Editing a novel on the computer screen...smart idea?

[True]

My finished novel is still sitting in a box, unedited, because I can't bring myself to actually get through more than one page at a time. As soon as I was done with it, I printed it all out and waited the six weeks they tell you to wait before you begin editing. But even though several months have passed, I still can't sit down and get to work on it. I've always heard that I should never edit a novel on the computer screen, but I find that this is the only way it works for me.

What about you? What are some good editing tips you can offer?

[alleycat]

I edit both onscreen and on paper. I prefer paper for finding typos and grammatical errors; for whatever reason I can find them easier on paper than onscreen.

One thing you might try, is setting your view to something different than you normally use (say, using a reduced-size reading layout). I find that it sometimes helps me to see what I've written with "fresher eyes." Plus, it's a little closer to how something would actually look if it were a book.

In any event, the Golden Rule as far as the technical aspects of writing is to do what works for you. If editing onscreen works for you there's no reason to follow someone else's dictum for this type of thing.

[Cathy C]

I've never edited a ms. EXCEPT on a monitor. Seems like a waste of paper for something you know you'll throw away. But then, I type on the computer for a living. Working on a paper copy is counter-intuitive to me.

In short, do whatever works for YOU! :D

[bclement412]

I edit on both a computer and on paper. I print out my ms when I'm doing line edits, but when I'm rewriting or doing overall edits I use the computer.

[YAwriter72]

I miss a lot of grammatical and spelling stuff if I edit on screen.

I am one who prints out the MS though and goes through it page by page making notes all over it. It always amazes me how many things I find when I thought it was pretty polished!

[Smish]

I prefer to do most editing on the computer. I like being able to cut and paste, and move things around easily. The final edits are done on paper, though.

[Linda Adams]

But even though several months have passed, I still can't sit down and get to work on it. I've always heard that I should never edit a novel on the computer screen, but I find that this is the only way it works for me.

There's nothing wrong with editing on the screen if that's what works for you. It's not like the agent is going to reject you because you edited on the screen instead of the paper.

I do all my major edits and revisions right on the screen. Paper copy is really only for a final pass to weed out any typos, minor editing, or continuity problems. Usually I'll print up a few chapters and take it to work. Then I can proofread at lunch time.

[gothicangel]

I highly recommend editing on paper at least once AND reading it aloud. It's the only way to catch out words that don't flow.

As for the trees, that's why God invented recycling bins (no-one said you can't use recycled paper for editing, just not subbing.) Unless of course - like me - you're first drafts are that bad you feel a need to consign paper and ink to the flames!

[Clair Dickson]

I don't edit on paper. It doesn't work any better for me than editing on a screen. In fact, it's often an exercise in frustration since I can't move things around and fix them when I find them. I have to wait until I get back on the computer. =P So, I work on the computer.

Careful with all the writing "rules" you come across. They are not rules at all, but suggestions for what has worked for many people before. But that's many, not all writers.

TRY IT. Revise and edit your M.S. on the computer. Do it a couple times. If you need them, find tricks to slow down your eyes. I often read aloud, esp. dialogue. I also like the Reading View in MS Word since it mimics book pages. If you're worried about it, print of a couple chapters after you've editing them on the computer and see if you catch anything on paper that you didn't on screen.

BTW, I heard that you must always write while dressed in a chicken suit. The unorthodoxed attire frees up your brain.

[seeAlliwrite]

I find it really hard to edit on screen, even on a 20" Mac, where I have a bit more room to move. I find I really need that physical book-like copy and to be able to flick back and forth easily, to bring out a couple pages at a time from different parts of the ms and lay them out before me on a table etc.. And I can do all this stuff on the computer, it just isn't the same!

I've got to say, though, keying in the changes is my most hated writing job. It's really boring!

[Bufty]

If editing on screen works for you - stick with it. I bet you also do an edit run on the print-out - it can't be avoided and everybody uses both methods as the opportunity/feeling strikes despite what some may say to the contrary.

To claim one only edits via one route is nuts - an edit element creeps in every time one reads the darned thing no matter what media is used.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

Whatever works for you.

I do a lot of editing on screen - but I also have a dual-widescreen setup on my desktop which makes editing much easier for me. The big advantage I've found to dual monitors is not so much the extra space (though it helps) but the way it helps with organization. It even gives me the ability to "lay two pages side by side."

[fadeaccompli]

I'll echo the "whatever works", with a side order of "and if it's not working, try another format." If you're staring blankly at sheets of paper, see if the ease (and easy undo functions!) of working on the computer unblock things. If you're staring blankly at the computer screen, see if the tactile and kinetic flow of working with a pen and sheets of paper helps.

If neither computer screen nor paper works, I'm not sure what's left. Reciting your work out loud into a tape recorder? (Hey, it would be an interesting way to see how things flow.)

[kaitie]

I miss a lot of grammatical and spelling stuff if I edit on screen.

I am one who prints out the MS though and goes through it page by page making notes all over it. It always amazes me how many things I find when I thought it was pretty polished!

I don't think I still have pictures of my old hand edit (I could take a new one), but if you saw the sort of things I did to it you'd have been amazed. I was ripping apart entire scenes, cutting all over the place, etc.

Anyway, I'm the exact same as this. I miss too much on the computer screen. Plus, by hand I can actually see how much progress I'm making and how I'm doing. I just finished my last hand edit, and the latter chapters would have only a few small changes on each page. Compared to when I first started and each page was covered in pencil, it's a huge difference. It gives me a really visual way to see improvement.

[Penang]

I edit on computer. When I completed my first ms I printed it out and tried to do editing and revisions there. I got to chapter 4 and gave up. So 357 pages of waste, since I made some serious changes to plot, character and sequencing.

If you're not motivated by it sitting in front of you on paper then I say try it on the computer.

Good Luck!

[bearilou]

BTW, I heard that you must always write while dressed in a chicken suit. The unorthodoxed attire frees up your brain.

OMG Is that what I'm doing wrong?

Thanks!

:tongue

[Matera the Mad]

Nobody had better ever tell me that I should never edit on the computer, because that's the only way I'm ever going to do it. Tough shight.

[bettielee]

I always go through my works twice before printing it. I write 100K doorstops, and that is a lot of paper.

I need the physical beast in front of me, to know where to put in additions. I get confused! It's also easier on the eyes! But I don't do it until the very last possible moment.'

Both ways have their benefits.

Now kids, why do we fight over these issues? I don't understand.

[BigWords]

I do initial edits on screen, followed by two passes on print-out. The small mistakes which might otherwise slip past me on screen stand out better when I'm reading through on a hard copy.

Compared to when I first started and each page was covered in pencil, it's a huge difference.

Which raises the further question - is it better to mark up the required edits in pencil or pen? :)

[Parametric]

I've never had enough paper to waste on printing out an entire novel. :tongue I edit onscreen. Compile a list of revision notes and work through from beginning to end. Of course the finished product didn't turn out all that well, so you might want to take advice from someone else. :tongue

[Lady Ice]

If it's a major edit, such as adding in a new scene or something, I'd do it on-screen. But at some point you ought to print, read,and pencil/red-pen. Reading a hard copy, you experience what the reader's doing. How you see it on the computer and how it reads are not always the same. Once it's on the computer, you can fiddle about with it for eternity; printing means that you stop fiddling and get down to the essentials.

[jen.nifer]

I've always heard that I should never edit a novel on the computer screen

Wow, I hadn't heard this before.

[Darzian]

I can't even imagine printing out and editing. I find it much easier to make changes on the PC. I will anyway have to make those changes on the PC even if I did print out the MS and edit.

[seun]

I used to print and edit but it got too expensive for ink and paper so now I just go through it on screen.

And there's no right or wrong way. There's only the way that works best for each writer. I'd love to know who comes up with these bollocks rules.

[gothicangel]

Jane Wenham Jones' Agent had this to say in her book 'Wannabe A Writer?':

'It makes me incandescent, if people don't edit on paper.'

So I suspect it is a myth that has begun with agents.

[Bufty]

Someone asked why do these same issues keep coming up? And all over the place, too.

Because on the internet folk can't be bothered to search or browse old topics or threads or stickies - it's faster and easier to ask. I hope folk don't always honestly think they're the first person on the site to come up with a particular routine question.

[Linda Adams]

Which raises the further question - is it better to mark up the required edits in pencil or pen? :)

With a brightly colored pen like red. It's too easy to miss proofreading mistakes if it's in pencil.

[Jamesaritchie]

I've known many writers who insist that printing it out and editing it on paper is the only way to go. For many, it probably is. It can be tough to spot errors on a screen.

But many writers ahve the same trouble finding problems on paper. A paper edit is not a magic bullet.

I edit the final draft on the computer, I don't read the work aloud, etc. It works for me. I have no trouble spooting problems on the screen, and I read as well in my head as I do aloud.

Do what works for you. Just make sure it is working. Submitting a manuscript with plot holes, typos, grammar errors, etc., is more than embarrassing.

[Tuuli]

For my first novel, I printed off every draft. That proved to be very expense.

Now I work off the computer for the first couple of drafts, then print later ones when I'm checking for typos and awkward sentences. I also use the voice-to-text function of my computer to help me find those problems (which means you need to work from a printed copy). When I find something that doesn't sound right, I highlight it and keep going until the end of the chapter (I edit chapter by chapter using this technique). Then I go back to fix it.

I also read out loud, and I can do that both from the screen and from the hard copy.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I do want to make one very strong suggestion for anyone who does need to print out every draft.

As soon as you can, buy a laser printer.

A black and white laser printer only runs about $100-150 and will pay for itself very quickly. A single cartridge will last you for half a dozen novel-length manuscripts or more and it prints much faster than an inkjet.

Sure you lose color, but you don't need it for manuscripts.

[Libbie]

I do all my editing on screen. I use MS Word's "Review" feature to drop margin notes in about things I want to change. Then I go through, make all the changes, re-read it, and do it all again.

[LOG]

I only use paper if the computer is not available.

[RJK]

Based on all the responses, people print at least one draft copy for editing purposes, as I do. I also use this copy as my read aloud copy.
It doesn't seem to matter how many times I edit on screen, I still find errors on the printed copy, so it's always a worthwhile exercise.
For the OP, I use Autocrit (http://www.autocrit.com/), a subscription automated editing assistant. You run your MS through it, a chapter at a time (8,000 word limit), and then run several tests. It helps you clean up your WIP.
This may be a way to get you started.
Before I set off a string of anti automation responses, I know it isn't for everyone, and isn't the end-all be-all of editing tools.

[Chase]

As usual, Alleycat nailed it on the first response: Do what works best for you.

Having said that, I began paperless correction for college writing classes in '88. Students who hated handing in diskettes were warned away in the catalog of classes. The only thing that really changed besides using less bark and more oil was "My dog at my paper" morphed to "My computer zapped my essay."

After I retired, cataracts clouded my eyes more and more. I found zooming the font larger on-screen a necessity. After successful surgery but not 20/20 vision, it still helps to enlarge the type.

*The subject title refers to Alleycat's cat-in-a-pot avatar on January 2. No animals were hurt in the filming; however, the cat looks ticked at being photographed.

[AryaT92]

My finished novel is still sitting in a box, unedited, because I can't bring myself to actually get through more than one page at a time. As soon as I was done with it, I printed it all out and waited the six weeks they tell you to wait before you begin editing. But even though several months have passed, I still can't sit down and get to work on it. I've always heard that I should never edit a novel on the computer screen, but I find that this is the only way it works for me.

What about you? What are some good editing tips you can offer?


Put it at 50% zoom and go through highlighting / fixing errors.

At the end of this print it all and red pen that hard copy.

[Jamesaritchie]

I do want to make one very strong suggestion for anyone who does need to print out every draft.

As soon as you can, buy a laser printer.

A black and white laser printer only runs about $100-150 and will pay for itself very quickly. A single cartridge will last you for half a dozen novel-length manuscripts or more and it prints much faster than an inkjet.

Sure you lose color, but you don't need it for manuscripts.

No, but like many, I need color for fifty-eleven other things. I find newer inkjets print almost as fast as a laser printer, I can print three to four novels with a twenty dollar cartridge, and I get to keep my color printing.

[True]

Thanks for the tips and assurance, everyone! I think I'll print it out again and edit on paper on the final round, that way I can catch the mistakes I missed on the computer screen.

[Jamesaritchie]

If slush piles are any indication, few writers eliminate mistakes, no matter how they edit.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

If slush piles are any indication, few writers eliminate mistakes, no matter how they edit.

Quoted for truth.

[True]

If slush piles are any indication, few writers eliminate mistakes, no matter how they edit.

True, but it's worth trying, at the very least.

[EnkelZ]

This may sound silly, but I edit on paper because I can take the paper to a different location. Somehow stuff reads differently when curled up on the couch instead of sitting at my desk.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

This may sound silly, but I edit on paper because I can take the paper to a different location. Somehow stuff reads differently when curled up on the couch instead of sitting at my desk.

It's not silly at all - you want to look at the manuscript with fresh eyes so you see what's there rather than what's supposed to be there. It's always a good idea to edit somewhere else, or print it out, or even just use a different font. Do something to change up the appearance of the manuscript.

It makes total sense to me.

[Jamesaritchie]

This may sound silly, but I edit on paper because I can take the paper to a different location. Somehow stuff reads differently when curled up on the couch instead of sitting at my desk.

I agree about location, but this is where a laptop comes in really handy.

[johnnysannie]

Do what works for you. Just make sure it is working. Submitting a manuscript with plot holes, typos, grammar errors, etc., is more than embarrassing.

Now THAT's good advice; do what works for you and make sure it works.

So much of what we do as writers can vary a great deal from one writer to another and there is not one single "right way".

[the cat came back]

I do all my editing on screen. I use MS Word's "Review" feature to drop margin notes in about things I want to change. Then I go through, make all the changes, re-read it, and do it all again.


That's interesting.

Can you tell me how that works?

[Mela]

Sorry, seun, there is a right and wrong. As a professional (magazine) editor I can tell you this: you will most definitely miss elements of your text that need to be altered if you edit solely on the computer. There are two different processes by which your brain sifts through and assesses text; reading and editing on the computer is far different from reading and editing the physical, printed-out copy. You should always read the physical manuscript. In fact, you should not only print out and read the physical copy but read it out loud.

[Jamesaritchie]

Sorry, seun, there is a right and wrong. As a professional (magazine) editor I can tell you this: you will most definitely miss elements of your text that need to be altered if you edit solely on the computer. There are two different processes by which your brain sifts through and assesses text; reading and editing on the computer is far different from reading and editing the physical, printed-out copy. You should always read the physical manuscript. In fact, you should not only print out and read the physical copy but read it out loud.


This may be true for you, but it certainly is not true for others. I've been a professional writer for a lot of years, and I've been an editor several times. I have no trouble at all finding erors on the screen, and if a different process is used by the brain, I have yet to see any evidence of it. I'm an excellent proofreader, and so are many other editors and writers I know who do not print out their work, and who do not read the work aloud.

I see just as many errors missed on paper, and often more. And I know very darned few professional editors who read what they're editing aloud. If it helps you, fine, read it aloud, but it is not necessary for many.

If it works for you, you should print out and read aloud. But many do not need to do so, and catch just as many errors as you or anyone else.

[colealpaugh]

This may be true for you, but it certainly is not true for others.

Yeah, of the 1400 or so daily newspapers in the US, I'm trying to imagine one where a reporter sees their story on paper before it's printed. We'd get slapped around for wasting printer ink and paper.

[EnkelZ]

Just a quick note on how to save paper when printing. You can tell MS Word (and many printers) to print pages as "n up" on a page. This allows you to print 2 or 4 pages to a sheet of paper. Most will need to buy magnifying reading glasses from the drug store to actually read it, but it definitely saves paper and ink. You can print 100 pages on only 25 sheets of paper.

I know my brain definitely works different when reading printed vs on-screen. That may be because I didn't actually start using screens until I was nearly 18 years old. But I've often picked up something that I'd written/printed months or years earlier and it seems like someone else's work. On the good side, I'm usually wondering where I found it because I like it so much - perhaps I have lower standards when reading the printed page :-)

[EnkelZ]

I agree about location, but this is where a laptop comes in really handy.

Alas, I've tried to cuddle up on the couch with my 10 pound, 2 foot by 2 foot by 8 inch desktop once... it didn't work out very well. Hopefully, the gods will upgrade me to a notebook computer someday... till then it's me, a pen, and a college ruled notebook when I have to be away from my monster.

[leigh78]

Sorry, seun, there is a right and wrong. As a professional (magazine) editor I can tell you this: you will most definitely miss elements of your text that need to be altered if you edit solely on the computer. There are two different processes by which your brain sifts through and assesses text; reading and editing on the computer is far different from reading and editing the physical, printed-out copy. You should always read the physical manuscript. In fact, you should not only print out and read the physical copy but read it out loud.

I found this to be true for me. I have a printed draft of my manuscript to carry around so that I can edit away from my computer. I later go back and make the the corrections on the computer.

This week-end I was at my computer to update my latest edits but I backed up to the beginning of a chapter to read instead. I began doing on-screen editing and didn't look at the changes that I made to the printed manuscript. I read slowly and out loud from the computer screen. I was finally satisfied with how things read. I then looked back at my printed manuscript and was shocked to find a lot of changes to it that I didn't catch when reading from the computer.

On the screen everything seemed to read fine but when I read it from the printed manuscript it sounded awkward. The changes that I made to the printed manuscript worked much better overall but I wouldn't have made those changes had I not printed out a manuscript.

[Adam]

My first edit (the one that needs the most work) is always on paper. I print it out in 12pt TNR, double spaced and mark with a pencil. Later edits are usually on screen, but I will print if I feel I need to.

Yes it's a "waste" of paper, but trees are replaceable, my eyes have to last me till I die. ;)

[gothicangel]

It's only a waste of paper if you don't recycle!

[Mela]

This may be true for you, but it certainly is not true for others. I've been a professional writer for a lot of years, and I've been an editor several times. I have no trouble at all finding erors on the screen, and if a different process is used by the brain, I have yet to see any evidence of it. I'm an excellent proofreader, and so are many other editors and writers I know who do not print out their work, and who do not read the work aloud.

I see just as many errors missed on paper, and often more. And I know very darned few professional editors who read what they're editing aloud. If it helps you, fine, read it aloud, but it is not necessary for many.

If it works for you, you should print out and read aloud. But many do not need to do so, and catch just as many errors as you or anyone else.


I think this is pretty much true all around - there is a difference in processing info on the computer versus physical print. You catch mistakes in print that you would otherwise read right over on the screen - but it's not only that. The flow, the pace, the sentences take on a different life on a piece of paper. Whether you'd want to deal with that is another issue.

And reporters don't generally print out their work and read it, out loud or other wise. But believe me, the editors are reading their stories in print. I worked at a daily - everything got 2 reads by 2 different editors, on computer and in print.

[Jamesaritchie]

I think this is pretty much true all around - there is a difference in processing info on the computer versus physical print. You catch mistakes in print that you would otherwise read right over on the screen - but it's not only that. The flow, the pace, the sentences take on a different life on a piece of paper. Whether you'd want to deal with that is another issue.

And reporters don't generally print out their work and read it, out loud or other wise. But believe me, the editors are reading their stories in print. I worked at a daily - everything got 2 reads by 2 different editors, on computer and in print.

There is no difefrence in processing words on paper or on the screen. Words are words, and we all have a single section of the brain capable of reading thoe words, and a single center of the brain capable of analyzing those words and spotting errors. These centers work only one way.

Nor does everything get read by two editors at a great many newspapers these days. Newspapers have been in trouble for many years, and one of the first cost-cutting measures many took was eliminating the copy editor.

Not that it matters. Two editors or not, pretty much all of them do their editing on screen today, and they catch errors just fine. The first two newspapers I worked for were all print. That was in pre-computer days, and the paper had just as many errors make it in as today.

The last newspaper I wrote for was all electronic. Our two dailies are now. The reporters work on laptops or desktops, and the editors, the editor, actually. The copy editors were fired years ago, do not read everyting in print. They just don't. Those days are long gone.

You may catch more errors in print, and that's fine. But reading and editing in print is not a requirement, and does no better job than editing on the screen for the many, many writers and editors who work only on the screen.

There is no right or wrong way of going about the editing process. There's only the way that works best for you as an individual.

[bearilou]

There is no right or wrong way of going about the editing process. There's only the way that works best for you as an individual.

ding!

I found a good way to edit solely on the screen (no access to a printer, skimping on supplies or whatever), is to change the font (or to post it to a locked/private journal). Whatever it does to my perception, it does it well and I'm better able to see things that I couldn't/didn't from my normal writing font which my eye started to get used to and gloss over the words as I read them.

It's something that works for me. :Shrug:

[Dave.C.Robinson]

Yes, there are differences between working on a backlit screen and paper, and those differences can lead to increased eyestrain; but that only limits the amount of time one can spend editing, not necessarily how it's processed.

I've looked at a number of studies regarding the differences between reading on the page and the screen and I found most to be seriously flawed.

The problem is that many seem to compare something like a manuscript on the print side, with a web page on the screen side. Now there are differences between how the brain processes a relatively fixed document and one with multiple hyperlinks and/or embedded content; but these differences are a result of the kinds of information being presented, not the medium.

You don't see the same kind of differences when comparing a printed document with a Word document in manuscript format.

This isn't to say printouts don't work - they do work very well for a lot of people - just that it's important to understand that one of the main reasons is simply that it's easier to edit a manuscript when it looks different than when you keyed it in.

In the end though, it all comes down to Kipling's "nine and sixty ways."

Do what works for you.

[Stellan]

I've recently started doing my editing on paper instead of on screen, and it's been an eye-opener. It somehow feels realer, more structured, like I'm actually making progress.

For longer works I still do most of my editing on the screen, though. Ink is expensive.