the piece, it is your job to point that out.
A query on something like this would be a little bit more questioning in nature. You can add suggestions of what you think would make more sense, but your main objective here would be to ask the author the questions you have about the logic. When going through and approving edits, they can read where the confusion is and make the necessary changes, or add a sentence substantiating the jump in logic. Either way, this is very important for author credibility.
Sometimes when fact checking, something is undeniable (like the date that a world war started). Other times, however, there are things that you cannot corroborate with your information like the spelling of a person's name or a description of an old town. You'll need to query this outright rather to bring it to the attention of the author.
Here, the key is to not overdo it. If you know for a fact something is wrong, simply change it with a deletion mark and a caret. Only query when you suspect something is incorrect, or you tried and cannot find the information online.
For any of the queries, the comment should be written with the mark "Q:" or "Qu:" preceding the comment in the margins of the text. This looks the same digitally and in print.
Now, for the rest of copyediting marks, what do they look like?
Here's a handy sheet:
These are pretty standard across the publishing industry. You'll use these within the actual text to communicate what needs to change. If the author approves these edits, these marks will be sent to a typesetter to make the necessary changes, so it's imperative that they're accurate and very clearly written.
The only thing that won't go directly in the text is something like "stet," which as you see is circled. Any word/abbreviation that is written out and circled goes in the margin next to the line where the change is being made.
To indicate what copyedit you are reversing, you would just put ..... under the word that was edited with the "stet" in the margin.
What I want to end this post with is a reiteration of my earlier point about how to address the author. In any query, email, or author letter in which you are making changes, you have to keep the tone cordial and respectful.
But you also have to ensure that it doesn't become overly reverent. You can compliment where things are done very well, but your job is not to boost the author's ego. Do not shower them in compliments, or try to be overly nice before you make an edit so that it is received well. Simply ensure that you are suggesting and being collaborative.
In other words, you don't want to say, "This word makes you sound pretentious, change it," but you also don't want to go too far the other way with something like: "You're vocabulary is stunning and it's so impressive how smart you are, but I think here a different word could work."
You want the sweet spot in between there. Something closer to: "As is, the sentence makes sense, but to keep the tone of the magazine and the piece, you might want to consider using a different word such as..."
That way, you are being respectful, but still getting your change across without going too far in either direction.
All of this being said, this is the true meat and potatoes of copyediting. What you'll spend most of your time doing is using these marks and queries to make the changes, and sometimes you'll compile a letter after the fact detailing what you did and some larger changes that the author could consider making that you didn't mark.
Being well-versed in these marks and in this communicative style is imperative for any successful copyeditor.
In the next part of this series, I'll dive into proofreading, some of the trickier grammatical topics such as who/whom, number formatting with different style manuals, and how to make your own personal style sheets. It will be out Monday, April 6, 2020 at noon!
Make sure to leave a comment if you have any further questions, I'm always around to help!
No comments:
Post a Comment