Learn your marks!

[Cathy C]

I just realized that experienced authors often forget to give newbies one vital piece of advice. Each and every aspiring author needs to take the time to learn a brand new language -- that of proofreader's marks!

I just spent the last week locked into a particularly nasty version of author's hell. The publisher hired a freelance copyeditor (fairly common with both small and big houses), who DIDN'T UNDERSTAND PROPER PROOFREADER'S MARKS! Why is this so critical? Well, because the author is expected to review the "copy edited" version of the manuscript, where the copyeditor has made corrections directly on the face of the manuscript pages. The editor gives the copyeditor a "final" manuscript, which is then checked for grammar, punctuation and spelling. The author is expected to review the proposed changes and accept or reject them -- all on deadline that CANNOT be moved if you don't want to lose your publication slot.

But unless an author understands what s/he is seeing when the copyedits arrive, it will look very much like Greek!

Now, in my case, the copyeditor apparently did not realize that italicized text appears on the copyedit manuscript as underscored text. In other words, this will look like this on the page. So, the copyeditor (and I don't know if it was male or female) REMOVED every instance of underscoring. If I hadn't understood the language of what s/he was doing, I would have ended up with page proofs without any emphasized speech -- ANYWHERE!

So, here's a JPEG of the standard proofreader's marks from the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. It's also available in the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/5859/proofreadersmarks0hh.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Click on the image to see it large enough to read.

Learn it and live by it, so you don't die by it! http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

[CampCreek]

Thank you, Cathy! I'm not new to writing, but I am to editing/publishing, so this will come in handy for me. One of these days I'd like to be published, so if I learn these now, ahead of time, I won't be lost later.

One question, though ~ do you have any examples of these marks used in action? I think that would help me understand not only what they mean, but how they're used.

Thank you again!:D

[batgirl]

On that topic, I'd suggest picking up a copy of Making Book, by Teresa Nielsen Hayden, which has an essay on copyediting both entertaining and informative. The rest of the book is fun too.
Amazon listing is here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0915368552/ref=nosim/103-8000992-8742259?n=283155

-Barbara (shamelessly fangirling TNH)

[Jamesaritchie]

Proofreaders' marks are invaluable, and there are many places online to download a version you can keep right on your desktop or print out, and many of the better grammar books contain a list, as does the AP Stylebook.

I particularly like these: http://www.bartleby.com/61/charts/A4proof.html and http://www.inkwelleditorial.com/proofreaders_marks.htm and for PDF http://www.writingusa.com/proofing.pdf


And for marking electronic text, more and more editors are using these: http://www.wku.edu/~sally.kuhlenschmidt/proofread.htm

[Cathy C]

One question, though ~ do you have any examples of these marks used in action? I think that would help me understand not only what they mean, but how they're used.


Good idea, Josephine! Since I was just about ready to copy this and send it back to the editor (ALWAYS a good idea to make a copy for your file, BTW -- at least until you're certain that the book has made it from place to place by mail. It's a VERY small price to pay to avoid having to do the copy edits a second time. We actually had it happen where our manuscript was STOLEN right out of the Fed Ex envelope on the way to the typesetter. :eek: )

Here's a link to an actual page from our manuscript. Click on it to get the full sized version. This one is a random page, but has a variety of marks on the page, so it's useful for this purpose. It shows where I used a different colored pencil (they prefer the author to use colored pencils, BTW) and includes italics for both emphasized speech and foreign language phrases.

You can also see where I've marked STET once on the page. This is author notation to the typesetter that says "Ignore what the copy editor says. Leave it the way it was." The author gets to do this at this stage. But once it reaches the galley (page proof) stage, it becomes a problem to make substantial changes other than to correct typos.

http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/6126/proofreadersample3fo.th.jpg (http://img466.imageshack.us/my.php?image=proofreadersample3fo.jpg)

Hope this helps some!

[Garpy]

a refreshingly useful thread. Thanks for that Cathy. Very community-spirited of you. :-)

[PeeDee]

What an incredibly useful set of stuff to post. Wonderful idea. Thanks!

[victoriastrauss]

Authors' STETs may not be paid attention to. I've had this experience with all my adult books--some of my STETs were heeded, some were not. If the STET is important, it's a good idea to put a sticky note on the ms. explaining why they should be doing it your way, not the copy editor's.

I second Cathy's recommendation to make a copy of the copy edited ms. before sending it back. That's how I know about my ignored STETs (and yes, I did make changes on the page proofs).

- Victoria

[Maryn]

Great links and information. I seem to be doing more online than on paper, so that site's information is especially helpful. It seems to take twice as long as marking a manuscript.

Maryn, saying thanks to all

[Jamesaritchie]

Victoria is right about STETs. Typesetters often ignore them unless you're a writer with power. They tend to listen to the editor, rather than the writer. And my manuscripts have never gone to the typesetter at this stage. They go right back to the copy editor who goes through them one last time before passing them along to the typesetter, and the copy editor is very fond of crossing out a STET if she disagrees with it. The typesetter never even sees the STET, unless teh copy editor lets it slide.

I have no idea whether or not a STET has been heeded until galleys come along, and by then it may be too late. In galleys, I'm allowed to change any typos, or any grammatical and punctuation errors, but I can only change twenty-five lines throughout the entire novel that don't involve such typos and errors.

If I want to change more than twenty-five lines, I can, but I have to pay the cost to have new galley pages made.

Then again, maybe I don't use STET the same way Cathy C does. When I STET something, it's the copy editor I'm telling to leave things alone, not the typesetter. By the time the typesetter sees it, the decision has already been made. Either the copy editor has listened to me and left it alone, or she's decided against me and removed the STET.

[Old Hack]

Victoria is right about STETs. Typesetters often ignore them unless you're a writer with power. They tend to listen to the editor, rather than the writer.

Odd, that. When I worked as an editor, we always had to defer to the writer on matters of style. If the disputed edit was made for a legal reason, or to correct a factual error, then we would have to discuss it with the writer. But to ignore the writers' wishes? Never. It just wasn't done.

I am obviously a dinosaur. Or else things are different over here.

[Cathy C]

And my manuscripts have never gone to the typesetter at this stage. They go right back to the copy editor who goes through them one last time before passing them along to the typesetter, and the copy editor is very fond of crossing out a STET if she disagrees with it.


I asked our editor about this very thing, because this was the first book where I'd really disagreed with the changes of the copyeditor. The editor made it quite clear that the copyeditor never sees the book a second time. The EDITOR accepts/rejects my changes and then sends it directly to the typesetter. This may be a company-by-company sort of thing, which is useful information.

[Avalon]

I was in book production for many years. The way it went in the companies I worked for was that the copyeditor did his thing, then the book (production) editor reviewed the editing and accepted or rejected each change (formerly this was done with an eraser, which was why we all had to work in pencil -- archaic, I know). The author got a copy of the manuscript showing the 'accepted' changes. If the author wrote 'stet' but the stetting would have resulted in an error, usually we disregarded the author's stet. However, this was a pretty gray area! For my part, I always went with the author unless it was really wrong and would have made the publisher look bad. In that case, though, when the proofs came back I always put a note on them explaining why we didn't make the change. Usually the author would say "Oh! You're right, I didn't see that." However, if it was something big, I wouldn't hesitate to pick up the phone and call the author and say, "Look, you want this stetted lowercase, but in all the other chapters it's capitalized. Is there a reason you want that lowercased here? Or can we go with the caps?" If I could figure out why the author was stetting, usually we could figure out a way to make everybody happy. (As in, "Oh, I want it capped for emphasis." "Oh, I see. We've been using italics for emphasis, so is it OK if we go with italic here rather than the caps, for consistency?" "Sure! I just wanted it to stand out." Etc, etc.)

Nobody wants to have to make changes in proofs. It's just bad juju all around.

(By the way, no. The manuscript never went back to the copyeditor. They got their one shot, and that was that.)

[Jamesaritchie]

I asked our editor about this very thing, because this was the first book where I'd really disagreed with the changes of the copyeditor. The editor made it quite clear that the copyeditor never sees the book a second time. The EDITOR accepts/rejects my changes and then sends it directly to the typesetter. This may be a company-by-company sort of thing, which is useful information.

You're right in that it depends on the publisher. At my last publisher, my main editor was the one who saw the book a second time. At my current one, it's the copyeditor. Either way, someone sees it before the typesetter does, and whoever that is accepts or rejects STETS. I haven't worked for a publisher where the typesetter got to make this decision.

And sometimes, with mid-size and small publishers, the main editor is both editor and copyeditor. I don't know whether this is a good or a bad thing. I like having two sets of eyes and two opinions.

I wrote for one publisher where I was assigned an editor, but it was her boss who did the copy editing, and that was a really weird situation. Everything in certain genres passed back through the hands of the copy editor because she was really the head editor, and wanted to approve everything in her area before it went to the typesetter. She never edited books, but all edited books passed through her because that she wanted to have final approval of all editing changes.

I think we're also talking a bit at cross purposes. STETs come in all sizes, and they can be aimed at any editor or copy editor in the chain. I've found that minor STETs, such as capitalization, underlining, some fact questions, etc., usually go through without a problem, especially if you explain your reasoning. But you can also STET changes your editor makes, if you have a little clout. (You can make an editor STET, anyway, but without some clout it will probably be ignored, or at least be the cause of some serious fighting.) These are content and editing STETs. One of the complaints some have with Anne Rice is that she has never allowed any changes in her novels, including those an editor usually makes.

By and large, I've found most editors are pretty good at the job, and the editing, cutting, and content changes they make are usually pretty darned good. But a bad editor, or one who doesn't understand what it is you're trying to do, can harm a novel, so when the usual back and forth between editor and writer doesn't work, you have to be willing to STET things on the first go round.

I suppose this, too, depends on the publisher. At some publishers, the editor you have really is the boss. But at the ones I've written for, there was always someone higher up than the editor who was assigned to edit my novels.

Nine times out of ten, I've found the changes editors make are for the best, but that one time in ten when they get it wrong you have to be willing to fight, even if it means telling your main editor to leave things exactly as they are.

[Birol]

This past Spring, I had a new writer in their early 20's ask me why I used proofreading marks that absolutely no one understood. She didn't see the value of such things when you could just use the italics feature on your word processor or leave a blank line when you chose to do so.

[Tish Davidson]

Cathy, you must have been in the same copyedit hell I was in just last week too. I had the same problem - underlines removed and italics added. When I questioned this, the copyeditor (who works for the company, not freelance) said that they only use italics for italics. I went back to the editor who told me the same thing - that in their ms, they want things in italics to be in italics. I thought this was pretty strange, but maybe with the advent of computer generated ms where italics are as easy as underscoring the new generation of copyeditors/editors are asking for italics. I always thought underscoring was supposed to make it easier for the typesetter to see where the italics went. Both these people treated me like I was ignorant - but then, this is the same copyeditor who told me that because was a coordinating conjunction that required a comma. Aarg!!

[Cathy C]

Heh. I wish that was all the copyeditor was doing! No, she removed ALL EMPHASIS on the word! So, no italics OR underscore markings, which turned the sentences into regular text.
So, for example, one sentence that is stated by a German Kommissar to the hero as they are about to visit the police station turns into an entirely different meaning.

"Are you ready to identify your tiger, Herr Monier?"

This is nice and friendly -- a simple question.

But add the emphasis:

"Are you ready to identify your tiger, Herr Monier?"

and suddenly you realize that the Kommissar thinks that the hero is bluffing because he won't be able to prove his ownership.

Since the hero IS bluffing, it's a big thing to the reader.

[CampCreek]

Hope this helps some! Yes, it does!! Thank you, Cathy!:D I have one novel ms (my first one!:hooray: ) just about ready for it's first real edit. I thought I'd use Holly Lisle's one-pass revision technique. Since that entails printing it out, it would make for the perfect opportunity to practice my proofreader's marks. Needless to say, this entire thread is coming in very handy.

[gomi]

I just realized that experienced authors often forget to give newbies one vital piece of advice. Each and every aspiring author needs to take the time to learn a brand new language -- that of proofreader's marks!


I would tend to think that a newbie has a hell of a lot more things to worry about then proofreader's marks. Like learning to write maybe?

EJ

[Jamesaritchie]

I would tend to think that a newbie has a hell of a lot more things to worry about then proofreader's marks. Like learning to write maybe?

EJ

Well, for the most part, proofreaders' marks are most valuable after you've sold something, particularly a novel, though I have had to use them with some short stories and quite a few articles, but you have to learn them at some point, so why not now?

And proper formatting also uses proofreaders' marks. Not many, but some. And what the heck, a newbie may want to do some editing, proofreading, or critiquing for other writers, and all these is much easier if proofreaders' marks are used.

[emeraldcite]

Also, this site has more than newbies on it. There are a number of new professionals and seasoned professionals alike.

[gomi]

Also, this site has more than newbies on it. There are a number of new professionals and seasoned professionals alike.

I'm aware of that but the original post was directed toward newbies. When I taught workshops, proofreader marks were way down there on the list of things to deal with.

EJ

[Cathy C]

I'm aware of that but the original post was directed toward newbies. When I taught workshops, proofreader marks were way down there on the list of things to deal with.


Yeah, but what happens if someone, fresh out of the box, happens not to understand how "things work" in the industry? The writer submits a query, completely clueless that "nobody can get bought without trial and struggle," and gets purchased immediately? It happens -- nearly every day. I'm living proof.

Not every single writer on this forum is at the same level of writing skill, regardless of whether they're just starting the publishing process. So, I think this is really quite vital information, even for newbies. I was really lucky in this, because I worked in the legal field, and quite a few of the attorneys used proofreader's marks on their briefs/motions. But it wasn't a common skill. I had to teach plenty of people how to read them.

And, like James said -- there's not a thing wrong with practicing on your own internal edits to apply proofreader's marks. It sets you miles ahead of the others on your editor's "things to do" list when you DO get purchased. You'll have pumped out the edits in a week, while others without the skill struggle to get the manuscript back in a month. Trust me when I say that you will earn your editor's undying gratitude. That's a useful thing when the editor is deciding who to sign to a second contract. ;)

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm aware of that but the original post was directed toward newbies. When I taught workshops, proofreader marks were way down there on the list of things to deal with.

EJ

I can also say this from both personal experience, and from that of friends. You can go from being an unpublished newbie to a selling writer almost overnight. I went form being a person who had never even considered writing to a person with three short story sales and one novel sale in only a couple of months. It's best to be prepared, because once the fur starts to fly time is the one thing you seldom seem to have, and unless someone has brought it up, you may not even know proofreaders' marks exist until you find yourself staring at a copyedited manuscript, wondering what all those funny scribbles are.

And proodreaders' marks aren't something that you have to struggle to learn, or practice daily, as are most things dealing with learning how to write. All that's really needed is a list of proofreaders' marks that you can look at when need arises. You don't even have to memorize the list, if it's too much trouble.

But there's no reason not to know they're out there, not to download a list and look at it.

Though to be honest, the first time I used proofreaders' marks was in seventh grade English class. We had to use them on all our papers, and our English book contained a list of proofreaders' marks, as does the AP Stylebook, and many other guides to English, grammar, and style.

[CampCreek]

I would tend to think that a newbie has a hell of a lot more things to worry about then proofreader's marks. Like learning to write maybe?

EJ Yes, we have a lot of things to worry about, including learning to write. I don't see why that should preclude our learning proofreader's marks, formatting a manuscript, or any other thing that would make our road to publication easier.

[banjo]

Thank you for an extremely informative topic and discussion.

[eskkar]

Cathy, thanks, I'm getting my manuscript back from the 'copyeditor' (at least he works for the publisher) this week, and I have a deadline to get it back to them by early January. This is my first time through the process, and I was unaware of these edit marks, even though I've been writing for some time. I just looked at my Chicago Manual of Style, and the headache is already starting.

Thanks to all for the websites that explain things better.

eskkar