Learn your marks!

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!

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)

Proofreaders' marks

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

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

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

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

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

STET

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.

Jamesaritchie said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.)

Cathy C said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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 said:

Hope this helps some!

Click to expand...

Yes, it does!! Thank you, Cathy! I have one novel ms (my first one! ) 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.

Cathy C said:

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!

Click to expand...

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

Newbie

gomi said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

emeraldcite said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Marks

gomi said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

gomi said:

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

Click to expand...

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.